|
Ah.
This ruling about spell combat and what weapons you can use still stands.
Yeah, that's the faq ruling I HATE more than anything else. I'd happily keep the old haste ruling in a heartbeat instead of this one. It just seems like an arbitrary unfair exception.
Spell combat is pretty much 2 weapon fighting but unlike regular 2 weapon fighting which lets you use any 2 light or 1handed weapons (like boot blades, barbazu beards, whips with reach, or any natural attack) or Flurry of Blows (which lets you use the same single weapon of any size and get the extra attack(s)) SpellCombat alone of all the two-weapon fighting clones takes that flexibility away.
Heck if you really wanted to you could pick up a rock of the street or a handful of cow dung and qualify for spellcombat but the fangs or horns that are actually a part of you and are the easiest weapons to use don't work. Blargh.
edit: I didn't want to de-rail this thread bringing this up but since it's here I had to say it.
|
|
Right, because Spell Combat is limited to a particular light or one-handed weapon (as listed in the ability). I was referring to that when I said "made with the weapon in question" in my above quoted post. You choose a weapon and you get "all of your attacks" with that weapon. The argument before was that the extra attack granted by haste is one of those attacks that counts as "all" (since it mentions iterative attacks absolutely nowhere). That argument has now been rendered true.
Rules are generally written assuming an average PC, and...well...PCs with natural attacks really aren't average. I think there's only one way to get them as a PC in the core rulebook that doesn't involve polymorphin'.
You know, never before did I notice the similarity between gaming bug-testing and computer program bug-testing! ^^;;
On a slightly related note, it is reasons like these disparities between language why, when I was trying to design my own gaming system 15 years ago, I used specific words to differentiate between things (like "Rings of Prayer" and "Circles of Magic" instead of "spell level" - I've had players confused as to why their 2nd level wizard can't cast 2nd level spells, so I was trying to move away from reusing the same words which could invite confusion). Gave it up, though. The system was getting too convoluted. Simplicity is important in ensuring a game operate quickly and effectively.
Last I heard, you can do that.I would at least think Natural Attacks should probably work. I mean...I can cast a spell with one and and claw you with the other. They probably take less 'concentration' to use while casting a spell than a 1 handed weapon anyways.
But that is a completely different topic.
Yeah. I deleted that comment right before you replied because I realized that it was wrong and that it only forbade things like a Bite and a Tail Slap and such.
|
I don't know people are really bickering about how this changes Spell Combat and is it or isn't it a full-attack and this and that.
Really just seems like the design team is making Spell Combat an exception and saying "Haste gives a person one more attack on a full attack or in situations like Spell combat they also can get an extra attack".
SKR said that him and his design team are looking at some of the other full attack-type options, such as Flurry. I don't think this is about redefining how full attack works and really just expanding what Haste can and can not do and really spelling it out what is effected by Haste.
We know now that Full attacks get an extra attack and that a Magus using Spell Combat can get an extra attack too.
Ah. This ruling about spell combat and what weapons you can use still stands.Can you clear this up? Another FAQ says:
Magus: When using spell combat, can the weapon in my other hand be an unarmed strike or a natural weapon?
Yes, so long as the weapon is a light or one-handed melee weapon and is associated with that hand. For example, unarmed strikes, claws, and slams are light melee weapons associated with a hand, and therefore are valid for use with spell combat. A tail slap is not associated with a hand, and therefore is not valid for use with spell combat.
AFAIK, Claws are not "light (or even 1h) melee weapons" but if you want them to count as that for this ability, OK.
But how does that actually play out? Are you making a 'full attack' with just that 1 natural weapon = 1 attack, regardless of BAB?Or are you making "all of your attacks" (allowed by BAB) by whatever qualifying weapon associated to that hand?
In this case allowed by FAQ, a Claw, or Slam, even though you normally cannot make iterative attacks with them?
"All of your attacks" doesn't make sense to associate with normal usage of just one natural attack, since each Nat Wpn only ever does one attack... Although I guess the new FAQ ruling also allows Haste on that, for more than one attack. But if it's intending to allow iteratives, which seems like it is since it's pretty much saying the Nat Wpns are equivalent to 1H/Light weapons for purpose of this ability, it seems like it should spell out that you can make Iteratives with it. ...?
Also: will a FAQ cover Pounce as well? I don't know why anybody would look in the FAQ for Adv Magic: Magus section to learn about Pounce? The FAQ topic could just be moved to the FAQ for Core Rules into an entry on "Full Attack".
|
Ah.
This ruling about spell combat and what weapons you can use still stands.
Yeah, that's the faq ruling I HATE more than anything else. I'd happily keep the old haste ruling in a heartbeat instead of this one. It just seems like an arbitrary unfair exception.
Spell combat is pretty much 2 weapon fighting but unlike regular 2 weapon fighting which lets you use any 2 light or 1handed weapons (like boot blades, barbazu beards, whips with reach, or any natural attack) or Flurry of Blows (which lets you use the same single weapon of any size and get the extra attack(s)) SpellCombat alone of all the two-weapon fighting clones takes that flexibility away.
Heck if you really wanted to you could pick up a rock of the street or a handful of cow dung and qualify for spellcombat but the fangs or horns that are actually a part of you and are the easiest weapons to use don't work. Blargh.
edit: I didn't want to de-rail this thread bringing this up but since it's here I had to say it.
It leaves Spell Combat with the same restriction FoB has, which is more than fair.
AFAIK, Claws are not "light (or even 1h) melee weapons" but if you want them to count as that for this ability, OK.
But how does that actually play out? Are you making a 'full attack' with just that 1 natural weapon = 1 attack, regardless of BAB?
Or are you making "all of your attacks" (allowed by BAB) by whatever qualifying weapon associated to that hand?
In this case allowed by FAQ, a Claw, or Slam, even though you normally cannot make iterative attacks with them?
"All of your attacks" doesn't make sense to associate with normal usage of just one natural attack, since each Nat Wpn only ever does one attack... Although I guess the new FAQ ruling also allows Haste on that, for more than one attack. But if it's intending to allow iteratives, which seems like it is since it's pretty much saying the Nat Wpns are equivalent to 1H/Light weapons for purpose of this ability, it seems like it should spell out that you can make Iteratives with it. ...?
My understanding is that you can use a natural attack associated with a hand (claw, slam) with spell combat, but you do not gain iterative attacks with it, since natural attacks do not gain iterative attacks from BAB per Core rulebook p. 182. However, you are still making a full attack, so you can get an additional attacks with that natural weapon from Haste. You can also use it for spellstrike, so if you cast a touch spell, you can make the free attack with that natural weapon.
Design Manager
|
You could always deliver touch spells with natural weapons. Don't need spellstrike.
But only by holding the charge. Spellstrike + Spell COmbat should allow you to make attacks with a primary weapon and then deliver the spell with your natural attack (or make a primary attack, a haste attack, and then a Spell Combat / Spellstrike attack, all with the natural weapon) which was the point of what they were discussing.
You could always deliver touch spells with natural weapons. Don't need spellstrike.
Yes, but spellstrike allows you to let Improved Critical or keen etc. on a natural attack also affect the spell. So slightly better. But yes, if this is true, the typical bite/claw/claw natural attacks that a magus can easily get e.g. from alter self with troglodyte form does not mesh well with spell combat. After a few levels it's better to either use a weapon with spell combat or do full attacks with the natural weapons.
|
|
It leaves Spell Combat with the same restriction FoB has, which is more than fair.Ah.
This ruling about spell combat and what weapons you can use still stands.
Yeah, that's the faq ruling I HATE more than anything else. I'd happily keep the old haste ruling in a heartbeat instead of this one. It just seems like an arbitrary unfair exception.
Spell combat is pretty much 2 weapon fighting but unlike regular 2 weapon fighting which lets you use any 2 light or 1handed weapons (like boot blades, barbazu beards, whips with reach, or any natural attack) or Flurry of Blows (which lets you use the same single weapon of any size and get the extra attack(s)) SpellCombat alone of all the two-weapon fighting clones takes that flexibility away.
Heck if you really wanted to you could pick up a rock of the street or a handful of cow dung and qualify for spellcombat but the fangs or horns that are actually a part of you and are the easiest weapons to use don't work. Blargh.
edit: I didn't want to de-rail this thread bringing this up but since it's here I had to say it.
FoB has a feat (Feral combat Training) that mostly removes that restriction Spellcombat does not. Not even close to fair.
In all but the most explicit declaration in the rules, natural attacks are light weapons. Go forth and prosper.
But how does that actually play out? Are you making a 'full attack' with just that 1 natural weapon = 1 attack, regardless of BAB?Yes. You don't get iteratives with natural attacks.
If you're a monster that just has a bite attack (say, a snake animal companion), and you make a full attack, you just get 1 bite.If you cast haste on that monster, and it makes a full attack, it gets 1 bite for its normal (unmodified) full attack, plus 1 bite for the haste.
Now replace "monster that has a bite" with "monster that has two claws and is using one claw to cast a spell." One hand is used up to cast the spell, the other hand is being used for melee.
If the creature makes a full attack, it gets 1 claw attack. "All of its attacks" is "1 claw attack."
If it's hasted and makes a full attack, it gets 1 claw attack for its full attack, plus 1 claw for the haste. "All of its attacks" is "1 claw attack plus 1 claw attack for the haste."
So if such a creature is using spell combat, it makes "all of its attacks" (as defined above) and casts a 1-standard-action spell.
In other words, using spell combat doesn't suddenly allow you to make iterative attacks with natural weapons. All spell combat does is allow you to attack with one hand and cast a spell with the other hand. If the first hand is using a weapon that could make iterative attacks, great. If the first hand is using a weapon that can only make 1 attack per round, oh well.
OK thanks, I just wanted to be clear, since it was seeming to equate a Nat Wpn with a Manufactured one (to the extent of calling them 1H/Light weapons), and I didn't know how far that was supposed to go. I guess here we meet the dangers of FAQs diverging from RAW without explicitly Errata'ing the RAW. The plural "all of attacks" reference just seemed wierd re: a Nat Wpn given that nearly the only way to make use of it is Haste... (which didn't even work until the latest Spellcombat/Haste FAQ, so it's hard to imagine what sense the plural "all of attacks" reference could have made re: a singular Nat Wpn under the previous Spellcombat/Haste FAQ, thus why I thought it plausible that Iterative Nat Wpn attacks were intended even though not spelled out)
EDIT: I realized that you shouldn't move the ruling to be under "Full Attack" since that would create confusion about whether 2WF/Flurry/SpellCombat could be combinable, best to be under "Haste" and say it applies to anything that allows the equivalent of a full attack. ("Such as Pounce and Spell Combat")
"This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with..."
It already says it's about Haste, even though it's filed under Spell Combat.
Not sure what you mean...? An attack is an attack.
If you mean Manyshot, nothing about lets you target a second creature with that same attack, so the target of the second arrow is presumably the same as targetted by the 'normal' arrow associated with that attack roll, the attack roll itself by default targets one creature.
What does ranged have to do with Spellcombat anyways?
"This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with..."It already says it's about Haste, even though it's filed under Spell Combat.
I put that text in all three of the new FAQS relating to this question: Bestiary/pounce, UM/magus/full attack, and UM/magus/spell combat/how many attacks.
Great.
EDIT: Although to be honest, I think this calls into question the previous Pounce/Slow ruling, which was based on hewing closely to RAW action differentiation. If it's working like a Full Attack Action for Haste, why wouldn't it do so for Slow?
|
Not sure what you mean...? An attack is an attack.
If you mean Manyshot, nothing about lets you target a second creature with that same attack, so the target of the second arrow is presumably the same as targetted by the 'normal' arrow associated with that attack roll, the attack roll itself by default targets one creature.
What does ranged have to do with Spellcombat anyways?
Sorry, there are a lot of magus threads going around. That was directed at spellstrike, not spellcombat. Specifically the Myrmidarch's ranged spellstrike combined with a blunderbuss. RAW, it looks like the one spell will hit everyone in a 15' cone, when it really shouldn't.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In all but the most explicit declaration in the rules, natural attacks are light weapons. Go forth and prosper.
But how does that actually play out? Are you making a 'full attack' with just that 1 natural weapon = 1 attack, regardless of BAB?
Yes. You don't get iteratives with natural attacks.
If you're a monster that just has a bite attack (say, a snake animal companion), and you make a full attack, you just get 1 bite.
If you cast haste on that monster, and it makes a full attack, it gets 1 bite for its normal (unmodified) full attack, plus 1 bite for the haste.Now replace "monster that has a bite" with "monster that has two claws and is using one claw to cast a spell." One hand is used up to cast the spell, the other hand is being used for melee.
If the creature makes a full attack, it gets 1 claw attack. "All of its attacks" is "1 claw attack."
If it's hasted and makes a full attack, it gets 1 claw attack for its full attack, plus 1 claw for the haste. "All of its attacks" is "1 claw attack plus 1 claw attack for the haste."So if such a creature is using spell combat, it makes "all of its attacks" (as defined above) and casts a 1-standard-action spell.
In other words, using spell combat doesn't suddenly allow you to make iterative attacks with natural weapons. All spell combat does is allow you to attack with one hand and cast a spell with the other hand. If the first hand is using a weapon that could make iterative attacks, great. If the first hand is using a weapon that can only make 1 attack per round, oh well.
Thank you for that explanation and it does make things clearer for the basic use of spellcombat + claw attacks. However our main question was regarding any/all of the other natural attacks available (a bite, or tail slap or wing buffett, etc) and how Magi without claws or slams function.
For example take the Naga, that ruling completely removes the option of ever having a Naga magus. They can be wizards, sorcerers, clerics or oracles and function perfectly fine but can never use the magus class ability because they lack a hand. Or a Lizardfolk Magus, the only have 1 claw attack do they have to give it up completely just to use spellcombat? With the introduction of the Race guide these became available but this ruling shuts them out of the class.
Ignoring the corner race case lets examine the other side of the table and those Magi who like to shapechange (nearly all of the polymorph spells are on their spell list). Many Magi liked to cast Monstrous Physique to become a (harpy, popobala or Gargoyle) when in combat to shore up their physical weaknesses and avoid the cookie cutter shocking grasp builds, or the occasional Beast shape users who would use silent spell to try something different. This prevents them from ever using their signature class ability for what appears to be an arbitrary reason.
Everyone complained with the previous ruling that Haste didn't work with spellcombat but many of the Magi abilities actually gave you Haste and now it's being changed back. That leaves us with the same issue but worse, spellcombat doesn't work with most natural attacks (but it's unclear which ones though, ie. what about pincers?) even though your main class ability gives you all of the natural attacks in the game (spellcasting with most of the polymorph spells), your archetype ability gives you others (hexcrafters get Prehensile Hair, etc), and some of the dedicated Magus spells actually require you to use a non-hand related natural weapon as part of casting a spell (Vanara: Prehensile Pilfer). The class appears to be designed to add natural attacks to itself.
Every other two-weapon wielder can freely mix any natural attack in with it's attack routine when using it's signature class abilities except for the Magus. (rangers get favored enemy with it, wizards get spellcasting, monks can get FoB, Rogues get Sneak Attack, etc.)
Basically our question is what is it about the Spellcombat ability that requires a user to give up it's innate abilities to use it?
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game is written assuming humanoid PCs.
I don't have a problem if a nonhumanoid character can't use certain class abilities because they assume certain humainoid body parts (such as arms and hands).
Likewise, I don't have a problem if an ability built for monsters is better left out of the hands of humanoid PCs if adapting it to PCs creates a lot of weird situations with the rules (like multiple arms).
So, spell combat is written to work similar to someone using TWF, and if that means armless monsters can't utilize it, oh well (likewise, I'm not going to cry that the TWF feat is useless for armless creatures with only one natural attack, and not going to create special rules for what happens if you take TWF and you have no arms, or worry about creating a special variant of TWF for armless creatures).
So, spell combat is written to work similar to someone using TWF, and if that means armless monsters can't utilize it, oh well (likewise, I'm not going to cry that the TWF feat is useless for armless creatures with only one natural attack, and not going to create special rules for what happens if you take TWF and you have no arms, or worry about creating a special variant of TWF for armless creatures).
This made me lol.
|
The game is written assuming humanoid PCs.
I don't have a problem if a nonhumanoid character can't use certain class abilities because they assume certain humainoid body parts (such as arms and hands).
Likewise, I don't have a problem if an ability built for monsters is better left out of the hands of humanoid PCs if adapting it to PCs creates a lot of weird situations with the rules (like multiple arms).
So, spell combat is written to work similar to someone using TWF, and if that means armless monsters can't utilize it, oh well (likewise, I'm not going to cry that the TWF feat is useless for armless creatures with only one natural attack, and not going to create special rules for what happens if you take TWF and you have no arms, or worry about creating a special variant of TWF for armless creatures).
Appreciated and liked, but maybe you need to consider the opposite problem too.
Creatures with more than 2 arms.I know that the FAQs work the same way, 1 set of attacks from 1 hand, but convincing people of that is very difficult.
You can find the time to add a something to clarify that too?
thanks.
Thank you Sean and the design team. As much as I argued that the Magus haste attack was unnecessary, this is my preferred ruling for ease of running the game. I also believe the Magus's Spellsrike becomes less and less powerful as pure martials gain more iterative attacks and increased static bonuses on their weapons. It will also make the Speed ability from the Arcane Pool, haste spell, and Haste Magus Arcana a possible choice again. I like this ruling and it makes it much easier to run the game.
The 3.0 Haste was so much clearer, it gave the hasted creature an extra standard action IIRC. None of this if you do this, then this happens, or if you do that then this other thing happens, etc. etc. etc.
Oops it was an extra "partial action."
On its turn, the subject may take an extra partial action, either before or after its regular action.
Change that "partial action" to a standard action and the spell becomes so much easier.
BTW SKR, unfortunately there are people here that will argue that "blinds" is not the same as "blindness" is not the same as the "blinded condition," because obviously if the devs meant the "blinded condition" they would have used "blinded condition."
The 3.0 Haste was so much clearer, it gave the hasted creature an extra standard action IIRC. None of this if you do this, then this happens, or if you do that then this other thing happens, etc. etc. etc.
Oops it was an extra "partial action."
On its turn, the subject may take an extra partial action, either before or after its regular action.Change that "partial action" to a standard action and the spell becomes so much easier.
BTW SKR, unfortunately there are people here that will argue that "blinds" is not the same as "blindness" is not the same as the "blinded condition," because obviously if the devs meant the "blinded condition" they would have used "blinded condition."
There is a very good reason haste was changed from that. Because the extra spell casters would get from that's is VASTLY more powerful then an extra attack. Casters did not need any help to be stronger then melee.
As for the people that will argue pretty much anything if the RAW does not hit them over the head blatantly enough.. Yeah they grate my nerves. The purposeful lack of common sense is tiresome. I say purposeful because most of the time these claims come from attempts to cheese something.
Myself, I prefer consistent, codified speech over a more natural speech approach. Doing things like making all "key words" in italics, for example, will go a long way in making sure the intent is communicated correctly. Thus, using blinded, blindness, etc, leaves no real doubt that the intention is related to blinded condition.
Alternately, using underline might be better, since italics is already used in some instances for flavor text, et al.
Capitalizion would work, just as is does with size categories.
I've removed some posts. No edition warring. And talking about bull rush is off-topic to a discussion about haste. Also, observe the most important rule of the Paizo message boards.
I've removed more posts.
Again, edition warring is not permitted on Paizo.com.
Furthermore, edition wars are off-topic to a discussion of the PF design team's philosophy about the interaction of haste and other things that are similar to full attacks.
Please review the posting policies for Paizo.com.