Pounce and Spell Combat?

[Painful Bugger]

So I'm looking through Bestiary 4 and I came across a monster that most would over look, the Tikbalang. The reason it caught my eye is because it's the first and only monstrous humanoid that I'm aware of with the pounce ability. On top of the ability to pounce said monster can trample, make two hoove attacks, and bite. That got me all excited because this means I can make a melee character that full attacks on a charge without having to resort to class dipping or turning into an animal, all I'd need now would be a wand and UMD. For me Monstrous Physique II has skyrockected into usefulness.

Now I've noticed this is also a Magus spell so this got me wondering. Can you pounce and use spell combat at the same time? I want to say no as pounce alloys full attack on a charge, which is a full-round action, while spell combat itself is also full-round action. I'd like to hear your opinions on this. If anything else this pulls Monstrous Physique out of obscurity when compared to beast shape and giant form.

[Drachasor]

Spell Combat is not a full attack. So pounce, haste, and other effects that only work with full attacks don't work with it.

Kinda lame, but that's how it is.

[FrodoOf9Fingers]

Actually... it might be allowed because of the change to the FAQ.

"Magus, Spell Combat: Does spell combat count as making a full attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects?
Yes."

So, define what other effects is, consider whether pounce falls under that grouping, and you got your answer.

[Drachasor]

FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

Actually... it might be allowed because of the change to the FAQ.

"Magus, Spell Combat: Does spell combat count as making a full attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects?
Yes."

So, define what other effects is, consider whether pounce falls under that grouping, and you got your answer.

Ahh, another FAQ that's really errata that will never make it into errata. Awesome.

[FrodoOf9Fingers]

True, I probably shouldn't have brought it up.

[Drachasor]

FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

True, I probably shouldn't have brought it up.

Naw, it's fine with me. Just annoyed that the PF devs seem to think that these "clarifications" somehow aren't errata. It's especially glaring since it was just 6 months ago or so when the ruling was the other way, IIRC.

That said, I think having Spell Combat count as a Full Attack is how it should be, and makes a good house rule. Or real rule if the DM accepts FAQ errata.