Magus Spell Combat: what spell may I cast?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

I did search these rules threads but have not come across this. The spell combat description says, "...cast any spell from the magus spell list..."

My question is that literally any spell for the magus spell list? Or any spell my magus has prepared that day? If the former, why even bother making the magus a prepared caster?

I feel like I am missing something obvious...

Thanks, and game on!
- Corey


That passage is written the way it is to indicate that there is no additional limitation to the spells you are allowed to cast while using spell combat - not to say that the normal limitation (that you must have the spell prepared, which normally requires having the spell in your spell book) doesn't apply.

It is a distinction that is included, most likely, to prevent confusion as to how Spell Combat and Spellstrike interact - one works no matter which Magus spell you are casting, the other only works with spells that include melee touch attacks.


Well look at it this way, you may cast any spell from the Magus spell list...but there's no specific exception there that allows you to bypass the overarching restriction that you may only cast spells you know and have prepared.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

I believe the intent is to block you Spell Combat casting Cleric spell slots.


James Risner wrote:
I believe the intent is to block you Spell Combat casting Cleric spell slots.

Except it doesn't do that at all. It seems to me that there's a flaw here, because the intent seems like it would be to restrict you to "your magus spells which you cast using your magus spell slots". But that's not what it says.

Contrast:

"A magus can cast magus spells while wearing medium armor without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance."

"Spellstrike (Su): At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack."

Why does one of these say "magus spells" and the other say "from the magus spell list"? Is this an intentional distinction?

I note that the wording elsewhere suggests this may just be carelessness:

"Broad Study (Ex): The magus selects another one of his spellcasting classes. The magus can use his spellstrike and spell combat abilities while casting or using spells from the spell list of that class. This does not allow him to cast arcane spells from that class's spell list without suffering the normal chances of arcane spell failure, unless the spell lacks somatic components. The magus must be at least 6th level and must possess levels in at least one other spellcasting class before selecting this arcana."

Okay, imagine that you're a Magus/Sorcerer. You can use spellstrike with spells on the magus spell list. Also, you can cast magus spells without arcane spell failure chance (with the armor types allowed depending on level). But wait! You take Broad Study (sorcerer). You can now use spellstrike with spells on the sorcerer list, but it does not allow you to cast spells from that class's spell list without arcane spell failure chances.

So. If we accept the "on the list means on the list" argument, then:
1. You could always use sorcerer slots to cast Shocking Grasp through a weapon, because Shocking Grasp is on the magus spell list.
2. Once you take Broad Study, you will now have a chance for arcane spell failure when casting Shocking Grasp in armor, even if you use prepared magus spell slots for it, because it is on the sorcerer list.

... Unless we conclude that "does not allow" doesn't mean "prevents", so you can still cast shocking grasp from a magus slot without arcane spell failure, but not from a sorcerer slot.

But I think it really means that the designers are being careless about the distinction between "the spells you can cast because of your magus levels" and "the spells that are theoretically accessible to a magus".

But, for instance, look at spell trigger items. They use the "on your spell list" language, and clearly indicate that they mean the theoretical list for your class, not anything you can cast; a paladin of 3rd level has no spells, but can use a wand of any paladin spell. ("This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin.")

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
gamerdork wrote:

I did search these rules threads but have not come across this. The spell combat description says, "...cast any spell from the magus spell list..."

That are prepared and cast from your magus slots. To use spell combat with any other spell, you need to take spell blending, and you will still suffer arcane spell failure penaties if you use your wizard spells from your wizard spell slots EVEN IF THEY ARE IDENTICAL TO YOUR MAGUS SPELLS. So a shocking grasp from your 2nd level Magus slot will continue to operate normally, but a shocking grasp from your 2nd level wizard slot will be subject to arcane spell failure chance.


I am pretty sure everyone agrees that they almost certainly intended to mean "spells you prepared in your Magus spell slots", but they really did say "anything on the magus spell list". Not sure why.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
seebs wrote:
I am pretty sure everyone agrees that they almost certainly intended to mean "spells you prepared in your Magus spell slots", but they really did say "anything on the magus spell list". Not sure why.

Because the books aren't written by lawyers or for lawyers. Read what is written with your brain engaged and know that if something is written in a way that you can interpret it in 2 ways, one of which is "too good to be true" then it is the other way.

Liberty's Edge

ShadowcatX wrote:
seebs wrote:
I am pretty sure everyone agrees that they almost certainly intended to mean "spells you prepared in your Magus spell slots", but they really did say "anything on the magus spell list". Not sure why.
Because the books aren't written by lawyers or for lawyers. Read what is written with your brain engaged and know that if something is written in a way that you can interpret it in 2 ways, one of which is "too good to be true" then it is the other way.

But if everyone did that, there would only be about 15 threads total in this forum :P


ShadowcatX wrote:
seebs wrote:
I am pretty sure everyone agrees that they almost certainly intended to mean "spells you prepared in your Magus spell slots", but they really did say "anything on the magus spell list". Not sure why.
Because the books aren't written by lawyers or for lawyers. Read what is written with your brain engaged and know that if something is written in a way that you can interpret it in 2 ways, one of which is "too good to be true" then it is the other way.

That would be fairly good advice for a game radically different from this one, but in fact, we have repeatedly asked such questions, and had the Paizo staff confirm that, in fact, they intended the thing that some players thought was "too good to be true".

Consider that any character who has "cure light wounds" on their spell list can use a scroll of "cure light wounds". Doesn't matter whether it's the same version or not, because scrolls aren't typed like that; a bard's scroll and a cleric's scroll are interchangeable, and the PF team continue to produce content in which the origins of such scrolls are not mentioned.

Similarly, for spell trigger items, like wands, all that matters is whether the spell is on your spell list or not. Doesn't matter whether the person who put the spell in the wand used the same version.

In short, the game has multiple categories, already, of items or powers which say "on the X spell list" and really mean exactly that and nothing else.

So it's possible that, in fact, the person who wrote the magus class rules intended to allow a magus to use any spell on the magus class list as a spell combat spell, regardless of whether they are using magus spell slots or other spell slots to cast it. Frankly, I don't think it would make a meaningful difference in many games. I've seen very few people do split caster builds. If you've got a couple of magus levels, and a ton of sorcerer levels, sure you'd get better results if you could use some of your sorcerer slots with spell combat, but why would you be using spell combat when your sorcerer powers are so much better? Similarly, if you have a ton of magus levels, and a couple of sorcerer levels, why would you use sorcerer slots in spell combat when your magus slots are going to have higher caster level and better spell DCs (because your int will almost certainly be higher than your charisma)?

So I think one of the reasons they've never clarified this (that I know of) is that it is irrelevant to just about any game.


seebs wrote:
I am pretty sure everyone agrees that they almost certainly intended to mean "spells you prepared in your Magus spell slots", but they really did say "anything on the magus spell list". Not sure why.

RAW, any spell from any class so long as it is on the magus spell list.

RAI, only those spells that the magus has learned from his own spell slots (stated in an unofficial manner).

SKR wrote:


(As a related example, a druid/magus who had flaming sphere prepared as a druid spell shouldn't be able to cast it with spell combat just because it's also on the magus spell list. Even if the druid/magus had flaming sphere prepared as a druid spell and a magus spell, he shouldn't be able to cast his druid copy of that spell as part of spell combat because spell combat is about casting your magus spells in melee combat, and I doubt the casting of a druid's flaming sphere works the same way as the magus spell.)

For full context


Maybe they should issue errata which clean up the language, then.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
seebs wrote:

Consider that any character who has "cure light wounds" on their spell list can use a scroll of "cure light wounds". Doesn't matter whether it's the same version or not, because scrolls aren't typed like that; a bard's scroll and a cleric's scroll are interchangeable, and the PF team continue to produce content in which the origins of such scrolls are not mentioned.

Actually you are wrong, the a scroll of Divine version of CLW is not interchangeable with a scroll with a Arcane version of CLW.

Scrolls are typed for the kind of spell in it.

PRD wrote:

To have any chance of activating a scroll spell, the scroll user must meet the following requirements.

The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his class.)
• The user must have the spell on her class list.
• The user must have the requisite ability score.
seebs wrote:


I am pretty sure everyone agrees that they almost certainly intended to mean "spells you prepared in your Magus spell slots", but they really did say "anything on the magus spell list". Not sure why.

I fully agree with you in this.

As written there is a basis to say that a magus with a wand of shocking grasp can use spellstrike with it as shocking grasp is on the magus spellist, while RAI it isn't possible to use it as the spell must be memorized in a magus spellslot.

Liberty's Edge

Diego Rossi wrote:
seebs wrote:

Consider that any character who has "cure light wounds" on their spell list can use a scroll of "cure light wounds". Doesn't matter whether it's the same version or not, because scrolls aren't typed like that; a bard's scroll and a cleric's scroll are interchangeable, and the PF team continue to produce content in which the origins of such scrolls are not mentioned.

Actually you are wrong, the a scroll of Divine version of CLW is not interchangeable with a scroll with a Arcane version of CLW.

Scrolls are typed for the kind of spell in it.

PRD wrote:

To have any chance of activating a scroll spell, the scroll user must meet the following requirements.

The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his class.)
• The user must have the spell on her class list.
• The user must have the requisite ability score.

Looky there, the not too good to be true RAW won the day. Who would've ever thought that?


PRD Magic wrote:
A spell is a one-time magical effect. Spells come in two types: arcane (cast by bards, sorcerers, and wizards) and divine (cast by clerics, druids, and experienced paladins and rangers). Some spellcasters select their spells from a limited list of spells known, while others have access to a wide variety of options.

It is a general rule not only for scrolls.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Eridan wrote:
PRD Magic wrote:
A spell is a one-time magical effect. Spells come in two types: arcane (cast by bards, sorcerers, and wizards) and divine (cast by clerics, druids, and experienced paladins and rangers). Some spellcasters select their spells from a limited list of spells known, while others have access to a wide variety of options.
It is a general rule not only for scrolls.

different magic items use different rules. Wand and staves can be activate by anyone that know the spell in them, there is no difference between arcane or divine version. Scroll instead acknowledge that difference as show above.


Diego Rossi wrote:
seebs wrote:

Consider that any character who has "cure light wounds" on their spell list can use a scroll of "cure light wounds". Doesn't matter whether it's the same version or not, because scrolls aren't typed like that; a bard's scroll and a cleric's scroll are interchangeable, and the PF team continue to produce content in which the origins of such scrolls are not mentioned.

Actually you are wrong, the a scroll of Divine version of CLW is not interchangeable with a scroll with a Arcane version of CLW.

Scrolls are typed for the kind of spell in it.

Oh, interesting. Scrolls are, but wands aren't. And of course, published adventures are full of scrolls which could be either but aren't specified.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Looky there, the not too good to be true RAW won the day. Who would've ever thought that?

Uh. What? This has no impact on the bulk of my argument. The fact that bard, magus, wizard, and sorcerer scrolls are all still fully interchangeable still supports my point. This really came across as snide and derisive, without any visible way it would add insight into the rules.

Liberty's Edge

seebs wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Looky there, the not too good to be true RAW won the day. Who would've ever thought that?

Uh. What? This has no impact on the bulk of my argument. The fact that bard, magus, wizard, and sorcerer scrolls are all still fully interchangeable still supports my point. This really came across as snide and derisive, without any visible way it would add insight into the rules.

You tried to give an example of how reading the rules and assuming the most ridiculous scenario (which really isn't all that ridiculous) is the correct reading. However, your example was incorrect, and the more conservative reading is correct. The failure of your example reinforces my argument, I'm simply pointing that out.


ShadowcatX wrote:
You tried to give an example of how reading the rules and assuming the most ridiculous scenario (which really isn't all that ridiculous) is the correct reading. However, your example was incorrect, and the more conservative reading is correct. The failure of your example reinforces my argument, I'm simply pointing that out.

I'm not buying this. There are tons of examples. Heck, we could look at the most recent one on Spell Combat and haste, where many of the same arguments were made, and multiple people said that allowing Spell Combat to get an extra attack from haste would be too-good-to-be-true. And yet, that was exactly what the rules team decided.

That I misremembered the scroll rules (compounded by the frequent presence in published content of scrolls which do not specify their type, making it impossible to know which characters can or can't use them without UMD) does not even a tiny little bit impact the argument, because all my argument depends on is the fact that at least once the Paizo team has concluded that something which some forum posters dismissed as "too good to be true" was in fact intended and ought to work that way.

Liberty's Edge

seebs wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
You tried to give an example of how reading the rules and assuming the most ridiculous scenario (which really isn't all that ridiculous) is the correct reading. However, your example was incorrect, and the more conservative reading is correct. The failure of your example reinforces my argument, I'm simply pointing that out.

I'm not buying this. There are tons of examples. Heck, we could look at the most recent one on Spell Combat and haste, where many of the same arguments were made, and multiple people said that allowing Spell Combat to get an extra attack from haste would be too-good-to-be-true. And yet, that was exactly what the rules team decided.

That I misremembered the scroll rules (compounded by the frequent presence in published content of scrolls which do not specify their type, making it impossible to know which characters can or can't use them without UMD) does not even a tiny little bit impact the argument, because all my argument depends on is the fact that at least once the Paizo team has concluded that something which some forum posters dismissed as "too good to be true" was in fact intended and ought to work that way.

If you think every advantage is "too good to be true" then yes, you're correct. However, compare "I get an extra attack from haste when I use spell combat" to "I get to cast unlimited level 6 spells at level 1 with spell combat" and tell me which one is too good to be true.

Reading with your brain engaged isn't going to solve every possible problem and sometimes there will be multiple legitimate reads. However, the vast majority of the time, it will solve all the problems, including the one whose thread we are in.


seebs wrote:

So. If we accept the "on the list means on the list" argument, then:

1. You could always use sorcerer slots to cast Shocking Grasp through a weapon, because Shocking Grasp is on the magus spell list.
2. Once you take Broad Study, you will now have a chance for arcane spell failure when casting Shocking Grasp in armor, even if you use prepared magus spell slots for it, because it is on the sorcerer list.

The RAW supports 1, but not 2. Broad Study doesn't affect arcane spell failure chance one way or the other.

Magus Weapon and Armor Proficiency wrote:
He can cast magus spells while wearing light armor without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance. Like any other arcane spellcaster, a magus wearing medium armor, heavy armor, or a shield incurs a chance of arcane spell failure if the spell in question has a somatic component. A multiclass magus still incurs the normal arcane spell failure chance for arcane spells received from other classes.

When Broad Study says, "This does not allow him to cast arcane spells from that class's spell list without suffering the normal chances of arcane spell failure," that only means that the arcana itself doesn't except the magus from any ASF. His previous exemptions still stand.


ShadowcatX wrote:
If you think every advantage is "too good to be true" then yes, you're correct. However, compare "I get an extra attack from haste when I use spell combat" to "I get to cast unlimited level 6 spells at level 1 with spell combat" and tell me which one is too good to be true.

Uh.

What the heck?

I am starting to suspect that you are arguing against a position that I don't think anyone in this thread is actually taking.

My argument does not include casting unlimited level 6 spells, ever. It certainly doesn't include casting them at level 1.

It does include a magus1/sor1 being able to cast shocking grasp using both kinds of slots, because shocking grasp is on the magus spell list. That's the only thing I'm arguing is meant by saying "on the magus spell list" rather than "your magus spells".

Quote:
Reading with your brain engaged isn't going to solve every possible problem and sometimes there will be multiple legitimate reads. However, the vast majority of the time, it will solve all the problems, including the one whose thread we are in.

For instance, it would solve the problem of seeing one initial question about whether that wording implied that you didn't have to have the spell available, and not noticing that multiple replies pointed out that that seems pretty easily solved, but that there is a different and more subtle ambiguity.


Since power and usability are highly subjective terms, basing even the most limited argument on, "If it's overpowered, it's probably wrong!" just doesn't bear any weight.


seebs wrote:


My argument does not include casting unlimited level 6 spells, ever. It certainly doesn't include casting them at level 1.

It does include a magus1/sor1 being able to cast shocking grasp using both kinds of slots, because shocking grasp is on the magus spell list. That's the only thing I'm arguing is meant by saying "on the magus spell list" rather than "your magus spells".

Would you allow a Wizard 11/Magus 1 to cast chain lighting from his wizard slots as part of spell combat? Why or why not?


Yes.

Because he has s@+&ty as hell BAB of 5. Making 1 more attack that won't hit anyway doesn't imbalance anything.


LoneKnave wrote:

Yes.

Because he has s#$#ty as hell BAB of 5. Making 1 more attack that won't hit anyway doesn't imbalance anything.

1) Chain lighting can't be used with spellstrike, so doesn't give him an extra attack.

2) Optimal (or in this case suboptimal) choices by a player are not a reason to allow or disallow something.


bbangerter wrote:
seebs wrote:


My argument does not include casting unlimited level 6 spells, ever. It certainly doesn't include casting them at level 1.

It does include a magus1/sor1 being able to cast shocking grasp using both kinds of slots, because shocking grasp is on the magus spell list. That's the only thing I'm arguing is meant by saying "on the magus spell list" rather than "your magus spells".

Would you allow a Wizard 11/Magus 1 to cast chain lighting from his wizard slots as part of spell combat? Why or why not?

If you're going by RAW: Yes, because chain lightning is on his magus spell list and has a casting time of 1 standard action, meeting all requirements for use in Spell Combat.

If you're going by SKR: No, because chain lighting was not prepared in magus spell slots.


Zahmahkibo wrote:


If you're going by RAW: Yes, because chain lightning is on his magus spell list and has a casting time of 1 standard action, meeting all requirements for use in Spell Combat.

If you're going by SKR: No, because chain lighting was not prepared in magus spell slots.

Bah, I had to go read the OP again. Confusion is on my end. To many magus threads blurred together.


bbangerter wrote:
LoneKnave wrote:

Yes.

Because he has s#$#ty as hell BAB of 5. Making 1 more attack that won't hit anyway doesn't imbalance anything.

1) Chain lighting can't be used with spellstrike, so doesn't give him an extra attack.

2) Optimal (or in this case suboptimal) choices by a player are not a reason to allow or disallow something.

Sorry, I thought you were appealing to balance! In that case, yes, by RAW it flies and I don't see why I (or anyone, really) should disallow it.

Also, he normally would NOT get an attack while using chain lightning, so now he gets 1 attack by doing so, I didn't mean spellstrike (which he doesn't have yet anyway, since he is only Magus lvl1).


bbangerter wrote:
seebs wrote:


My argument does not include casting unlimited level 6 spells, ever. It certainly doesn't include casting them at level 1.

It does include a magus1/sor1 being able to cast shocking grasp using both kinds of slots, because shocking grasp is on the magus spell list. That's the only thing I'm arguing is meant by saying "on the magus spell list" rather than "your magus spells".

Would you allow a Wizard 11/Magus 1 to cast chain lighting from his wizard slots as part of spell combat? Why or why not?

On thinking about it:

Rules-as-written: Chain Lightning is on the magus spell list, and has a casting time of one standard action, therefore yes.

Rules-as-probably-intended: SKR strongly hints that he thinks it's supposed to mean "using your magus spellcasting slots/powers", so probably no.

If it were my game: Why the heck not. The guy's got a BAB of +5. He's sacrificed significant spellcasting power in order to be able to cast a few spells while also swinging his sword. Once. Ineptly.

*thinks more*

Actually, that becomes a really interesting choice. It still provokes AoO. He can, however, cast defensively, take a penalty up to his int mod on his to-hit rolls, and add that as a bonus to his concentration check. So if you think of the weapon attack as basically a rules gimmick, what he's really doing is buying the ability to add his int mod to a concentration check. Sure, the attack's doomed to fail -- he's got a pathetic BAB, and he's fighting at -2 base and -int-mod from the concentration check. But he's very likely to make the concentration check to cast defensively. A two-level dip into magus costs you your highest level of spells in your real casting class, but gives you a way to cast a limited subset of your spells defensively with real bonuses, and a slightly better way to deliver some of your touch spells.

I think it's clearly permitted RAW, and almost certainly prohibited RAI, but frankly, I don't think it's a balance problem. It's clearly weaker than the competing choices. Honestly, the best argument I see for it is the +3 fortitude save and +2 will save compared to a wizard who just put two more levels into wizard.

Liberty's Edge

seebs wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
If you think every advantage is "too good to be true" then yes, you're correct. However, compare "I get an extra attack from haste when I use spell combat" to "I get to cast unlimited level 6 spells at level 1 with spell combat" and tell me which one is too good to be true.

Uh.

What the heck?

I am starting to suspect that you are arguing against a position that I don't think anyone in this thread is actually taking.

It is the question in the O.P.

Quote:
My question is that literally any spell for the magus spell list? Or any spell my magus has prepared that day? If the former, why even bother making the magus a prepared caster?


ShadowcatX wrote:

It is the question in the O.P.

Quote:
My question is that literally any spell for the magus spell list? Or any spell my magus has prepared that day? If the former, why even bother making the magus a prepared caster?

That question was answered instantly. Everyone agrees that you can't use Spell Combat to cast spells that you haven't learned or prepared.

The question seebs was responding to was whether a magus can use Spell Combat with spells that are on the magus list, but cast from non-magus slots. At no point was he/she, or anyone else after the OP suggesting that a Magus 1 could Spell Combat Disintegrate.

Condescendingly directing other people to 'read with their brains engaged' isn't going to win anyone to your side in any discussion, but it's especially ineffective when you're the one who is misreading things.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

"... and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action."

The above text refers to magus spells that magus has prepared with his magus class spell slots. It does NOT allow you to just pick any magus spell and cast it.

It has to be a magus spell you know.
It has to be a magus spell you have prepared.


Hey, thanks. This has been a question people have been wondering for a looong time. :)

Should "from the <x> spell list" be taken to mean that same thing? As in, must be from the class' spell slots?


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

"... and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action."

The above text refers to magus spells that magus has prepared with his magus class spell slots. It does NOT allow you to just pick any magus spell and cast it.

It has to be a magus spell you know.
It has to be a magus spell you have prepared.

Right.

But if I'm a magus1/wiz11, and I have Chain Lightning prepared, chain lightning is:

1. A spell on the magus spell list.
2. A spell I know.
3. A spell I have prepared.

So obviously I can use it... Except that almost certainly isn't what's intended, is it? The problem is that "prepared with his magus spell slots" is entirely different from "on the magus spell list".

I take it as a given that you have to actually have a way to cast the spell in order to use it with spell combat. But your comments, here and elsewhere, conflate "on the magus spell list" with "prepared using his magus class spell slots".

And the reason I express concern about this is that "on the <X> spell list" is used in many cases to refer to things like the restrictions on spell trigger items, where even a 3rd level paladin can use any paladin spell from a spell trigger item, because it is on the paladin spell list. So even if a non-paladin creates the wand, it's a wand with a spell that paladins can cast, so a 3rd-level paladin can cast it.


Seebs wrote:

But if I'm a magus1/wiz11, and I have Chain Lightning prepared, chain lightning is:

1. A spell on the magus spell list.
2. A spell I know.
3. A spell I have prepared.

But that's not what he said.

It has to be a Magus spell you know. It has to be a Magus spell you have prepared. That is word for word what he said.

You are casting Chain Lightning from your Wizard slots. It is a Wizard spell.

Just because it's on the Magus spell list doesn't mean it's a Magus spell if you're not casting it as a Magus.

Liberty's Edge

Zahmahkibo wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:

It is the question in the O.P.

Quote:
My question is that literally any spell for the magus spell list? Or any spell my magus has prepared that day? If the former, why even bother making the magus a prepared caster?

That question was answered instantly. Everyone agrees that you can't use Spell Combat to cast spells that you haven't learned or prepared.

The question seebs was responding to was whether a magus can use Spell Combat with spells that are on the magus list, but cast from non-magus slots. At no point was he/she, or anyone else after the OP suggesting that a Magus 1 could Spell Combat Disintegrate.

Condescendingly directing other people to 'read with their brains engaged' isn't going to win anyone to your side in any discussion, but it's especially ineffective when you're the one who is misreading things.

First, Seebs reinforced the idea that it was "any spell on the magus's list." He didn't say "any spell you can cast" or "any spell cast from magus spell slots". He simply stated "any spell on the magus last."

Secondly, it may not "win anyone to my side" but it did get favorited by SKR. I'd rather have him on my side than Seebs.

Third, ignoring the first two, it is a fact. If people would actually read and think about what they read, rather than just saying "hey it says any spell on the list so I can cast level 6 spells" fewer threads such as this would come up.


ShadowcatX wrote:
seebs wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
If you think every advantage is "too good to be true" then yes, you're correct. However, compare "I get an extra attack from haste when I use spell combat" to "I get to cast unlimited level 6 spells at level 1 with spell combat" and tell me which one is too good to be true.

Uh.

What the heck?

I am starting to suspect that you are arguing against a position that I don't think anyone in this thread is actually taking.

It is the question in the O.P.

Which doesn't mean that all the ensuing discussion is entirely about that question.

For instance, in one of my posts, I said specifically:

"So it's possible that, in fact, the person who wrote the magus class rules intended to allow a magus to use any spell on the magus class list as a spell combat spell, regardless of whether they are using magus spell slots or other spell slots to cast it."

Makes it pretty clear I'm talking about the interesting question, not the one that's pretty much instantly resolved by the question of "so under what circumstances can you cast a spell at all?"


Rynjin wrote:
Seebs wrote:

But if I'm a magus1/wiz11, and I have Chain Lightning prepared, chain lightning is:

1. A spell on the magus spell list.
2. A spell I know.
3. A spell I have prepared.

It has to be a Magus spell you know. It has to be a Magus spell you have prepared. That is word for word what he said.

You are casting Chain Lightning from your Wizard slots. It is a Wizard spell.

Just because it's on the Magus spell list doesn't mean it's a Magus spell if you're not casting it as a Magus.

Right, but the text doesn't say that, SKR does. And I can't tell whether this is because the text is wrong, or because SKR is wrong, or because of some misunderstanding about how the language is used.

I guess another way to frame my question is:

Why does spell combat say "any spell on the magus spell list" rather than "any magus spell"?

Normally, if the rules use several extra words to say a thing, they are doing it because it is distinct in some way from the shorter thing they could have said.

So, what are the distinctions which could possibly exist between "any magus spell" and "any spell on the magus spell list"?

The only distinction I can think of is that chain lightning is always a spell on the magus spell list, but only sometimes a magus spell. So either (1) they intend to let you use chain lightning with spell combat no matter what slots you used to get it or (2) the wording is longer than it needs to be for no reason.

Thought experiment for you:

A wizard scribes a scroll of chain lightning, at CL 11.

An 11th level magus with an int of at least 16 wants to use the scroll. Can he? Does he need to make a caster level check?

His caster level is 11. The spell is on his spell list. But! A magus can't cast chain lightning prior to level 16. But this is an arcane scroll of a spell that is on his spell list, and his caster level is as high as the scroll's caster level.

So can he cast it?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
seebs wrote:
"So it's possible that, in fact, the person who wrote the magus class rules intended to allow a magus to use any spell on the magus class list as a spell combat spell, regardless of whether they are using magus spell slots or other spell slots to cast it."

The people who wrote the class have made it abundantly clear that it was definitely NOT their intention.

The fact that the magus spell blending arcana even exists as a choice pretty much puts the seal on the matter.


LazarX wrote:
seebs wrote:
"So it's possible that, in fact, the person who wrote the magus class rules intended to allow a magus to use any spell on the magus class list as a spell combat spell, regardless of whether they are using magus spell slots or other spell slots to cast it."
The people who wrote the class have made it abundantly clear that it was definitely NOT their intention.

Seems like it. But then why did they spell it that way?

Quote:
The fact that the magus spell blending arcana even exists as a choice pretty much puts the seal on the matter.

Not so! Even if we use the (admittedly implausible, despite being clearly literally what they said) "spell list" meaning, blending arcana still lets you use spell combat with spells which aren't on the magus spell list at all. Not all combat-useful spells are on the magus spell list.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, because scrolls specifically work IF THE SPELL IS ON YOUR SPELL (Class) LIST, not if it is a spell for X class.

A Wizard who casts Bull's Strength is not casting a Cleric spell, regardless of the fact that Bull's Strength is on the Cleric list. He is using Wizard slots. It is a Wizard spell.

The Spell Combat text is ambiguous if the reader decides not to use any sort of common sense while reading it, yes. SKR has removed that ambiguity here.

seebs wrote:
LazarX wrote:
seebs wrote:
"So it's possible that, in fact, the person who wrote the magus class rules intended to allow a magus to use any spell on the magus class list as a spell combat spell, regardless of whether they are using magus spell slots or other spell slots to cast it."
The people who wrote the class have made it abundantly clear that it was definitely NOT their intention.
Seems like it. But then why did they spell it that way?

Probably for the same reason you said "why did they spell it that way" when you're talking about the phrasing of the sentence, not a spelling error.

They made a mistake.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Zahmahkibo wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:

It is the question in the O.P.

Quote:
My question is that literally any spell for the magus spell list? Or any spell my magus has prepared that day? If the former, why even bother making the magus a prepared caster?

That question was answered instantly. Everyone agrees that you can't use Spell Combat to cast spells that you haven't learned or prepared.

The question seebs was responding to was whether a magus can use Spell Combat with spells that are on the magus list, but cast from non-magus slots. At no point was he/she, or anyone else after the OP suggesting that a Magus 1 could Spell Combat Disintegrate.

Condescendingly directing other people to 'read with their brains engaged' isn't going to win anyone to your side in any discussion, but it's especially ineffective when you're the one who is misreading things.

First, Seebs reinforced the idea that it was "any spell on the magus's list." He didn't say "any spell you can cast" or "any spell cast from magus spell slots". He simply stated "any spell on the magus last."

Secondly, it may not "win anyone to my side" but it did get favorited by SKR. I'd rather have him on my side than Seebs.

Third, ignoring the first two, it is a fact. If people would actually read and think about what they read, rather than just saying "hey it says any spell on the list so I can cast level 6 spells" fewer threads such as this would come up.

If you had read a bit more closely, you would have seen that he had been replying to James Risner's post on casting non-magus spells with Spell Combat, not to the OP.

The main point, however, is the virtue of tact. Being right is one thing, getting people to agree with you is another, and if you don't have the authority of the designer, there's a big gap in between.

A question asked politely and in good faith deserves the same in reply. The goal is this forum is to share knowledge and improve the community, and patronizing earnest posters serves neither of those ends.

As to the actual debate, I'm curious where else the "a spell on the [class] list" phrase shows up, and if the function of any such rules or abilities would be at all changed by SKR's ruling.


The use of "spell" for "how something is phrased" is idiomatic, not literal. :)

So far as I can tell:
Spell trigger items: Spell must be on your class list. Does not matter who created it, at all.
Scrolls: Spell must be on your class list, and of the same base type (arcane/divine), but specific class doesn't matter. Who created it only matters in that it determines minimum level.

I think I've also concluded that the way it's written is a mistake, and it should probably get errata, because it's a very clear statement of a thing that I'm pretty sure they don't mean. (Not helped by the fact that responses from Paizo staff are nearly always in the context of "does that mean I don't have to actually know it or have it prepared", rather than "what if I know it and have it prepared but only from another arcane class".)


When in doubt, assume the conservative option.

The number of times a designer is trying to restrict the power level is much greater than the number of times the designer is trying to raise the power level.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
seebs wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
seebs wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
If you think every advantage is "too good to be true" then yes, you're correct. However, compare "I get an extra attack from haste when I use spell combat" to "I get to cast unlimited level 6 spells at level 1 with spell combat" and tell me which one is too good to be true.

Uh.

What the heck?

I am starting to suspect that you are arguing against a position that I don't think anyone in this thread is actually taking.

It is the question in the O.P.

Which doesn't mean that all the ensuing discussion is entirely about that question.

For instance, in one of my posts, I said specifically:

"So it's possible that, in fact, the person who wrote the magus class rules intended to allow a magus to use any spell on the magus class list as a spell combat spell, regardless of whether they are using magus spell slots or other spell slots to cast it."

Makes it pretty clear I'm talking about the interesting question, not the one that's pretty much instantly resolved by the question of "so under what circumstances can you cast a spell at all?"

Jason Bulmahn

And I think SKR know reasonably well what is in Bulmahn mind, as they are co-workers.
The Magus wasn't designed by some collaborator, it a in house Paizo creation.


I don't necessarily generally think it's safe to assume that coworkers know each others' intent.

Anyway, I think at this point I'm satisfied that:
1. RAI, it really means "your magus spell slots".
2. The rule as written is just plain wrong, and says something that is clearly not what they intend. And does so using extra words.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

23 people marked this as a favorite.

All classes are written assuming you are a single-classed caster. Therefore, when it says

"... and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list ..."

it means

"... and can also cast any spell (which I can cast as a magus because I am a single-clased magus and don't have the ability to cast spells in any other way) from the magus spell list (because I don't have access to spells in any other way because I'm a single-classed magus)..."

A reasonable person would also assume that:
* it has to be a spell I know, because I can't cast spells I don't know, and because being able to cast ANY spell just by using spell-combat (unlimited uses per day) is too good and makes having spellbooks irrelevant,
* it has to be a spell I prepared, because I can't cast spells I don't have prepared (and nothing in the ability explicitly calls out that it breaks that general rule),
* it has to be a spell I would normally have the Int to cast (ditto),
* normal spellcasting rules apply (difficulty casting when grappled, can't cast V spells in an area of silence, and so on),
* it's just one spell, not more than one, even though it says "any"),
* and so on.

Seriously, this is basic stuff. The language is a little weak in some places, but you know that there's a realistic way of interpreting it (I'm casting a magus spell I have prepared) and an unrealistic way of interpreting it (I'm casting any spell that happens to be on the magus spell list even if I don't know it, don't have it prepared, don't have the Int to cast it, and I'm in a silence spell). If there are two interpretations, and one seems too good to be true, go with the other one.

You can't really be confused by this. Because if you are confused by that, this cleric ability is going to blow your mind:

Spontaneous Casting: A good cleric (or a neutral cleric of a good deity) can channel stored spell energy into healing spells that she did not prepare ahead of time. The cleric can “lose” any prepared spell that is not an orison or domain spell in order to cast any cure spell of the same spell level or lower (a cure spell is any spell with “cure” in its name).

Note that it doesn't say "any prepared *cleric* spell," it just says "any prepared spell." So, your interpretation would allow a cleric 1/druid 6/magus 6/wizard 6 to convert prepared druid, magus, and wizard spells into cure spells. But you don't really think that. You know it doesn't work like that.

Heck, the above language doesn't even limit it to spells you have prepared! Why not use this ability to convert someone else's spell into a cure spell? If you know the enemy lich likes to use phantasmal killer, on your turn you should just spontaneously convert his spell into cure critical wounds! Enjoy 4d8+10 damage, lich!

So stop trying to take language from the magus class that is more specific (in that it explicitly says *magus*) and claim you're confused about the intent when you're not confused about less specific language in the Core Rulebook (which doesn't explicitly say *cleric*).

Again: the language is a little weak, but you're not stupid--and because you're not stupid, don't try to interpret the rules as if you were stupid.

Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
seebs wrote:
I don't necessarily generally think it's safe to assume that coworkers know each others' intent.

When it comes to our team, you can count on it. Trust me, we talk every day about the rules, we discuss the wording in the rulebook and the intent of the rules, where they collide and where they deviate. We have had a number of discussions about this thread.

You've asked your question, we have answered it. You have made your viewpoint plain on many posts in this thread. Thank you.

1 to 50 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Magus Spell Combat: what spell may I cast? All Messageboards