MrTsFloatinghead wrote: noretoc wrote: I don't agree. It is quite clear to me that you can not use both. Can you explain why, though? Your first attempt doesn't work because it relies on limitations that simply aren't there - Precise Strike doesn't say that you can't use your off-hand, or that your off hand must be "free", it says you cannot make an attack with a weapon or use a shield other than a buckler and still benefit. I maintain that "Spell Combat" is explicitly neither of those things. Instead of attacking with a weapon in the off-hand, you are casting a spell, so on face it doesn't meet the criteria set out in Precise Strike.
You have to either run with "Spell Combat is exactly literally Two Weapon Fighting", which is unsupportable per the rules text (and even the SKR quote from earlier points out that when they make explicit distinctions you should honor those), or you have to read "but the off-hand weapon is a spell" as making a very broad claim that spells are off-hand weapons, instead of the more logical and more technical reading that it is clarifying that the difference between Two Weapon Fighting and Spell Combat is that Spell Combat uses a spell instead of an off-hand weapon. Bolded the two points from the relevant rules. You claim the second is a broad claim, but it really is just a literal reading of the rules.
Quote: Or, I suppose, you have to believe "casting a spell" is automatically the same thing as "attacking with a weapon", but I think that's clearly the weakest of the readings. This is totally not what has been said. It's not casting a spell that's the same as attacking with a weapon. It's casting a spell as part of a full round action utilizing the Spell Combat rules that changes the spell from just casting a spell to making it counts as an off-hand weapon.
Specific rules trump general and can change the action, as is happening here.
noretoc wrote: Mathius wrote: Calth: I have to agree with MrTsFloatinghead. Your interpretation makes little sense. Casting a weapon like spell only uses the hand they use to make the attack with not the hand that cast the spell. Rays do not have a hand and touch spells can be delivered with spell strike. The casting is not a weapon ever. That casting gives you a weapon and you choose how to deliver it.
A stilled touch spell with a wielded item each hand can not be delivered. The ray can.
The also specify that it is like two weapon fighting so that you can not spell combat and two weapon fight if you have 3 hands.
I understand Calth and exactly where he is coming from and agree with him (though in my home game I would be ok with it, cause its cool)
The Faq and dev comments talk about the way they think of extra attacks and the metaphysical "hands". When you make a second attack using a weapon it takes up your second "hand" even if you are not using your other actual hand to make the attack.
Precise combat denies you the bonus if your offhand is in use. It is intended to not work with two weapon fighting, so that means it is referring to that metaphysical "hand".
Spell Combat, when using it uses up that "hand" as if you were using two weapon fighting.
Hence no precise strike with spell combat, when you are attacking and casting.
Agree 100% RAW.
Thank you for phrasing the argument in clearer terms than I have been, this is exactly what I have been trying to get across.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Sniggevert wrote: Bolded the two points from the relevant rules. You claim the second is a broad claim, but it really is just a literal reading of the rules.
Quote: Or, I suppose, you have to believe "casting a spell" is automatically the same thing as "attacking with a weapon", but I think that's clearly the weakest of the readings. This is totally not what has been said. It's not casting a spell that's the same as attacking with a weapon. It's casting a spell as part of a full round action utilizing the Spell Combat rules that changes the spell from just casting a spell to making it counts as an off-hand weapon.
Specific rules trump general and can change the action, as is happening here.
I disagree that you have a good literal reading of the rules. Consider the following sentence:
"Making a peach smoothie is much like making a strawberry smoothie, but the strawberry is a peach."
Do you understand that sentence to mean "Peaches in peach smoothies are actually strawberries, because peach smoothies are strawberry smoothies", or do you understand it to mean "Peach smoothies are like strawberry smoothies, but with peach replacing strawberries"? To me, the later is clearly a more correct reading, but I acknowledge that implicit in that belief is the belief that "casting a spell" is expressly not "attacking with a weapon" in the same way that "peaches" are expressly not "strawberries". They may have similarities, but at the end of the day, they are not the same thing.
The alternative reading requires such an odd and idiosyncratic level of reading technically enough to infer a conflict, but not technically enough to note the distinctions that resolve the conflict that it just seems so unlikely to be correct. That said, I fully acknowledge that this might be "clarified" by an appeal to metaphysical hands of effort and "unwritten rules", but that doesn't make those clarifications good, or logical, or what the rules actually state now. In short, if the intention was to lock out these two options, that attempt failed - and it was probably a wrongheaded impulse to begin with, in much the same way as the original "hands of effort" clarification was, ultimately, a bigger problem than it was worth.
MrTsFloatinghead wrote: Sniggevert wrote: Bolded the two points from the relevant rules. You claim the second is a broad claim, but it really is just a literal reading of the rules.
Quote: Or, I suppose, you have to believe "casting a spell" is automatically the same thing as "attacking with a weapon", but I think that's clearly the weakest of the readings. This is totally not what has been said. It's not casting a spell that's the same as attacking with a weapon. It's casting a spell as part of a full round action utilizing the Spell Combat rules that changes the spell from just casting a spell to making it counts as an off-hand weapon.
Specific rules trump general and can change the action, as is happening here.
I disagree that you have a good literal reading of the rules. Consider the following sentence:
"Making a peach smoothie is much like making a strawberry smoothie, but the strawberry is a peach."
Do you understand that sentence to mean "Peaches in peach smoothies are actually strawberries, because peach smoothies are strawberry smoothies", or do you understand it to mean "Peach smoothies are like strawberry smoothies, but with peach replacing strawberries"? To me, the later is clearly a more correct reading, but I acknowledge that implicit in that belief is the belief that "casting a spell" is expressly not "attacking with a weapon" in the same way that "peaches" are expressly not "strawberries". They may have similarities, but at the end of the day, they are not the same thing.
The alternative reading requires such an odd and idiosyncratic level of reading technically enough to infer a conflict, but not technically enough to note the distinctions that resolve the conflict that it just seems so unlikely to be correct. That said, I fully acknowledge that this might be "clarified" by an appeal to metaphysical hands of effort and "unwritten rules", but that doesn't make those clarifications good, or logical, or what the rules actually state now. In short, if the intention was... Except you are making the wrong argument. Using your smoothie argument, we aren't saying that a peach smoothie is a strawberry smoothie. We are saying if you aren't allowed to drink a smoothie, it doesn't matter if its peach or strawberry.
MrTsFloatinghead wrote: noretoc wrote: I don't agree. It is quite clear to me that you can not use both. Can you explain why, though? Your first attempt doesn't work I stopped reading after this. I was pretty clear. My explanation (Which you imply is an attempt) works perfectly. Maybe you feel it is an attempt at convincing YOU, but it isn't. I don't care if you are convinced. Believe what you want, and be wrong.
I am perfectly comfortable with with my original post.
My personal thoughts is spellstrike you could and spell combat you could not. Because you could hold the spell for spellstrike and then attack with precise strike. As far as I know holding a spell does not require maintenance(continued chanting gesturing and expending regents) per RAW.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
robert best 549 wrote: My personal thoughts is spellstrike you could and spell combat you could not. Because you could hold the spell for spellstrike and then attack with precise strike. As far as I know holding a spell does not require maintenance(continued chanting gesturing and expending regents) per RAW. Right. This would work,as Spellstrike requires no action to do other than have cast a touch spell at some point and be holding the charge.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
noretoc wrote: MrTsFloatinghead wrote: noretoc wrote: I don't agree. It is quite clear to me that you can not use both. Can you explain why, though? Your first attempt doesn't work I stopped reading after this. I was pretty clear. My explanation (Which you imply is an attempt) works perfectly. Maybe you feel it is an attempt at convincing YOU, but it isn't. I don't care if you are convinced. Believe what you want, and be wrong.
I am perfectly comfortable with with my original post.
You literally provided an untrue claim in your evidence - the same goes for what Calth is saying as well. Calth is now, per his last response, saying that Precise Strike prevents you from using the Two Weapon Fighting rules. You said that Precise Strike requires that you can't "use" your off-hand. I have already demonstrated why those are false claims, and why that mattered. You are reading the limitations on Precise Strike as more than what they really are. The limits are:
You cannot attack with an off-hand weapon.
You cannot use a shield other than a buckler.
That's it. There are no other restrictions. It doesn't say "You cannot use anything resembling or descended from the Two Weapon Fighting rules". It doesn't say "your 'hand of effort must be free'". It doesn't say you can't "use your off hand". Those are all over-readings of the actual rules that rely on a raft of assumptions that simply aren't in the text. Take a look at the examples I gave - can you use Precise Strike while holding a rope? If you instinctively say "no", it's because you are assuming a limit that isn't in the rules. If you say "yes", then you have to acknowledge that your original post was over-stating the limits on Precise Strike, and that thus your conclusions based on that over-statement are probably flawed.
Oh, before we get into "cannot attack with an off-hand weapon" is functionally the same as "cannot use anything derived from the Two Weapon Fighting rules", consider, for example, "Flurry of Blows" and a multi-classed Monk/Swashbuckler. Are you going to argue that Flurry simply won't work with Precise Strike, even though you can expressly make all your flurry attacks with a single Monk weapon? How about a Swashbuckler who takes Two Weapon Defense, so that he/she can have some benefit from the iconic Rapier/Dagger look? Does that break Precise Strike, even if the Swashbuckler doesn't attack with the dagger? Your interpretation would limit those options as well, by inferring a broader limit than what is actually there.
The rules, in other words, don't actually say you can't drink the smoothie. They say you can't have strawberries. While you can infer that to mean you can't have a strawberry smoothie, that doesn't mean you can't have an entirely different flavor.
MrTsFloatinghead wrote: noretoc wrote: MrTsFloatinghead wrote: noretoc wrote: I don't agree. It is quite clear to me that you can not use both. Can you explain why, though? Your first attempt doesn't work I stopped reading after this. I was pretty clear. My explanation (Which you imply is an attempt) works perfectly. Maybe you feel it is an attempt at convincing YOU, but it isn't. I don't care if you are convinced. Believe what you want, and be wrong.
I am perfectly comfortable with with my original post.
You literally provided an untrue claim in your evidence - the same goes for what Calth is saying as well. Calth is now, per his last response, saying that Precise Strike prevents you from using the Two Weapon Fighting rules. You said that Precise Strike requires that you can't "use" your off-hand. I have already demonstrated why those are false claims, and why that mattered. You are reading the limitations on Precise Strike as more than what they really are. The limits are:
You cannot attack with an off-hand weapon.
You cannot use a shield other than a buckler.
That's it. There are no other restrictions. It doesn't say "You cannot use anything resembling or descended from the Two Weapon Fighting rules". It doesn't say "your 'hand of effort must be free'". It doesn't say you can't "use your off hand". Those are all over-readings of the actual rules that rely on a raft of assumptions that simply aren't in the text. Take a look at the examples I gave - can you use Precise Strike while holding a rope? If you instinctively say "no", it's because you are assuming a limit that isn't in the rules. If you say "yes", then you have to acknowledge that your original post was over-stating the limits on Precise Strike, and that thus your conclusions based on that over-statement are probably flawed.
Oh, before we get into "cannot attack with an off-hand weapon" is functionally the same as "cannot use anything derived from the Two Weapon Fighting rules", consider, for... Since this is exactly what you said earlier. I say again, I do not agree. Two times is about as far as I 'll go though. Should you repeat yourself again, assume I reply with "I don't agree."
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Calth wrote: Except you are making the wrong argument. Using your smoothie argument, we aren't saying that a peach smoothie is a strawberry smoothie. We are saying if you aren't allowed to drink a smoothie, it doesn't matter if its peach or strawberry. I answered this in my response to noretoc, but I'll make sure it's here too:
You are still reading extra limits into the rules beyond what they actually say. Nothing in Precise Strike says you can't use the "Two Weapon Fighting" rules, or derivatives thereof. The limitations are quite specific to "cannot attack with an off-hand weapon" and "cannot use a shield other than a buckler". Any other limits are simply assumptions. RAW I should be able to use Flurry of Blows and Precise Strike together, since Flurry of Blows is "like" Two Weapon Fighting, but allows me to make all my attacks with a single weapon (thus never violating the "cannot attack with an off-hand weapon" condition). Similarly, RAW, I should be able to use Two Weapon Defense with Precise Strike, and gain the +1 shield bonus, because despite being a part of the "Two Weapon Fighting" chain, nothing about Two Weapon Defense requires that I actually attack with the off-hand weapon.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
noretoc wrote: Since this is exactly what you said earlier. I say again, I do not agree. Two times is about as far as I 'll go though. Should you repeat yourself again, assume I reply with "I don't agree." Maybe it would help us communicate if you would actually explain what you disagree with?
Are you saying that you disagree that you based your reasoning in your first post in part on the supposition that Precise Strike says you can't "use" your off-hand?
Are you saying that you disagree with my assertion that the above interpretation is not actually what the rules say?
Are you saying that you disagree that starting from a flawed premise makes it likely that your conclusion was incorrect?
Or are you simply saying that you disagree with my implied assertion that the most persuasive way to build an argument is via a logical construction from the rules text?
Saying simply "I disagree" doesn't help move the discussion forward, nor does attempting to portray me as being deliberately obtuse (if that is, in fact, what you were implying).
MrTsFloatinghead wrote: noretoc wrote: Since this is exactly what you said earlier. I say again, I do not agree. Two times is about as far as I 'll go though. Should you repeat yourself again, assume I reply with "I don't agree." Maybe it would help us communicate if you would actually explain what you disagree with?
Are you saying that you disagree that you based your reasoning in your first post in part on the supposition that Precise Strike says you can't "use" your off-hand?
Are you saying that you disagree with my assertion that the above interpretation is not actually what the rules say?
Are you saying that you disagree that starting from a flawed premise makes it likely that your conclusion was incorrect?
Or are you simply saying that you disagree with my implied assertion that the most persuasive way to build an argument is via a logical construction from the rules text?
Saying simply "I disagree" doesn't help move the discussion forward, nor does attempting to portray me as being deliberately obtuse (if that is, in fact, what you were implying). I am disagreeing with your assumption that I want to move forward in this discussion with you. I don't. I not interested in an argument or the word play that goes on in these. My intent was to back up calth's opinion and state it in a way that I felt got the reasoning across to whoever read my post. I think I have done that. You can argue about it with someone else. Maybe it bother's you that I know you are wrong, but that is your issue, not mine, I'm sorry. Yes, I use the word "know" because I am confidant in my own own reasoning.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
noretoc wrote: I am disagreeing with your assumption that I want to move forward in this discussion with you. I don't. I not interested in an argument or the word play that goes on in these. My intent was to back up calth's opinion and state it in a way that I felt got the reasoning across to whoever read my post. I think I have done that. You can argue about it with someone else. Maybe it bother's you that I know you are wrong, but that is your issue, not mine, I'm sorry. Yes, I use the word "know" because I am confidant in my own own reasoning. Okay, then right back at you - clearly you and I have such different views of what constitutes reasoning, and what the purpose of a discussion forum is that we do not exist in the same reality. I will proceed to ignore your posts, if you will do the same for mine, since communication is impossible.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
To me, the entire conversation seems dramatically overcomplicated when there's an obvious answer. We know Dervish Dance works with Spell Combat; that's nothing new. So let's work from there.
This is the relevant text of Dervish Dance: "You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand."
And the relevant text of Precise Strike. "To use this deed, a swashbuckler cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield other than a buckler."
If Dervish Dance works with Spell Combat, then the spell in the off-hand is not a weapon. Otherwise, the Magus would be "Carrying a weapon or a shield in your off hand".
If the spell in the off-hand is not a weapon, the Magus cannot possibly "attack with a weapon in her other hand", since according to the interaction between Dervish Dance and Spell Combat, Spell Combat does not place a weapon in your off hand. If they're not attacking with a weapon in that hand, Precise Strike works just fine.
Ergo, as long as Dervish Dance + Spell Combat is legal, Precise Strike + Spell Combat must be legal.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
kestral287 wrote: To me, the entire conversation seems dramatically overcomplicated when there's an obvious answer. We know Dervish Dance works with Spell Combat; that's nothing new. So let's work from there.
This is the relevant text of Dervish Dance: "You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand."
And the relevant text of Precise Strike. "To use this deed, a swashbuckler cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield other than a buckler."
If Dervish Dance works with Spell Combat, then the spell in the off-hand is not a weapon. Otherwise, the Magus would be "Carrying a weapon or a shield in your off hand".
If the spell in the off-hand is not a weapon, the Magus cannot possibly "attack with a weapon in her other hand", since according to the interaction between Dervish Dance and Spell Combat, Spell Combat does not place a weapon in your off hand. If they're not attacking with a weapon in that hand, Precise Strike works just fine.
Ergo, as long as Dervish Dance + Spell Combat is legal, Precise Strike + Spell Combat must be legal.
*facepalm*
So, basically, because the limits on Dervish Dance are more broad than the limits on Precise Strike ("attacking" and "using" both necessarily mean "carrying", but the reverse is not true, basically), and because we know Dervish Dance is allowed to work with Spell Combat, problem solved.
*facepalm**redface*
You are right - this is absolutely a better and more clear argument than the one I was making. Thank you!
Edit: *triplefacepalm* Artanthos made this same argument, in essence, on page one as well. D'oh.
kestral287 wrote: We know Dervish Dance works with Spell Combat; that's nothing new. Curious as where this is made clear?
Dotting. This is something I am following closely.
noretoc wrote: Mathius wrote: Calth: I have to agree with MrTsFloatinghead. Your interpretation makes little sense. Casting a weapon like spell only uses the hand they use to make the attack with not the hand that cast the spell. Rays do not have a hand and touch spells can be delivered with spell strike. The casting is not a weapon ever. That casting gives you a weapon and you choose how to deliver it.
A stilled touch spell with a wielded item each hand can not be delivered. The ray can.
The also specify that it is like two weapon fighting so that you can not spell combat and two weapon fight if you have 3 hands.
I understand Calth and exactly where he is coming from and agree with him (though in my home game I would be ok with it, cause its cool)
The Faq and dev comments talk about the way they think of extra attacks and the metaphysical "hands". When you make a second attack using a weapon it takes up your second "hand" even if you are not using your other actual hand to make the attack.
Precise combat denies you the bonus if your offhand is in use. It is intended to not work with two weapon fighting, so that means it is referring to that metaphysical "hand".
Spell Combat, when using it uses up that "hand" as if you were using two weapon fighting.
Hence no precise strike with spell combat, when you are attacking and casting.
Agree 100% RAW.
When using precise strike, the requirement is not, "cannot have a weapon in the off hand." The requirement is, "cannot attack with a weapon held in the off hand." Many spells are not attacks, being defined as a weapon by spell combat is irrelevant. For a magus, many spells that are attacks are delivered through the primary hand. Again, the conditions of Precise Strike have not been violated, the off-hand was not used to make the attack.
Availability of the off-hand to attack with is a moot point. Precise Strike does not care if you are able to attack with the off-hand, only that the off-hand was not used to deliver an attack with a weapon. A swashbuckler would dual wield swords, two-weapon-fighting on one round and using precise strike on the next.
I would argue that both abilities work together.
Artanthos wrote: noretoc wrote: Mathius wrote: Calth: I have to agree with MrTsFloatinghead. Your interpretation makes little sense. Casting a weapon like spell only uses the hand they use to make the attack with not the hand that cast the spell. Rays do not have a hand and touch spells can be delivered with spell strike. The casting is not a weapon ever. That casting gives you a weapon and you choose how to deliver it.
A stilled touch spell with a wielded item each hand can not be delivered. The ray can.
The also specify that it is like two weapon fighting so that you can not spell combat and two weapon fight if you have 3 hands.
I understand Calth and exactly where he is coming from and agree with him (though in my home game I would be ok with it, cause its cool)
The Faq and dev comments talk about the way they think of extra attacks and the metaphysical "hands". When you make a second attack using a weapon it takes up your second "hand" even if you are not using your other actual hand to make the attack.
Precise combat denies you the bonus if your offhand is in use. It is intended to not work with two weapon fighting, so that means it is referring to that metaphysical "hand".
Spell Combat, when using it uses up that "hand" as if you were using two weapon fighting.
Hence no precise strike with spell combat, when you are attacking and casting.
Agree 100% RAW.
When using precise strike, the requirement is not, "cannot have a weapon in the off hand." The requirement is, "cannot attack with a weapon held in the off hand." Many spells are not attacks, being defined as a weapon by spell combat is irrelevant. For a magus, many spells that are attacks are delivered through the primary hand. Again, the conditions of Precise Strike have not been violated, the off-hand was not used to make the attack.
Availability of the off-hand to attack with is a moot point. Precise Strike does not care if you are able to attack with the off-hand, only that the off-hand was not used to... ^
This is my point of view
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
noretoc wrote: kestral287 wrote: We know Dervish Dance works with Spell Combat; that's nothing new. Curious as where this is made clear? We've had Dervish Dance + Spell Combat available for three and a half years. People have been using that combination for three and a half years, and it's quite popular-- enough that I'd be willing to bet money the majority of PFS Magi use it. We've seen clarification after clarification regarding Spell Combat and what it does and does not work with, including a significant one that came out a year ago, long after Dance was printed. And... in all that time, not a single "no, this doesn't work" on what's probably the single most popular Magus build? Can you really buy into that DD + Spell Combat is not RAI after three and a half years of it being legal and used pretty much everywhere?
Arguments about hands and relationships to two-weapon fighting are all well and good... but fundamentally, what all three of these-- Spell Combat, Dervish Dance, and Precise Strike-- require are very similar. Spell Combat requires an empty hand. Dervish Dance requires an empty hand. Precise Strike doesn't even require that much-- just a hand that is not actively attacking or holding a shield.
Even if you don't think Dervish Dance is legitimate, and could actually support that point, then you get into the gigantic headache of deciding what qualifies as "attacking with a weapon" when the only thing in your hand is a spell. Can I use Precise Strike with a Spell Combat'd Haste? Haste is most certainly not an attack, even if you believe a spell is a weapon. What about Shocking Grasp? My other hand never attacks, I'm going to use Spellstrike to deliver the spell with my main hand. Or Dragon's Breath-- it's my mouth doing the attacking. The majority of the Magus' spell list are spells that could in no way be considered an attack. A lot of what remains are spells that, while an attack, would not use the off-hand as a delivery mechanism (usually because they're Touch spells, and as such can be delivered via Spellstrike).
The "Precise Strike doesn't work with Two Weapon Fighting so it doesn't work with Spell Combat" argument doesn't really hold up... because there's nothing stopping me from holding whatever weapon I want in the off-hand while using Precise Strike. I can't attack with it, certainly... but that's not the same thing.
And if I can hold whatever I want in the off hand, there's no reason why "whatever I want" can't be a spell. In which case the best you could possibly argue, within the bounds of the rule as written, is that you can't cast Fireballs so you have to cast Haste instead, and if you decide to cast Shocking Grasp you have to use Spellstrike.
Or, you look at the rules as intended... and that clearly loops us right back around to Dervish Dance.
kestral287 wrote: noretoc wrote: kestral287 wrote: We know Dervish Dance works with Spell Combat; that's nothing new. Curious as where this is made clear? We've had Dervish Dance + Spell Combat available for three and a half years. People have been using that combination for three and a half years, and it's quite popular-- enough that I'd be willing to bet money the majority of PFS Magi use it. We've seen clarification after clarification regarding Spell Combat and what it does and does not work with, including a significant one that came out a year ago, long after Dance was printed. And... in all that time, not a single "no, this doesn't work" on what's probably the single most popular Magus build? Can you really buy into that DD + Spell Combat is not RAI after three and a half years of it being legal and used pretty much everywhere? Quite possible.
Anyone know if there's been a official word back on this yet?
Sadly, no official word yet.
If casting a touch spell is an attack it would mean that casting a cure light wounds spell breaks invisibility regardless of the target. Is that really what the 'no sayers' here think?
Dotting for great interest, and hoping for an update
noretoc wrote: kestral287 wrote: noretoc wrote: kestral287 wrote: We know Dervish Dance works with Spell Combat; that's nothing new. Curious as where this is made clear? We've had Dervish Dance + Spell Combat available for three and a half years. People have been using that combination for three and a half years, and it's quite popular-- enough that I'd be willing to bet money the majority of PFS Magi use it. We've seen clarification after clarification regarding Spell Combat and what it does and does not work with, including a significant one that came out a year ago, long after Dance was printed. And... in all that time, not a single "no, this doesn't work" on what's probably the single most popular Magus build? Can you really buy into that DD + Spell Combat is not RAI after three and a half years of it being legal and used pretty much everywhere? Quite possible. This smells more like flailing in desperation not to be wrong than actually having any conviction in the position anymore.
Sure this works, unfortunately you have no swashbuckler levels and no panache too make use of the deed. Unless you actually are a swashbuckler
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Corwin Illum wrote: Sure this works, unfortunately you have no swashbuckler levels and no panache too make use of the deed. Unless you actually are a swashbuckler Please read Arcane Deed and Flamboyant Arcana both.
Benefit(s) When a magus takes this arcana, he can pick any one deed from the swashbuckler class feature as long as that deed can be used by a swashbuckler of his magus level. The magus can use that deed by using points from his arcane pool as the panache points required for that deed. A magus can take this arcana multiple times, each time gaining a new deed.
You are wrong
Magus can pick up precise strike, but has no actual swashbuckler levels. Also. While he can spend points... Doesn't actually have them.
This a magus could parry, but not riposte.
A magus with precise strike would be over powered. I have a magus main
Are you kidding?
Look at the Hexcrafter class, specifically Hex Arcana. Nowhere in this ability does it say Magus levels act as witch levels for the Hexes.
So obviously, the Hexcrafter archetype doesn't work.
Or you could just use common sense to realize that RAI for abilities like these is that magus levels == swashbuckler levels or witch levels for the intended purpose.
Seriously, how stupid do you think the development team is?
If they allow precise strike for the magus, they weren't thinking clearly
At 4th level, the hexcrafter magus gains access to a small number of witch’s hexes. The hexcrafter magus picks one hex from the witch’s hex class feature. He gains the benefit of or uses that hex as if he were a witch of a level equal to his magus level.
This feature replaces spell recall.
Seems clear to me
... I don't understand how you can quote the text that explicitly says " The magus can use that deed by using points from his arcane pool as the panache points required for that deed" and argue that a Magus can't spend points.
The no-level thing is debatable. My question then becomes the Daring Champion, a Cavalier archetype. Would you also rule that it gets +0 damage Precise Strike? The Mutagenic Mauler takes Spontaneous Healing-- does he heal for 0 rounds per day? Taking the close-minded "no level so no damage" approach means you disable a dozen or so class features and archetypes outright. It's a very difficult thing to justify.
He can spend points, just doesn't have them in reserve. Thus he could spend points to parry, but would have the reserve panache to riposte.
It is incredibly easy for a magus to keep points in reserve, much more then the swashbuckler, even counting the renewable resource.
I have a 10th level Kensai/bladebound magus. Dex to damage, +17 init, 32 ac. Very strong. This would make him way over the top.
Corwin Illum wrote: If they allow precise strike for the magus, they weren't thinking clearly
At 4th level, the hexcrafter magus gains access to a small number of witch’s hexes. The hexcrafter magus picks one hex from the witch’s hex class feature. He gains the benefit of or uses that hex as if he were a witch of a level equal to his magus level.
This feature replaces spell recall.
Seems clear to me
That is for the 4th level ability which gives one Hex. Read the words:
Quote: The hexcrafter magus picks one hex from the witch’s hex class feature. He gains the benefit of or uses that hex as if he were a witch of a level equal to his magus level. Now look at the Hex Arcana ability:
Quote: A hexcrafter gains access to the following magus arcana, or may select any witch hex in place of a magus arcana. At 12th level, the hexcrafter may select a hex or major hex in place of a magus arcana. At 18th level, a hexcrafter can select a hex, major hex, or grand hex in place of a magus arcana. He cannot select any hex or arcana more than once. Note, no language regarding the Hexcrafter levels replacing witch levels at all.
Therefore, by your logic, they don't work.
Or we could just apply a little bit of common sense, that's not against the rules.
Corwin Illum wrote: He can spend points, just doesn't have them in reserve. Thus he could spend points to parry, but would have the reserve panache to riposte.
It is incredibly easy for a magus to keep points in reserve, much more then the swashbuckler, even counting the renewable resource.
I have a 10th level Kensai/housebound magus. Dex to damage, +17 init, 32 ac. Very strong. This would make him way over the top.
Yeah... except not.
Over in another thread, I ran some math. I was comparing a Magus who shifted into a Calikang to attack with one who just attacked with a rapier, straight DPR check. The latter had Precise Strike. The latter was the better attacker... barely. You can find the full thing over in the Natural Attack Magus thread, but here's a snippet:
10th level wrote:
Weapon Magus: 42.7025 (no spell), 86.5325 (SG), 96.965(FB)
Natural Magus: 34.93125 (no spell), 60.03(SG), 83.835 (FB)
See how tiny the difference is? Take Precise Strike out of the equation and the Natural Attack Magus pulls cleanly ahead... so without Precise Strike, an optimal Magus is hitting fairly close to the same damage. So Precise Strike is nothing groundbreaking for Magus damage.
Oh hey, just found a post by Mark Seifter that agrees with me
"So it doesn't give you an effective swashbuckler level for the purposes of determining the deed's power (only affects precise strike) and it doesn't say that having points in your arcane pool counts as having points in your panache pool, only that you can spend arcane instead of spend panache. The first note is probably an oversight, but I think that the second may have been an intentional decision by the freelancer, since it is far easier for a magus to not have pressure to spend his last point of arcane pool, combined with the fact that they may have been intending to block precise strike particularly (which, if so, was a good call, since it is a massive surge in magus power, given that precise strike was created to balance the damage loss between a one-handed and two-handed weapon for swash, but the magus class already in and of itself is balanced around only having a one-handed weapon). Anyway, long story short, I wouldn't even allow Arcane Deed (precise strike) to begin with."
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r7kg&page=15?Ask-Mark-Seifter-All-Your-Que stions-Here#720
So you'd also say that Hexcrafters only get one Hex, Daring Champions get a useless class ability, Mutagenic Maulers are allowed to take a feat that literally does nothing, and so much more?
Strawman arguments, not related to the power this gives a magus. I don't know enough about daring champions, or mutagenic maulers. I do know this is a huge spike in power for a magus. Magus has to jump though a few hoops to get this ability.
The other things mentioned appear at a glance to be standard class features.
Daring Champion rests on your exact same wording for the exact same ability. I'm asking if you're willing to apply your logic universally. Are you?
Different class / archetype that I know nothing about. Whether it does or doesn't has no bearing on whether a magus should have this ability
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Corwin Illum wrote: Different class / archetype that I know nothing about. Whether it does or doesn't has no bearing on whether a magus should have this ability It has everything to do with it. It's the same ability, from the same book, lacking the same key wording. If one doesn't work, then the other doesn't, unless you're no longer actually going by rules and are into the realm of Rule 0. I'm asking which it is.
Corwin Illum wrote: Strawman arguments, not related to the power this gives a magus. I don't know enough about daring champions, or mutagenic maulers. I do know this is a huge spike in power for a magus. Magus has to jump though a few hoops to get this ability.
The other things mentioned appear at a glance to be standard class features.
Surely you're joking. Hexcrafters are generally considered the most powerful of the archetypes, and the builds I've seen never have precise strike. There are far better things to spend those two feats on. If you think precise strike is a 'huge spike' in power, I shudder to think how you would characterize a fully specc'ed out Hexcrafter spamming high DC slumbers on every enemy she meets.
I'm also not sure you know what the phrase 'strawman argument' refers to.
We're saying that because there are ample examples of level equivalent words not showing up where they are supposed to, the same lack of verbiage for the Flamboyant Arcana feature is neither surprising, nor definitively meaningful. This is not a strawman argument, it speaks directly to whether you can argue that, RAI, magus levels count for swashbuckler levels just like, RAI, you can argue that magus levels count for witch levels.
Right now I do 1d8 + 12 damage a bit. Granted I am more martially focused then my shocking grasp brethren. +3 blackblade. Usually +5 with arcane pool
Say I blackblade strike for 1d8+15. To make it easy... 20 damage a hit
A typical opener for me could be arcane accuracy- bladed dash, haste (boots), swing, swing.
My iterative attack is at +23. Needless to say... I usually hit with everything here.
80 damage. With precise strike this would be up to 120. A 33% increase.
Straw man argument... Talking about a different topic. Whether daring champions should have this is not related to whether a magus shoud.
And markedly less than that when you bring spells into play. And, as noted-- Precise Strike is only just above a damage-oriented Magus without Precise Strike, actually making use of their best abilities. It shifted what the optimal Magus was, but it didn't actually significantly change numbers(roughly a 15% damage increase, probably less if the builds used for my tests were both optimized rather than just optimized to the same level).
Corwin Illum wrote: Right now I do 1d8 + 12 damage a bit. Granted I am more martially focused then my shocking grasp brethren. +3 blackblade. Usually +5 with arcane pool
Say I blackblade strike for 1d8+15. To make it easy... 20 damage a hit
A typical opener for me could be arcane accuracy- bladed dash, haste (boots), swing, swing.
My iterative attack is at +23. Needless to say... I usually hit with everything here.
80 damage. With precise strike this would be up to 120. A 33% increase.
Straw man argument... Talking about a different topic. Whether daring champions should have this is not related to whether a magus shoud.
Um, no, talking about 'should' is a strawman argument. We are talking about RAW and RAI. And for RAI purposes, the wording used for the same or similar ability for other classes is extremely relevant.
Whether or not you, or even someone on the development team, thinks that precise strike is too powerful for a magus is irrelevant as to whether or not RAW or RAI says he can use it.
Again, I think you strongly overestimate the ability especially when you have to spend two feats on it. But if as a GM you want to ban it, feel free. Just don't pretend that RAI supports your ruling.
I play pfs. Raw matters to me more. Raw an argument can absolutely be made for it not working
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Corwin Illum wrote: I play pfs. Raw matters to me more. Raw an argument can absolutely be made for it not working The same RAW that says Hexcrafter Magus doesn't work.
Is that the argument you want to use? Does RAW matter to you so much that you would make that same argument for the Hexcrafter? Or is it only precise strike that fits that category.
In other words, are you sure that 'Raw matters to you more', or do you just have a bee in your bonnet regarding precise strike?
Different abilities, different situations.
Hexcrafters are very powerful, the hex is a baseline thing for them. Seems to be the same for daring champions. The magus has to actively work to get this dubious ability. Don't be shocked if a gm says "this doesn't work".
I feel more confident with a developer posting the same argument. Feel free to make your own decision. Just don't kid yourself, this is the most powerful arcana the magus can take if it works as you say.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
So you care about RAW. But you're willing to allow Daring Champion Precise Strike and not Magus Precise Strike, despite missing identical key wording.
I hope you can understand how your position might be confusing.
RAW, by definition, is not applied situationally. If you apply RAW strictly in one case and loosely in another, despite the problems being identical, you are no longer actually following Rules as Written. If your problem is "Precise Strike is too powerful for a Magus", then fine. That's your right to consider. Realize that that is not a statement of RAW.
If your problem is "Precise Strike does not say that you get Magus Level = Swashbuckler Level so it doesn't work", then we have an entirely different conversation, and you need to be aware of the implications of your statement. The moment you decide to pick-and-choose which classes you apply Rules as Written to, even when the situation is identical, you are off the track of following Rules as Written.
So- which is it, exactly? State your position clearly.
|
