Regarding Fighting Defensively, I think it seems natural to assume that actions which work "like a full a attack" should work with options intended for use with full attacks such as Fight Defensively, Combat Expertise, Power Attack, and Lunge. If Power Attack, Lunge, and Haste work while Fight Defensively doesn't that's not very intuitive.
I'll grant that a Magus could use Combat Expertise and Fight Defensively to achieve a higher AC and intentionally let his melee attack(s) have a high chance of missing when he really just wants to land a touch attack spell and have a high AC. I guess that any caster can do this by casting one round and attacking the next though. The Magus is supposed to be the master of casting and fighting at the same time, so if he wants to use his melee weapon in a more defensive rather than offensive fashion I don't see a problem with that.
seebs - I wouldn't force the Magus to cast defensively. If the Magus wants Fight Defensively instead of casting defensively then enemies can take AoOs. I think that trusting in your melee skill to protect you while you cast a spell seems thematically appropriate for the class.
This is a good ruling, and I am grateful to SKR and others on the design team for re-considering their positions.
|
If the intent of this change is to make the rules easier to understand, I don't see why they'd hold back anything else that is normally associated with a full attack.
My Magus in PFS is one scenario shy of level 10. Way back at level 3 I gave him the Wand Wielder Arcana, and his shtick for a few levels was zapping True Strike and fighting defensively. I thought it was clever until someone told me I couldn't fight defensively during Spell Combat.
I'd like to be able to go back to doing that.
I would guess it's because they haven't had time to think through all the possible implications. Which is, of course, why I kept asking about whether there were any implications other than haste, because I figured it'd be good to start looking those over for obvious balance problems.
I stand by my theory that this forum is a lot more useful when people cooperatively try to figure out what the rules are, how they work, and whether there are hidden traps or pitfalls in them, than when people try to "win".
Full agreement. So let's go through possible pitfalls if spell combat were a regular full-attack and thus help the design team in their decision.
Stuff that you can probably do then:
- Spell combat while fighting defensively and/or use Combat Expertise. If you use a touch spell, you can probably take the attack penalty and still hit, and get a nice AC bonus. But as you only get one touch attack per round and your weapon attacks take the full penalty, I think that's not too balance-threatening.
- You can also fight defensively and use Combat Expertise on rounds where you don't want to be offensive anyway, so any attack penalty doesn't affect you. That gives you a nice AC bonus, between +2 and maybe +7 I think, on rounds that you throw fireballs or cast other spells that include no attack roll. That is a very nice tactic and so far the best exploit I've seen for making spell combat a full-attack.
- Use Crane Wing to block a melee attack while spellcasting. That's nice, but you need the dodge, improved unarmed strike, crane style and crane wing feats, so there is quite a price to pay. And it only works against one attack.
- Combine with monk and flurry of blows your spell combat attacks, as monks can freely decide which body part to use, they can make all their attacks with the weapon hand (or monk weapon held there). The problem that this character has is to get much out of this, he needs quite some monk levels. A primary monk could take a few levels of magus, but that should leave him with not too many or powerful spells. A primary magus with a few monk levels could get an extra attack out of this, but only if unarmored, which is problematic in melee. Also, trying to be a monk will make the Magus MAD even worse, because the Magus needs Str, Dex and Int and the monk adds Wis.
- A monk could take three levels of magus, take Wand Wielder as Magus Arcana and use a wand of Frostbite or some such to add quite some damage to his Flurry attacks. Depending on the caster level, that may be up to 1d6+10 points plus fatigue effect per strike for a level 10 wand costing 7500 gp. That's quite some damage there. But as I explain further below, that's more a problem of Frostbite than of spell combat.
- A Maneuver Master monk can do flurry of maneuvers with spell combat. That does not require being unarmored as far as I can tell, so it meshes well, my character actually does this. Still, one additional maneuver per round is cool, but does not look balance-threatening to me.
- You could Whirlwind attack with spell combat, casting e.g. a damage increaing spell like frostbite and get more attacks, depending on how many enemies surround you. If you have reach from Enlarge Person, Monstrous Physique II etc, that can be quite some attacks. The disdadvantage is having to pay 5 feats.
- Medusa's Wrath may mesh well for an unarmed magus: Hit enemies using a spell that staggers or dazes, e.g. elemental touch (electricity), then reap two free extra attacks against them. The BAB requirement says you need to be level 15 for that, though, when power dynamics are a bit different, and you need the feats, too. So not that big an issue in my eyes.
- There are ways to combine moving and a full attack, so they would allow combining moving and spell combat. The Mobile Fighter's Rapid Attack (which requires 11 levels of fighter, so that advantage is balanced quite a bit), pounce, dimensional dervish, mounted skirmisher etc. Personally I do not see that as such a big problem. A quick runner's shirt gives you that ability 1x/day for a mere 1000 gp, so it seems the design team doesn't view that as sooo powerful.
- You could combine 6 levels of Magus with another spellcasting class, take the Broad Study magus arcana and use your other spellcasting class with spell combat, e.g. giving it the ability to cast spells while fighting defensively and giving it the bonus to concentration checks.
To me, six lost levels of main class progression sounds like a too high price for that, however.
- As the FAQ says that you can only attack with the weapon hand, lots of tricks using natural attacks from polymorph spells etc are prevented that could have posed quite a balance issue. So don't worry about those.
When thinking about this issue, it is important to keep the scope in view: Spell combat would allow to cast a spell on the same round as making a full attack. Quite some of the ideas above can be already be done if you cast the spell in one round and do a full attack on the next. Some tactics that look balance-threatening may be so not because of spell combat, but because of other rules already legal. For example, the monk with the wand mentioned above: A monk7/magus3 with Wand Wielder and the level 10 frostbite wand can make three flurry attacks per round with unarmed damage + frostbite damage. But if the monk was a straight monk10, he could buy the same wand, use it in one round and then flurry 4x/rounds for the same damage (more, actually). The former would do 4x3=12 such attack in 4 rounds, the latter would do 0+3x4=12 such attacks in 4 rounds, the same number of attacks! So Spell Combat doesn't do the monk all that good here, it's just that Frostbite is such a powerful level 1 spell.
So that's what I have succeeded to come up with yet. Any of you have further tactics for if when spell combat is a full-attack? Let's get them out in the open.
I have a 8th level human magus (no archetypes) who attacks with his keen scimitar a +14/+9.
Regarding the clarification that allows the use of spell combat with haste, could my magus use spell combat + spellstrike + haste to attack at +13/+13/+13/+8?
I need the proof (if it's the case) to show it to my GM in our game session tonight.
I just want to say thanks toe Sean and the rest of the design team for taking the time to work on this and other Faqs and existing game rules. I know that this sort of stuff doesnt actually make paizo money (at least not as directly as working on a new book). So thank you for taking time out of your day(s) to work on this and other issues in the game. It shows you care not just about the bottom line, but about the health and wellbeing of the system and the community at large. Keep up the good work.
The most recent FAQ should be all you need to demonstrate that Haste works with Spell Combat.
Even without Haste, you were already capable of using Spell Combat + Spell Strike to attack with +12/+12/+7, assuming you were casting a touch spell.
Thanks, that was what I thought, just wanted to be sure, so haste + spell combat + spellstrike allow me to make two additional attacks (of course using a touch spell), nice combo.
|
I just want to say thanks toe Sean and the rest of the design team for taking the time to work on this and other Faqs and existing game rules. I know that this sort of stuff doesnt actually make paizo money (at least not as directly as working on a new book). So thank you for taking time out of your day(s) to work on this and other issues in the game. It shows you care not just about the bottom line, but about the health and wellbeing of the system and the community at large. Keep up the good work.
A good relationship with your customers is always good for business.
Paizo has one of the best relationships with it's customer base that I have ever seen.
And thank again Sean for helping resolve these issues.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
just wanted to be sure, so haste + spell combat + spellstrike allow me to make two additional attacks (of course using a touch spell), nice combo.
8th Level Magus BAB: +6/+1
With Haste: +7/+7/+2With Spell Combat: +4/+4/-1 (assuming you're casting a touch spell)
With Haste and Spell Combat: +5/+5/+5/+0
So, have the FAQs stating otherwise been updated or temporarily withdrawn? I don't play in it, so doesn't affect me, but I imagine those with Magi in PFS would need more than a forum post to prove that their Magus can use haste with Spell Combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of the FAQs involving haste have been updated to mention this ruling, if relevant to the FAQ in question.
|
I believe I have a relevant question. Again, I think this is a great ruling and it makes the rules as written conform to the way most new players would expect them to work. I get that all that's changing is the interpretation of the interaction of these abilities, but given that the intent is to minimize confusion and make things work as expected, how does the Dimensional Dervish feat fit into this? Dimensional Dervish explicitly calls out full-attack actions, and unlike haste it doesn't actually affect the number of attacks you would get when you full attack. There's currently no strict reading that would thus allow for combination of Dimensional Dervish and Spell Combat, even though most new players will still assume they work together. Is this intentional? It's a powerful combination, but also pretty difficult to get at reasonable levels. I'm not requesting that this combo be made legal, but I think it's a relevant question with regard to where the design team wants to draw the line. If they think this should be made to work for ease of reading, then maybe Spell Combat should just be changed explicitly to function as a full-attack. If they don't, and this line of thinking was only meant to extend to haste, then I think the ruling is spot-on and there aren't likely to be any unintended consequences.
I see no reason why one wouldn't be able to Fight Defensively while in Spell Combat, I've actually never ever ever seen or heard anyone state otherwise. Weird why it would even be a question. Isn't this thread about Haste and Full Attacks, how did we even get into the Fight Defensively part? lol
That's just what the design team is discussing now according to SKR: Are there balance concerns regarding treating spell combat as a full-attack action. Haste has been answered, that part is finished. But SKR says now they are thinking about widening the definition, so that Haste isn't another special case, but simply works like everything else: With a normal full-attack, which spell combat may become. So the discussion has shifted from Haste to other things possible in a full-attack action, like fighting defensively.
I persoanally hope for the outcome that spell combat becomes a true full-attack action. It would be so much easier than treating it as almost one, with one ruling for Haste (can be used with spell combat, although it demands a full-attack) and another for e.g. fight defensively (cannot be used with spell combat, because it demands a full-attack action).
But we'll have to wait for what they decide.
It doesn't seem to hard to extrapolate from SKR's first post in this thread:
Specifically for this conversation, we're talking about the term "full attack." Some rule elements such as haste say "when making a full attack action." Other rule elements such as pounce say "it can make a full attack." And in some cases it's even less specific, such as the magus spell combat ability which says "he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon," which was later clarified in an FAQ to mean "as many weapon attacks as you would normally be able to make with a full attack."
We on the design team aren't sure that treating those three terms differently helps the game or makes it easier to learn or play. We also think that allowing martial characters to benefit more often from haste is a good thing.
So, in the interest of having the rules be less confusing, we're going to make some changes to recent rulings and see how it plays out.
Sure, the thread's title talks about Haste, and Haste is the example he uses with Spell Combat and Pounce, but the actual stuff he wrote in Post #1 says what's really going on: the design team is considering treating all three types of "full attack" as being the same thing. Period.
Haste is only one, the first one, of the many ways this new approach can impact the game.
Just because Post #1 focuses on Haste doesn't mean the new approach to "full attack" is limited to Haste.
So in light of SKR's FULL post and the discussion therein, it seems that there is now no doubt that EVERYTHING you can do with a full attack can also be applicable to Spell Combat because now it is just a full attack in every sense of the word (since they're all being treated as synonyms).
Side note to my previous post: SKR also said they're looking into the implications of all of this and might change their mind, so it's not set in stone yet.
I've always allowed Fighting Defensively or Combat Expertise anytime a person was making an attack roll. I found out I've been doing it wrong when it comes to ray spells and the like. I guess I always figured fighting defensively was moving in a defensive manner. I figured anyone could do it if they were willing to take the penalty to hit. If an archer can do it, I don't see why a spellcaster can't. Casting defensively I picture in exactly the same way. You're casting while trying to maintain your concentration while moving in a defensive manner. If you can do that, I don't see why you couldn't also Fight Defensively if you're making an attack roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just have to say I really appreciate the tone of the original post in this thread.
Presenting your reasoning, even if it is as simple as "we think it's a good thing" is commendable.
As a fan, I can admit that sometimes it feels like the FAQ rules are a bit arbitrary or needlessly conservative.
This represents a break in that pattern, and I applaud it.
I'll offer a few opinions on some of the potential "pitfalls" which harzerkatze and other have come up with so far:
- I don't think that moving and Spell Combat could easily be combined with stuff like Pounce. Spell Combat is a full round action. Just because it gives you a full attack does not mean it can be executed as a full attack. Hence you couldn't Pounce into Spell Combat since each one of those is its own full round action. It seems like each also allows you to "make a full attack" (Pounce explicitly so), but that doesn't mean that either can be performed "as a full attack".
- I'm not sure I'd allow the combination of Spell Combat and Flurry of Blows since they both work "like" TWF. In my opinion, FoB uses up your TWF potential to make extra attacks with any qualifying weapon while Spell Combat uses up your TWF potential to cast a spell. That said, a couple of levels in Monk could set you up very nicely for Crane Wing.
Hmm, what about a Magus/Mobile Fighter using Rapid Attack and casting Bladed Dash? If your move is 30', you'll get 30' worth of movement during your attacks, and then you can use Bladed Dash to "dash back" to your starting point. Alternatively, you cast first to dash ahead and then make your way back slashing away as you go. That's potentially a double move in the same round that you perform a full-round action.
Hmmm, I'd say that the single additional attack provided by bladed dash doesn't really make that much of a difference. Greater bladed Dash is out, 11 Fighter levels mean you do not get access to level 5 Magus spells.
But it is possible that I overlook the worth of all that movement. Right now, it looks flashy to me, but not all that different from someone with a bucket of ranged attacks.
As to the question about fighting defensively and such, we're kicking around that idea before posting an answer.
Bump to respectfully inquire whether there have been any developments from kicking around the idea among developers...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
No updates yet. We're busy getting the Advanced Class Guide material ready for the upcoming playtest...
No updates yet. We're busy getting the Advanced Class Guide material ready for the upcoming playtest...
Yeees!
As to the question about fighting defensively and such, we're kicking around that idea before posting an answer.Bump to respectfully inquire whether there have been any developments from kicking around the idea among developers...
Since six weeks have passed, allow me to ask whether there has been any progress on this question?
|
|
It would be better to point this out in the General Discussion forum, and not the Rules Questions forum, since you do not have an actual Rules Question, and the admitted purpose of your thread necro is not to further a Rules Question discussion, but rather to critique the end result that was settled almost a year ago, after all said discussions of the time have been buried and forgotten, and the people that were involved in them have moved on.