|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PLEASE read the my whole argument before trolling or flaming me, or even forming a reply!
Spell Combat (and maybe Spell Strike) Magus Ability + Flurry of Blows.
The overall consensus on the message boards says NO WAY. I disagree, completely.
The message board consensus is based on the idea that Spell Combat is a full round action AND Flurry is also a full round action, and as such you cannot combine them. If that were true, I would agree.
Here are the pertinent texts to see how each ability is written:
Spell Combat
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. As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty). If he casts this spell defensively, he can decide to take an additional penalty on his attack rolls, up to his Intelligence bonus, and add the same amount as a circumstance bonus on his concentration check. If the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still take the penalty. A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks.
Flurry of Blows
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).
OK, so things to note about these 2 abilities...
Both abilities reference two-weapon fighting. Spell combat notes it is like 2 weapon fighting, which is a type of full round action (attack). Flurry of blows references, specifically, the 2 weapon fighting FEAT, which specifically only effects the penalties associated with 2 weapon fighting, nothing else.
flurry specifically notes a full attack action, spell combat notes a full round action. This, I think, just helps show how poorly written spell combat is, but is also an important difference.
Now, to the core of the problem for me...
Each of these 2 actions note that they are, effectively, full round actions. Fine, you can't make 2 full round actions in 1 round. I get that, but here is the problem, Spell combat specifically says in its description that you get to make all of you attacks... As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell. I think the wording of FULL ROUND ACTION was intentional b/c taking all of your attacks is already, in and of itself, a full round action (attack). So, spell combat is already combining 2 full round actions.
Taking all of your attacks in a round, either from 2 weapon fighting, Flurry of Blows OR BAB is a
full attack action. All 3 of these types of attacks are a full round action. period.
The conclusion MUST be that spell combat is meant to be combined with a full attack action, yes? which means all of your attacks from BAB or Flurry of Blows because they are both full attack actions.
I would not say that you can 2 weapon fight though, b/c it specifically also notes your other hand is casting a spell and is counted as a weapon.
Text from actions in combat, please note how it applies examples of how you would get additional attacks per round...
Full Attack:
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. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.
The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
CONCLUSION!: Spell Combat + Flurry of Blows is COMPLETELY ALLOWED PER THE RULES AS WRITTEN.
=)
Regardless as to whether or not you win this war of semantics, a monk magus hybrid sounds weak, difficult to play, flavor, and you'd have to have this argument with every GM.
It's just not worth it, Billy.
|
|
Regardless as to whether or not you win this war of semantics, a monk magus hybrid sounds weak, difficult to play, flavor, and you'd have to have this argument with every GM.
It's just not worth it, Billy.
Fair enough opinion. I am having it with my GM. Although, it is only a minor issue with my character.
Also, it is not weak at all, though it is way overly complicated, full of flavor.
Don't take this wrong but.. I did not read your post nor do I need to. Spell combat and flurry are. Other as if using the twf feat. You cannot double up on this. Additionally unless it was change the only time spell combat is treated as the full attack action is haste. This means it is not comparable with any other ability that uses full attack.
However the as if using the twf fear is the important bit.
|
|
Didn't read, didn't need to.
You can't combine TWF and Spell Combat. You are not the first to make assertions that you can.
I'd recommend building some other type of build instead of having this debate with ever GM and/or trying to brow beat the GM into submission.
Christ, why reply when you specifically wont read the argument? just to be a troll?
Here, I will simplify the argument:
Spell Combat is a "Full Round Action" that also allows you to take, through insinuation based on the wording "all your attacks", another full round action (attack) + cast the spell.
The wording for a full attack action is this: 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. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.
The ONLY type of full attack precluded in the wording of Spell Combat is 2 weapon fighting b/c is specifically notes your other hand is used for casting the spell.
I LIKE making complicated characters, I have no problem with them, and I play in a great group.
I make characters like this b/c everyone and his mother has made and played an effective shocking Grasp Magus. I have played various RP's for 25 years, I am 42. I can't stand to play straight up anything anymore. No straight Barbarians, monks or wizards. Yes, they are effective and easy to play. They also BORE me to tears.
I need to play unique and different characters and try to make them as effective as possible.
Also, No, I don't think Flurry and Spell Combat are particularly effective together and its a very small part of my build, I just DISAGREE with the consensus on the topic and it frustrates me so I want to argue my reasons with you all. =)
Sigh ill try this again 1) spell combat is not a full attack action 2) the ability to twf conveys specific penalties but it is then modifies by the twf feat 3) both abilities already treat you as using twf. You can't twf twice.
Christ, why reply when you specifically wont read the argument? just to be a troll?
Because the argument being put forth is the same one that has been put forth numerous times in other similar threads.
I started reading, realized it was the same, and skimmed the rest just to see if you presented anything new, which you didn't.
Here, I will simplify the argument:
Spell Combat is a "Full Round Action" that also allows you to take, through insinuation based on the wording "all your attacks", another full round action (attack) + cast the spell.
The implication is you get all your BAB iteratives. I can see how someone might read that differently, but most agree the correct reading is your BAB iteratives and nothing more.
The reference to TWF only being a change to the penalty is misleading. What about ITWF and GTWF? Sure pedantically those aren't mentioned. And sure pedantically TWF only changes the penalty, but intent is pretty clear that when referencing the TWF feat that also by implication references TWF fighting which both spell combat and flurry of blows are like - and you cannot of course TWF fight twice in the same round.
I read your argument. You're trying to use a semantics loophole to allow you to perform two full-round actions simultaneously. Yes, the language is sufficiently vague that if you take only the two sentences in isolation and forget everything else you know about the game, there is a slight grey area which makes it only 95% clear that the two can't work together. That's why we have a GM for the game.
You state that you play well "in a group", but it seems like you are coming here to get ammunition to force your GM to accept your version of things despite the fact that they've already ruled on it. Your GM is "in the group", too, you know...
The argument is not that both are full round actions, but that they are both versions of TWF. While you can combine some types of full round action (TWF and fighting defensively for example) you cannot TWF and TWF. It does not matter which variant of TWF (regular, flurry, spell combat, or some yet to be published version) you use, you cannot combine it with itself or any other variant.
Flurry is a variant of TWF, it says so right in the description. And Spell Combat references TWF and is mechanically the same.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I read your argument. You're trying to use a semantics loophole to allow you to perform two full-round actions simultaneously. Yes, the language is sufficiently vague that if you take only the two sentences in isolation and forget everything else you know about the game, there is a slight grey area which makes it only 95% clear that the two can't work together. That's why we have a GM for the game.
You state that you play well "in a group", but it seems like you are coming here to get ammunition to force your GM to accept your version of things despite the fact that they've already ruled on it. Your GM is "in the group", too, you know...
I suppose I am using semantics, b/c the rules are sufficiently vague. I don't like that. I hate when rules are written by just referencing another actions example, especially when more books and rules and actions will be added later. Like in this case. Flurry and Spell combat should both be actions fully explained unto themselves.
That is likely the issue that bugs me so much about it.
No, I am not trying to get ammo, I argue this with them, with a smile all the time. And other things, and they do it too, with other things. We have been playing together in multiple systems for years.
If I read spell combat and agree that the whole thing is just a re-write of 2 weapon fighting, with the off hand weapon being the spell, then it is air tight. No problem.
I just don't see it being that clear. Though I can cave on that being RAI.
Sorry if this came off as one big troll attempt, it wasn't meant to be, I just am really frustrated by rules written like this and wanted to, as the topic said, have an argument about it.
(and by the way, Constance is a Monk 1, fight (brawler)2 and Kensai 2 with the Wand Arcana that allows spell combat with wands, but not spell strike.
She uses them to cast blur from a wand sheath (with moonlight stalker) and then has a wand of Frostbite lvl 5 (5 touches, delivered with punches as normal attacks instead of touch attacks, for an additional 1D6+5 damage and auto fatigue.
Yes, I realize I normal monk with UMD could do that too. If I could spell strike, then I could hit 3 times instead of 1 touch and 1 attack but with the additional -2 from spell strike on top of the flurry penalty to hit... its not a big deal at all.
Right now I just spell combat frostbite in round 1, get 1 free touch attack and 1 punch, they both proc frost bite, then round 2 I flurry for with the remaining frostbite attacks...
Constance is actually very effective as is with the rules for spell strike as they are excepted. and would not get much better if they changed.
|
Flurry is a variant of TWF, it says so right in the description. And Spell Combat references TWF and is mechanically the same.Flurry says you take a -2 penalty on all attacks as if TWF. It does not say its a TWF variant.
A monk can flurry 5 headbutts a round, or two kicks two punches and a headbutt, it just comes with penalties similar to TWF with light weapons.
You know, anyone can two-weapon fight with unarmed strikes, and never use a hand.
They can even do this, without the Improved Unarmed Strike, or Two-Weapon Fighting feat.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
DISAGREE with the consensus on the topic and it frustrates me so I want to argue my reasons with you all. =)
You are not the first, this isn't brand new territory. I appreciate you want to argue, but you present nothing new.
Plus players that like to argue semantics in a pedantic way are the players nearly all GMs would wish never return to their tables.
Because this frustrates the GM and the tables very often, you should focus your energy in making unique characters within the generally accepted rules. It is why I stopped playing a Overrun specialist. Very few could agree on how the rules works, so why have to interrogate a GM before each game. Just stop playing those types of characters.
|
|
The point is a monk can make every hit with a single hand. That's not two weapon fighting. Flurry is a separate entity that carries a penalty "as if using" two weapon fighting.Flurry is a variant of TWF, it says so right in the description. And Spell Combat references TWF and is mechanically the same.Flurry says you take a -2 penalty on all attacks as if TWF. It does not say its a TWF variant.
A monk can flurry 5 headbutts a round, or two kicks two punches and a headbutt, it just comes with penalties similar to TWF with light weapons.
You know, anyone can two-weapon fight with unarmed strikes, and never use a hand.
They can even do this, without the Improved Unarmed Strike, or Two-Weapon Fighting feat.
So can anyone else. Two weapon fighting with unarmed strikes doesn't require you to switch limbs.
|
|
DISAGREE with the consensus on the topic and it frustrates me so I want to argue my reasons with you all. =)You are not the first, this isn't brand new territory. I appreciate you want to argue, but you present nothing new.
Plus players that like to argue semantics in a pedantic way are the players nearly all GMs would wish never return to their tables.
Because this frustrates the GM and the tables very often, you should focus your energy in making unique characters within the generally accepted rules. It is why I stopped playing a Overrun specialist. Very few could agree on how the rules works, so why have to interrogate a GM before each game. Just stop playing those types of characters.
I appreciate your sentiment. Luckily I only play with the same 5 friends and have for years and we don't really break heads over this kind of stuff. Also, I argued my point within my group, got voted down and we moved on with no hurt feelings.
This forum topic is my own thing, though yes, born out of that discussion at home.
Also, you strike true about the difficulty in groups of playing overly complicated characters specializing in wonky rules. Alas, it is my way. I just can't seem to enjoy the game as much playing vanilla.
I am also playing a straight Wind Oracle (seeker arch) in Shattered Star right now, 13th level and bored to death of it.
The character before that was a monk / gunslinger with the full crane style suite and it, hands down was the most effective, deadly and fun character I have ever played. Though the DM for that game (King Maker, and we rotate GM's) started to not attack me out of spite b/c he could never hit me... heh.
|
|
Damn expensive strategy. 3750gp wand.
Yes, yes it is. I dont use the wand all the time, I have a couple of 1st level pearls and cast it as well (at CL4 from trait). I took craft wondrous to save cash as well. Made my own amulet of Agile Striking.
My build works out pretty well and has a but load of feats. Its just really light on the magus side. I had to decide if I wanted to focus more on combat, straight up or spell striking, and I went kensai, so straight combat (since the reduced spell casting).
Also stat need heavy, so skimpt on INT, thus the wand arcana in general.
|
|
What you have here isn't really "reasons" in the usual sense.
Honestly, the killer for you is the haste ruling. If you look at the way the haste ruling explains why you get an extra attack when using spell combat, even though it is not "the" full attack action, it clearly indicates that "things that are basically full attacks" are a category.
Therefore, flurry and spell combat are examples of actions which substitute for a full attack action, they are not modifiers to the full attack action. You can take a full attack, you can flurry, or you can use spell combat. You can't "stack" them, because you have a single full-round action available, and you have to take one of those actions to make your multiple attacks, and whichever one you took, you aren't taking the others.
I understand that, completely, and if you read through the wording of Spell Combat and believe that it is just another version of 2 weapon fighting, no problem, all your main hand attacks + spell as off hand attack. Done, and 1 full attack action used.
No other full attack actions allowed.
My issue has always been with how the wrote the ability (spell combat) as well as the way the wrote Flurry. When I read Spell combat, it sounds to me like you are getting your normal full attack action and the ability to cast a spell. (whether full BAB attacks or flurry attacks, both = same action type, though no 2 weapon b/c your other hand is filled with spell)
Essentially, my reading comes down to Spell Combat being a Full Round Action where you get to cast a spell and take a full attack action.
The confusion for me comes from them using examples from other rules on multiple /= abilities.
Anyway, as has been pointed out, I am poking at semantics b/c they chose to take an easy route and reference an existing well know rule instead of fully flesh out and define Spell Combat in and of itself. When they do that, they always end up with confusion one or more books later when unknown actions want to be used in conjunction.
Haster, help me out with some understanding? Are you suggesting that someone could cast a spell and get the full series of attacks from flurry or are you suggesting that the spell would replace one of the attacks from flurry? In either case are you taking the -2 from spell combat AND the flurry penalty or are you only taking one of those?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Haster, help me out with some understanding? Are you suggesting that someone could cast a spell and get the full series of attacks from flurry or are you suggesting that the spell would replace one of the attacks from flurry? In either case are you taking the -2 from spell combat AND the flurry penalty or are you only taking one of those?
My reading would is that you would cast the spell and get your full series of attacks, from whichever full attack action you used. (full BAB or Flurry)
Also, yes, you would take all the penalties from whichever actions you used, so Flurry -2 and Spell Combat -2 (-4 total), though, you get that higher BAB from flurry equal to Monk levels, so that can mitigate some of the negatives here.
You would also have to contend with a concentration check, unless using a wand from the wand arcana that allows a wand to be used with spell strike.
Frankly, I think the penalties are too much for the gain over all, though perhaps at higher level the advantage gets significantly greater.
Now, all that being said, I understand my reading is the one generally frowned upon and I even tend to agree that the rules were intended to mean you get your normal attacks (from BAB ONLY) and can cast a spell all as one full round action.
I just dont think they wrote it clearly enough to be sure, used a poor example for expediency when you are also considering flurry, and have not chosen to FAQ it at all to be more clear. which is, of course there prerogative.
Both Flurry and Spell Combat use up your "off-hand," which is why they both reference TWF. Your confusion comes from assuming your off-hand is an actual hand, it is not.
|
|
Both Flurry and Spell Combat use up your "off-hand," which is why they both reference TWF. Your confusion comes from assuming your off-hand is an actual hand, it is not.
Yeah, see that is exactly the kind of unclear I am talking about.
Flurry actually specifically says you do not need to use more than 1 weapon, meaning you can flurry with 1 fist, not using a off-hand of any kind.
Also, Flurry specifically uses the Two-Weapon fighting feat as an example, just after it notes the -2 penalty. This means they are referencing ONLY the negation of penalties, since that is the only thing that the FEAT they reference is for.
|
|
Both Flurry and Spell Combat use up your "off-hand," which is why they both reference TWF. Your confusion comes from assuming your off-hand is an actual hand, it is not.Yeah, see that is exactly the kind of unclear I am talking about.
Flurry actually specifically says you do not need to use more than 1 weapon, meaning you can flurry with 1 fist, not using a off-hand of any kind.
Also, Flurry specifically uses the Two-Weapon fighting feat as an example, just after it notes the -2 penalty. This means they are referencing ONLY the negation of penalties, since that is the only thing that the FEAT they reference is for.
Again, though, I'll say I get that they most likely meant it to be similar to 2 weapon fighting, they just chose a poor way to do it, and should have been much more clear with regards to how it worked and how it could be combined with other actions.
Haster, help me out with some understanding? Are you suggesting that someone could cast a spell and get the full series of attacks from flurry or are you suggesting that the spell would replace one of the attacks from flurry? In either case are you taking the -2 from spell combat AND the flurry penalty or are you only taking one of those?My reading would is that you would cast the spell and get your full series of attacks, from whichever full attack action you used. (full BAB or Flurry)
Also, yes, you would take all the penalties from whichever actions you used, so Flurry -2 and Spell Combat -2 (-4 total), though, you get that higher BAB from flurry equal to Monk levels, so that can mitigate some of the negatives here.
You would also have to contend with a concentration check, unless using a wand from the wand arcana that allows a wand to be used with spell strike.
Frankly, I think the penalties are too much for the gain over all, though perhaps at higher level the advantage gets significantly greater.
Now, all that being said, I understand my reading is the one generally frowned upon and I even tend to agree that the rules were intended to mean you get your normal attacks (from BAB ONLY) and can cast a spell all as one full round action.
I just dont think they wrote it clearly enough to be sure, used a poor example for expediency when you are also considering flurry, and have not chosen to FAQ it at all to be more clear. which is, of course there prerogative.
I'm not getting there with you. The "spell" in spell combat is the "TWF" attack just like the second attack in the flurry. I think that mechanically you are on balanced footing to have the spell replace one of the flurry attacks AND take a -4 (which you would obviously opt not to do until you get 3 attacks with flurry).
If a player wanted me to allow that in my game I would. But I don't think the rules support your position here.
Both Flurry and Spell Combat use up your "off-hand," which is why they both reference TWF. Your confusion comes from assuming your off-hand is an actual hand, it is not.Yeah, see that is exactly the kind of unclear I am talking about.
Flurry actually specifically says you do not need to use more than 1 weapon, meaning you can flurry with 1 fist, not using a off-hand of any kind.
Also, Flurry specifically uses the Two-Weapon fighting feat as an example, just after it notes the -2 penalty. This means they are referencing ONLY the negation of penalties, since that is the only thing that the FEAT they reference is for.
Once again, off-hand, in Pathfinder, is a measure of effort, not an actual hand. Flurry subsumes your off-hand, as does spell combat, as does a two-handed weapon. Regardless of which limb you use, you no longer have an "off-hand's worth of effort" to apply to spell combat. It doesn't matter whether you consider it over powered or you think it's weak sauce, the mechanics of the game don't allow it. (Although if you want to houserule it in, that's fine. Pathfinder is very customizable.)
Haster how do you have the wand arcana as a lvl. 2 kensai?
There are two direct conflicts conflict under consideration here.
1) Spell Combat says that your spell is cast in place of your off-hand attack(s). So, if you were to combine FoB with Spell Combat, you wouldn't make your off-hand attacks because they have been replaced by a spell. Even though FoB allows you to use the same weapon for all attacks, you are already obligated, by the nature of the Spell Combat ability, to "spend" your entire off-hand potential on the casting of your spell. If this were the only consideration, I'd say you can still get your Monk BAB and could spend a ki point on an extra attack. However...
2) Flurry of Blows requires you to use Monk weapons and/or Unarmed Strikes. Casting a spell is neither. Unless...
Did read your post, but still disagree for the reasons Kazaan mentioned. I don't believe this is the case, is meant to be the case, nor would I allow it at my table even if it were.
The conclusion MUST be that spell combat is meant to be combined with a full attack action, yes? which means all of your attacks from BAB or Flurry of Blows because they are both full attack actions.
Or that you can't combine two weapon fighting with two weapon fighting with more attacks.
No.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
( 1 ) I read it the first post in its entirety.
( 2 ) While a beaten dead horse for many, this is the first time I've come across this.
( 3 ) I've played for 30 years and DM'ed for about 25 of them.
And I would absolutely, totally, irrevocably and in all other ways TOTALLY allow this!
There are a few provisos, quid pro quo's, as it were:
( A ) You would have to take the -2 penalty for the Spell Combat and stack it with the penalty from the Flurry of Blows.
( B ) I would want a compelling backstory for a monk/magus. If this is just power-gaming . . . well, that's what's boring.
( C ) Any damaging attack would have it's verbal component changed to "HADOUKEN", "SHORYOUKEN" and/or "YOGA FIRE/FLAME." I'd even increase the DC of the reflex save by 1 if you shouted these out loud in a very dramatic way.
And, yes, I'm completely serious. Whether it's RAW or just semantics doesn't matter to me. If I've been playing with this guy (the OP) for years and he comes to me with this idea, I'm going to allow it if for no other reason than he's my friend and I want him to have fun playing the character he wants to play.
I'm the DM. I create pantheons! If I can't make the campaign at least challenging for the players, regardless of what they're playing, then I should sit down, shut up, pore over some old Dungeoncrafts from Dungeon and let some one else have a go.
And I would absolutely, totally, irrevocably and in all other ways TOTALLY allow this!
That is perfectly fine, and you are free to do so as a house rule. However, this is a question in the rules forum and the answer to the question is no, flurry of blows and spell combat cannot be combined as each is their own particular full round action.
|
|
I just had a discussion on another thread about this exact thing. I'll highlight the important bits:
1) You are correct that Flurry of Blows is not really an action in itself; it is something that "kicks in" when you make a Full-Attack action just as Vital Strike "kicks in" when you make an Attack action. As such, you could easily combine FoB with, say, Pounce because Pounce lets you make a subordinate Full-Attack at the end of a Charge action (in lieu of the single attack you'd normally get). In other words, using FoB isn't a full-round Use Special Ability action as Spell Combat is.
2) Flurry of Blows offers four distinct benefits:
-a) You can make your off-hand attack (which you could make with or without the TWF feat) with penalties set at -2/-2 no matter what weapons you use. Additionally, at later levels, you get extra attacks as if using ITWF and GTWF.
-b) You can use the same weapon for both main-hand and off-hand attacks.
-c) You get to treat your Monk levels as full-BAB rather than 3/4-BAB.
-d) You get certain options concerning ki usage such as the ability to get an extra attack.So FoB doesn't "allow" you to make an off-hand attack, it just sets the penalties for doing so at -2/-2 and lets you use the same weapon for all attacks.
There are two direct conflicts conflict under consideration here.
1) Spell Combat says that your spell is cast in place of your off-hand attack(s). So, if you were to combine FoB with Spell Combat, you wouldn't make your off-hand attacks because they have been replaced by a spell. Even though FoB allows you to use the same weapon for all attacks, you are already obligated, by the nature of the Spell Combat ability, to "spend" your entire off-hand potential on the casting of your spell. If this were the only consideration, I'd say you can still get your Monk BAB and could spend a ki point on an extra attack. However...
2) Flurry of Blows requires you to use Monk weapons and/or Unarmed Strikes. Casting a spell is neither. Unless...
Hmm, had not considered the issue of the off hand spell being considered a non-monk weapon. I would have to agree with you, and that in and of itself would end the argument.
|
|
( 1 ) I read it the first post in its entirety.
( 2 ) While a beaten dead horse for many, this is the first time I've come across this.
( 3 ) I've played for 30 years and DM'ed for about 25 of them.And I would absolutely, totally, irrevocably and in all other ways TOTALLY allow this!
There are a few provisos, quid pro quo's, as it were:
( A ) You would have to take the -2 penalty for the Spell Combat and stack it with the penalty from the Flurry of Blows.
( B ) I would want a compelling backstory for a monk/magus. If this is just power-gaming . . . well, that's what's boring.
( C ) Any damaging attack would have it's verbal component changed to "HADOUKEN", "SHORYOUKEN" and/or "YOGA FIRE/FLAME." I'd even increase the DC of the reflex save by 1 if you shouted these out loud in a very dramatic way.And, yes, I'm completely serious. Whether it's RAW or just semantics doesn't matter to me. If I've been playing with this guy (the OP) for years and he comes to me with this idea, I'm going to allow it if for no other reason than he's my friend and I want him to have fun playing the character he wants to play.
I'm the DM. I create pantheons! If I can't make the campaign at least challenging for the players, regardless of what they're playing, then I should sit down, shut up, pore over some old Dungeoncrafts from Dungeon and let some one else have a go.
Love it, and after all, your job as a GM is to make sure you players have fun, not to kill them.
Accidents can happen sometimes, of course.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
