Is a Magus required to cast a spell when using spell combat (EX) or is the spell optional?
Recently My Magus was engaged in combat and I used the spell combat ability and the spellstrike ability. My intention was to take my two melee attacks (BAB is +6/+1) and then cast shocking grasp and deliver it through my weapon.
I did my attacks with my weapon first, taking -2 on each attack. The opponent I was fighting died. I could not reach any other opponents. I had no need to cast shocking grasp so I stopped my action for the round. My GM declared that shocking grasp had fizzled and I lost the spell for the day because I did not use it as I had indicated.
Does Spell Combat require some spell be cast as part of the full round action?
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if your GM wanted to be a stickler that you still had to cast a spell as part of Spell Combat (which is perhaps silly, but not disprovable as far as I'm aware), I would point out that there is nothing in Spell Combat that indicates that the spell to be cast has to be chosen at any time prior to casting it. So if your GM says that since you're using Spell Combat you have to cast a spell, you can just cast light or ray of frost or something.
EDIT: And even if you DID have to cast the shocking grasp that you originally told him, not having someone to attack would NOT make the spell "fizzle", because it's a touch spell, and you can hold that charge indefinitely, so next turn you could walk up and poke somebody else.
I'm hoping I can disprove it
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).
can means doesn't have to. You took penalties for no reason, yay! but yeah it doesn't say have to use a spell. And jiggy is right too, use an cantrip if your GM says you need a spell. And I'd go and say that if you're GM is making you stick to what you said your plan was then don't give more of your plan then needed.
And I'd go and say that if you're GM is making you stick to what you said your plan was then don't give more of your plan then needed.
My thoughts exactly.
|
Jiggy and Chess Pwn are right. nothing to add to their posts.
If you want an example for your GM outside of spell combat, what happen at his table if you decide to use two weapon fighting and kill the opponent with the first attack?
You have taken the -2 to the attack but you have made only 1 attack. At that point you can move, as this rule clearly show:
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
For the magus casting the spell is very similar to using TWF, it is in the spell combat description:
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.
I hop that this will help you presenting your case.
If not, you should never declare what spell you are using with spell combat until you actually cast it. As Jiggy pointed out you can cast a cantrip and lose nothing. Or you can cast some useful spell that you have available.
That is very helpful.
Thanks!
In the spirit of fairness and to be thorough, is there anyone who feels that my GM made the correct call? If so I would like to hear from you and get your reasoning on the topic.
|
|
I'm guessing your gm is getting flustered with the 100 damage crits you can pull off around level 8-9. Not casting a spell after killing the target is valid. Even if you did have to cast a spell you could pick whatever spell you want. Even if you had to cast Shocking Grasp it wouldn't fizzle, you'd hold the charge, since it's a touch spell.
Playing devil's advocate: Let's assume he was using some other non-touch range spell, such as fireball during his Spell Combat action.
It has long been understood that a magus cannot use Spell Combat with a two-handed weapon, such as a greatsword or a quarterstaff, by simply removing a hand from the weapon in order to cast his spell. Why? Because it's all taking place simultaneously in the same full-round action. He's casting the spell WHILE swinging the weapon, which pretty much excludes the use of two-handed weapons or double weapons since has MUST have a hand free during the ENTIRE action.
So then, why wouldn't he lose the fireball spell that he decided not to finish casting? After all, he was casting it AT THE SAME TIME he was swinging his weapon. It should be clear to all that it had already started being cast by the time he made up his mind not to finish it.
Seems to me a lot of people want to have their cake and to eat it too. GM was harsh, but fair (the player character should have had the option to finish the spell and hold the charge).
Ravingdork:
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.
This pretty explicitly calls out that you either cast then attack, or attack then cast. It stands to reason if you attack then cast, you can stop before completing the cast portion.
The same if you cast then attack, and your spells kills him, you aren't now required to make an attack anyway at the dieing/dead body.
Playing devil's advocate: Let's assume he was using some other non-touch range spell, such as fireball during his Spell Combat action.
It has long been understood that a magus cannot use Spell Combat with a two-handed weapon, such as a greatsword or a quarterstaff, by simply removing a hand from the weapon in order to cast his spell. Why? Because it's all taking place simultaneously in the same full-round action. He's casting the spell WHILE swinging the weapon, which pretty much excludes the use of two-handed weapons or double weapons since has MUST have a hand free during the ENTIRE action.
So then, why wouldn't he lose the fireball spell that he decided not to finish casting? After all, he was casting it AT THE SAME TIME he was swinging his weapon. It should be clear to all that it had already started being cast by the time he made up his mind not to finish it.
Seems to me a lot of people want to have their cake and to eat it too. GM was harsh, but fair (the player character should have had the option to finish the spell and hold the charge).
No, where in the rules does it say or imply that the spell is being cast while swinging your sword?
"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."
He casts the spell before or after the weapon attacks, never during.
"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."
and this is why you can't use a two-handed weapon. It's in the rules saying you can't. If it didn't have this line you totally could use a greatsword with this.
And yet, if my memory serves, that seemed to be the primary argument against abusing the magus class abilities during and shortly after the Ultimate Magic playtest...
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And yet, if my memory serves, that seemed to be the primary argument against abusing the magus class abilities during and shortly after the Ultimate Magic playtest...
Yeah, because internet arguments have never been provably wrong before...? I'm trying (and failing) to figure out how "people on the internet said something else during the playtest" is supposed to be any kind of rebuttal to what's written right there on the page with zero ambiguity.
So what is there to stop a magus from wielding a longsword or similar one-handed weapon in two hands, then releasing one hand and casting a spell during spell combat?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
The fact that the ability says they can't?
Exactly right. The text speaks of simultaneity!
Therefore, what exactly prevents my previous argument from being true?
He can choose whether the spell goes off before or after his attacks, but he's casting during the entire full round action. It's an abstraction, just like turn-based combat or hit points.
Sorry. It says you must have one had free to use the ability. The ability then says you get to choose if you attack then cast, or cast then attack.
If you attack and they die, you are not forced to then cast. If you cast then they die, you are not still forced to make an attack.
Even if you want to argue that you must cast a spell, you are not required to choose the spell until you cast it, which comes after the attacks, so you can choose to cast a cantrip and not lose a higher level slot.
That's an interesting interpretation.
The ability states you can choose to attack then cast your spell. If I attack and you require me to then still cast a spell, the first step of casting a spell is choosing which spell. Spell combat doesn't state you must decide the spell at the beginning of the action, therefore you don't have to choose the spell that is being cast until after the attacks resolve (assuming you are doing the attack then cast order).
I think it is interesting that you interpret that a spell MUST be cast simply for taking the spell combat action, and that the character can't stop himself in the middle if needed.
I don't really. I'm just making the same arguments that I thought the majority of posters believed in during the olden days.
So when you TWF, you must stab with your offhand weapon?
As the spell combat says it works like TWF, you can ask the above question and get your answer. If you decide to TWF something, and it dies on first strike, are you forced to stab the corpse with the offhand, or can you then move to another target.
you can make any number of attacks you have available up to the same number of enemies, and you decide per attack. Same with archery. If you are getting off 5 arrows, and the first one kills the guy the other 4 can go to different targets.
These guys are right. Not only is it an option to cast the spell, but touch spells stay charged in your hand, indefinitely, until discharged with an attack. So he was actually wrong twice with the same call.
|
|
I don't really. I'm just making the same arguments that I thought the majority of posters believed in during the olden days.
If you mean AD&D 1st and 2nd edition or BECM, you are right, you had to declare your actions at the start of the turn, but with 3.X you declare your actions when you make them, even in the middle of the turn. There are a few action that give you a modifier so you must declare that you are using them, but aren't forced to declare how you use them until you actually use them.
It's an issue of fluff vs mechanics. I hate to be the guy arguing strict mechanics over flavor, but that's the magus can choose. Just like with spellstrike, spell combat is supposed to give him more options, not restrict his choices.
And if you like, consider that attack actions include many other counters/parries/strikes/etc. (fluff-wise) than actually do damage. The magus must be adept at 'full-attacking' particularly quick in order to cast a spell in the same round, so they choose the order.
That's the nice thing about fluff, it's easy to make it fit the mechanical reality in most cases. It's malleable.
I don't really. I'm just making the same arguments that I thought the majority of posters believed in during the olden days.If you mean AD&D 1st and 2nd edition or BECM, you are right, you had to declare your actions at the start of the turn, but with 3.X you declare your actions when you make them, even in the middle of the turn. There are a few action that give you a modifier so you must declare that you are using them, but aren't forced to declare how you use them until you actually use them.
Sorry for the confusion, but no, I meant the time of the magus playtest and shortly afterwards, when there was a host of "clarification threads" on these boards about how spellstrike worked.
I distinctly remember people making the same arguments and seemingly (to me at least) convincing everyone else that, that was how it worked, and that, that was why you couldn't really abuse it in the way that so many wanted to.
|
|
I don't really. I'm just making the same arguments that I thought the majority of posters believed in during the olden days.If you mean AD&D 1st and 2nd edition or BECM, you are right, you had to declare your actions at the start of the turn, but with 3.X you declare your actions when you make them, even in the middle of the turn. There are a few action that give you a modifier so you must declare that you are using them, but aren't forced to declare how you use them until you actually use them.Sorry for the confusion, but no, I meant the time of the magus playtest and shortly afterwards, when there was a host of "clarification threads" on these boards about how spellstrike worked.
I distinctly remember people making the same arguments and seemingly (to me at least) convincing everyone else that, that was how it worked, and that, that was why you couldn't really abuse it in the way that so many wanted to.
What was the way that people wanted to abuse that it happening simultaneously prevented?
What was the way that people wanted to abuse that it happening simultaneously prevented?
They were trying to find loop holes that allowed them to wield two weapons, one weapon in both hands, or a two-handed weapon. Many of the arguments that were used to shut them down resembled the one I made above, if my recollection holds.
That doesn't work because spell combat explicitly requires one hand to be free to use it. It does not explicitly change the rules on TWF, which spell combat references. Off-hand is the spell being cast. It says you can choose whether you attack then cast, or cast then attack. If you attack then cast, you can choose to stop your attack prior to the off-hand attack same as with TWF.
Yes, but there was the question of changing grips and timing. Referencing two-weapon fighting doesn't really help since you can change grips, or even weapons with Quick Draw, while dual-wielding.
TWF reference is for if you can stop before the second weapon (cast a spell) is taken.
The action which is a full-round action states that you cannot do it if you do not have a hand free. Full stop, you have to have a hand free for the entire full-round action.
So what happens if you do you attacks, your spell, and then fill your other hand with something? Does it negate the damage you did or something?
Does anyone have a link to one of the longer "Spell Combat clarification" threads of old?
|
|
Does anyone have a link to one of the longer "Spell Combat clarification" threads of old?
How old RD?
Magus PlaytestI have been in some of the discussion you cite (not during play test) but a search with the keywords "spell combat" and "spellcombat" hasn't given me anything interesting.