Magus - Spell Combat and TWFing, simultaneously?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 177 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Okay. How many standard actions do you get each round? 1 standard action. You may also Full-Round Attack (action) which allows you to attack multiple times and with both hands. While Full-Round Attacking with two weapon fighting, flurry of blows, and spell combat --> you get a full round of actions for both hands.

Your weapon hand can make its full set of attacks.

Spell Combat explicitly states that spells being cast in your spell hand must be a Standard Action spell. Because explicitly stated, you cannot cast full-round action or movement action spells. You still have enough time to cast a quickened spell, a swift action, an immediate action, a free action, and a 5 foot step. Additional weapon attacks cannot be made with any of these action types. Therefore, when you cast a spell through Spell Combat, you run out of time to do any weapon attacks with the spell hand.

When your turn is over, you can still make attacks of opportunity.


Sophismata wrote:

Well, I'd let it work. RAW seems pretty clear, the key phrase is "free hand" and if you were to use a monk's unarmed strike or wear the cestus on the same hand that wields your primary weapon, you would have a free hand.

I haven't seen a ruling to the contrary, in any case. Personally I think the free hand requirement is kind of stupid anyway, unless the spell being cast has somatic components.

Let me introduce you to this FAQ.

FAQ wrote:


Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.

"[Y]ou are using both of your hands... herefore your off-hand is unavailable..."

If you do anything that uses two hands, you cannot do anything else that requires two hands or a free offhand during that round. Yes, it's a free action to let go of a two handed weapon and then reqrip it, but it still counts using "both" your hands if you are wielding the two handed weapon to attack. The same reasoning works for spell combat: It explicitly states you are using your off hand to cast a spell. Therefore, even if your offhand is empty or has a Cestus or something, you still can't TWF with it (or armor spikes) because you've already used your offhand for the round.

For more background, here's the thread where that FAQ was introduced.


Remy Balster wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
When using spell combat, your "off-hand" is casting a spell and therefore not available for two-weapon fighting.
Hrm, that might be a really a good point, but if it is I don’t understand where the rules say anything like that. Would being a monk or simply having Improved Unarmed Strike instead of a cestus change that at all, as you could attack with knees, kicks, etc? (Although technically by RAW, you can do the same thing while wearing a cestus)
Spell Combat wrote:
Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast.

It's in the description of Spell Combat. Spell Combat is, essentially, TWF where the off-hand weapon is the spell. You can't TWF twice in the same round, so you can't TWF + Spell Combat in the same round. The same thing is true for Flurrying and TWF. Flurrying is, for all intents and purposes, basically just another specific kind of TWF.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Spell combat explicitly illustrates that the ability is two-weapon fighting (with penalties modified as if you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat) except you're sacrificing your extra attack to cast a spell. FAQs already clarified that using a weapon that doesn't require a hand (like armor spikes) does not grant you an extra attack if you sacrificed that action economy for something else. The only way you could get an extra "off-hand" attack during spell combat is if your character has more than two arms. Even that is highly debatable.


Ok, i am trying to understand the questions here:

It looks the original question of a cestus and scimitar for TWF and Spell Combat was answered pretty well; a cestus counts as being armed and you do not meet the requirements for Spell Combat while wearing a cestus and holding a scimitar, i.e. you do not have a free hand, you have a hand available for a limited set of restricted actions which does not include being able to cast a spell.

But then the monk thing came in and it turned into multi-classing as a Monk or ACG Brawler who can effectively TWF with a single weapon which would in theory leave you an open off hand for Spell Combat?

To which, you can not combine Flurry (either Monk or Brawler) and TWF or Spell Combat as all three actions "count as" TWF already. The rules state all three count as the same kind of independent special full round action, correct? To mix any of them together would be the same as saying "I am going to take three full round attacks this turn"?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Kazaan.

TWF and Flurry are sepearate actions. All I am saying. One or the other, not both.

The BAB for Flurry is set in the Monk stat block and ticks up from the -2/-2 that they have at first level. It evens out to their own BAB at higher levels. That is to what I refer.

Torbyne.

Yep.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Akerlof wrote:
Sophismata wrote:

Well, I'd let it work. RAW seems pretty clear, the key phrase is "free hand" and if you were to use a monk's unarmed strike or wear the cestus on the same hand that wields your primary weapon, you would have a free hand.

I haven't seen a ruling to the contrary, in any case. Personally I think the free hand requirement is kind of stupid anyway, unless the spell being cast has somatic components.

Let me introduce you to this FAQ.

FAQ wrote:


Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.

Lame FAQ is lame. The whole point of armor spikes is to be able to do something exactly like that. Conceptually it makes sense, and it has even been mathematically proven that it's not even an efficient fighting style several times on these boards.

It's like the designers are limiting options just for the sake of limiting options--especially when it comes to martial characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Akerlof wrote:
Sophismata wrote:

Well, I'd let it work. RAW seems pretty clear, the key phrase is "free hand" and if you were to use a monk's unarmed strike or wear the cestus on the same hand that wields your primary weapon, you would have a free hand.

I haven't seen a ruling to the contrary, in any case. Personally I think the free hand requirement is kind of stupid anyway, unless the spell being cast has somatic components.

Let me introduce you to this FAQ.

FAQ wrote:


Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.

Lame FAQ is lame. The whole point of armor spikes is to be able to do something exactly like that. Conceptually it makes sense, and it has even been mathematically proven that it's not even an efficient fighting style several times on these boards.

It's like the designers are limiting options just for the sake of limiting options--especially when it comes to martial characters.

The point of armor spikes is to allow a weapon that you dont have to hold in your hands. It is not to make an end run around the implied limit of 'hands' in a game that is designed to function with player characters being humanoids with 2 arms and 2 legs. That is the point of the faq. You get 2 hands. If you bypass having to actually use a 'hand' somehow, you still can only weild 2 hands worth of stuff. Its not about what is more powerful or what isnt, its about how the game is meant to function at a fundamental level.


thaX wrote:

Kazaan.

TWF and Flurry are sepearate actions. All I am saying. One or the other, not both.

The BAB for Flurry is set in the Monk stat block and ticks up from the -2/-2 that they have at first level. It evens out to their own BAB at higher levels. That is to what I refer.

Torbyne.

Yep.

Not quite. Neither TWF nor Flurry is an "action" any more than Vital Strike is an action. Just as Vital Strike is a modification that can be applied to the standard Attack action, TWF can be invoked when you perform a full-attack; Full-Attack is the action. Flurry is a special kind of TWF for Monks and also can be invoked when you perform a full-attack. And, just as other abilities that can, additionally, modify the standard Attack action can be used in conjunction with Vital Strike (ie. Overhand Chop), abilities that additionally alter the Full-Attack can be used concurrently. But, since Flurry is a form of TWF, you can't double-dip and use normal TWF in conjunction with Flurry.


Ravingdork wrote:

The whole point of armor spikes is to be able to do something exactly like that. Conceptually it makes sense, and it has even been mathematically proven that it's not even an efficient fighting style several times on these boards.

It's like the designers are limiting options just for the sake of limiting options--especially when it comes to martial characters.

Thats why they put the FAQ, to force martial characters to be more efficient at fighting.

=)


Kazaan wrote:
thaX wrote:

Kazaan.

TWF and Flurry are sepearate actions. All I am saying. One or the other, not both.

The BAB for Flurry is set in the Monk stat block and ticks up from the -2/-2 that they have at first level. It evens out to their own BAB at higher levels. That is to what I refer.

Torbyne.

Yep.

Not quite. Neither TWF nor Flurry is an "action" any more than Vital Strike is an action. Just as Vital Strike is a modification that can be applied to the standard Attack action, TWF can be invoked when you perform a full-attack; Full-Attack is the action. Flurry is a special kind of TWF for Monks and also can be invoked when you perform a full-attack. And, just as other abilities that can, additionally, modify the standard Attack action can be used in conjunction with Vital Strike (ie. Overhand Chop), abilities that additionally alter the Full-Attack can be used concurrently. But, since Flurry is a form of TWF, you can't double-dip and use normal TWF in conjunction with Flurry.

Ok, this is what i was trying to say... i think. Each of the three abilities act as TWF, so a better comparison would be "its like saying you only have one standard action so you are going to use Vital Strike three times to modify that single action into X4 damage."


Torbyne wrote:

Ok, i am trying to understand the questions here:

It looks the original question of a cestus and scimitar for TWF and Spell Combat was answered pretty well; a cestus counts as being armed and you do not meet the requirements for Spell Combat while wearing a cestus and holding a scimitar, i.e. you do not have a free hand, you have a hand available for a limited set of restricted actions which does not include being able to cast a spell.

I don't have my head wrapped around the responses, but I can sorta see the objection, I think... close enough anyway. I was just curious, anyway. My Magus experience is limited, and I figured I could find clarification here.

Torbyne wrote:

But then the monk thing came in and it turned into multi-classing as a Monk or ACG Brawler who can effectively TWF with a single weapon which would in theory leave you an open off hand for Spell Combat?

To which, you can not combine Flurry (either Monk or Brawler) and TWF or Spell Combat as all three actions "count as" TWF already. The rules state all three count as the same kind of independent special full round action, correct? To mix any of them together would be the same as saying "I am going to take three full round attacks this turn"?

But yeah, then this came up... Which is totally not right.

Every reason people have given for monks being unable to Furry+TWF is wrong.

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

Flurry is a full-attack action. It is one. Full attacks allow you to get additional attacks with your off hand weapon.

Quote:
When doing so, he may make one additional attack, taking a –2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat.

This says nothing about using your offhand. This doesn't even say you are two weapon fighting. It says you are using the two weapon fighting feat.

Quote:
These attacks can be any combination of unarmed strikes and attacks with a monk special weapon (he does not need to use two weapons to utilize this ability).

This goes out of the way to say you don't need to even use more than one weapon. A monk could flurry with one arm cut off.. and that dude would not even be able to use his 'off hand'.

What is worse: If Flurry is using two weapon fighting by default, a monk is unable to use these extra attacks with unarmed strikes.

Why?

Quote:
At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.

So, for a monk to flurry, if a flurry is two-weapon fighting already... he would have to use an off hand weapon. The entire rules for two weapon fighting break down into meaninglessness if you don't have an off hand weapon.


Its not about hands when looking at a Flurry of Blows, its about the rules of the game, the game says you are functioning as though you are using TWF when you flurry. TWF is a special way of modifiying that full attack action, Flurry and Spell Combat both state they function as TWF, meaning you can not mix any of the three together as you are already "TWF" if you Flurry or Spell Combat. Its about the building blocks of the system, you cant stack rapid shot with itself to make three extra attacks for an attack routine at level one of -2/-2/-2/-2; anything that says it functions as ability X can not be used with ability X.

Its kind of like those Yo Dawg jokes... or sword-chucks. So you can TWF when you TWF with two weapons.

Edit: thought of another way of describing it, if you have three casters in your party and they each cast haste on you would you add three extra attacks to a full attack? They are the same effect even if from different sources. Even if one was the magus burning arcane points for a haste effect and another was a weapon of speed and the third was your bard friend casting a spell you would still only be able to get one extra attack.


Torbyne wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
thaX wrote:

Kazaan.

TWF and Flurry are sepearate actions. All I am saying. One or the other, not both.

The BAB for Flurry is set in the Monk stat block and ticks up from the -2/-2 that they have at first level. It evens out to their own BAB at higher levels. That is to what I refer.

Torbyne.

Yep.

Not quite. Neither TWF nor Flurry is an "action" any more than Vital Strike is an action. Just as Vital Strike is a modification that can be applied to the standard Attack action, TWF can be invoked when you perform a full-attack; Full-Attack is the action. Flurry is a special kind of TWF for Monks and also can be invoked when you perform a full-attack. And, just as other abilities that can, additionally, modify the standard Attack action can be used in conjunction with Vital Strike (ie. Overhand Chop), abilities that additionally alter the Full-Attack can be used concurrently. But, since Flurry is a form of TWF, you can't double-dip and use normal TWF in conjunction with Flurry.
Ok, this is what i was trying to say... i think. Each of the three abilities act as TWF, so a better comparison would be "its like saying you only have one standard action so you are going to use Vital Strike three times to modify that single action into X4 damage."

Basically, yes. Mind you, whereas both standard TWF as well as Flurry modify the Attack action, Spell Combat is its own unique full-round action, in which the attacks you make with your weapon "count as" a full-attack. But the action, as a whole, also "counts as" TWF with special considerations. So, to go with your example, it would be like taking Vital Strike as a feat and then getting a class feature that lets you Vital Strike with special changes and trying to combine the two. Even if the verbiage phrased the class-feature Vital Strike as "counts as" an Attack action, you could use the feat-based Vital Strike, despite it being, effectively, an Attack action (with which Vital Strike would otherwise work) because you're already using Vital Strike from another source. Another example would be if you got a class feature that "works as" Power Attack except the bonus damage is energy-based (say, Fire for example) and trying to combine that with the actual Power Attack feat. No go.


Torbyne wrote:

Its not about hands when looking at a Flurry of Blows, its about the rules of the game, the game says you are functioning as though you are using TWF when you flurry. TWF is a special way of modifiying that full attack action, Flurry and Spell Combat both state they function as TWF, meaning you can not mix any of the three together as you are already "TWF" if you Flurry or Spell Combat. Its about the building blocks of the system, you cant stack rapid shot with itself to make three extra attacks for an attack routine at level one of -2/-2/-2/-2; anything that says it functions as ability X can not be used with ability X.

Its kind of like those Yo Dawg jokes... or sword-chucks. So you can TWF when you TWF with two weapons.

Flurry doesn't say you are TWFing. It doesn't say it functions as TWF, it doesn't say it is TWF, it doesn't say to treat it as TWF.

It just doesn't say what you think it says.

Flurry functions as if you were using a feat, or feat(s). It doesn't say, at any point whatsoever, that it functions as two weapon fighting (the action).


I think everyone is reading "as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat." from the description of Flurry of Blows as meaning it counts as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. Which would mean you could not use both as you would be using Two-Weapon Fighting to add extra attacks on top of what Two-Weapon Fighting already gives you. Hence the Yo Dawg.


Torbyne wrote:
I think everyone is reading "as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat." from the description of Flurry of Blows as meaning it counts as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. Which would mean you could not use both as you would be using Two-Weapon Fighting to add extra attacks on top of what Two-Weapon Fighting already gives you. Hence the Yo Dawg.

The Two Weapon Fighting feat doesn't give you extra attacks...


Oh, i think i am seeing where you are coming from now. But no, i dont see this working in anything other than a very permissive home game.

There is also the nebulous concept of handiness that is brought up in these discussions... How are you addressing your hand being occupied by the spell in Spell Combat and thus prohibiting you from making attacks with that hand? The developers have already stated all possible off hand actions are being used when wielding a two handed weapon, that same ruling would seem to cover any attempt to mix "two hands worth of actions" with other limbs.


Quote:
Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6.

That is what Two Weapon Fighting feat does.

Anyway, the monk doesn't even have off hand attacks with his unarmed attacks, so how does this feat even matter to them when they flurry? All Two Weapon Fighting feat does is reduce attack penalties, and only when fighting with two weapons.

A monk doesn't need to attack with two weapons in a flurry. It can just be the one. So, pray tell, what exactly is Two Weapon Fighting doing for a monk who uses his flurry to punch a dude a couple times with his right fist?

Nada. His unarmed attacks are never offhand attacks. He is only fighting with one weapon.


Remy Balster wrote:
Quote:
Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6.

That is what Two Weapon Fighting feat does.

Anyway, the monk doesn't even have off hand attacks with his unarmed attacks, so how does this feat even matter to them when they flurry? All Two Weapon Fighting feat does is reduce attack penalties, and only when fighting with two weapons.

A monk doesn't need to attack with two weapons in a flurry. It can just be the one. So, pray tell, what exactly is Two Weapon Fighting doing for a monk who uses his flurry to punch a dude a couple times with his right fist?

Nada. His unarmed attacks are never offhand attacks. He is only fighting with one weapon.

But a Monk's Flurry is a special augment to the normal rules on how TWF (the action) works. It doesnt mean they can still use their own modified version of the action and stack that with the normal version of the action.


Torbyne wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
Quote:
Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6.

That is what Two Weapon Fighting feat does.

Anyway, the monk doesn't even have off hand attacks with his unarmed attacks, so how does this feat even matter to them when they flurry? All Two Weapon Fighting feat does is reduce attack penalties, and only when fighting with two weapons.

A monk doesn't need to attack with two weapons in a flurry. It can just be the one. So, pray tell, what exactly is Two Weapon Fighting doing for a monk who uses his flurry to punch a dude a couple times with his right fist?

Nada. His unarmed attacks are never offhand attacks. He is only fighting with one weapon.

But a Monk's Flurry is a special augment to the normal rules on how TWF (the action) works. It doesnt mean they can still use their own modified version of the action and stack that with the normal version of the action.

If that is true, there is some serious flaws in how all of these rules elements are being strung together.

Flurry says they get an extra attack, with -2, as if using Two Weapon Fighting Feat. That could imply that the monk was effectively two-weapon fighting... but only if he was using two weapons.

So, my guess is that that rule used to be in place, which is what caused most peoples opinions about this to cement into place. Then they later changed it so that a monk could use all of the attacks with a single weapon... which completely invalidated the entire two weapon fighting underpinnings of how flurry functions.

That probably didn't get a whole lot of analysis from people, because well, monk.

I think though, by RAW, flurry doesn't do what people think it does anymore. Because it doesn't require two weapons, and it doesn't require an offhand.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The Monk is, from the word go, a class that is underwelming as a whole compared to the other classes. The improvements to Flurry, using Ki, and other touches for PF didn't do enough to set it above the mire of what is the 3.5 Monk.

Flurry is a full round of posing and breaking boards, or, you know, hitting stuff. It really can not be combined with full round actions at all, such as TWF. It is what it is.

So, Spell Combat, Flurry and TWF. Pick one, can't do the other two while doing the one. This is a basic rundown of what has been said on this thread.

Kazaan, I am not sure of the distinction that your making, I believe it is getting more into the complications of rules reading, but it is a round about way to get to the main jist of the issue.

Liberty's Edge

Remy Balster wrote:
Torbyne wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
Quote:
Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6.

That is what Two Weapon Fighting feat does.

Anyway, the monk doesn't even have off hand attacks with his unarmed attacks, so how does this feat even matter to them when they flurry? All Two Weapon Fighting feat does is reduce attack penalties, and only when fighting with two weapons.

A monk doesn't need to attack with two weapons in a flurry. It can just be the one. So, pray tell, what exactly is Two Weapon Fighting doing for a monk who uses his flurry to punch a dude a couple times with his right fist?

Nada. His unarmed attacks are never offhand attacks. He is only fighting with one weapon.

But a Monk's Flurry is a special augment to the normal rules on how TWF (the action) works. It doesnt mean they can still use their own modified version of the action and stack that with the normal version of the action.

If that is true, there is some serious flaws in how all of these rules elements are being strung together.

Flurry says they get an extra attack, with -2, as if using Two Weapon Fighting Feat. That could imply that the monk was effectively two-weapon fighting... but only if he was using two weapons.

So, my guess is that that rule used to be in place, which is what caused most peoples opinions about this to cement into place. Then they later changed it so that a monk could use all of the attacks with a single weapon... which completely invalidated the entire two weapon fighting underpinnings of how flurry functions.

That probably didn't get a whole lot of analysis from people, because well, monk.

I think though, by RAW, flurry doesn't do what people think it does anymore. Because it doesn't require two weapons, and it doesn't require an offhand.

Here's the thing, it doesn't matter what you think, the words "as if using two weapon fighting" are still in there. Ergo, he cannot use two weapon fighting with a flurry. It doesn't matter that the monk is only using one hand, it doesn't matter that the monk has a second weapon waiting to strike, he is still fighting "as if using two weapon fighting."

The end. The FAQ didn't change that.


Remy Balster wrote:

If that is true, there is some serious flaws in how all of these rules elements are being strung together.

Flurry says they get an extra attack, with -2, as if using Two Weapon Fighting Feat. That could imply that the monk was effectively two-weapon fighting... but only if he was using two weapons.

So, my guess is that that rule used to be in place, which is what caused most peoples opinions about this to cement into place. Then they later changed it so that a monk could use all of the attacks with a single weapon... which completely invalidated the entire two weapon fighting underpinnings of how flurry functions.

That probably didn't get a whole lot of analysis from people, because well, monk.

I think though, by RAW, flurry doesn't do what people think it does anymore. Because it doesn't require two weapons, and it doesn't require an offhand.

No, it works just fine. Flurry functions just like TWF except for two specific differences: It uses the Monk's levels in Monk in place of the Monk Levels' BAB when calculating the attack bonus; It allows all attacks to be made with the same weapon, rather than forcing different weapons to be used. A third minor difference is full STR on all attacks (but this really fits in nicely with the ability to make all attacks with the same weapon). In all other relevant regards, it is TWF.

-2 penalty to all attack rolls (for using "multiple" light weapons)
One extra attack at highest "BAB" (using Monk Level in place)
Required use of full attack action to accomplish

Flurry of Blows is, essentially, a class ability that grants three extra feats to the Monk, then a couple of additional benefits on top of that. You get TWF, ITWF, and GTWF and you get to use your Monk Level in place of your ordinary BAB when flurrying. Plus, you only need to use one weapon and can add full STR to all your attacks because there's no "off-hand" classification. It's TWF, just a better version of it.

How do you propose Monks Flurry and TWF at the same time? -2 stacking penalties then track which weapons are used where because sometimes they get full STR and sometimes only half, but then you can use the same weapon for all Flurry attacks. Can you use your Flurry attacks as off-hand attacks for TWF or do they have to be primary? If so, does 1/2 STR or full STR apply? Is any of this actually covered in the rules?

Or can we all agree that it's pretty clearly the intent and function of the language as written that Flurry is simply a specific form of TWF and you can't use the two of them at the same time?


ShadowcatX wrote:

Here's the thing, it doesn't matter what you think, the words "as if using two weapon fighting" are still in there. Ergo, he cannot use two weapon fighting with a flurry. It doesn't matter that the monk is only using one hand, it doesn't matter that the monk has a second weapon waiting to strike, he is still fighting "as if using two weapon fighting."

The end. The FAQ didn't change that.

Except flurry does... not... say... that...

It says...

Quote:
as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat.

If he flurries with a single fist...then he is fighting with one weapon, not two. And his unarmed attacks are never offhand attacks.

That means his flurry, when performed this way, does not interact with the Two Weapon Fighting feat, at all, in any way.

Quote:
Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6.

He doesn't have primary hand penalties to reduce, nor offhand penalties to reduce. He isn't even fighting with two weapons!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Akerlof wrote:
FAQ wrote:


Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.

Lame FAQ is lame. The whole point of armor spikes is to be able to do something exactly like that. Conceptually it makes sense, and it has even been mathematically proven that it's not even an efficient fighting style several times on these boards.

It's like the designers are limiting options just for the sake of limiting options--especially when it comes to martial characters.

Agreed, and the rules should be updated if an arbitrary decision like the above has to be made. FAQ's are for clarifying existing rules, not making up new ones. (Nothing in the TWF rules has anything to do with "hands". It's a blind ruling.)

Anyway, I'd still allow the cestus thing. I wouldn't play it, though, as I'm personally not a fan of characters that rely on specific equipment pieces.


thaX wrote:

Flurry is a full round of posing and breaking boards, or, you know, hitting stuff. It really can not be combined with full round actions at all, such as TWF. It is what it is.

So, Spell Combat, Flurry and TWF. Pick one, can't do the other two while doing the one. This is a basic rundown of what has been said on this thread.

There really is no 'two weapon fighting action', the rules simply allow you to take an extra attack if you have an offhand weapon available... when you make a full attack.

A full attack is a kind of action. A flurry just so happens to be a full attack.

Two weapon fighting: Get extra attack when you full attack.
Flurry: Is a full attack.


Remy Balster wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:

Here's the thing, it doesn't matter what you think, the words "as if using two weapon fighting" are still in there. Ergo, he cannot use two weapon fighting with a flurry. It doesn't matter that the monk is only using one hand, it doesn't matter that the monk has a second weapon waiting to strike, he is still fighting "as if using two weapon fighting."

The end. The FAQ didn't change that.

Except flurry does... not... say... that...

It says...

Quote:
as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat.

If he flurries with a single fist...then he is fighting with one weapon, not two. And his unarmed attacks are never offhand attacks.

That means his flurry, when performed this way, does not interact with the Two Weapon Fighting feat, at all, in any way.

Quote:
Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6.
He doesn't have primary hand penalties to reduce, nor offhand penalties to reduce. He isn't even fighting with two weapons!

Except the same ability grants additional attacks like ITWF and GTWF, which both explicitly grant extra attacks and don't just reduce penalties. So again, it's pretty clear that the intent and the language used are that Flurry is just a specific kind of TWF.

Do you propose that Flurry works with TWF but then doesn't work with ITWF and GTWF? That would seem a little odd, wouldn't it?


fretgod99 wrote:

Except the same ability grants additional attacks like ITWF and GTWF, which both explicitly grant extra attacks and don't just reduce penalties. So again, it's pretty clear that the intent and the language used are that Flurry is just a specific kind of TWF.

Do you propose that Flurry works with TWF but then doesn't work with ITWF and GTWF? That would seem a little odd, wouldn't it?

Flurry is odd.

... as if using the two weapon fighting feat.

This implies that the extra attack and the associated penalty are resulting from two weapon fighting... except for the fact that it isn't.

If you attack with unarmed strike for your flurry, and you get an extra attack which you use with same unarmed strike. You have used one weapon and you are not using an offhand. You are very clearly not TWFing.

You have derived zero benefit from the two weapon fighting feat. So the flurry wasn't a result of "as if using two weapon fighting" because two weapon fighting feat could not, does not, and will not affect fighting with a single weapon twice, and not fighting with a offhand at all. That isn't what that feat does.

Flurry doesn't specifically state that you are two weapon fighting. You are deriving no benefit whatsoever from the two weapon fighting feat.

And... yet you are somehow two weapon fighting, regardless? No, not according to the RAW regarding Flurry, Two-Weapon Fighting, Full Attacks, or even the Two Weapon Fighting feat.

You can not reach the conclusion that a flurry already is TWFing unless you are using some information that is not printed in the book.


Remy Balster wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

Except the same ability grants additional attacks like ITWF and GTWF, which both explicitly grant extra attacks and don't just reduce penalties. So again, it's pretty clear that the intent and the language used are that Flurry is just a specific kind of TWF.

Do you propose that Flurry works with TWF but then doesn't work with ITWF and GTWF? That would seem a little odd, wouldn't it?

Flurry is odd.

... as if using the two weapon fighting feat.

This implies that the extra attack and the associated penalty are resulting from two weapon fighting... except for the fact that it isn't.

If you attack with unarmed strike for your flurry, and you get an extra attack which you use with same unarmed strike. You have used one weapon and you are not using an offhand.

You have derived zero benefit from the two weapon fighting feat. So the flurry wasn't a result of "as if using two weapon fighting" because two weapon fighting feat could not, does not, and will not affect fighting with a single weapon twice, and not fighting with a offhand at all. That isn't what that feat does.

Flurry doesn't specifically state that you are two weapon fighting. You are deriving no benefit whatsoever from the two weapon fighting feat.

And... yet you are somehow two weapon fighting, regardless? No, not according to the RAW regarding Flurry, Two-Weapon Fighting, Full Attacks, or even the Two Weapon Fighting feat.

You can not reach the conclusion that a flurry already is TWFing unless you are using some information that is not printed in the book.

Aside from the fact that it functions almost identically to TWF is just about every relevant fashion, you're right I'm making it all up. You are deriving benefit from the TWF, you are getting the benefit of the reduced penalties as if you had the TWF feat (even though Flurry specifically allows you to make both attacks with a single weapon).

What about the impact of ITWF and GTWF?

Flurry of Blows wrote:

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

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

If Flurry isn't TWF, would you allow it to be used in conjunction with ITWF and GTWF as well? Flurry already states the monk gets to make additional attacks as if using ITWF and GTWF. Would you allow this hypothetical TWF/Flurrying monk to TWF and Flurry and then get the additional attacks from ITWF and GTWF on top of the additional attacks from Flurry acting as if using ITWF and GTWF? I certainly hope you say no, because that would be preposterous. If that would be preposterous for ITWF and GTWF, don't you think it stands to reason that Flurry is supposed to be treated like TWF (the action) in the first place?

Sure the language references the penalties, as if fighting with the TWF feat. However, if you're getting the penalties as if using the TWF feat, you are necessarily making use of the basic function of TWF (the action) in the first place.

The language of Flurry and the treatment of the ability by Developers since makes clear the intent that it is simply a specific version of TWF and you cannot use the two in conjunction with one another.

Liberty's Edge

Remy Balster wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:

Here's the thing, it doesn't matter what you think, the words "as if using two weapon fighting" are still in there. Ergo, he cannot use two weapon fighting with a flurry. It doesn't matter that the monk is only using one hand, it doesn't matter that the monk has a second weapon waiting to strike, he is still fighting "as if using two weapon fighting."

The end. The FAQ didn't change that.

Except flurry does... not... say... that...

It says...

Quote:
as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat.

And the feat does absolutely nothing if you're not actually using two weapon fighting, right? So as if using the feat = as if two weapon fighting.

Quote:
If he flurries with a single fist...then he is fighting with one weapon, not two. And his unarmed attacks are never offhand attacks.

Right, this is a specific rule trumping a general rule.

Quote:
That means his flurry, when performed this way, does not interact with the Two Weapon Fighting feat, at all, in any way.

Nope. It is because it says it is. Doesn't matter if a monk does nothing but head buts, doesn't matter if he does nothing but bite attacks, it is still as if using the two weapon fighting feat, which is as if two weapon fighting because it says it is. All the logic in the world doesn't change RAW.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, if there's any doubt as to how Flurry is intended to function, Sean has made it clear what the intent of the ability was.

The wording for flurry of blows in the Core Rulebook was written by Jason (and as that TWF reference isn't in the Beta, it was probably added very late in the design process for the Core Rulebook). At the time, Jason felt his intent was clear. The blog preview for PFRPG monks shows flurry-as-TWF was his intent.

...

Like much of the rules text in the Core Rulebook, the flurry text could really benefit from being rewritten and reworded. The design team hasn't decided what to do about that yet, but that doesn't change that Jason intended it to work like TWF. This isn't "Sean's ruling," this is "how Jason the designer wanted it to work."

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Remy Balster wrote:


Flurry doesn't say you are TWFing. It doesn't say it functions as TWF, it doesn't say it is TWF, it doesn't say to treat it as TWF.

It just doesn't say what you think it says.

Flurry functions as if you were using a feat, or feat(s). It doesn't say, at any point whatsoever, that it functions as two weapon fighting (the action).

Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so, he may make on additional attack, taking a -2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. These attacks can be any combination of unarmed strikes and attacks with a monk special weapon (he does not need to use two weapons to use this ability). For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus from his monk class levels is equal to his monk level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus.

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

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

He's already treated as though he were using those feats, he cannot benefit from them again. The FAQ allowing those attacks to be taken with a single monk weapon is an exception to the general rule that you have to use a main hand and off-hand weapon to TWF. You are already gaining the benefits of the TWF feats in a flurry, you cannot gain those benefits a second time. Similarly, the Magus treats his spell in Spell Combat as his off-hand weapon and cannot make further off-hand attacks, so he cannot use TWF in addition to Spell Combat.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Lame FAQ is lame. The whole point of armor spikes is to be able to do something exactly like that. Conceptually it makes sense, and it has even been mathematically proven that it's not even an efficient fighting style several times on these boards..

Incorrect, both game wise and literature wise armor spikes have had exactly 2 purposes.

1. To give you something to strike with when grappled or disarm. More of an issue in the D20 days then it is under Pathfinder with it's loosened restrictions on what you can wield in a grapple.

2. To be definitive fashion accessories for the Evil Fighter, Evil High Priest, or Anti-Paladin Armor of the Month competition.


Anyone can get an off-hand attack; TWF merely reduces the penalties. Flurry, functioning "as if you had the TWF feat" is reducing those penalties by a set amount (-2/-2 across the board regardless of what weapon you wield). It also has the explicit caveat that you can do it with a single weapon as a specific exception to the general rule that off-hand attacks must be made with a separate weapon. You can TWF with Flurry because Flurry IS TWF, ITWF, and GTWF rolled into a scaling class feature with some added benefits. In fact, you cannot Flurry without two-weapon fighting; again, because Flurry IS TWF! What you cannot do is take an extra full round's worth of off-hand attacks in addition to the off-hand attacks and benefits you take as part of Flurry. It's not rocket surgery.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

To be clear, you are saying that using Flurry is in place of TWF, correct?

The same conundrum is presented when using Whirlwind, as it is specific to only have one attack on each enemy in reach. It is a full attack, just like Flurry, but doesn't allow for an extra attack like one given by Haste or simular. (Flurry, however, will)

I don't see the overall issue, to be frank. The character is/will use one of the options available, they don't "stack."

Scarab Sages

Spell Combat wrote:
As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2

Melee Weapon is singular, implying that the ability only works when using a single weapon. Also, you can only two weapon fight with a full attack. Two weapon fighting isn't an "effect". It's an option. As this is a special action that exists outside of full attacking, there are no rules to say that you CAN use two weapon fighting with the ability.

All those go for Flurry of Blows as well.


Kazaan wrote:
Anyone can get an off-hand attack; TWF merely reduces the penalties. Flurry, functioning "as if you had the TWF feat" is reducing those penalties by a set amount (-2/-2 across the board regardless of what weapon you wield). It also has the explicit caveat that you can do it with a single weapon as a specific exception to the general rule that off-hand attacks must be made with a separate weapon. You can TWF with Flurry because Flurry IS TWF, ITWF, and GTWF rolled into a scaling class feature with some added benefits. In fact, you cannot Flurry without two-weapon fighting; again, because Flurry IS TWF!

If all of this is true... then a monk cannot flurry with unarmed attacks.

Because unarmed attacks are never offhand attacks for them.

Without an offhand weapon to use, two weapon fighting isn't even an option. All of the rules for two weapon fighting are meaningless if you do not have an offhand attack to use for it.

Quote:
What you cannot do is take an extra full round's worth of off-hand attacks in addition to the off-hand attacks and benefits you take as part of Flurry. It's not rocket surgery.

This is exactly where your interpretation of flurry=twf breaks down. A monk isn't using an offhand weapon, or offhand attacks. There isn't even necessarily a second weapon.

If there is no off hand, there are no penalties and no extra attacks, if there are no penalties or extra attacks the TWF feats do nothing because TWF feat modifies the penalties, and the Imp/Greater TWF feats add more extra attacks. They do nothing if you have no penalties from using an offhand weapon, which the monk doesn't have, or if you don't have any extra attacks with said offhand, which a monk doesn't have.

Since a monk who is using unarmed attacks does not have an offhand weapon/attack he can not, in any way, make use of TWF rules elements. Even if flurry says he can, the TWF feats are meaningless.

It'd be like if a power says you can get a +2 to your ranged attack roll when you attack with a longsword in melee.

It does nothing.


So wait, if it's "As if using the two weapon fighting feat" does Improved/greater TWF still stack with flurry of blows via cheese?

And if you're (I can't remember if it's sohei or weapon master) can it also stack with Rapid shot/many shot?

What about combat reflexes/snapshot?


I've been staying out of this, but I have to comment, the "offhand" language in the Monk description has been causing problems since it was printed.

It's not reasonable to consider it to mean "cannot make offhand attacks", only to mean "offhand attacks suffer no damage penalty" (which is true during FoB, no matter how many weapons you involve).

However, if this is a strictly RAW discussion, RAI such as this has little place. Not really concerned which is the case, please carry on.


Remy Balster wrote:

If all of this is true... then a monk cannot flurry with unarmed attacks.

Because unarmed attacks are never offhand attacks for them.

Have you read the Monk class?

PRD wrote:
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.

As a result of there being no such thing as an off-hand attack for a Monk striking unarmed, he may apply his full Str bonus on all his Unarmed Strikes. Well, you already apply full Str bonus for main-hand Unarmed Strikes so the only possible interpretation of this passage that makes any kind of logical sense is that off-hand Unarmed Strikes are merely processed as if they were main-hand. A Monk can TWF, even without using Flurry, and both the main-hand and the off-hand attack are treated as main-hand; thus both get full Str bonus, both get full Power Attack bonus, etc. That's what it means. It does not mean that a Monk isn't allowed to TWF with Unarmed Strikes; I don't even know how anyone could come to that conclusion, save for it being some kind of joke.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Remy Balster wrote:
Since a monk who is using unarmed attacks does not have an offhand weapon/attack he can not, in any way, make use of TWF rules elements. Even if flurry says he can, the TWF feats...

You're right. Monks dont have an "off-hand". That being said, they couldn't benefit from TWF, since TWF reduces the attack penalty for attacking with a weapon in your off-hand.

Instead, they get Flurry of Blows, which functions as if using the TWF feat. ie. You gain an extra attack at a -2 penalty, while using you HD as your BAB.

The catch is, since Monks dont have an off-hand, that extra attack can be made with anything they have, an empty unarmed strike, or a weapon specially labled as being able to be used with the FoB. For example, in one hand, you have a Nunchaku, and the other is empty. You get your Nunchaku Attack, and since it's an extra attack, not an off-hand attack(monks arent considered to have off-hands) they can use the Nunchaku again.. or their unarmed strike (which honestlly could be described as their foot, their knee, their fist, or a headbutt.. anything). If they have quickdraw, they could even draw a Kama and use it during their attack action.

This is an example of 'specific rule trumps general'.

Long story short, a Magus can not use TWF and Spell Combat at the same time, because like a Monks FoB, it's already using it's own specific version of TWF (Casting a spell with the off-hand) that trumps the general rule.

You unwillingness to accept the answers validated by the FAQ, does not in any way make them less accurate.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Remy Balster wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Anyone can get an off-hand attack; TWF merely reduces the penalties. Flurry, functioning "as if you had the TWF feat" is reducing those penalties by a set amount (-2/-2 across the board regardless of what weapon you wield). It also has the explicit caveat that you can do it with a single weapon as a specific exception to the general rule that off-hand attacks must be made with a separate weapon. You can TWF with Flurry because Flurry IS TWF, ITWF, and GTWF rolled into a scaling class feature with some added benefits. In fact, you cannot Flurry without two-weapon fighting; again, because Flurry IS TWF!

If all of this is true... then a monk cannot flurry with unarmed attacks.

Because unarmed attacks are never offhand attacks for them.

Without an offhand weapon to use, two weapon fighting isn't even an option. All of the rules for two weapon fighting are meaningless if you do not have an offhand attack to use for it.

What you don't seem to be getting is that the monk's special rules over ride the normal rules of TWF, where they contradict, but not anywhere that they don't. For example:

Monk special rule: Monks can flurry with 1 weapon.
Normal: TWF needs 2 weapons.

Monk special rule: Monks do not have an off hand.
Normal: TWF has an off hand.

This is a case of a more specific rule over riding a general rule. You may think "this means the TWF feats do nothing for the monk at this point" and you'd pretty much be right, but they're still there and the fighting is still happening as if they were being used. Ergo, you cannot use them again.

Quote:
Quote:
What you cannot do is take an extra full round's worth of off-hand attacks in addition to the off-hand attacks and benefits you take as part of Flurry. It's not rocket surgery.

This is exactly where your interpretation of flurry=twf breaks down. A monk isn't using an offhand weapon, or offhand attacks. There isn't even necessarily a second weapon.

If there is no off hand, there are no penalties and no extra attacks, if there are no penalties or extra attacks the TWF feats do nothing because TWF feat modifies the penalties, and the Imp/Greater TWF feats add more extra attacks. They do nothing if you have no penalties from using an offhand weapon, which the monk doesn't have, or if you don't have any extra attacks with said offhand, which a monk doesn't have.

Since a monk who is using unarmed attacks does not have an offhand weapon/attack he can not, in any way, make use of TWF rules elements. Even if flurry says he can, the TWF feats are meaningless.

It'd be like if a power says you can get a +2 to your ranged attack roll when you attack with a longsword in melee.

It does nothing.

And here is where your reading skills break down, none of that matters. The rules say that the monk's flurry is as if using TWF. End of discussion. Doesn't matter if every rule to do with that is overridden with specific rules, that text is still there and that alone is enough to prevent the monk from using actual TWF, he's already using up the number of attacks allowed by his off hand (even if his off hand is doing "nothing").

If you don't like it appeal to your DM, but understand no amount of arguing is going to change the RAW.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Lets separate something.

A monk. He can to one of two things.

- Flurry

OR

- Two Weapon Fighting

This is assuming the Monk wastes feats to actually get TWF.

This is the important thing. He can not do both at the same time.

So this Off Hand thing, it is as Archaeik explained, all the attacks are considered Main Hand attacks, no matter what is used, in Flurry.


thaX wrote:

Lets separate something.

A monk. He can to one of two things.

- Flurry

OR

- Two Weapon Fighting

This is assuming the Monk wastes feats to actually get TWF.

This is the important thing. He can not do both at the same time.

So this Off Hand thing, it is as Archaeik explained, all the attacks are considered Main Hand attacks, no matter what is used, in Flurry.

That is adequate enough for the layman I guess. But the real case is that the Monk can do one of the following:

TWF as a Full-Attack action, as anyone can do by default
TWF as a Full-Attack action, using the class feature Flurry of Blows

As a Monk, Unarmed Strikes in either case, both main-hand and off-hand, are calculated as if they were main-hand. For the Monk using standard TWF, if using non-unarmed strikes, they need separate weapons for main and off-hand (ie. two Tonfa) and the off-hand Tonfa would only get half Str bonus and half Power Attack. In the case of Flurry, you'd only need one weapon (though more can be used at your discretion) and all weapons (unarmed strike or otherwise) get 1x Str bonus and Power Attack (regardless of 2-h or otherwise).

An analogous situation would be choosing from the following:

Cast Fireball as a standard action spell
Cast Fireball as a standard action SLA
Use Fireball as a standard standard action Supernatural Ability

It's all Fireball just as both TWF and Flurry and Spell Combat are "kinds" of TWF, but there are different rules governing each one. But, in the end, the Fireball being made is fundamentally the same across all three options.

The critical thing to keep in mind is that everyone gets a potential off-hand attack (an attack in excess of your BAB allowance) by standard rules. You aren't, necessarily, compelled to use that off-hand attack, but it is available to you. If you do choose to use it, you follow TWF rules (apply appropriate TWF penalty and half Str to damage for off-hand attack). Thus, we have the following default options with no feats yet required (presuming light off-hand for simplicity):

Full-Attack: BAB (-4), BAB-5 (-4), BAB (-8)
Full-Attack: BAB, BAB-5

Taking the TWF feat merely allows you to reduce the penalties from -4/-8 to -2/-2. So, when Spell Combat lets you replace your off-hand attack with a spell, it isn't replacing an off-hand attack granted by the TWF feat because the TWF feat doesn't grant an off-hand attack; Spell Combat is replacing the off-hand attack that everyone has by default. It also acts as the TWF feat in that it reduces the TWF penalties involved. So the Magus can do the following with a combination of one-handed weapon and unarmed strike (or some other light weapon that leaves the hand free), again, without any supplementary feats:

full-round Full-Attack action: BAB, BAB-5
full-round Full-Attack action: BAB (-4), BAB-5 (-4), BAB (-8)
full-round Spell Combat action: BAB (-2), BAB-5 (-2), Cast Spell

Liberty's Edge

Kazaan wrote:
In the case of Flurry, you'd only need one weapon (though more can be used at your discretion) and all weapons (unarmed strike or otherwise) get 1x Str bonus and Power Attack (regardless of 2-h or otherwise).

Unless this has been changed lately, your comment about power attack is incorrect. A monk 2 handing a weapon still gets full 2 handed power attack, though only 1x str bonus.


My bad. You're right, it does get 2-h Power Attack.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So your saying Flurry and TWF are the same thing?

I don't agree. They are alike, but not the same.

Liberty's Edge

They're not exactly the same thing, but flurry functions as though it were TWF with the exceptions that it lists, which for all intents and purposes makes them close enough to the same thing that they're spitting distance.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

That I can agree. A very close paralell. There is also simular aspecks to TWF and Spell Combat. Clearly, though, a character can not TWF and Flurry at the same time, nor TWF and Spell Combat at the same time.

Each is a variation of the same type of manuver.

51 to 100 of 177 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Magus - Spell Combat and TWFing, simultaneously? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.