So I have seen the argument for this and none of it adds up. Everybody states that either it's impossible because TWF requires a full-attack action, and Spell Combat uses up your full-round action, or you can't make attacks with your off-hand spell.
Both of these are wrong though, and it baffles me that it hasn't been pointed out before. Correct, normally under most circumstances Two Weapon Fighting cannot be used in conjunction with Spell Combat. There are, however, three exceptions to this:
1) Multiple Arms
2) Unarmed Strikes
3) Natural Attacks
Let me explain now...
Two Weapon Fighting (ruling) wrote: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6. Two Weapon Fighting (feat) wrote: Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.
Spell Combat wrote: 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. Full-Attack Action wrote: 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. Okay
Now that all of the pertaining rules are posted for ease of access. Let me begin my explanation. First of all the actual reason as to why TWF and Spell Combat usually won't work together. It's simply because you are only holding one weapon. In order to benefit from TWF, you have to have two weapons. Plain and simple. Now, there are some things that trump this though, and I will go over each one individually.
Note that no where under Two Weapon Fighting does it ever state "As a full-round action..." or "As a full-attack action...". This is because TWF does not require any action to do, it is simply a mechanic to replicate difficulty of wielding two weapons by applying a penalty to attack rolls in return for an extra attack per round. People often mistake this due to you needing to take a full-round action to make a full-attack in order to pull off TWF, but the same goes for iterative attacks and natural attacks.
Multiple Arms: The Spell Combat ability only states that you have at least one hand open and free, and the other[s] have a one-handed or light weapon. It is assumed that this class was not written with the idea of Kasathas in mind. If you have multiple arms you can wield two or more weapons while still meeting the prerequisites for Spell Combat. For 3 or more weapons, however, you will need Multi-weapon Fighting instead.
Unarmed Strikes: Unarmed strikes can be made with any part of the body, so it falls under a similar clause as Multiple Arms. However, there is also the fact that no where under Spell Combat does it state that you cannot strike with the casting off-hand, you only cannot hold anything in it. You may still make an unarmed strike, just like if you were making a melee touch attack without Spell Combat.
Natural Attacks: Natural Attacks have been explained through explaining everything previously, but for clarification purposes, I will go over it again. Natural Attacks are basically innate iterative attacks, unless you take a full-attack, you can only strike with your primary natural weapon (I think if its 2 claws, you can only attack with one claw, but don't quote me on that). If you do make a full-attack, then you make attack once with each of your natural weapons. Same reasoning: Iterative attacks, natural attacks, and two weapon fighting are all lumped up in the options available when you use a full-round action to make a full-attack. Again, spell combat does not say you cannot strike with the casting hand.
Lastly, errata has already ruled that Haste works with spell combat, even though it is not exactly stated as being a "Full-Attack Action".
Well, I think I have made myself clear. Basically Two Weapon Fighting and Spell Combat only work together when you are using multiple arms, unarmed strikes, or natural attacks.
Do you agree? Does this make sense? Did I overlook a small detail that caused me to completely waste 45 minutes of my life writing all of this? DISCUSS!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
No.
I will expand on my statement later, but I have some things I need to do.
The Mindblade Magus has a specific class feature that allows them to TWF with Spell Combat. There are examples of redundant rulings but given that this came out in a main book like Occult Adventures I would assume this is intentional.
GeneMemeScene wrote: The Mindblade Magus has a specific class feature that allows them to TWF with Spell Combat. There are examples of redundant rulings but given that this came out in a main book like Occult Adventures I would assume this is intentional. Like I said, the exceptions I mentioned were multiple arms, unarmed strikes, and natural attacks. Normally you can't combine TWF and spell combat because you can only hold 1 weapon. Mindblade allows you to hold 2 weapons and still cast a spell. So it intentionally makes that exception.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The spell combat rules you quoted say, "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".
The Full-Attack action rules you quoted say, "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"
Two different full round actions. One action which allows all attacks with one hand and casting a spell with the other hand. Another action which allows ALL available attacks (e.g. natural weapons, multiple arms, et cetera).... but no spellcasting.
Different full-round actions which allow different things.
CBDunkerson wrote: The spell combat rules you quoted say, "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".
The Full-Attack action rules you quoted say, "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"
Two different full round actions. One action which allows all attacks with one hand and casting a spell with the other hand. Another action which allows ALL available attacks (e.g. natural weapons, multiple arms, et cetera).... but no spellcasting.
Different full-round actions which allow different things.
No, that's not entirely true. It says "you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks." meaning In order for you to be able to take your additional attacks, you must be taking a full-round action. Otherwise it would say, "As a full-round action."
The key difference is instead of it requiring you to spend a full-round action to make additional attacks, it's saying that in order to get your additional attacks you have to do so in a full-round action.
BigP4nda wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: The spell combat rules you quoted say, "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".
The Full-Attack action rules you quoted say, "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"
Two different full round actions. One action which allows all attacks with one hand and casting a spell with the other hand. Another action which allows ALL available attacks (e.g. natural weapons, multiple arms, et cetera).... but no spellcasting.
Different full-round actions which allow different things.
No, that's not entirely true. It says "you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks." meaning In order for you to be able to take your additional attacks, you must be taking a full-round action. Otherwise it would say, "As a full-round action."
The key difference is instead of it requiring you to spend a full-round action to make additional attacks, it's saying that in order to get your additional attacks you have to do so in a full-round action. Spell combat even states, As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks it doesn't specify only iterative attacks. It is every attack he can possibly make in a full-round action.
And here I thought I was a rules lawyer...
Relevant FAQ and another Relevant FAQ support the claim that A. You can use Natural Weapons with Spell Combat (you otherwise could not substitute them as iterative attacks with TWF, they would be added and function as secondary Natural attacks), and B. You can only use weapons associated with your one hand. Armor Spikes, Kicks, Headbutts, Barbazu Beards, Leg Knives, whatever, if it's not in your Hand (or even your Hand itself), it's not eligible with Spell Combat.
This means your "Multiple Arms" theory only supports you being able to sport a shield while being able to perform Spell Combat, as you're limited to one hand to attack with, your Unarmed Strikes only work if they're Punching, and even then you only use one hand, and your Natural Attacks function on a completely different basis in comparison to typical TWF protocols.
That right there is clear proof that Spell Combat functions on a whole different level from TWF, has different mechanics from TWF, and therefore becomes its own Full-Round Action, as evidenced by this Relevant FAQ, that states that they're treated as a Full Attack for effects related to it, whereas previously, they were excluded on the basis that they weren't Full Attack Actions (and by the rules, they still aren't), whereas TWF is a Full Attack Action, and always had the green light from Haste.
Lastly, and you seem to like to overlook this, you would need to spend Full Round Actions to perform both TWF and Spell Combat at the same time, since you would be benefiting from all of the attacks associated with Spell Combat and TWF (that is, you're getting one free spell cast, two sets of primary iterative attacks, and a set of off-hand iterative attacks).
Darksol the Painbringer wrote: And here I thought I was a rules lawyer...
Relevant FAQ and another Relevant FAQ support the claim that A. You can use Natural Weapons with Spell Combat (you otherwise could not substitute them as iterative attacks with TWF, they would be added and function as secondary Natural attacks), and B. You can only use weapons associated with your one hand. Armor Spikes, Kicks, Headbutts, Barbazu Beards, Leg Knives, whatever, if it's not in your Hand (or even your Hand itself), it's not eligible with Spell Combat.
This means your "Multiple Arms" theory only supports you being able to sport a shield while being able to perform Spell Combat, as you're limited to one hand to attack with, your Unarmed Strikes only work if they're Punching, and even then you only use one hand, and your Natural Attacks function on a completely different basis in comparison to typical TWF protocols.
That right there is clear proof that Spell Combat functions on a whole different level from TWF, has different mechanics from TWF, and therefore becomes its own Full-Round Action, as evidenced by this Relevant FAQ, that states that they're treated as a Full Attack for effects related to it, whereas previously, they were excluded on the basis that they weren't Full Attack Actions (and by the rules, they still aren't), whereas TWF is a Full Attack Action, and always had the green light from Haste.
Lastly, and you seem to like to overlook this, you would need to spend Full Round Actions to perform both TWF and Spell Combat at the same time, since you would be benefiting from all of the attacks associated with Spell Combat and TWF (that is, you're getting one free spell cast, two sets of primary iterative attacks, and a set of off-hand iterative attacks).
First off, I already made it clear that TWF is not an action, it is a mechanic. It does nothing more than adding to the number of attacks you can make WHEN you make a full-attack.
Secondly, this is where it starts to get grey. I didn't know about that faq stating you specifically had to use the hand with your weapon, but at the same time, it also doesn't say you can ONLY use that hand. So shouldn't you be okay as long as one of your attacks was made with that weapon? See, this is that blurred line that causes the necessity for FAQs.
Okay, fine, I'll take your side on it being a mechanic associated with a Full Attack Action, if only to play Devil's Advocate.
If, TWF is a mechanic associated with a Full Attack Action, and Spell Combat is its own Full-Round Action (as evidenced by the FAQ), and only counts as a Full Attack Action for effects like Haste, then how can you feasibly apply TWF to it? It's not a Full Attack Action, therefore it's not eligible to receive TWF.
The FAQs are pretty clear about it:
FAQ #1 wrote: Yes, so long as the weapon is a light or one-handed melee weapon and is associated with that hand. This FAQ mentions a single weapon associated with the hand.
FAQ #2 wrote: You specifically have to use the light or one-handed melee weapon in your other hand. This FAQ mentions it can only be that single melee weapon, and nothing else. Hence the phrasing of "You specifically have to use...the melee weapon..."
So you can't, for example, attack with a Longsword, drop it, and then punch with an Unarmed Strike; once you commit to your Longsword attack, you must commit your entire iteratives with that Longsword. This is also evidenced by the fact you can't, for example, make a single Longsword attack, and then make your Spell Attack, and then proceed with your remaining Longsword attacks.
The FAQs Darksol posted shut and close it. Otherwise I would agree that TWF and iteratives are in the same boat in that they require a nonspecific full-round action to enact, which spell combat would be.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote: Okay, fine, I'll take your side on it being a mechanic associated with a Full Attack Action, if only to play Devil's Advocate.
If, TWF is a mechanic associated with a Full Attack Action, and Spell Combat is its own Full-Round Action (as evidenced by the FAQ), and only counts as a Full Attack Action for effects like Haste, then how can you feasibly apply TWF to it? It's not a Full Attack Action, therefore it's not eligible to receive TWF.
The FAQs are pretty clear about it:
FAQ #1 wrote: Yes, so long as the weapon is a light or one-handed melee weapon and is associated with that hand. This FAQ mentions a single weapon associated with the hand.
FAQ #2 wrote: You specifically have to use the light or one-handed melee weapon in your other hand. This FAQ mentions it can only be that single melee weapon, and nothing else. Hence the phrasing of "You specifically have to use...the melee weapon..."
So you can't, for example, attack with a Longsword, drop it, and then punch with an Unarmed Strike; once you commit to your Longsword attack, you must commit your entire iteratives with that Longsword. This is also evidenced by the fact you can't, for example, make a single Longsword attack, and then make your Spell Attack, and then proceed with your remaining Longsword attacks.
What I am saying is that there are 2 ways to interpret that errata, either Paizo means to pigeon hole us into only playing one kind of magus (which sucks), or it is only required that at least one attack is made with that weapon, assuming you can feasibly make other attacks that round.
You really can't argue either way because they are both sensible sides, and it all comes down to which RAI will you go with.
BigP4nda wrote:
What I am saying is that there are 2 ways to interpret that errata, either Paizo means to pigeon hole us into only playing one kind of magus (which sucks), or it is only required that at least one attack is made with that weapon, assuming you can feasibly make other attacks that round.
You really can't argue either way because they are both sensible sides, and it all comes down to which RAI will you go with.
No, they're not both sensible sides. The written rules are clear and unambiguous. They do leave the clear impression that Paizo does, indeed, mean to pigeon hole players into playing one type of magus unless using one of a few archetypes.
I'm with everybody else as well. Casting the spell essentially takes the place of your off-hand attack. Unless you have some way to do three-weapon fighting, this is not even remotely possible.
Spell Combat is already s special case of TWF. One weapon is your weapon, the other is the spell you're casting. It has been specified that the mechanics of Spell Combat don't change even if you don't actually need a hand to cast your spell.
Manly-man teapot wrote: Spell Combat is already s special case of TWF. One weapon is your weapon, the other is the spell you're casting. It has been specified that the mechanics of Spell Combat don't change even if you don't actually need a hand to cast your spell. Except it's not though. I mean look at Flurry of Blows and Brawler's Flurry. THOSE are 2 other instances of twf, where they explicitly state they either work "as if using two weapon fighting" or "have the two weapon fighting feat during". They also go further to say exactly what can and can't be used during a flurry of blows.
Spell combat simply says "all attacks" with a light or one-handed weapon.
I am not doing this because I am trying to bend the rules in my favor or find a loophole. Honestly the concept I have could work either way, but I want some clarification, but it seems to have come to a dead end that can only really be clarified with either another errata or at least an official answer for somebody in the design team.
Spell Combat (partial quote, to reduce total length) wrote:
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).
Emphasis mine. Note that it is all attacks with his melee weapon. Not his weapons (plural), not his weapon and natural attacks. Weapon (singular) only.
This is further supported by the first FAQ Darksol referenced.
FAQ wrote:
When using spell combat, do I specifically have to use the weapon in my other hand, or can I use a mixture of weapons...
It explicitly says it must be the one weapon in your other hand - therefore a mixture of weapons/natural attacks is not allowed.
BigP4nda wrote: Manly-man teapot wrote: Spell Combat is already s special case of TWF. One weapon is your weapon, the other is the spell you're casting. It has been specified that the mechanics of Spell Combat don't change even if you don't actually need a hand to cast your spell. Except it's not though. I mean look at Flurry of Blows and Brawler's Flurry. THOSE are 2 other instances of twf, where they explicitly state they either work "as if using two weapon fighting" or "have the two weapon fighting feat during". They also go further to say exactly what can and can't be used during a flurry of blows.
Spell combat simply says "all attacks" with a light or one-handed weapon.
I am not doing this because I am trying to bend the rules in my favor or find a loophole. Honestly the concept I have could work either way, but I want some clarification, but it seems to have come to a dead end that can only really be clarified with either another errata or at least an official answer for somebody in the design team. You aren't likely to get further clarification from the Design Team because this issue has already been settled. Without a specific exception, like the one for the Mindblade, you can't combine Spell Combat with TWF.
bbangerter wrote: Spell Combat (partial quote, to reduce total length) wrote:
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).
Emphasis mine. Note that it is all attacks with his melee weapon. Not his weapons (plural), not his weapon and natural attacks. Weapon (singular) only.
This is further supported by the first FAQ Darksol referenced.
FAQ wrote:
When using spell combat, do I specifically have to use the weapon in my other hand, or can I use a mixture of weapons...
It explicitly says it must be the one weapon in your other hand - therefore a mixture of weapons/natural attacks is not allowed. I see what you're saying, though it's weird how they word the answer to the FAQ. Typically, in cases like this they would say something more along the lines of "You specifically have to use the light or one-handed melee weapon in your other hand. This means you can't make any attacks with other weapons or body parts."
The fact that they left out that second part leaves it ambiguous. As if they simply wanted to state "You have to make an attack with the weapon in your other hand" and leave it at that, which could be interpreted as "I have to make an attack with this weapon, as long as I do that, I can still make my other attacks as normal."
CampinCarl9127 wrote: Casting the spell essentially takes the place of your off-hand attack. Unless you have some way to do three-weapon fighting, this is not even remotely possible. TWF uses main hand and off-hand.
Spell Combat uses main hand and off-hand.
TWF+Spell Combat uses main hand and off-hand and off-hand.
If you have that many hands, maybe.
"a dead end that can only really be clarified with either another errata or at least an official answer for somebody in the design team." seems to equal "Everyone says I'm wrong, but I want a FAQ before I'll believe."
Chess Pwn wrote: "a dead end that can only really be clarified with either another errata or at least an official answer for somebody in the design team." seems to equal "Everyone says I'm wrong, but I want a FAQ before I'll believe." That's because I seem to be the only one looking at this from both angles...
No, you're just parsing the English language in a very creative way that disagrees with everything that we know about how two-weapon fighting and spell combat works.
Basically, EVERY magus is a two-weapon fighter. And their off-hand weapon of choice is a spell. Unless you can find some way to gain additional action economy, you cannot use spell combat and two-weapon fight. You're basically asking "how do I get an extra attack from two weapon fighting after I've already gained an extra attack from two-weapon fighting?"
CampinCarl9127 wrote: No, you're just parsing the English language in a very creative way that disagrees with everything that we know about how two-weapon fighting and spell combat works.
Basically, EVERY magus is a two-weapon fighter. And their off-hand weapon of choice is a spell. Unless you can find some way to gain additional action economy, you cannot use spell combat and two-weapon fight. You're basically asking "how do I get an extra attack from two weapon fighting after I've already gained an extra attack from two-weapon fighting?"
You mean like Improved Two Weapon Fighting?
BigP4nda wrote: CampinCarl9127 wrote: No, you're just parsing the English language in a very creative way that disagrees with everything that we know about how two-weapon fighting and spell combat works.
Basically, EVERY magus is a two-weapon fighter. And their off-hand weapon of choice is a spell. Unless you can find some way to gain additional action economy, you cannot use spell combat and two-weapon fight. You're basically asking "how do I get an extra attack from two weapon fighting after I've already gained an extra attack from two-weapon fighting?"
You mean like Improved Two Weapon Fighting? Which does nothing when you're "wielding" the casting of a single spell, not a weapon (including unarmed strikes or natural attacks).
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
BigP4nda wrote: Chess Pwn wrote: "a dead end that can only really be clarified with either another errata or at least an official answer for somebody in the design team." seems to equal "Everyone says I'm wrong, but I want a FAQ before I'll believe." That's because I seem to be the only one looking at this from both angles... Maybe it should be a hint that not one person seems to think you are right?
The FAQ couldn't be clearer. To use spell combat you get your attacks with one "weapon" associated with one hand. Period. That's it. The reason this is so restricted is because this is the only mechanic in the game that allows a full attack (with one weapon) and the ability to cast a spell in the same round (without a quickened spell).
Even Mythic rules, which destroys action economy and allows for multiple extra actions each round, only allows for one spell and MAYBE a single attack, not a full attack.
Sorry you're not getting the answer you want, but the rules are clear and unambiguous.
BigP4nda wrote:
I see what you're saying, though it's weird how they word the answer to the FAQ. Typically, in cases like this they would say something more along the lines of "You specifically have to use the light or one-handed melee weapon in your other hand. This means you can't make any attacks with other weapons or body parts."
The fact that they left out that second part leaves it ambiguous. As if they simply wanted to state "You have to make an attack with the weapon in your other hand" and leave it at that, which could be interpreted as "I have to make an attack with this weapon, as long as I do that, I can still make my other attacks as normal."
Let me narrow the focus of the FAQ as it pertains to this.
FAQ wrote:
When using spell combat ... can I use a mixture of weapons (such as armor spikes and bites) so long as my casting hand remains free?
You specifically have to use the light or one-handed melee weapon in your other hand.
The way the question in the FAQ is worded makes it unnecessary to add "This means you can't make any attacks with other weapons or body parts." It is already implied.
If I could use a mixture of weapons the answer would have been a simple "You can use any combination of weapons/attacks".
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
BigP4nda wrote: Chess Pwn wrote: "a dead end that can only really be clarified with either another errata or at least an official answer for somebody in the design team." seems to equal "Everyone says I'm wrong, but I want a FAQ before I'll believe." That's because I seem to be the only one looking at this from both angles... You are looking it at the wrong angle. An angle that (delightful for you) may never be addressed directly as it is the wrong angle.
Here is a post by SKR when on the dev team explaining the Magus FAQ.
Since others took your view and continued to argue with him, he begged them to stop.
Manly-man teapot wrote: BigP4nda wrote: CampinCarl9127 wrote: No, you're just parsing the English language in a very creative way that disagrees with everything that we know about how two-weapon fighting and spell combat works.
Basically, EVERY magus is a two-weapon fighter. And their off-hand weapon of choice is a spell. Unless you can find some way to gain additional action economy, you cannot use spell combat and two-weapon fight. You're basically asking "how do I get an extra attack from two weapon fighting after I've already gained an extra attack from two-weapon fighting?"
You mean like Improved Two Weapon Fighting? Which does nothing when you're "wielding" the casting of a single spell, not a weapon (including unarmed strikes or natural attacks). As I said before, spell combat does not say you can't attack with the casting hand, you only can't hold anything.
The only thing that keeps this from working is the errata, which could still be interpreted as allowing it.
I mean honestly, I don't see the reason for disallowing it. I mean the twf and spell combat penalties would stack, so you'd essentially take a -4 to all attacks on a 2/3 BAB class. Sure you get to cast fireball before making 3 attacks following, but it's at the cost of low hit rate and a feat, which you don't get a whole lot of.
If nothing else, I could definitely see the merit of houseruling it. But I still feel like there is a bit of ambiguity within the way that one errata was written. If that's what they meant, then that's what they meant, but I wish they'd be clearer.
BigP4nda wrote: As I said before, spell combat does not say you can't attack with the casting hand, you only can't hold anything. The spell is your off-hand, you can't attack twice with your one off-hand.
Well...I was thinking about how to explain things but I see several people already beat me to it, and that the OP seems to be stubbornly settled on their answer already...so I shan't waste my time on this.
James Risner wrote: BigP4nda wrote: Chess Pwn wrote: "a dead end that can only really be clarified with either another errata or at least an official answer for somebody in the design team." seems to equal "Everyone says I'm wrong, but I want a FAQ before I'll believe." That's because I seem to be the only one looking at this from both angles... You are looking it at the wrong angle. An angle that (delightful for you) may never be addressed directly as it is the wrong angle.
Here is a post by SKR when on the dev team explaining the Magus FAQ.
Since others took your view and continued to argue with him, he begged them to stop. Perfect! That's what I was looking for, so obviously their intent was separating Spell combat and TWF. Good to know. Though like I said, I can see it as a welcome houserule. I see no harm in it.
Though I do find it funny how SKR is arguing that TWF is explicitly a Full-Attack Action when RAW is explicitly is not...meh at least we know his intentions.
Claxon wrote: Well...I was thinking about how to explain things but I see several people already beat me to it, and that the OP seems to be stubbornly settled on their answer already...so I shan't waste my time on this. As I have already stated. I am not "stubbornly settled" on anything. I am looking for clarification, and I have now found it. Thanks for your input.
Glad it was resolved.
It would certainly be an interesting houserule, but with stacking penalties I don't see the magus actually managing to hit anything. A good topic to post in the houserule forums.
James Risner wrote: CampinCarl9127 wrote: Casting the spell essentially takes the place of your off-hand attack. Unless you have some way to do three-weapon fighting, this is not even remotely possible. TWF uses main hand and off-hand.
Spell Combat uses main hand and off-hand.
TWF+Spell Combat uses main hand and off-hand and off-hand.
If you have that many hands, maybe. And so many penalties ...
spell combat -2 to hit, multiweapon fighting with feat and light weapon another -2.
Natural attacks that don't use your secondary hand work, but with a -5 as they become secondary attacks.
Removed some posts and their responses. Whatever your position or interpretation, resorting to name-calling is not okay. Please be civil, and reread the Community Guidelines.
MeanMutton wrote: BigP4nda wrote:
What I am saying is that there are 2 ways to interpret that errata, either Paizo means to pigeon hole us into only playing one kind of magus (which sucks), or it is only required that at least one attack is made with that weapon, assuming you can feasibly make other attacks that round.
You really can't argue either way because they are both sensible sides, and it all comes down to which RAI will you go with.
No, they're not both sensible sides. The written rules are clear and unambiguous. They do leave the clear impression that Paizo does, indeed, mean to pigeon hole players into playing one type of magus unless using one of a few archetypes. That one type being presumably the dervish dancing scimitar wielder who practically casts nothing but shocking grasp? Save that I know a player who's run a Magus up to 11th level in Pathfinder Society without any of the messageboard min-maxing paths.
You make the mistake as many have, of taking the forum's most vocal posters on a subject as representative of the whole.
With all of the dice a magus can put out in damage, does it really make sense to put on further penalties in attack rolls for a 3/4 BAB class just to get one more die of damage?
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
