Magus - Spell Combat and TWFing, simultaneously?


Rules Questions

151 to 177 of 177 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

Requiring a full attack action and making a full attack are not the same thing.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

You guys are trying to play chess with a pigeon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Remy Balster wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The 'off-hand' is not the determinant of getting an extra attack.

For TWF, it certainly is.

Quote:
* Flurry gets you an extra attack. Other things also apply. Note that 'there is no such thing as an off-hand attack' in a flurry does not mean there is no extra attack (because off-hand attack isn't a pre-requisite for an extra attack), it means that your extra attack(s) in the flurry don't have the penalties associated with off-hand attacks (which exist only in TWF)

Well, here is the thing...

The 'No such thing as an off hand' bit isn't actually in Flurry, it is in "Unarmed Strike". It is a fundamental quality of a Monk's Unarmed Strike, that they cannot be off hand attacks.

This is, ultimately, where you're making your mistake. You're taking the language in the UAS entry to mean that a Monk's UAS cannot serve the function of an "off-hand" attack. This is wrong. While the entry says there is no such thing as off-hand attacks for a Monk's UAS, it clarifies what it means by that: it does not suffer from the 1/2 STR damage bonus "penalty" that off-hand attacks ordinarily do. It does not mean that a Monk's UAS cannot otherwise fill the role of an off-hand attack.

You're giving that statement far too much weight and applying it where it should not be applied. Monks' UAS can be off-hand attacks, they just do not suffer from the same reduced effectiveness that non-Monk's UAS do when used as a second weapon.


Rikkan wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Rikkan wrote:
Neonpeekaboo wrote:
Rikkan wrote:

No. PFS must follow RAW, thus it would allow flurry + TWF to be used together. Since the rules don't explicitly forbid it.

They imply that they shouldn't be combined, and the linked post from SKR makes it clear that the text should be revised.

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

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."

You can't FoB, gaining an extra attack at -2 as if using TWF, and then get another attack using TWF in the same round. Because you're already using TWF.

So, RAW, PFS wouldn't allow it.

But you're not using TWF already, you're using flurry, which functions as the two-weapon fighting feat.

There is no reason why you can't use an ability which functions as-if 'X' in combination with 'X'.

Except then you'd be doubly benefiting from "as if doing X".

It's similar to stacking issues from multiple "size" increases from spells or other sources (Lead Blades, INA, Strong Jaw, Enlarge Person, etc.). If you're already treated "as if" two sizes larger, you (usually) don't get to stack that with when you actually become two sizes larger via other magical means.

I'm pretty sure you're mistaken there. Being under the effects of lead blades (as if you are one size larger) and enlarge person (being one size larger) stacks just fine.

Not all of them do, which is the point. That's why I included the parenthetical usually.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Remy Balster wrote:

Could a Magus use both spell combat and TWFing together at the same time? I believe the answer is 'yes' if he meets each requirement. But I could very well be missing some crucial bit of information, and was curious what other people thought.

For example, if the Magus was wielding a scimitar and was wearing a cestus. He is "Wielding a one handed weapon with a free hand" requirement for Spell Combat, but for two weapon fighting he has a melee one handed primary weapon, using iteratives, and an unarmed strike (offhand, light weapon) for the extra attack.

Assuming he had Two Weapon Fighting feat and CL 3+.

He could cast a spell, say, Chill Touch. And Spellstrike through his scimitar as a free action. Then make his regular iterative, and attack with the scimitar + chill touch again, then using twf make an armed unarmed attack with the cestus + chill touch. Each of these attacks would suffer a -4 to hit.

Is this correct?

What exactly is your interest in this line of questioning?

by that i mean is this for your own building of a PC?, is it something a player has asked clarification on? is it for an NPC

furthermore i'm wondering your role at the table, are you mostly a player? a GM? evenly split? do you use GMPCs if you are a GM?

these are all relevant questions, answer any you like, or none:)


Remy Balster wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

I will just bump this and wait for Remy to reply..

PS: That section between the arrows is the relevant part.

I replied. Read upthread several posts...

bah... for your convenience:

Quote:

It isn't a valid objection.

A flurry is a full attack action.

TWFing is something that can happen when you take a full attack action.

That is as compatible as it gets.

Flurry of Blows works just as if you had the TWF feats. It is just like having virtual feats.

If you could somehow take TWF twice you would not get 2 off hand attacks because both feats would be doing the same thing.

That is why they don't stack. You get one off-hand attack. I am not saying you can not take any TWF feats. I am saying you are wasting your feat slots if you do it, with the intent of combining it with FoB.

edit: The first TWF feat does reduce the penalty, but FoB already does that also*, and the other TWF Feats allow for extra off-hand attacks, so they still do you no good.

*That is why the FoB attack bonus is -2 from the monk's BAB when using flurry.


Rikkan wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Rikkan wrote:
Neonpeekaboo wrote:
Rikkan wrote:

No. PFS must follow RAW, thus it would allow flurry + TWF to be used together. Since the rules don't explicitly forbid it.

They imply that they shouldn't be combined, and the linked post from SKR makes it clear that the text should be revised.

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

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."

You can't FoB, gaining an extra attack at -2 as if using TWF, and then get another attack using TWF in the same round. Because you're already using TWF.

So, RAW, PFS wouldn't allow it.

But you're not using TWF already, you're using flurry, which functions as the two-weapon fighting feat.

There is no reason why you can't use an ability which functions as-if 'X' in combination with 'X'.

Except then you'd be doubly benefiting from "as if doing X".

It's similar to stacking issues from multiple "size" increases from spells or other sources (Lead Blades, INA, Strong Jaw, Enlarge Person, etc.). If you're already treated "as if" two sizes larger, you (usually) don't get to stack that with when you actually become two sizes larger via other magical means.

I'm pretty sure you're mistaken there. Being under the effects of lead blades (as if you are one size larger) and enlarge person (being one size larger) stacks just fine.

You are correct, those specific two do stack because one is an actual size increase, but virtual size increases that use "as if" generally do not stack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
When everyone else says no, then it is a safe bet the answer is no.

Captain America says when everyone says no; you stand yuour ground, look them in the eye, and say "no you move".

http://37.media.tumblr.com/399b94d49d2aa54ae5eea60a36a95a82/tumblr_n3he5uJr E71qzib2no1_1280.jpg

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Note that in 3.5 Flurry and TWF definitely could stack. This was a question asked, and answered, in Sage Advice.

The Sage's answer pointed out that the attack penalties would stack, and that the off-hand weapon limits apply to the entire attack, including half Str bonus to damage from the off-hand attack. This is despite the 'no such thing as off-hand in a flurry'. This showed that the 'no off-hand in a flurry' line was simply saying that the extra attack from Flurry doesn't have the penalties associated with the extra (off-hand) attack granted in TWF, not that unarmed strikes wouldn't suffer off-hand limits if TWF was how you got the extra attack instead of using Flurry.

The rules didn't change between 3.5 and PF...unless they say they did. That said, Flurry did change! In PF it became an altered version of TWF (that didn't have the off-hand limits), so it doesn't stack with itself, even its altered self. This isn't an accidental consequence of changed wording, it was a deliberate design choice by Jason.

TLDR:-

Flurry and TWF don't stack in PF even though it did in 3.5, and this change is deliberate.

Spell Combat does not stack with either TWF or Flurry, because SC is a special full-round action, not a full attack.

Thank you for this. I had not realized that someone would actually have a monk do both at the same time in 3.5 as they have a hard enough time to hit things as it is. PF "nerfed" this aspect from the get go, as you explained, and the one poster is choosing to "hear no evil."

This looks like another thread like the growing tails or the doulbe wield of the Earth Breakers. Think it will reach 750? Any taking bets?


So... More about regular TWF and Monk's Unarmed Strike but, here is another angle on the issue: starting out with 2-3 levels of MoMs, who loses Flurry but still has normal monk unarmed attacks (the no such thing as an off hand when unarmed), and then going Brawler (archetype) because it is generally much more functional... Can that character than use the TWF options with unarmed strikes? They dont have an off hand to attack with. Likewise, if i wanted to go full Captain America with this character and use a shield (as armor only, no bashing) could that character still TWF or does this violate the concept of handidness?

Silver Crusade

Torbyne wrote:

So... More about regular TWF and Monk's Unarmed Strike but, here is another angle on the issue: starting out with 2-3 levels of MoMs, who loses Flurry but still has normal monk unarmed attacks (the no such thing as an off hand when unarmed), and then going Brawler (archetype) because it is generally much more functional... Can that character than use the TWF options with unarmed strikes? They dont have an off hand to attack with. Likewise, if i wanted to go full Captain America with this character and use a shield (as armor only, no bashing) could that character still TWF or does this violate the concept of handidness?

Can that PC use Unarmed Strike in standard TWF? Yes. As a bonus, in PF the 'off-hand attack' with the monk's Unarmed Strike would not have to half the Str bonus to damage.

Can he use a shield and still TWF with Unarmed Strikes? Yes, because Unarmed Strikes may be with knees, feet, elbows, head, whatever, so one hand being occupied with a shield doesn't stop Unarmed Strike with two different body parts. This is a special quality of the monk's Unarmed Strike.

Silver Crusade

ShadowcatX wrote:
You guys are trying to play chess with a pigeon.

Perfect. : )

Silver Crusade

Remy Balster wrote:
Well, it is actually rather easy to get me to change my mind, just present a thought out reasoned counter argument. Knock out one of the foundations of my conclusion, offer a valid replacement that leads to this 'truth' and then I'll see it.

Your problem isn't our counter argument, but your own lack of understanding. You quote rules which you say lead to a certain conclusion, but your inability to understand them the way the rest of humanity does leads you to the wrong conclusion.

This leads you to reject correct counters, because you start with a flawed understanding.

Here's just one example:-

Quote:
Flurry doesn't say it functions as TWFing rules, instead it references TWFing feat.

Only you could conclude that this means that Flurry doesn't function as TWF. The rest of us realise that, in order to use the feat, you must be using the TWF rules available to everyone.

In PF, Flurry is deliberately a class ability which grants free virtual TWF feats (TWF, Improved TWF, Greater TWF), and also tweaks some things about it.

Why is it called 'Flurry of Blows' instead of 'at 1st level monks gain the TWF feat for free, with these changes'? You'll hate it when I tell you! Third edition D&D called it Flurry of Blows, and in that incarnation it was not TWF. When Jason (deliberately) altered Flurry for PF, he changed it into a set of virtual TWF feats, tweaked for the monk, but kept the cool name.

************************************************************************

If I suddenly saw a kobold riding a medium-sized T-rex through my living room, I would jump out of my skin and panic.

If I had been diagnosed with a condition that gave me realistic hallucinations, then when I saw the kobold/T-rex I wouldn't go, 'F~&@, a T-rex!'. I would go, 'Oh, my condition is playing up again.'

You should be self-aware enough that you can realise that your understanding is flawed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Remy Balster wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

A flurry is not a full attack action - nothing you can show would say this.

It uses the same wording as the TWF to say full attack - so by your logic either it's not a full attack action *or* the same wording makes it use TWF.

Your own logic traps you.

Hrm.

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

Let me fix that for you

Quote:
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.

You are saying that the as for two-weapon fighting doesn't count as actually two-weapon fighting. If so the as in full-attack action also means it's not a full attack action. By your own logic - if you are correct you can't TWF while using flurry as it's not a full round attack (they use the same wording - in english the if adds nothing to the underlying sentence meaning).

If you are saying that flurry is a full attack action then the same wording in the rest of the sentence means it's using two weapon fighting.

Either way - you can't combine TWF with flurry for additional attacks. Your own logic says so.


Remy Balster wrote:

The Two-Weapon Fighting feat simply reduces penalties associated with fighting with two weapons. If you have the feat, it is always on. It is always 'in use'.

For a monk without the two weapon fighting feat, the only time they may use the feat is while they flurry. So the only time their penalties for fighting with two weapons are reduced is while they are using flurry. Whether they are fighting with two weapons or not, whatever penalties they would suffer if they were are reduced.

Ah, so the idea is that using the two weapon fighting feat means having the feat not actually do anything at all. All right, that rather explains what has happened.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Some people are conflating a full-round action with a full-attack action; these are two completely different animals. Full-Round actions are a class of actions as are Standard, Move, Swift, Free, etc. There are many specific full-round actions; Run, Full-Attack, Cast a Spell (for full-round spells), Coup-de-Grace, etc. Full-Attack is a particular full-round action just as Attack is a particular standard action or Draw Weapon is a particular Move action. Making a Flurry of Blows "as" a full-attack action is analogous to making a Vital Strike "as" a Standard action; these are abilities that alter or modify their designated actions, rather than using the Use Feat or Use Special Ability actions. To illustrate, Vital Strike is a modification to the standard Attack action so you can combine it with other effects that also modify the standard Attack action; by contrast, Cleave is a standard Use Feat action. It isn't the Attack action so it doesn't couple with any other application of the Attack action. Likewise, Flurry of Blows modifies the full-round Full-Attack action much the same as the Mobile Fighter archetype has an ability that lets you throw a Move action into your Full-Attack at the cost of your highest-BAB attack; it's still a Full-Attack. So this distinction that Flurry of Blows is something "different" from a Full-Attack is incorrect; You make a Full-Attack which can be modified, at your option, by the Flurry of Blows class feature.

But that doesn't change the fact that Flurry of Blows, as you get it at lvl 1, does not grant you an extra attack any more than the TWF feat does. Making an off-hand attack is covered under Combat rules and available to any character, whether or not they have the TWF feat or the FoB class feature or Spell Combat or any other analogous feat or class ability. Anyone can make an off-hand attack, taking -6/-10 if the off-hand weapon isn't light, or -4/-8 if it is light. The TWF feat merely reduces these penalties by -2/-6. The Flurry of Blows class feature reduces these penalties to -2/-2 total and cites that it is fulfilling the function of the TWF feat, by decree. Neither one gives you an off-hand attack; they just adjust the penalties. "When doing so, he may make one additional attack (just as anyone can), taking a -2 penalty on all of his attack rolls (unique to this class ability)."


Kazaan wrote:
*correct stuff*

Yes but the point here is - if you want to read the point about TWF in the most backwards messed up way possible - then by that logic flurry wouldn't be a full attack action. Nothing you said is untrue - but if that logic is rejected for another logic - that same logic results in the exact same outcome. You can argue the point correctly until the keyboard wears out, I personally think it's funny that using this broken logic as some kind of proof actually doesn't change anything.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
captain yesterday wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:

Could a Magus use both spell combat and TWFing together at the same time? I believe the answer is 'yes' if he meets each requirement. But I could very well be missing some crucial bit of information, and was curious what other people thought.

For example, if the Magus was wielding a scimitar and was wearing a cestus. He is "Wielding a one handed weapon with a free hand" requirement for Spell Combat, but for two weapon fighting he has a melee one handed primary weapon, using iteratives, and an unarmed strike (offhand, light weapon) for the extra attack.

Assuming he had Two Weapon Fighting feat and CL 3+.

He could cast a spell, say, Chill Touch. And Spellstrike through his scimitar as a free action. Then make his regular iterative, and attack with the scimitar + chill touch again, then using twf make an armed unarmed attack with the cestus + chill touch. Each of these attacks would suffer a -4 to hit.

Is this correct?

What exactly is your interest in this line of questioning?

by that i mean is this for your own building of a PC?, is it something a player has asked clarification on? is it for an NPC

furthermore i'm wondering your role at the table, are you mostly a player? a GM? evenly split? do you use GMPCs if you are a GM?

these are all relevant questions, answer any you like, or none:)

Mr. Mason, What relevance are any of these questions to a rules issue?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Quote:
Flurry doesn't say it functions as TWFing rules, instead it references TWFing feat.
Only you could conclude that this means that Flurry doesn't function as TWF. The rest of us realise that, in order to use the feat, you must be using the TWF rules available to everyone.

The issue is the ambiguity involved in that implication. It is acceptable to claim that you are not using the two-weapon fighting rules, because the two-weapon fighting feat modifies only the off-hand and ambidexterity rules.

At which point the argument should end as it's an ignorant, but valid reading of the rules.

The problem comes from agreeing with the implication above, and then asserting that two-weapon fighting can be used when somebody is already treated as if they are using two-weapon fighting.

...

However, in this case, it looks more like original poster is being deliberately obtuse, than genuinely argumentative:

Remy Balster wrote:
Sophismata wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
Quote:

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

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. 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).

What does this bolded line mean?
[...] The citing of the Two-Weapon Fighting feat also implies the use of the two-weapon fighting rules that the Two-Weapon Fighting feat modifies.
There is an implication there, yes.

...

The argument breaks down like this:
1. Flurry means you are treated as if using the TWF feat.
2. Therefore, you must be treated as if using the TWF rules.
3. Therefore, you are treated as if making an off-hand attack.
4. Therefore, you cannot make an additional off-hand attack.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

let's all take a moment of silence for the dead horse...for even though he is no longer alive...people continue to beat him mercilessly

*sheds a tear*

the pigeon is soon to suffer the same fate


TWF only allows you one attack with each hand.
I will try to help you visualize it and make it more clear.

Imagine you are wearing a cestus on both hands and have a scimitar in one hand and a dagger in the other. I assume you will agree that with TWF (even though you are wearing the cestus) you can only attack once with each hand. You agree, correct? good.
Now imagine you are wearing a cestus on both hands and have a scimitar in one hand and a conjured, glowing magical force blade in the other. I assume you will agree that with TWF you can only attack once with each hand. You agree, correct? good.
This is exactly what spell combat is. Your off hand is equipped with a spell and regardless of what you are wearing on that hand it is still occupied with casting/holding the spell. You can no more use the cestus that you are wearing than you could if you were trying to use the dagger at the same time. That hand is busy, please try again later.


Kazaan wrote:

Some people are conflating a full-round action with a full-attack action; these are two completely different animals. Full-Round actions are a class of actions as are Standard, Move, Swift, Free, etc. There are many specific full-round actions; Run, Full-Attack, Cast a Spell (for full-round spells), Coup-de-Grace, etc. Full-Attack is a particular full-round action just as Attack is a particular standard action or Draw Weapon is a particular Move action. Making a Flurry of Blows "as" a full-attack action is analogous to making a Vital Strike "as" a Standard action; these are abilities that alter or modify their designated actions, rather than using the Use Feat or Use Special Ability actions. To illustrate, Vital Strike is a modification to the standard Attack action so you can combine it with other effects that also modify the standard Attack action; by contrast, Cleave is a standard Use Feat action. It isn't the Attack action so it doesn't couple with any other application of the Attack action. Likewise, Flurry of Blows modifies the full-round Full-Attack action much the same as the Mobile Fighter archetype has an ability that lets you throw a Move action into your Full-Attack at the cost of your highest-BAB attack; it's still a Full-Attack. So this distinction that Flurry of Blows is something "different" from a Full-Attack is incorrect; You make a Full-Attack which can be modified, at your option, by the Flurry of Blows class feature.

But that doesn't change the fact that Flurry of Blows, as you get it at lvl 1, does not grant you an extra attack any more than the TWF feat does. Making an off-hand attack is covered under Combat rules and available to any character, whether or not they have the TWF feat or the FoB class feature or Spell Combat or any other analogous feat or class ability. Anyone can make an off-hand attack, taking -6/-10 if the off-hand weapon isn't light, or -4/-8 if it is light. The TWF feat merely reduces these penalties by -2/-6. The Flurry of Blows class feature reduces these penalties to -2/-2 total and cites that it is fulfilling the function of the TWF feat, by decree. Neither one gives you an off-hand attack; they just adjust the penalties. "When doing so, he may make one additional attack (just as anyone can), taking a -2 penalty on all of his attack rolls (unique to this class ability)."

You make sense. You usually do Kaz.

We do disagree on one thing, whether or not FoB grants an extra attack directly. But your understanding of the action rules is legit.

Your conclusion is sound, too, if the extra attack was coming from default TWF rules.


For FoB to say what everyone thinks it says, it would read like;

Revised FoB wrote:
When doing so, he may make one additional attack, as if he were Two Weapon Fighting. He only takes a –2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and using a light off hand weapon. 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).

It is simply devoid a couple lines.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Me and Malachi agree= </end thread>

:)

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

Me and Malachi agree= </end thread>

:)

Testify, brother! : )


perhaps someone has already made this statement, but i didnt feel like reading through all 4 pages and no one mentioned it on the first page:

spell combat IS two-weapon fighting(it even uses the same penalty). you are using one hand to attack with a weapon, and the "weapon" in the other hand is a spell you are casting. it even says as much in the description of the ability. even if you are somehow armed with a weapon in your offhand while casting the spell (like with a cestus) you still cannot make another attack with that hand because you have already made an attack with it by casting a spell.

this doesn't cover improved/greater TWF but i would make the conclusion that you still would be unable to make attacks with that hand if you had cast a spell...


Shimesen wrote:

perhaps someone has already made this statement, but i didnt feel like reading through all 4 pages and no one mentioned it on the first page:

spell combat IS two-weapon fighting(it even uses the same penalty). you are using one hand to attack with a weapon, and the "weapon" in the other hand is a spell you are casting. it even says as much in the description of the ability. even if you are somehow armed with a weapon in your offhand while casting the spell (like with a cestus) you still cannot make another attack with that hand because you have already made an attack with it by casting a spell.

this doesn't cover improved/greater TWF but i would make the conclusion that you still would be unable to make attacks with that hand if you had cast a spell...

Yes, it has been mentioned. The fact that your offhand is being used for casting, combined with the FAQ about how off hands work with TWF and THFing etc, allows us to extrapolate the ruling that SC and TWF aren't compatible.

For clarity, Spell Combat isn't Two-Weapon fighting though. It is "much like" it. Based on the wording of both ITWF and GTWF you'd need to actually use the real TWF rules and be getting an additional attack from your off hand before you could utilize these feats' benefit. Casting a spell =/= an off hand attack. So they'd be incompatible as well.

151 to 177 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.