Magus - Spell Combat and TWFing, simultaneously?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 177 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

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?

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Spell combat is a full-round action. Two-weapon fighting is a full attack, which is a different full-round action.


Starglim wrote:
Spell combat is a full-round action. Two-weapon fighting is a full attack, which is a different full-round action.
FAQ wrote:

Does spell combat count as making a full attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects?

Yes (revised 9/9/13) This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with effects that are essentially a full attack, even though the creature isn't specifically using the full attack action (as required by haste). The earlier ruling did not allow the extra attack from haste when using spell combat.

Spell Combat functions as a full attack action.

No?

Grand Lodge

Remy Balster wrote:
Starglim wrote:
Spell combat is a full-round action. Two-weapon fighting is a full attack, which is a different full-round action.
FAQ wrote:

Does spell combat count as making a full attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects?

Yes (revised 9/9/13) This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with effects that are essentially a full attack, even though the creature isn't specifically using the full attack action (as required by haste). The earlier ruling did not allow the extra attack from haste when using spell combat.

Spell Combat functions as a full attack action.

No?

Finish the line, please. Spell combat functions as a full attack action to determine how it interacts with effects that modify a full attack. It doesn't function as a full attack action for the purpose of being a full attack action. The action, spell combat, consists of doing two things: taking your iterative attacks with an appropriate weapon held in one hand and casting a spell.

edit: In fact, reading the answer again, the revised response isn't about spell combat at all, it modifies the rules for haste with respect to any event that's "essentially a full attack". That might not even be an action.


Starglim wrote:
Spell combat functions as a full attack action to determine how it interacts with effects that modify a full attack.

Two weapon fighting modifies a full attack though. It gives it another attack. Remarkably similar to exactly what haste does.

There is also this:

”CRB” wrote:
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.

Spell combat is a full round action. And, according to the FAQ functions as a Full Attack action.

What am I missing?


Starglim wrote:

edit: In fact, reading the answer again, the revised response isn't about spell combat at all, it modifies the rules for haste with respect to any event that's "essentially a full attack". That might not even be an action.

Yes, Haste and other effects. Such as the additional attack you get when two-weapon fighting.

Grand Lodge

Remy Balster wrote:
Two weapon fighting modifies a full attack though.

If you make a full attack, you can fight with two weapons. It doesn't need to be modified by an effect.

Full Attack wrote:
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.

Spell combat, published after this rule, gives you another way to get more than one attack per round from your Base Attack Bonus. It doesn't provide a way to get extra attacks from fighting with two weapons or a double weapon, or for any other special reason. Only the full-round action called Full Attack does that.


Starglim wrote:
It doesn't provide a way to get extra attacks from fighting with two weapons or a double weapon, or for any other special reason. Only the full-round action called Full Attack does that.

I could follow that, except the FAQ says that Spell Combat counts as a Full Attack.

So, you do get extra attacks. Haste, two-weapon fighting, whatever. Unless there is something else that prevents it.

The 'something else' is why I was asking if this works. I might be missing something. But this whole 'it isn't a full attack' tangent isn't in accordance with the rules. The FAQ makes it perfectly clear that it counts as a full attack.

That wasn't even the only FAQ about it. There was a reversal of how the ability functions back in 09/13, and it is now considered to be a full attack action with regards to how it interacts with other stuff. It didn't used to be, but they reversed their ruling and it now is considered a full attack action.

Grand Lodge

Remy Balster wrote:
Starglim wrote:
It doesn't provide a way to get extra attacks from fighting with two weapons or a double weapon, or for any other special reason. Only the full-round action called Full Attack does that.
I could follow that, except the FAQ says that Spell Combat counts as a Full Attack.

I don't know how I can put it more clearly than to repeat: You quoted it yourself and you know that's not the end of the sentence. I don't think this is going anywhere useful.


Remy Balster wrote:
Could a Magus use both spell combat and TWFing together at the same time?

no

Remy Balster wrote:
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.

The time required to cast a spell.


Starglim wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
Starglim wrote:
It doesn't provide a way to get extra attacks from fighting with two weapons or a double weapon, or for any other special reason. Only the full-round action called Full Attack does that.
I could follow that, except the FAQ says that Spell Combat counts as a Full Attack.
I don't know how I can put it more clearly than to repeat: You quoted it yourself and you know that's not the end of the sentence. I don't think this is going anywhere useful.

Uhm...

"for the purpose of haste and other effects" means basically everything that requires a full attack action.

Yeah, there is a second half of the question, but... it is as inclusive as is possible. The question "Does spell combat count as a full attack action?" gets you to the same place, it is just less informative about why you are asking it.

FAQ wrote:

If I use spell combat, how many weapon attacks can I make?

You can make as many weapon attacks as you would normally be able to make if you were making a full attack with that weapon. For example, if you are an 8th-level magus (BAB +6/+1), you could make two weapon attacks when using spell combat.

This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with effects that are essentially a full attack, even though the creature isn't specifically using the full attack action (as required by haste). The earlier ruling implied that spell combat did not allow the extra attack from haste (because spell combat was not using the full attack action).

Like I said, there were more than one FAQ about spell combat counting as/working like/essentially being a full attack.

"As if you were making a full attack"
"functions as a full attack"

This part of the SC/TWF thing isn't what I was asking about. This part is pretty clearly covered as 'yes' it works. I just thought there might be something out there I had overlooked that might prevent it.


Mapleswitch wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
Could a Magus use both spell combat and TWFing together at the same time?

no

Remy Balster wrote:
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.
The time required to cast a spell.

Huh?

The spell is cast as part of the full round/full attack action of spell combat. See the magus class for details.

Spell Combat wrote:
At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time.


Magus cannot "TWF" + Spellstrike while casting a spell because the spell takes up time.


Sarrah wrote:
Magus cannot "TWF" + Spellstrike while casting a spell because the spell takes up time.

Spellstrike isn't even on topic.

And... even before the FAQs a magus could TWF+spellstrike. Spellstrike just changes the method of delivering a touch spell from a melee touch attack into a weapon attack.


Magus cannot "TWF" + *Spell Combat* while casting a spell because the spell takes up time.


Sarrah wrote:
Magus cannot "TWF" + *Spell Combat* while casting a spell because the spell takes up time.

Ah. What time are you talking about?


http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/spellcasters/magus.html#_s pell-combat


Sarrah wrote:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/spellcasters/magus.html#_s pell-combat

Helpful.

>.<

Anyway. I have no idea what you are talking about. Spell Combat specifically allows you to cast a spell while you are attacking as a full round action. No extra time needed. You're the second person to say there isn't enough time... and, i'd love to know what you guys mean by that.

The only reference to 'time' in Spell Combat is...

Quote:
At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time.

Which is like, the opposite of your objection.

Cuz, it says you attack and cast... at the same time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's the best answer to that question, spell casting requires a FREE hand, which two weapon fighting as a rule would not allow, there's a specific magus archetype that lets you manifest a force dagger that removes this limitation.


Solidchaos085 wrote:
Here's the best answer to that question, spell casting requires a FREE hand, which two weapon fighting as a rule would not allow, there's a specific magus archetype that lets you manifest a force dagger that removes this limitation.

Do you mean this:

Quote:
To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.

That is why I used the scimitar/cestus example. Because with a scimitar/cestus he would meet this requirement of wielding a one handed weapon in one hand and having his other hand free.


When using spell combat, your "off-hand" is casting a spell and therefore not available for two-weapon fighting.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The cestus is a glove of leather or thick cloth that covers the wielder from mid-finger to mid-forearm. The close combat weapon is reinforced with metal plates over the fingers and often lined with wicked spikes along the backs of the hands and wrists.

Benefit: While wearing a cestus, you are considered armed and your unarmed attacks deal normal damage. If you are proficient with a cestus, your unarmed strikes may deal bludgeoning or piercing damage. Monks are proficient with the cestus.

Drawback: When using a cestus, your fingers are mostly exposed, allowing you to wield or carry items in that hand, but the constriction of the weapon at your knuckles gives you a –2 penalty on all precision-based tasks involving that hand (such as opening locks).

Not a chance of using it TWF and Spell Combat.
The intent is clear that you need your off hand free to use Spell Combat. Not so clear if you want to Rules Lawyer it death.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I could have sworn this was in the FAQ. Oh hey, it is:

Quote:

Magus, Spell Combat: If I use spell combat, how many weapon attacks can I make?

You can make as many weapon attacks as you would normally be able to make if you were making a full attack with that weapon. For example, if you are an 8th-level magus (BAB +6/+1), you could make two weapon attacks when using spell combat.

Edit 9/9/13: This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with effects that are essentially a full attack, even though the creature isn't specifically using the full attack action (as required by haste). The earlier ruling implied that spell combat did not allow the extra attack from haste (because spell combat was not using the full attack action).

First of all, the bolded part. That weapon, singular, with no provisions for multiple weapons.

Second point, the spell combat class ability. "This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast." In other words, the off hand is busy during the spell combat action, and like with Flurry, you can't combine it with actual TWF.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Spell Combat is the Magus's method of TWF. The spell is the second weapon.


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)

Honestly, I cannot say how well I understand the whole unwritten available hands thing. I'm vaguely aware of it being 'a thing', just... not sure where to reference it, or how to properly understand it. The rulebooks seem devoid of any answers.

From what I have gathered regarding my original question... I 'think' the objection to this is: Your "off hand" is busy, so you don't get to make off hand attacks via TWF.

But, I'm not entirely sure that is true. I think I follow, but the relevant elements of the question don't really seem to say anything about being incompatible, or that your off-hand is a finite resource of some kind that can only ever do one thing.

If you have a bab of +6/+1 and make a full attack... would you say you can only make one attack because your primary hand is busy for the round? Of course not. I mean, you could even attack with longsword, drop it, quick-draw a rapier and take an attack with the rapier. The rules say you get two attacks, so... you do. Your primary hand being busy doesn't really seem to enter the rules in any meaningful way.

But, then something changes for your off hand? In some unwritten way. I'm not so sure.

Let us go down the line of written requirements for Spell Combat, and Two-Weapon fighting, and see if the scimitar/cestus magus meets each requirement.

Quote:
To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.

A magus with a scimitar and cestus meet this requirement, he may use Spell Combat. One hand is holding a one handed weapon, the other hand is free.

Quote:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon ..... First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.

So, we are considered wielding a light weapon, since unarmed strikes are considered such. And, we... can get an extra attack. Because wielding a second weapon is the only requirement listed here, and we are.

Quote:
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.

Well, we are most certainly using a full-round action. So we are good there. The FAQs say it even functions as a full attack action, so we are good there. So, we met the requirements listed here too.

Is there another requirement that I haven't listed/addressed? One that is rules based?

Have melee weapon/free hand. Check.
Have offhand weapon (armed unarmed attacks). Check.
Full (attack) action. Check.

But, again... as stated in the OP, I could very well be missing something. Yall might be saying something that is going right over my head, I'm just not sure I understand what the objection is. All of the requirements for this seem to be met.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
When using spell combat, your "off-hand" is casting a spell and therefore not available for two-weapon fighting.

+1

You can't TWF when already TWFing (specifically the spell casted with Sprll Combat.)

Clearly you don't agree or understand, so for you this will be a table variance thing. If you ever sit at my table, your off hand will be unavailable once you attack with the second weapon or cast a spell.


Cardinal Chunder wrote:


The cestus is a glove of leather or thick cloth that covers the wielder from mid-finger to mid-forearm. The close combat weapon is reinforced with metal plates over the fingers and often lined with wicked spikes along the backs of the hands and wrists.

Benefit: While wearing a cestus, you are considered armed and your unarmed attacks deal normal damage. If you are proficient with a cestus, your unarmed strikes may deal bludgeoning or piercing damage. Monks are proficient with the cestus.

Drawback: When using a cestus, your fingers are mostly exposed, allowing you to wield or carry items in that hand, but the constriction of the weapon at your knuckles gives you a –2 penalty on all precision-based tasks involving that hand (such as opening locks).

emphasis mine

Well , if we really want to rules lawyer this, we could argue that first the cestus is a weapon (of course) and thus your hand is therefore not FREE...

Yes the cestus allows you to hold something but this is clumsy because it gives you a penalty on precision-based task....so either that clumsiness prevents you from properly cast a spell which requires precise movements with the hand for somatic spells or it is too clumsy that your hand is not considered Free anymore

The way this debate is going comes down to interpretation, and if I were the GM, that's how I would read it....


Cuttler wrote:
Well , if we really want to rules lawyer this, we could argue that first the cestus is a weapon (of course) and thus your hand is therefore not FREE...

Wear the cestus on the hand holding the scimitar. That point is superfluous; the main point of the question is making unarmed attacks as your second weapon for TWF... use Improved Unarmed Strike if it simplifies the question in your mind.

Then your other hand is most certainly free.


Pupsocket wrote:
and like with Flurry, you can't combine it with actual TWF.

Is that RAW or opinion?

Nothing prevents a Monk from TWFing while using Flurry...

He can make every Flurry attack with one hand. Since his offhand is armed, and considered a light weapon, if he wants to he may take advantage of two weapon fighting rules from the combat section and make an additional attack, with the relevant penalties applied.


The thing you are missing is that, while Full-Attack most certainly allows you to make off-hand attacks, Spell Combat, while acting like a full-attack for certain rules elements, isn't a Full-Attack.

First, lets address the fundamental misunderstanding here:
[quotePRD]If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.

Yes, Spell Combat is a full-round action. So is Run. So is a spell that requires a full-round action to cast. So is Coup-de-Grace. All these are full-round actions, but this isn't what is meant by the passage quoted above. It is referring to using a full-round action as opposed to the standard action required for a single attack (the Attack action). What it's trying to say is that, whereas it only costs a standard action to make a single attack, for multiple attack you must use a full-round action (referring to action economy, not "any" full-round action). This segues into the description of the Full-Attack action.

Second, having an actual hand or weapon available is only part of the requirement for TWF. There was recently a FAQ clarifying that you cannot attack with a two-handed weapon, release it as a free action, and then make an off-hand attack with your Spiked Gauntlet because your potential off-hand attack was subsumed in making the two-handed attack. This treats potential iterative and potential off-hand attacks as abstract resources similar to your various actions for the round. Just as you have either a single standard and single move action or, in lieu of that a single full-round action, you also have a number of "potential attacks" that are spent similar to action economy. So just because you have the weapon available doesn't necessarily mean you have the "attack economy" available (having a potential off-hand attack to spend). Since Spell Combat uses the Spell itself as a stand-in for your off-hand attack, casting the spell actually subsumes your potential off-hand attack, thus you have none remaining to make attacks with an actual weapon; regardless of whether or not you have one available. In other words, you have a Longsword, a Dagger, and Unarmed Strikes via kicks. You can attack with Longsword/Dagger(off) or Longsword/Unarmed Strike(off) but you cannot attack with Longsword/Dagger(off)/Unarmed Strike(off). Just replace Dagger with Spell and you'll see the issue plainly.


To simplify what's just been said -

You can't use all your attacks to make attack with a 2-handed weapon, then drop one hand from it, and then make a unarmed strike.

Which is about the same thing you're trying to do with you're TWF & Spell Combat.


I wont go into the arguments, because they've all been covered pretty well. However, the answer is no.

You cannot use Two Weapon Fighting and Spell Combat together.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Spell Combat system is designed specifically not to allow Two Weapon Fighting. Barring some very cheesy vestigial arm shenanigans it's pretty watertight.

Flurry of Blows already treats you as having the TWFing feats, so gaining them a second time gives you no benefit.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When everyone else says no, then it is a safe bet the answer is no.


As a DM I might allow improved and greater two weapon fighting to work but at least the first attack from and off hand will be consumed. You might even be able to talk me in to no extra penalties.

Be an alchemist with gorillian arms so you can have a shield and rod along with spell combat. If you some sort of feat for more the 2 arm fighting you can attack with the rod or other weapon.


Sarrah wrote:
Magus cannot "TWF" + Spellstrike while casting a spell because the spell takes up time.

Hell, the spell IS the other weapon in TWF. It takes some serious mental contortions to come to any other conclusion.


Cuttler wrote:
Cardinal Chunder wrote:


The cestus is a glove of leather or thick cloth that covers the wielder from mid-finger to mid-forearm. The close combat weapon is reinforced with metal plates over the fingers and often lined with wicked spikes along the backs of the hands and wrists.

Benefit: While wearing a cestus, you are considered armed and your unarmed attacks deal normal damage. If you are proficient with a cestus, your unarmed strikes may deal bludgeoning or piercing damage. Monks are proficient with the cestus.

Drawback: When using a cestus, your fingers are mostly exposed, allowing you to wield or carry items in that hand, but the constriction of the weapon at your knuckles gives you a –2 penalty on all precision-based tasks involving that hand (such as opening locks).

emphasis mine

Well , if we really want to rules lawyer this, we could argue that first the cestus is a weapon (of course) and thus your hand is therefore not FREE...

Yes the cestus allows you to hold something but this is clumsy because it gives you a penalty on precision-based task....so either that clumsiness prevents you from properly cast a spell which requires precise movements with the hand for somatic spells or it is too clumsy that your hand is not considered Free anymore

The way this debate is going comes down to interpretation, and if I were the GM, that's how I would read it....

Just like you cannot use a weapon or cast a spell with a light shield even though you can still carry stuff in your hand.


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.


Spell Combat is a full round action (that is not a full attack but gains benefits from rider effects like haste that benefit a full attack - and this only because of the FAQ stating that it gets these benefits). A full attack is also a full round action (whether that be sword and board, twf, or thf). You get 1, and only 1, full round action per round.

For an analogy, research any thread on "Can I use vital strike combined with X". If X takes a standard action, then no you cannot, because vital strike is its own special standard action so you cannot combine it with something else that takes a standard action. Spell combat likewise is its own special full round action, so it cannot be combined with something else that takes a full round action.


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.

...

Is this correct?

No, you cannot do _anything_ with your offhand (even a metaphorical offhand like armor spikes) while spell combating. It's right there in the third line of the Spell Combat description:

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. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. ...

"To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components)" means that you cannot use your offhand to two weapon fight, for wielding a two handed weapon, for wielding a shield, or anything else.

So no, no TWF with spell combat.

If you want to cast a touch spell with multiple touch attacks one round, you can spell strike while two weapon fighting the next round, but you cannot spell combat while two weapon fighting.

Legal: 8th level magus casts Frostbite, delivers the free touch attack, then makes his normal two attacks allowed in one round, all with his main hand weapon. = 3 of 8 available Frostbites. This is Spell Combat + Spellstrike. Next round, the magus full attacks with Improved Two Weapon Fighting for two attacks at +6 and two attacks at +1 BAB, all delivering Frostbite, but not casting any spells = 4 of 5 remaining Frostbites. This second round is just Spellstriking, which doesn't have limitations.

Not legal: An 8th level Magus casts Frostbite, makes his free touch attack, and then uses Improved Two Weapon Fighting to deliver 4 more attacks. This is trying to combine Spell Combat while using something in your offhand, which is explicitly not allowed.

If you want to play a Magus, I highly suggest Grick's guide to Spell Combat and Spellstrike.


Spellcombat explicitly recers to itself UAS two weapon fighting with a spell.

Furthermore th spellblade archetype which let's you cast with the force athame..
Force Athame (Sp): At 2nd level, a spellblade magus can sacrifice a prepared magus spell of 1st level or higher as a swift action to create a dagger of force in his off hand. The athame lasts for 1 minute or until dismissed, has an enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls equal to the level of the spell sacrificed (maximum +5), and is considered a weapon the spellblade is holding for purposes of his arcane pool feature (using the pool to add abilities to a held weapon applies to the magus's physical weapon and to the athame for no additional cost). The athame acts as a dagger, but the hand holding it is still considered free for the purpose of casting spells and delivering touch attacks. The magus can use the athame as if he were fighting with two weapons, or can use that hand to cast spells as part of the spell combat class ability (but not both in the same round). Attacks with the athame are force attacks and deal force damage. This ability replaces the spellstrike class feature.

Goes out of its way to reinforce th fact that you can't twf Sandpoint spellcombat.


Remy Balster wrote:
I could follow that, except the FAQ says that Spell Combat counts as a Full Attack.

No, it doesn't.

Quote:
This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with effects that are essentially a full attack, even though the creature isn't specifically using the full attack action

It doesn't "count" for anything. And before you start talking about "effects"

effect =/= action.

Scarab Sages

The spell is the magus' off hand weapon. You cannot make additional attacks using unarmed strike.


Remy Balster wrote:
Pupsocket wrote:
and like with Flurry, you can't combine it with actual TWF.

Is that RAW or opinion?

Nothing prevents a Monk from TWFing while using Flurry...

He can make every Flurry attack with one hand. Since his offhand is armed, and considered a light weapon, if he wants to he may take advantage of two weapon fighting rules from the combat section and make an additional attack, with the relevant penalties applied.

False

Flurry of Blows (Ex): 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.

that means you are taking the full-attack action to do a flurry. To TWFing you must use the full-attack action. So or u flurry as a full-attack -OR- you TWF as a full-attack. In the faqs they even clarify this more, saying you cant flurry with a single weapon. (that I Rule-house that they CAN)

Liberty's Edge

JuanAdriel wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
Pupsocket wrote:
and like with Flurry, you can't combine it with actual TWF.

Is that RAW or opinion?

Nothing prevents a Monk from TWFing while using Flurry...

He can make every Flurry attack with one hand. Since his offhand is armed, and considered a light weapon, if he wants to he may take advantage of two weapon fighting rules from the combat section and make an additional attack, with the relevant penalties applied.

False

Flurry of Blows (Ex): 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.

that means you are taking the full-attack action to do a flurry. To TWFing you must use the full-attack action. So or u flurry as a full-attack -OR- you TWF as a full-attack. In the faqs they even clarify this more, saying you cant flurry with a single weapon. (that I Rule-house that they CAN)

False.

One weapon flurry was ok'd at least a year ago if not more.


@Juan: They took back the FAQ that said you can't Flurry with a single weapon, but re-asserted via posts that you still can't combine Flurry with TWF. It even says right there in what you copied, "(he does not need to use two weapons to use this ability)". But the extra attacks still count against his potential off-hand attacks, even if they are delivered with the main-hand weapon.

FAQ wrote:

Monk Flurry of Blows: When I use flurry of blows, can I make all of the attacks with just one weapon, or do I have to use two, as implied by the ability functioning similarly to Two-Weapon Fighting?

You can make all of your attacks with a single monk weapon. Alternatively, you can replace any number of these attacks with an unarmed strike. This FAQ specifically changes a previous ruling made in the blog concerning this issue.

So, basically, Flurry gives you potential off-hand attacks and capacity to use even your main-hand weapon to execute those off-hand attacks, as well as set TWF penalties (as TWF feat but regardless of light/non-light status of off-hand weapon) and a BAB increase; it bundles the effect of all the TWF feats into itself and counts as such, save for the explicit exceptions it lists.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The point, Kazaan, is that one can not TWF and Flurry at the same time.

Flurry also, as one gets to higher levels, sets back to the Monk's regular BAB, going to only -1 from it at one level (5th? 3rd?) and evens up at a later level. (5th? 7th?)

The one weapon being able to be used for Flurry (using a Monk weapon, or one specified for an Archtype) was a return to the original rule because it broke the Zen Archer. Having an exception for one vs. the rest was... akward.


Kudaku wrote:
Flurry of Blows already treats you as having the TWFing feats, so gaining them a second time gives you no benefit.

How does having TWF feats stop you from TWFing????

Liberty's Edge

Remy Balster wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
Flurry of Blows already treats you as having the TWFing feats, so gaining them a second time gives you no benefit.

How does having TWF feats stop you from TWFing????

That's not even close to what was said. Don't try and twist people's words just because you're not getting the answer you want.


thaX wrote:

The point, Kazaan, is that one can not TWF and Flurry at the same time.

Flurry also, as one gets to higher levels, sets back to the Monk's regular BAB, going to only -1 from it at one level (5th? 3rd?) and evens up at a later level. (5th? 7th?)

The one weapon being able to be used for Flurry (using a Monk weapon, or one specified for an Archtype) was a return to the original rule because it broke the Zen Archer. Having an exception for one vs. the rest was... akward.

The point is that TWF and Flurry are the same exact thing. You are, by definition performing TWF and Flurry at the same time; they are identical. So for a person to say they want to make a Flurry, and in addition use TWF rules to make off-hand attacks would be paramount to saying you want to use TWF rules to make off-hand attacks and then use TWF rules again in the same round to make another complete set of off-hand attacks.

Additionally, don't conflate the net modifier from the combination of adjusted BAB and Flurry penalty with the BAB itself. A lvl 1 Monk has +0 BAB, +1 BAB when flurrying, and -2 penalty when flurrying. This doesn't mean that their BAB while Flurrying is lower than their BAB while not flurrying, it means that their net bonus at low levels is lower than their net bonus when making a normal full-attack (as would be the case by default for anyone using TWF compared to a non-TWF full-attack).

1 to 50 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.