Somehow, this Faq made Spell Combat more confusing


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 221 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

"Magus, Spell Combat: If I use spell combat, how many weapon attacks can I make?
You can make as many weapon attacks as you would normally be able to make with a full attack. For example, if you are an 8th-level magus (BAB +6/+1), you could make two weapon attacks when using spell combat.

—Pathfinder Design Team, today "

So, umm, does this mean, it doesn't work like Two-weapon Fighting and give you an additional attack?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The equivalent to the 2WF additional attack is the spellcasting, as the ability explains:
a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast.

If you Spellstrike with Fireball, you're only making the normal number of attacks and casting Fireball.
If the spell being cast itself allows a free touch attack you get that free touch attack as part of the spell,
and using Spellstrike you can deliver that with a free weapon attack, but that doesn't apply to every spell usable with Spell Combat.
(only with spells that allow a touch attack or possibly ranged touch with right arcana, and when you choose to use them with Spellstrike)

I'm not sure why the FAQ doesn't acknowledge upfront that the number of weapon attacks depends on what type of spell you are casting with Spell Combat AND if you choose to deliver it with a weapon via Spellstrike. I guess they could just want to focus the FAQ narrowly on the specific usage of the Spell Combat ability, but the wording isn't wholly accurate, because sometimes when you use Spell Combat you WILL make more weapon attacks than allowed per a normal Full Attack... Even though Spell Combat itself isn't the precise ability directly enabling that, it is still indirectly enabling it by allowing the casting of touch spell during Spell Combat. The FAQ would also be more accurate by acknowledging the difference of Spell Combat and a real Full Attack re: Haste, when affected by Haste your # of attacks will be different in Spell Combat vs. Full Attack. I hit FAQ so perhaps they are made aware the FAQ wording isn't the clearest.

I'm not really sure how much it is supposed to "function much like two-weapon fighting" anyways,
whether the attack penalties get higher if the weapon you use to make any extra attack resulting from the spell is not a light weapon, whether any melee attack resulting from the spell should use off-hand STR damage (1/2), whether a spell with an attack roll qualifies to trigger Two Weapon Rend or special bonuses that kick in when 2WF'ing, or what. I honestly don't think it's actually supposed to function like 2WF in any rules sense, and that line is just a distracting turn of phrase. Spell Combat already is a unique Full Round Action, not the Full Attack Action, so it already cannot be combined with 2WF.


Interesting that they finally made 'multi-touch over multiple rounds' spells count as holding a touch, when they weren't really previously (e.g. if you just got one touch per round, there was no more touches to be held after your 1 touch/round, they just happened to 'regenerate' a new touch charge each new round per the spell description). Maybe that's a naughty Stealth Errata by FAQ, but I do think it's more balanced especially with things like Calcific Touch...

Shadow Lodge

Ssalarn wrote:

"Magus, Spell Combat: If I use spell combat, how many weapon attacks can I make?

You can make as many weapon attacks as you would normally be able to make with a full attack. For example, if you are an 8th-level magus (BAB +6/+1), you could make two weapon attacks when using spell combat.

—Pathfinder Design Team, today "

So, umm, does this mean, it doesn't work like Two-weapon Fighting and give you an additional attack?

Spell Strike gives you the extra weapon attack, not Spell Combat. Spell Combat just gives you full attack + spell.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Ssalarn wrote:
So, umm, does this mean, it doesn't work like Two-weapon Fighting and give you an additional attack?

If your Base Attack Bonus ranges anywhere from +0 to +5, you get one attack and one casting of a spell during Spell Combat.

If your Base Attack Bonus ranges anywhere from +6 to +10, you get two attacks and one casting of a spell during Spell Combat.

If your Base Attack Bonus ranges anywhere from +11 to +15, you get three attacks and one casting of a spell during Spell Combat.

Each weapon attack beyond the first (not counting any weapon attacks you may be making with Spellstrike) suffers a cumulative -5 penalty, and all attacks made during the round (whether via weapon or via spell) suffer an additional -2 penalty.


Ssalarn wrote:

"Magus, Spell Combat: If I use spell combat, how many weapon attacks can I make?

You can make as many weapon attacks as you would normally be able to make with a full attack. For example, if you are an 8th-level magus (BAB +6/+1), you could make two weapon attacks when using spell combat.

—Pathfinder Design Team, today "

So, umm, does this mean, it doesn't work like Two-weapon Fighting and give you an additional attack?

I don't see the point: spell combat is a separate magus feature, and it doesn't let you get additional attacks aside the free attack to deliver the spell you're casting. Spellstrike, instead, allow you to deliver your spell with your weapon, so it effectively add a weapon attack to your attack routine. But spell combat, per se, doesn't add any weapon attack.

Quandary wrote:
Interesting that they finally made 'multi-touch over multiple rounds' spells count as holding a touch, when they weren't really previously (e.g. if you just got one touch per round, there was no more touches to be held after your 1 touch/round, they just happened to 'regenerate' a new touch charge each new round per the spell description). Maybe that's a naughty Stealth Errata by FAQ, but I do think it's more balanced especially with things like Calcific Touch...

Can you explain more? In those new FAQS nothing seem to imply that chill touch, frostbite, and similar counts as holding the charge. Or, at least, I cannot find anything about it.


The FAQ about touch spells holding the charge is for the Core Rule Book.

The point is that the FAQ is phrased "If I use spell combat, how many weapon attacks can I make?"
Well, sometimes when you use spell combat, you WILL make more weapon attacks than a full attack. (also using Spell Strike)
Sometimes when you use it you will make less (Haste).
A blanket statement using the phrasing they used is just not wholly accurate or helpful.
Reducing the number of people the FAQ actually leads to a proper understanding of the rules doesn't seem like good FAQ policy, even if being terse is convenient for the writer. Players relying on the FAQ to understand the rules by definition were not able to decipher the RAW rules text, so a FAQ that can be just as confusing doesn't really help them.

It would be clearer to state you make the same number of weapon attacks as a normal full attack with only the normal iterative attacks, plus any attack allowed by the spell, and may as well note that Spellstrike may allow converting that spell attack to a free weapon attack.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Spell Combat functions like Two-Weapon Fighting in that you get all of the attacks you would normally get with your primary hand while using your off hand to cast a spell. It is Spellstrike that makes it seem like you are getting an extra attack, because you're rolling an extra 20-sided die, but you're really just getting the same number of actions that anybody wielding two weapons would get.

An 8th level Fighter gets primary/primary/off-hand.

An 8th level Magus gets primary/primary/off-hand.

The only real distinction is that the Fighter can take more feats to get more attacks, and benefits from Haste, whereas the Magus is always stuck just getting a single use of his off-hand during Spell Combat, and doesn't benefit from Haste.


And gee, when I attack with two weapon fighting I get an extra attack from haste too... but not with spell combat for some reason.


Quandary wrote:
The FAQ about touch spells holding the charge is for the Core Rule Book.

Found it. I'm playing a magus in a campaign. Does that mean that If I cast something like frostbite or chill touch I'm holding the charge until for all the touches? It seems really a big nerf.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Abraham spalding wrote:
And gee, when I attack with two weapon fighting I get an extra attack from haste too... but not with spell combat for some reason.

The extra attack granted from Haste is only available when you are performing a full-attack action. Spell Combat is explicitly not a full-attack action, because by definition part of your turn is spent casting a spell.


Which you must do to two weapon fight, and you are two weapon fighting with the spell as the second weapon.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:


If I use spell combat, how many weapon attacks can I make?
You can make as many weapon attacks as you would normally be able to make with a full attack. For example, if you are an 8th-level magus (BAB +6/+1), you could make two weapon attacks when using spell combat.

Bolded and blued for clarity.

The FAQ is specifically addressing the question of how many weapon attacks you get when you use spell combat, because the spell combat text of, "As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon..." wasn't clear enough.

The FAQ doesn't address the additional "attack" from the spell, because the question was about weapon attacks.

The "TWF" aspect of spell combat is that your "off hand attack" is actually a spell you're casting, and isn't a weapon attack, and therefore is irrelevant (and distracting) to the question about how many weapon attacks you get when using spell combat.

Especially as your spell may not even be one that attacks an opponent, and is therefore doubly irrelevant to how many weapon attacks you can make when using spell combat.

Example:

Q: What kind of sandwich is in your lunchbox?
A: I have a PB&J, a bag of chips, and an apple.

"A bag of chips, and an apple" isn't a sandwich, and that information is irrelevant and distracting to the question of "what kind of sandwich is in your lunchbox?"


Haste specifies weapon attacks...

And adds on when you make a full attack...

Quote:


You can make as many weapon attacks as you would normally be able to make with a full attack.

With a full attack and haste I would be able to make my normal attacks plus one with haste -- normally.

Ergo I should be able to do so when using spell combat.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Haste also says "When making a full attack action..."

Spell combat is not a full attack action.

Therefore, haste doesn't work with it.

To quote myself from May:

Stop arguing this... Haste only gives you an extra attack if you specifically use a FAA, it doesn't give you the extra attack if you're using any action that is a FRA.

To put it another way: Unless you think haste gives you an extra attack when you
charge,
deliver a coup de grace,
escape from a net,
extinguish flames,
light a torch,
load a heavy or repeating crossbow,
lock or unlock a weapon in a locked gauntlet,
run,
use a skill that takes 1 round,
cast a touch spell on up to six friends, or
withdraw
(all of which are full-round actions but are not full attack actions),
then you have to agree that RAW is clear that spell combat doesn't get an extra attack from haste because spell combat is not a FAA and haste triggers on a FAA, not a FRA.

So stop arguing that it should.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
The FAQ doesn't address the additional "attack" from the spell, because the question was about weapon attacks.

Except that you can use spell strike to give yourself an extra weapon attack every round. That seems relevant.


How much damage does a bag of chips do?

Does Chilli flavour do 1d6 extra fire damage and does Lime and Black pepper do acid damage?

Can I set a bag of chips against a charge or do I need throw them as a splash weapon?

;-b


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Except it already states you can take as many attacks as you could when making a full attack action -- which would include haste attacks since normally you could make those.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Except that you can use spell strike to give yourself an extra weapon attack every round. That seems relevant.

Focus. The FAQ was about spell combat, not spellstrike. One fight at a time, fellas.

Abraham spalding wrote:
Except it already states you can take as many attacks as you could when making a full attack action -- which would include haste attacks since normally you could make those.

I'll tell you what, because you want to keep arguing this, send me a private message to remind me, and on Monday, I'll talk to the rest of the design team, and we'll see about ruling it a different way: that spell combat only lets you make ONE attack, no matter what your BAB is, but it works with haste. Would you like that option better, or would you like to continue arguing with me about a four-month-old ruling that the entire design team agrees on?

(Edit 1/27/14: In case the above wasn't clear, it was sarcasm. I, nor anyone on the design team would ever change the rules something out of spite or to punish a player. The above joke errata never happened. In fact, the design team actually reversed its earlier ruling and decided that a magus does get the extra attack from haste when using spell combat.)

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Sooo... Didn't mean to start a war. To be honest, my confusion was addressed right out of the gate by Quandary. I have a tendency to always think of Spellstrike and Spell Combat as going hand in hand, so as soon as I fully separated the two abilities in my mind I was good with how things stand. Thanks Quandary; and Sean, thanks for taking the time to weigh in.


I would like it to make sense with all the other full attack not full attack options.

It simply seems odd to me that on this one instance a thing that's spelled out to be like two weapon fighting, and allows your normal attacks by FAQ isn't a full attack in this one instance, for this one spell.

Also it's no different then when I argued against the monk changes that were suggested. Or when I argued for fixing the bard back in beta, or any of the other many things I've argued about in the rules.

Beyond that I am sorry I was so very busy four months ago and a change in a luxury didn't rate as highly on my radar as other events did. I've gotten back to this, gotten a chance to step in and talk about it, and I see no reason to NOT talk about it.

If there was some consistency with the ruling across other such rulings I wouldn't mind so much... but as it stands it seems a crude decision to against a single class.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It does make sense.
Spell combat is a full round action.
Spell combat is not a full attack action.
Spell combat gives you the number of attacks you'd get if you were taking a full attack action.
Haste only triggers when you're actually taking a full attack action.
Because spell combat is not actually taking a full attack action, haste does not trigger.


The ruling on Haste seems pretty clear by now. I do wish the Magus could fight defensively while using Spell Combat, but it is admittedly kind of a minor point.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I'll tell you what, because you want to keep arguing this, send me a private message to remind me, and on Monday, I'll talk to the rest of the design team, and we'll see about ruling it a different way: that spell combat only lets you make ONE attack, no matter what your BAB is, but it works with haste. Would you like that option better, or would you like to continue arguing with me about a four-month-old ruling that the entire design team agrees on?

You should definitely nerf spell combat because someone disagreed with you on the internet. That would be the professional thing to do.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

SKR, you've got be the angriest Dev on the boards.

Rock on.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

\m/ \m/

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Must be the passion.

Do I hear "Eye of the Tiger"?


Meh he's having a bad night, and lets face it -- I'm not the easiest person to deal with when I'm on something either.

I think the biggest disconnect is the number 4 to number 5 -- you get the number of attacks as if you were taking a full attack action.

If you were taking a full attack action you would have a haste attack. That is part of what you would have if you took a full attack action.

Any other case of acts like this would normally act ignores the fact it isn't that normal thing, say like bodyguard with needing to threaten the enemy, flurry of blows with power attack, and a number of other similar situations.

Beyond that all I have to say is don't want the grousing don't have a board for people to grouse, and express their distaste with parts of the game.

It's not like this is by far the worse ruling ever from Paizo (my opinion that is this new "spell-like abilities are arcane or divine idea that seems to have been offered up), or like I'm the worse person they conversed with on such topics -- so I'm not too worried about.

That doesn't mean I won't continue to point out what I see as logic flaws with decisions.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm having a great night. You're being stubborn and wanting to argue with me on something my entire team agrees on.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, which one of you is Dolph Lundgren?


I pointed out my problems with the ruling. You disagree, and stand by your ruling.

Just because I feel that's not right doesn't mean I'm being any less or more stubborn than you are Sean.

Takes two to argue, and that means two people being stubborn.

With that said you've made your decision. Doesn't mean I have to like it or not talk about how I think it's wrong.

I would like to know sometime in a less public setting why I seem to get under your skin more than some of the other regulars do on the board, but that's from idle curiosity more than real concern.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Abraham spalding wrote:

****

I would like to know sometime in a less public setting why I seem to get under your skin ***

Was that.... was that a challenge to a duel!?!?!?

Be careful man, Sean's a scrapper.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's fine -- I'm asking a question, not inviting him out back.

I'm certainly not going to apologize for having a different opinion from a developer of a game I like anymore than I'm going to apologize for having a different opinion with anyone (Senior NCOs included).

I'm not the one threatening a complete change of an ability in something I control simply because I don't like someone talking about not liking what I did on something.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

blackbloodtroll wrote:
So, which one of you is Dolph Lundgren?

"I came here tonight, I didn't know what to expect. I seen a lot of people hate me and I didn't know what to feel about that so I guess they didn't like much nothin' either. During this fight, I've seen a lot of changing, the way yous feel about me, and in the way I felt about you. In here, there were two guys killing each other, but I guess that's better than 20 million. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that if I can change, and you can change, everybody can change!"

Let's learn a lesson from two of the greatest fake boxers of all time...


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Haste also says "When making a full attack action..."

Spell combat is not a full attack action.

Therefore, haste doesn't work with it.

To quote myself from May:

Stop arguing this... Haste only gives you an extra attack if you specifically use a FAA, it doesn't give you the extra attack if you're using any action that is a FRA.

To put it another way: Unless you think haste gives you an extra attack when you
charge,
deliver a coup de grace,
escape from a net,
extinguish flames,
light a torch,
load a heavy or repeating crossbow,
lock or unlock a weapon in a locked gauntlet,
run,
use a skill that takes 1 round,
cast a touch spell on up to six friends, or
withdraw
(all of which are full-round actions but are not full attack actions),
then you have to agree that RAW is clear that spell combat doesn't get an extra attack from haste because spell combat is not a FAA and haste triggers on a FAA, not a FRA.

So stop arguing that it should.

Also this is a strawman -- none of these things say that you get a normal allotment of attacks as if full attacking.

It would be a better comparison to consider the flurry of blows.

Even your FAQ states you get a normal amount as if full attacking

flurry of blows wrote:


Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.

When doing so, he may make one additional attack, taking a –2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. These attacks can be any combination of unarmed strikes and attacks with a monk special weapon (he does not need to use two weapons to utilize this ability).

For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus from his monk class levels is equal to his monk level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus.

At 8th level, the monk can make two additional attacks when he uses flurry of blows, as if using Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat).

At 15th level, the monk can make three additional attacks using flurry of blows, as if using Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat).

A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands. A monk may substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of a flurry of blows. A monk cannot use any weapon other than an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows. A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks.

That one however does state specifically that it is a full attack action. So it has that going for it.

However because you treat your monk level as BAB it has previously been ruled that means you get full bonus from power attack as if you had full BAB.

So again we have prescient for something that applies normal benefits from other things to a special action that states that it applies when the normal situation happens.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Except that you can use spell strike to give yourself an extra weapon attack every round. That seems relevant.

Focus. The FAQ was about spell combat, not spellstrike. One fight at a time, fellas.

Abraham spalding wrote:
Except it already states you can take as many attacks as you could when making a full attack action -- which would include haste attacks since normally you could make those.
I'll tell you what, because you want to keep arguing this, send me a private message to remind me, and on Monday, I'll talk to the rest of the design team, and we'll see about ruling it a different way: that spell combat only lets you make ONE attack, no matter what your BAB is, but it works with haste. Would you like that option better, or would you like to continue arguing with me about a four-month-old ruling that the entire design team agrees on?

This post is excellent. Thank you Sean.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Bottom line. Of those who melee, only the Magus is denied that benefit from Haste. If that is a balance issue then fine. If not, then it denies a class the benefit from a spell that is designed to help those who melee.


Well the Magus kinda gets an extra attack from 3rd level taking Close Range and using ray of frost to always have a touch spell to cast as part of spellstrike. I don't see why this was ever an issue when it specifically states that haste uses a FAA while Spell Combat is a FRA.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Quandary wrote:

The FAQ about touch spells holding the charge is for the Core Rule Book.

The point is that the FAQ is phrased "If I use spell combat, how many weapon attacks can I make?"
Well, sometimes when you use spell combat, you WILL make more weapon attacks than a full attack. (also using Spell Strike)
Sometimes when you use it you will make less (Haste).
A blanket statement using the phrasing they used is just not wholly accurate or helpful.
Reducing the number of people the FAQ actually leads to a proper understanding of the rules doesn't seem like good FAQ policy, even if being terse is convenient for the writer. Players relying on the FAQ to understand the rules by definition were not able to decipher the RAW rules text, so a FAQ that can be just as confusing doesn't really help them.

It would be clearer to state you make the same number of weapon attacks as a normal full attack with only the normal iterative attacks, plus any attack allowed by the spell, and may as well note that Spellstrike may allow converting that spell attack to a free weapon attack.

You really think a FAQ with 3 pages of subordinates and specific conditions will be easier to comprehend? I don't.

The rules about spell combat and spellstrike already explain the exceptions. Repeating them in a FAQ unrelated to those exceptions would not make it clearer.
The FAQ about haste and spell combat already explain how they work together. If you are reading the FAQs it is reasonable to suppose you are reading all of them.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Except it already states you can take as many attacks as you could when making a full attack action -- which would include haste attacks since normally you could make those.

Guess it depends on how you read normally. Normally you don't have a buff spell such as haste giving you extra attacks.

Course, after the FAQ on haste not working with spell combat I immediately house ruled that it did... so I certainly wouldn't have any objection to that decision being reversed, but I won't be holding my breath on it :).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
\m/ \m/

?

I don't know what this one mean, and Internet don't help me in this instance.

- * -

@Abraham spalding
Honestly, I was in the other camp originally, but the ruling is both:
- clear to comprehend and apply (even when using it for other full round actions that aren't full attacks);
- consistent with how Haste is worded.
I don't see what there is to argue about at this point.

And

PRD wrote:


Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.
iammercy wrote:
Bottom line. Of those who melee, only the Magus is denied that benefit from Haste. If that is a balance issue then fine. If not, then it denies a class the benefit from a spell that is designed to help those who melee.

The Magus get the benefits from Haste. When he is full attacking, like every other character.

People, your maguses (and mine too) has lost some power? Live with it. We were wrong.


It's supposed to be the double fist pump with the thumb and pinky extended
\m/ \m/
pinky, knuckles, thumb, thumb,knuckles, pinky

Kind of a "rock on!" sort of deal.


Abraham spalding wrote:

It's supposed to be the double fist pump with the thumb and pinky extended

\m/ \m/
pinky, knuckles, thumb, thumb,knuckles, pinky

Kind of a "rock on!" sort of deal.

Pointer finger, not thumb. Devil horns they're called.


Diego Rossi wrote:

You really think a FAQ with 3 pages of subordinates and specific conditions will be easier to comprehend? I don't.

The rules about spell combat and spellstrike already explain the exceptions. Repeating them in a FAQ unrelated to those exceptions would not make it clearer. The FAQ about haste and spell combat already explain how they work together. If you are reading the FAQs it is reasonable to suppose you are reading all of them.

This thread is going up on 3 (paper) pages that wouldn't need to exist if the FAQ had more technically accurate wording AND just made the effort to explain things robustly for it's target audience who apparently were confused about the RAW (although in this case, the OP may have been confused just by happening to read this FAQ itself). That doesn't take 3 pages, it's about one sentence (partially replacing what the FAQ already says) to say you make the number of weapon attacks as allowed per normal BAB iteratives plus a potential attack if the spell allows it, which may be converted to a weapon attack by Spellstrike.

I know, it feels great to revel in one's own rules prowess, where the shortest of rules snippets are all one needs to apply intricately interlocking rules mechanics... But the stance that FAQs only need to be written so a competent rules expert can utilise them is not a good metric for how a FAQ aimed at NON-rules expert players should be written. A FAQ that is not really Stealth Errata should mostly be redundant with the actual RAW, any rules expert shouldn't need it in the first place. Anybody who does need the FAQ is highly likely to need a bit more robust explanation of things, so saying that FAQs should hew to the absolute minimum needed to 'technically' clear the official issue is just not likely to actually help everybody in the actual target audience of a FAQ. Obviously, re-writing entire books is not in the cards, but as per my example in this case, it often doesn't take much more space or word count.

That several posters here seem surprised about the Spellcombat/Haste ruling shows that all players DON'T just read the entire FAQ (and do so on a regular basis), they probably look to it only when they perceive a problem applying the RAW.


Diego Rossi wrote:

the ruling is both:

- clear to comprehend and apply (even when using it for other full round actions that aren't full attacks);
- consistent with how Haste is worded.
I don't see what there is to argue about at this point.

The Magus get the benefits from Haste. When he is full attacking, like every other character.

Indeed. Last I checked, the magus doesn't have unlimited spell slots, so is likely to be full attacking some of the time.

You can Cantrip Spam of course, but that's at -2 to everything, vs. Haste, so unless you really hooked on the Zorro schtick, Full Attacks are wholly workable. All the more so if you have off-hand weapons, weapons you want to grip with 2hands, or natural attacks which also don't work with Spell Combat.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Blackstorm wrote:
The FAQ about touch spells... seems really a big nerf.

re: the FAQ on multi-round touch spells, which prevents casting more spells if you don't want to lose those "charges",

i think that's a great ruling for balance, otherwise you could be casting more and more spells like calcific touch,
potentially gaining multiple calcific touches per round (which crits and a successful save only negates the slow effect, not the DEX dmg),
or just different effects, either way increasingly 'stacking' the touch effects per round, and a magus can do that while spell combat'ing.
that's just the sort of thing i would decline to use as a player or GM, so good that Stealth Errata made it official.
even without balance issues, the way multi-round touch spells worked was clearly just sort of an artifact of how the rules were written, it was hardly something that was the inherent intent of the core rules designers (i believe this is 3.x heritage or earlier).


Scavion wrote:
Well the Magus kinda gets an extra attack from 3rd level taking Close Range and using ray of frost to always have a touch spell to cast as part of spellstrike. I don't see why this was ever an issue when it specifically states that haste uses a FAA while Spell Combat is a FRA.

You don't even need Close Range. At the expense of "cheese," you can simply prepare Arcane Mark, and use that instead. You don't get 1d3 more damage, but you get to use an Arcana on something else.


Quandary wrote:

re: the FAQ on multi-round touch spells, which prevents casting more spells if you don't want to lose those "charges",

i think that's a great ruling for balance, otherwise you could be casting more and more spells like calcific touch,
potentially gaining multiple calcific touches per round (which crits and a successful save only negates the slow effect, not the DEX dmg),
or just different effects, either way increasingly 'stacking' the touch effects per round, and a magus can do that while spell combat'ing.
that's just the sort of thing i would decline to use as a player or GM, so good that Stealth Errata made it official.
even without balance issues, the way multi-round touch spells worked was clearly just sort of an artifact of how the rules were written, it was hardly something that was the inherent intent of the core rules designers (i believe this is 3.x heritage or earlier).

But calcific touch states that you can make one singole touch per round as it. Frostbite and Chill Touch works differently. I'm worried, because, if I cast forstbite only, or Chill touch only, I'm prevented to casting shield, true strike, anthe like. Every single spell that aid me in combat is prevented. If I would master it, I'd allow the use as for now: you cast it, you have mutiple touch, every miss is a wasted touch.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the ambiguity comes from "Spell combat gives you the number of attacks you'd get if you were taking a full attack action."

If I've got +6/+1, and I am hasted, and I take a full attack action, I get +6/+6/+1. So the number of attacks I'd get if I were taking a full attack action is three.

The assertion here isn't "haste gives me an extra attack when I do this other thing which is not a full attack", but "the number of attacks I would get if I were taking a full attack action has changed". Since spell combat is described as giving me the number of attacks I would get if I were taking a full attack action, the interpretation which I would have gone to first is that this number also changes.

Without this explicit FAQ ruling, I would have thought it quite obvious that anything which said "the number of attacks you would get when taking a full attack action" was intended to pick up any modifications to that, such as the extra attack from haste.

Of course, once you add "normally", that's more interesting. Here's a puzzle for you. Imagine a new spell, to be called "slightly-sluggishify", which is like slow, only not as good. What it does is "reduce by one the number of attacks you can make when taking a full attack action, removing the lowest-bonus attack, but only to a minimum of one attack."

This spell does not counter-and-dispell haste[/b]. So if you're at +6/+1, and under both this spell and [i]haste, a full attack action gives you +6/+6. And if you were at +5, this spell and haste combined... either give you +5/+5, or +5 only, depending on which order we process them in.

But presumably, the intent is that this spell would indeed modify number of attacks from flurry, TWF, and so on... But not from Spell Combat, because that's not a full attack action? That seems odd.

Basically, what I'm getting at is: This ruling makes sense in terms of keeping spell combat plus haste from being too good. If you look at something which reduces the number of attacks in an iterative attack, though, it seems slightly less obvious that it's desireable. (I was going to ask about negative levels, but a penalty to attack rolls does not reduce your base attack bonus, so that wouldn't apply.)


Blackstorm wrote:
I'm worried, because, if I cast forstbite only, or Chill touch only, I'm prevented to casting shield, true strike, anthe like. Every single spell that aid me in combat is prevented.

You aren't PREVENTED from doing any of that, it is just that casting another spell means you lose any remaining 'held' charges.

Same as all the normal Hold a Charge spells.


Marthian wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Well the Magus kinda gets an extra attack from 3rd level taking Close Range and using ray of frost to always have a touch spell to cast as part of spellstrike. I don't see why this was ever an issue when it specifically states that haste uses a FAA while Spell Combat is a FRA.
You don't even need Close Range. At the expense of "cheese," you can simply prepare Arcane Mark, and use that instead. You don't get 1d3 more damage, but you get to use an Arcana on something else.

AWESOME!

Great catch that that is a touch spell!

I have a magus who is a noble gentleman duellist a la The Three Musketeers, and being able to inscribe my personal rune on an enemy with a rapier like Zorro will be SO cool!
And not even a safe permitted, no SR, and it keeps for a month!

Quake in fear, those who incur my wrath! You'll bear my mark of shame!

1 to 50 of 221 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Somehow, this Faq made Spell Combat more confusing All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.