|
Can someone give me a good explanation for the treatment that Spell Combat and Spellstrike got in the Revised Action Economy rules in Pathfinder Unchained?
For reference:
Spell Combat (Attack, Complex): You make an attack roll
with a light or one-handed melee weapon, then cast a spell
on the magusUM spell list with a casting time of 1 standard
action. You take a –2 penalty on the melee attack, but the
spell is cast regardless of whether the attack hits. If you
cast the spell defensively, you can subtract your Intelligence
bonus from the result of the attack roll to add the same
value as a circumstance bonus on the concentration check.
You must have the spell combatUM class feature to take this
action, and can take this action only once per turn. To take
this action, you must have one hand free. You can’t also
take the following actions this turn: cast a standard-action
spell or cast a 1-round-action spell.
Spellstrike (Complex; 2 Acts): You cast a spell from the
magusUM spell list with a range of touch, but instead of
making a touch attack, you make a melee attack with a
weapon you are wielding. If the attack hits, the attack deals
its normal damage as well as any effects of the spell. You
must have the spellstrikeUM class feature to take this action.
The questions I have are:
How many acts does Spell Combat consume? I'm assuming equal to the spell being cast? Or is it just 1 act because it's treated as two-weapon fighting?
Why is Spellstrike 2 acts? Why is Spellstrike any actions at all, since it doesn't take an action itself in the old rules (it's just part of the spell being cast)?
because The spell being cast is included in the action
Casting a Spell =2 actions
Spellstrike (IE: Casting a Spell and then attacking) = 2 Actions
Spell Combat itself is a single act, but it does not include delivering the touch through your weapon. You can in fact, cast a buff spell and still get three attacks total in the round. Or move, buff, and get two attacks. To do this you must keep a hand free like normal.
That is a completely different action from the new iteration of Spellstrike which is divorced from Spell Combat almost completely. It takes two acts, allows you to cast a touch spell and then make a melee attack to hit with it. No penalty on attack rolls, and you DON'T NEED TO keep one hand free, meaning using this rules set you can use a weapon two handed.
In a single round you can actually use both, and in doing so you get two attacks and two spells off in the same turn. It's pretty good, especially if one of those spells is haste to take an extra attack.
|
|
Greylurker: It just seems like a matter of semantics then. I would assume that since casting a spell is already listed as 2 acts that there would be no need to have spellstrike take any actions. Just as in the old rules it didn't take any actions, in the new rules it doesn't need to either. But again, it's just semantics and the result is the same whichever way you interpret it.
master_marshmallow: So to break it down a little:
Spell combat allows you to cast a spell in 1 act, even though that spell would normally take 2 acts?
In your two examples above it would be:
1: Spell combat: Buff+Attack
2: Attack
3: Attack
1: Move
2: Spell combat: Buff+Attack
3: Attack
Then you're also saying it is now impossible to perform Spellstrike as part of Spell Combat? But you can do:
1: Spell Combat: Spell+Attack
2+3: Spellstrike: Spell+free attack
I guess overall this is a buff to Magi, even though the two abilities don't totally play well together any longer (you can do both in the same turn, but not together).
So the whole point of explicitly saying Spellstrike is 2 acts, is to prevent this sequence of acts:
1: Spell Combat: Spell+Spellstrike free attack+Attack
2: Attack
3: Attack
Do I have all that correct then?
Greylurker: It just seems like a matter of semantics then. I would assume that since casting a spell is already listed as 2 acts that there would be no need to have spellstrike take any actions. Just as in the old rules it didn't take any actions, in the new rules it doesn't need to either. But again, it's just semantics and the result is the same whichever way you interpret it.
master_marshmallow: So to break it down a little:
Spell combat allows you to cast a spell in 1 act, even though that spell would normally take 2 acts?
In your two examples above it would be:
1: Spell combat: Buff+Attack
2: Attack
3: Attack1: Move
2: Spell combat: Buff+Attack
3: AttackThen you're also saying it is now impossible to perform Spellstrike as part of Spell Combat? But you can do:
1: Spell Combat: Spell+Attack
2+3: Spellstrike: Spell+free attackI guess overall this is a buff to Magi, even though the two abilities don't totally play well together any longer (you can do both in the same turn, but not together).
So the whole point of explicitly saying Spellstrike is 2 acts, is to prevent this sequence of acts:
1: Spell Combat: Spell+Spellstrike free attack+Attack
2: Attack
3: AttackDo I have all that correct then?
Exactly right, but you also have some more options:
1+2: Spellstrike: Spell + Spellstrike free attack
3: Attack
1: Move
2+3: Spellstrike: Spell + Spellstrike free attack
Notice that for this action the language does not exist preventing you from using a two handed weapon, or wielding a one handed weapon in two hands, or from using a shield.
|
|
I am adding the following house rule to my campaign that is using the Revised Action Economy:
Spell Combat with Spellstrike (Attack, Complex; 2 acts)
By increasing Spell Combat from 1 act to 2 acts, you may combine Spellstrike with the spell cast as part of Spell Combat, with all the same stipulations as laid out in the Advanced Player’s Guide:
If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks. This attack uses the weapon’s critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar effects), but the spell effect only deals ×2 damage on a successful critical hit, while the weapon damage uses its own critical modifier.
Thoughts?
The above post would be more appropriate to put in the houserule forums. You will find a much more responsive and helpful community there for feedback.
I am adding the following house rule to my campaign that is using the Revised Action Economy:
Thoughts?Spell Combat with Spellstrike (Attack, Complex; 2 acts)
By increasing Spell Combat from 1 act to 2 acts, you may combine Spellstrike with the spell cast as part of Spell Combat, with all the same stipulations as laid out in the Advanced Player’s Guide:
If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks. This attack uses the weapon’s critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar effects), but the spell effect only deals ×2 damage on a successful critical hit, while the weapon damage uses its own critical modifier.
There was actually quite the thread discussing various house rules involving the new action system. I'd check that out first.