Spell Combat (Ex)
[See FAQ]
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 Maneuvers (Ex)
At 1st level, as part of a full-attack action[, a maneuver master can make one additional combat maneuver, regardless of whether the maneuver normally replaces a melee attack or requires a standard action. The maneuver master uses his monk level in place of his base attack bonus to determine his CMB for the bonus maneuvers, though all combat maneuver checks suffer a –2 penalty when using a flurry.
At 8th level, a maneuver master may attempt a second additional combat maneuver, with an additional –3 penalty on combat maneuver checks.
At 15th level, a maneuver master may attempt a third additional combat maneuver, with an additional –7 penalty on combat maneuver checks.
A maneuver master loses this ability when wearing armor, using a shield, or carrying a medium or heavy load.
This ability replaces flurry of blows.
-------------------------------------------
Playing around with the idea of a Kensai Magus with a 2 level dip in Maneuver Master Monk focusing on the Trip Maneuver to get one extra trip maneuver per round.
Can Spell Combat (full-round action) be used at the same time with Flurry of Maneuvers (full-attack action)?
My logic is that Spell Combat is basically a full attack with a spell added on, kinda equivalent to TWF. But instead of an attack with an off-hand weapon. It's an off-hand spell.
So..TWF is equal to a full attack action. Shouldn't Spell Combat be as well?
Monks Flurry in Pathfinder is considered the equivalent of TWF and a Monk cannot both Flurry and TWF.
Therefore:
Flurry=TWF
Spell Combat=TWF
Flurry of Maneuvers ok with Spell Combat?
Yes, no, maybe if you torture the rules enough? Thoughts?
forgot to add this to the OP
Therefore:
Flurry=TWF
Spell Combat=TWF
Spell Combat=Flurry
No. Spell combat is NOT a full attack action. It's Spell Combat.
yeah...that's what I thought. ...reading too much into it
The Spell Combat & Haste FAQ probably says that Spell Combat is a special case of Full Attack, and things not forbidden should work as such. Flurry of Maneuvers would work with a regular TWF full attack, so it should work with spell Combat.
They are 2 separate full round/full attack actions.
Could you go read Flurry of Maneuvers, please, and then come back and tell us if you still think the same?.
Thanks Calth for pointing out that FAQ.
Certainly seems very clear that it is permitted to use Flurry of Maneuvers with Spell Combat. . My Magus thanks you.
|
I am fairly sure that is "other effects" like haste, speed and blessing of fervor.
Not for flurry of blows and probably not for flurry of maneuvers.
Flurry of blows is a form of two weapon combat and can't be combined with another form of two weapon combat.
Flurry or maneuvers isn't a form of two weapon combat, so maybe it can work.
Thanks Calth for pointing out that FAQ.
Certainly seems very clear that it is permitted to use Flurry of Maneuvers with Spell Combat. . My Magus thanks you.
It doesn't seem super clear to me. This looks like one of those weird gray areas - is Flurry of Maneuvers an effect? We generally only see those with things like spells and SLAs.
There is debate on what that FAQ means. As it's worded it uses the same wording as not stacking haste effects, Things that grant an extra attack in a round, Divine Fervor, speed weapon. Because these are often "Haste and other haste like effects". This is emphasized by the fact that the text only refers to making an extra attack and nothing else.
But it could be as open as including everything that needs a full attack. Other effects here means other things that need a full attack.
I'm saying this to let you know that not everyone will agree with the everything interpretation and that they don't hate you if they have the first one.
Flurry of Maneuvers is not TWF and it is not FoB .
It gives the ability to make an additional combat maneuver as "part of a full attack"
Does Spellcombat count as a full attack? See below
__________________
Per the FAQ:
Magus, Spell Combat: Does spell combat count as making a full attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects?
Yes.
___________________
It does not say Haste and other SPELL effects. It says other effects.
Seems pretty clear to me given the FAQ that Spellcombat counts as a full attack and therefore will work with Flurry of Maneuvers
It makes sense to me. And not just because I want it to work for my character.
TWF =full attack
Spell Combat =TWF
Therefore
Spell Combat =full attack
But of course even though this makes sense to me I understand that someone could have a different opinion.
Flurry of maneuvers isn't 2wf or anything like it. You get a free maneuver whenever you make a full attack action. So you totally could do 2wf as a full attack and then throw on a free maneuver at the end.
The issue with spell combat is it's a full round action where you make a full attack action in. So it's debatable whether the full attack in it is enough of a full attack to do things that need a full attack.
The issue with spell combat is it's a full round action where you make a full attack action in. So it's debatable whether the full attack in it is enough of a full attack to do things that need a full attack.
Whichever way you rule it, the same ruling would have to be applied to all full-round actions that allow a full attack.
Pounce & Pummeling Charge, for example.
Great example with Pounce. Thanks for mentioning it Snowlilly
From the FAQ:If a creature with pounce is under a haste effect, and it charges, does it get the extra attack from haste?
Yes. This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with effects that are essentially a full attack, even though the creature isn't specifically using the full attack action (as required by haste). The earlier ruling implied that pounce did not allow the extra attack from haste because pounce wasn't using the full attack action.
Some posters have been watching on to the word "effects", interpreted it as only applying to spell effects. Well here in the FAQ effects is referring to Pounce (non-spell effect)....In the same way that the FAQ referred to Spell Combat (non-spell effect).
Snowlilly makes a good point. If Pounce is essentially a full attack then Spell Combat is as well.
It certainly seems the benefit of the doubt goes towards allowing Flurry of Maneuvers with "effects that are essentially a full attack, even though the creature isn't specifically using the full attack action"such as Pounce, Spell Combat etc...
Haste is viable with effects that are essentially a full attack why wouldn't Flurry of Maneuvers be as well?
yup, medusa's wrath would stack too if you had it.
i recently put together a build that use master of many forms with spell combat to use snow ball to trigger medusa's wrath and get extra attacks with a nodachi (spear dancing spiral to treat it as a quarter staff, and ascetic style to treat quarter staff as unarmed strikes).
You can't TWF while TWFing and TWF at the same time.
So you Can't Flurry of Maneuver while Spell Combating, while Flurry of Blowing or Two Weapon Fighting.
Every single one of those abilities uses your offhand. You only have one offhand to use.
This is the second time in this thread I'll have to ask someone to go read Flurry of Maneuvers.
yup, medusa's wrath would stack too if you had it.
i recently put together a build that use master of many forms with spell combat to use snow ball to trigger medusa's wrath and get extra attacks with a nodachi (spear dancing spiral to treat it as a quarter staff, and ascetic style to treat quarter staff as unarmed strikes).
What are you using to get around spell combats requirement that your weapon be a light or one handed weapon? (the nodachi is 2-handed).
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
This is the second time in this thread I'll have to ask someone to go read Flurry of Maneuvers.
I used your logic for years playing a Maneuver Master up to 11th level in PFS. I used the logic that FoM isn't FoB and isn't restricted by FoB's Armor restrictions.
Turns out I was wrong, it is and in errata got a line about armor.
I suspect as a result, the line about "as if TWF" is another line they need to add. Or you get people wanting to combine FoM with TWF.
What are you using to get around spell combats requirement that your weapon be a light or one handed weapon? (the nodachi is 2-handed).yup, medusa's wrath would stack too if you had it.
i recently put together a build that use master of many forms with spell combat to use snow ball to trigger medusa's wrath and get extra attacks with a nodachi (spear dancing spiral to treat it as a quarter staff, and ascetic style to treat quarter staff as unarmed strikes).
Spear Dancing Spiral allows you to use the nodachi as a quarterstaff, quarterstaff mastery allows you to use the quarterstaff(read nodachi) one handed.
I should have mentioned it is the staff magus archetype as that would have cleared up the confusion.
This is the second time in this thread I'll have to ask someone to go read Flurry of Maneuvers.I used your logic for years playing a Maneuver Master up to 11th level in PFS. I used the logic that FoM isn't FoB and isn't restricted by FoB's Armor restrictions.
Turns out I was wrong, it is and in errata got a line about armor.
I suspect as a result, the line about "as if TWF" is another line they need to add. Or you get people wanting to combine FoM with TWF.
1. It has a line saying it replaces flurry of blows, but doesn't have one that states that it is or acts like or anything else, until it does it's its own separate thing.
2. It can work with two weapon fighting because it doesn't state it can't, only that it doesn't work with armor, shields or burdens.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
1. It has a line saying it replaces flurry of blows, but doesn't have one that states that it is or acts like or anything else, until it does it's its own separate thing.
My point is I used this logic to say it doesn't have the restrictions of Furry of Blows being used with Armor. I was wrong. FoM received errata to assert it blocked armor use.
You are just jumping on another omition, namely TWF use of off-hand.
It is far more likely that should this come down to Errata or FAQ, they would say "uses an off-hand".
This is the second time in this thread I'll have to ask someone to go read Flurry of Maneuvers.I used your logic for years playing a Maneuver Master up to 11th level in PFS. I used the logic that FoM isn't FoB and isn't restricted by FoB's Armor restrictions.
Turns out I was wrong, it is and in errata got a line about armor.
I suspect as a result, the line about "as if TWF" is another line they need to add. Or you get people wanting to combine FoM with TWF.
Wrong? You weren't wrong, the writers and editors who let is slip through were, and they eventually got around to fixing it. Now you're predicting that they'll errata FoM again, and you're taking that expectation as rules today. I see what you mean, but I disagree.