
![]() |

What I'm saying is. If you were the actual GM of the person or not doesn't matter. The GM described by the OP sounds different from how hasteroth describes how he GMs. And once you're in a thread it's all about what has been written that will count. Did the OP use hyperbole and over-dramatize? Seems like it. But by saying your that GM associates you with those qualities and causes people to talk to you when they talk about that GM.
The thing is they, I didn't say I WAS the GM. I said I might be. And if I was, the context I provided is not irrelevant. Particularly if said context does fit in line with what the OP said. The OP hasn't shown up to clarify any of this, so it can't be assumed that your impression from the OP's posts is necessarily correct when applied to me (or even to the actual OP's GM, as he was brief and vague) and it can't be assumed that the context I provided necessarily applies to the OP's case. In either case however, I am not a valid target for criticism of the impression gathered from the OP's posts without considering the context I have provided.

![]() |

Chess Pwn wrote:When you say that your the GM in the OP's post that wouldn't accept anything but a FAQ and wasn't going to budge then expect all the flak. If you come in and say, hey I had a similar issue to this, then you wouldn't get focused down. IF YOU HAD NOT SAID ANYTHING THEN NO ONE WOULD BE POSTING TO YOU. The OP made a post specifying a certain type of GM. If that type doesn't match you then you shouldn't say you're the GM, otherwise that type is placed on you."you've shown me the rules, I've seen your argument, I still don't think it works like that" is a perfectly legitimate response to a rules argument.
So is the player saying "anyone got something official i can show to my dm?" Which it turned out, the answerwas yes. I was able to cite the offical clarification specifically because I'd been in the exact same position as the DM, he saw the official clarification and changed his mind.
This is assuming I am the GM that the OP referred to. If I am, then most of the criticisms directed at me are invalid as with the context I provided the scenario goes as you just described, and those criticisms were made with a deliberate disregard for said context. Whereas if I am not the GM, absolutely none of the criticism directed at me over the OP's GM is valid as I am not the GM people were basing their criticisms on when directing them at me.

Anzyr |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Chess Pwn wrote:When you say that your the GM in the OP's post that wouldn't accept anything but a FAQ and wasn't going to budge then expect all the flak. If you come in and say, hey I had a similar issue to this, then you wouldn't get focused down. IF YOU HAD NOT SAID ANYTHING THEN NO ONE WOULD BE POSTING TO YOU. The OP made a post specifying a certain type of GM. If that type doesn't match you then you shouldn't say you're the GM, otherwise that type is placed on you."you've shown me the rules, I've seen your argument, I still don't think it works like that" is a perfectly legitimate response to a rules argument.
So is the player saying "anyone got something official i can show to my dm?" Which it turned out, the answerwas yes. I was able to cite the offical clarification specifically because I'd been in the exact same position as the DM, he saw the official clarification and changed his mind.
If you don't have any rules to support your position, and the person arguing has RAW supporting them, then no your response is not perfectly legitimate. It's not even reasonable, since without rules support, it doesn't rely on reason. If someone explains genetics to another person, and that person says "you've shown me the rules, I've seen your argument, I still don't think it works like that", then their response is willfully ignorant at best. The correct response should be, "Your position has more evidence and support, I concede the point until such time that an alternate theory has equivalent evidence and support."

![]() |

BigNorseWolf wrote:If you don't have any rules to support your position, and the person arguing has RAW supporting them, then no your response is not perfectly legitimate. It's not even reasonable, since without rules support, it doesn't rely on reason. If someone explains genetics to another person, and that person says "you've shown me the rules, I've seen your argument, I still don't think it works like that", then their response is willfully ignorant at best. The correct response should be, "Your position has more evidence and support, I concede the point until such time that an alternate theory has equivalent evidence and support."Chess Pwn wrote:When you say that your the GM in the OP's post that wouldn't accept anything but a FAQ and wasn't going to budge then expect all the flak. If you come in and say, hey I had a similar issue to this, then you wouldn't get focused down. IF YOU HAD NOT SAID ANYTHING THEN NO ONE WOULD BE POSTING TO YOU. The OP made a post specifying a certain type of GM. If that type doesn't match you then you shouldn't say you're the GM, otherwise that type is placed on you."you've shown me the rules, I've seen your argument, I still don't think it works like that" is a perfectly legitimate response to a rules argument.
So is the player saying "anyone got something official i can show to my dm?" Which it turned out, the answerwas yes. I was able to cite the offical clarification specifically because I'd been in the exact same position as the DM, he saw the official clarification and changed his mind.
The problem lies where both people feel they have the evidence to support, and the player initiating the dispute doesn't grasp the rules well enough themself to actually cite the relevant sections of the rules.
This was exactly what happened in my case, the player didn't really understand it fully themself and couldn't present a clear argument. And everyone else present (even the 4 and 5 star venture captains present, albeit in another room which said player went over to ask for their opinion) weren't familiar enough with the Magus to weigh in. So I had limited evidence, an incoherent argument delivered by the player (at least until post-session when he read off a forum post), my own initial misreading of the ability, and no assistance from others with more experience, so I had to go with my gut. I'm not saying there wasn't bias on my part (obviously there was anchoring bias) but I didn't have enough to go on at that moment in time to make a well-informed decision. I didn't even know about the particular rule in the spellcasting section that gives you a free melee touch attack for spells with a range of touch (i'd always seen it as just "part of the spell") and neither was the player. His interpretation wasn't based on his reading of RAW, but something somebody on the internet said he could do, and he couldn't remember exactly how that went.
One example would be something like, that paper is typically made from wood. You and I probably both know this to be true. But lets say one person doesn't believe its made of wood and had read somewhere that it was made of something else (this creating an anchoring bias). Lets say another person who is aware it is made of wood tells the other person that it is, now said person is obviously right, but what if their argument isn't very clear and doesn't make all that much sense? Obviously the one who takes from this that paper is not made from wood is WRONG, but can they be faulted when they haven't been presented with evidence to support?
On top of everything else, this was my FIRST session GMing for PFS. I had no previous experience dealing with rules arguments that are entirely dependent on RAW, heck rules disputes were extremely rare in my old home group. Additionally, as a first time PFS GM, my capability should not be evaluated entirely on the first session (which went great aside from the one dispute mind you) as I have all the room to grow and improve, and have not GM'd PFS enough to set a particular pattern or track-record.

Anzyr |

The problem lies where both people feel they have the evidence to support, and the player initiating the dispute doesn't grasp the rules well enough themself to actually cite the relevant sections of the rules.
This was exactly what happened in my case, the player didn't really understand it fully themself and couldn't present a clear argument. And everyone else present (even the 4 and 5 star venture captains present, albeit in another room which said player went over to ask for their opinion) weren't familiar enough with the Magus to weigh in. So I had limited evidence, an incoherent argument delivered by the player (at least until post-session when he read off a forum post), my own initial misreading of the ability, and no assistance from others with more experience, so I had to go with my gut.
If the player did not understand the rules then it's partially their fault. But the way this works is such a well known thing online, regardless of how obvious or not it is in the rules. It should have taken a 10 second google search to resolve. Or a 1 minute thread post and average response time. I must say the concept of a room full of PF players where no one is familiar with how the Magus works is hard for me to wrap my head around.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

hasteroth wrote:If the player did not understand the rules then it's partially their fault. But the way this works is such a well known thing online, regardless of how obvious or not it is in the rules. It should have taken a 10 second google search to resolve. Or a 1 minute thread post and average response time. I must say the concept of a room full of PF players where no one is familiar with how the Magus works is hard for me to wrap my head around.The problem lies where both people feel they have the evidence to support, and the player initiating the dispute doesn't grasp the rules well enough themself to actually cite the relevant sections of the rules.
This was exactly what happened in my case, the player didn't really understand it fully themself and couldn't present a clear argument. And everyone else present (even the 4 and 5 star venture captains present, albeit in another room which said player went over to ask for their opinion) weren't familiar enough with the Magus to weigh in. So I had limited evidence, an incoherent argument delivered by the player (at least until post-session when he read off a forum post), my own initial misreading of the ability, and no assistance from others with more experience, so I had to go with my gut.
Regardless it was the case. And the player was the one with an iPad connected to the internet, so I'm just as surprised as you looking back that he didn't find the explanation quickly online. I too am a bit surprised with myself that I didn't think to quickly Google it on my phone, so there's definitely a bit of fault there on my part (probably due to the assumption I was correct, which again is still my own fault). If he was looking for a FAQ, that wasn't at my direction as I made no mention of FAQs until AFTER the session (and even then just as a suggestion).
Our 4 star VO whom I spoke to online later said he's not really familiar with the Magus either as the only archetype he wanted to play isn't legal, and just as surprising... Magi really aren't popular in this particular pool of players for some reason. The most common classes seem to be Barbarian, Rogue, Hunter (and few even fully understand how Animal Companions work), and Monk (especially Zen Archer).
The whole experience is of course something I expect to learn from, and I expect that Googling for a FAQ or forum post or something like that will be something I'll think of a hell of a lot sooner.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Our 4 star VO whom I spoke to online later said he's not really familiar with the Magus either as the only archetype he wanted to play isn't legal, and just as surprising... Magi really aren't popular in this particular pool of players for some reason.
It seem to be a circular thing. People (GMs and players) in your area don't know how a magus work so they don't use them, and as no one use them no one learn hot they work.
What trouble me a bit is that you don't seem to realize that, while you later corrected it, you did a serious error. Missing how a core mechanic of a class work is pushing a player into rerolling. It is the equivalent of glancing a druid description and saying "Your animal companion is a wolf, it use the stats of the wolf in the Bestiary."
If you don't know how a class work it is better to spend 10 minutes before the start of the game to read it carefully. You will still miss some nuance but you need a good grasp of the base abilities.

![]() |

hasteroth wrote:Our 4 star VO whom I spoke to online later said he's not really familiar with the Magus either as the only archetype he wanted to play isn't legal, and just as surprising... Magi really aren't popular in this particular pool of players for some reason.It seem to be a circular thing. People (GMs and players) in your area don't know how a magi work so they don't use them, and as no one use them no one learn hot they work.
What trouble me a bit is that you don't seem to realize that, while you later corrected it, you did a serious error. Missing how a core mechanic of a class work is pushing a player into rerolling. It is the equivalent of glancing a druid description and saying "Your animal companion is a wolf, it use the stats of the wolf in the Bestiary."
If you don't know how a class work it is better to spend 10 minutes before the start of the game to read it carefully. You will still miss some nuance but you need a good grasp of the base abilities.
I agree that the error was on my part, obviously since I was wrong. And to explain (not justify), it's tough to know you need to look it up when you aren't aware of your ignorance in the first place. I was quite irritated when I was playing a game where the GM insisted that my Animal Companion shouldn't be able to use Scent to detect an invisible creature that is adjacent to it. Thus reflecting a lack of understanding of how scent works, which is very important to almost everyone with an Animal Companion... the difference was that the argument I presented for my case was coherent, clear, and backed up by a single sentence in the rules for scent.
When a creature detects a scent, the exact location of the source is not revealed—only its presence somewhere within range. The creature can take a move action to note the direction of the scent. When the creature is within 5 feet of the source, it pinpoints the source's location.

thejeff |
You could also not use Spell Combat, cast Corrosive Touch, use Spellstrike and swing your sword at no penalty to deliver the spell.
Or declare Spell Combat, cast Corrosive Touch, declare Spellstrike, swing with my sword at -2, then swing with my sword again at -2? Giving yourself two chances to hit with the spell damage.

thejeff |
Makes sense. Personally, I don't really like that ruling based on the two weapon fighting rules, but specific beat general.
It's not really a ruling. It's Spell Combat. It's how the ability works.
What happens when a Magus casts casts Corrosive Touch wihout using Spell Combat or Spellstrike?
He casts, then gets a free touch attack to deliver the spell. No penalties, no special Magus abilities.
If he does use Spell Combat, then he explicitly gets to make an attack and cast, but at a -2 penalty. He makes his attack at -2, then casts the spell - which still gives him a free touch attack.
The only thing different with Spellstrike is that the touch attack turns into a weapon attack. It's still a free attack.

BigDTBone |

BigNorseWolf wrote:It's not particularly convoluted.
So the linked explanation is 3 pages long because....?
Look, I love combining things, but if you intend two things to work together then for the love of pete, say how they work together. This isn't a feat from the legacy of fire players guide and the ultimate wombat race guide. Its a basic property of the magus. There's more than two ways of reading it, and in fact both of them are correct: it even works two ways (like with a pre cast shocking grasp or something that has multiple whacks like chill touch) One way of reading it is far more powerful than the other, violates (the then being made explicit) hands rule of only using a hand once in two weapon fighting like things. If you try to bounce two rules off of each other into unknown territory in the PHB you ARE going to come out with some really weird answers: especially if you rely on differentiating between the free attack and the. The 99% way of getting the right answer was to pick the less powerful one that didn't give you a prone shooter option.
Something that I really wish Pathfinder had more of is examples. Especially when a new class is introduced with complicated mechanics. Here's the Magus. Here are the major abilities he gets. Here's how a typical fight might go for the 7th level Seltyiel. I know it isn't practical for every ability or every feat, but something like a new class and its primary combat mechanic could use an example.
I also think when a major FAQ is issued, examples should be included with it. I know that backfired on them the one time they did it (the free action FAQ), and that's unfortunate. It doesn't mean that including examples will always lead to the firestorm that happened in that instance.
See, I read that differently. I see the example as a really good tool for reasonableness that should have tipped the PDT off that the FAQ was bad before they even posted it. If the lesson they learned from that was, "don't give examples cause people freak out," then I feel like they learned the wrong lesson.

Xaimum Mafire |

It's the attacking with a limb that you've already attacked with that bothers me, not the casting through a weapon. Doing that from a full attack with +6 BAB doesn't bother me because of the huge penalties on the iterative attacks that represent how difficult it is to attack that quickly in a short period.
It just feels like you shouldn't be able to essentially two-weapon fight with a single weapon, especially when you're casting a spell AND focusing that spell though a weapon that you're in middle of swinging.

![]() |

As one who started unfamiliar with it, and did rule the wrong way at first... While I still agree its not that difficult to misinterpret I wouldn't say its unreasonable. Magus isn't full BAB so they get iterative attacks later, plus they are forbidden from wielding a weapon in their offhand. I mean look at it this way, as a level 1 melee focused Druid I could get off FOUR attacks in a single round including my lion, and the lion had ZERO penalties because its claws and bite are all Primary Natural Attacks. And there was no limit on how often I could do that. A Magus however is still limited to this trick when he has spells available to him, unless he figured out that Arcane Mark has a range of touch. In a home game I wouldn't allow Arcane Mark to pull that as it's cheesy as a damned Infernal Contract. But even so the damage output is limited to 2 weapon strikes each with a -2 penalty (and probably having to make a concentration check). Especially if the Magus favors dex over strength (as most do), it is paltry compared to my Druid and Lion's 4 attacks with no penalties (which were at a +4 to hit at level 1 for the Druid, and +1 for the Lion... Without flanking. For a damage output of 2d6+5+2d4+2). There isn't even a feat tax to make that happen, just the base class.
My point is, there are a lot of far far far more effective ways to cheese up your damage output at low levels than the Magus. The advantage the Magus has is a limited number of times per day they can jack up their damage by augmenting it with a spell. Plus this particularly ability becomes far less useful at higher levels compared to other classes that can TWF effectively (such as a TWF Fighter, Ranget or Rogue).

Kazaan |
It's the attacking with a limb that you've already attacked with that bothers me, not the casting through a weapon. Doing that from a full attack with +6 BAB doesn't bother me because of the huge penalties on the iterative attacks that represent how difficult it is to attack that quickly in a short period.
It just feels like you shouldn't be able to essentially two-weapon fight with a single weapon, especially when you're casting a spell AND focusing that spell though a weapon that you're in middle of swinging.
It's absolutely no different than casting a quickened touch spell in the middle of a normal full-attack. In fact, barring the increased slot from using metamagic, a quickened spell is better because you don't even get the -2 penalty from Spell Combat. You could Full-Attack at +6 BAB and get +6/+6/+1 by using a quickened Shocking Grasp. It's only the actual process of casting the spell that uses your off-hand attack economy in Spell Combat, the attack to deliver the touch spell is completely divorced from any kind of attack economy and should not even be considered as either an off-hand or a main-hand attack; thus having already used your main-hand weapon for your attacks is a moot point.

BigNorseWolf |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

This is assuming I am the GM that the OP referred to.
Not really. Reasonable rules disagreements tend to go that way. Player reads rules, DM reads rules. It could be you, it could be your evil goateed twin, the good clean shaven twin, or your cousin bob.
If I am, then most of the criticisms directed at me are invalid as with the context I provided the scenario goes as you just described, and those criticisms were made with a deliberate disregard for said context.
they're definitely invalid but i don't think its because of the context and description. I really don't see a meaningful difference in the situations.
They're invalid because the rules are not 100% clear, objective, non contradictory and obvious. Objections are leveled because if you believe that the rules ARE 100% clear objective non contradictory and obvious (as they do) then there must be something wrong with a DM looking at the rules and not getting the right answer.* Whether that was your player or not, they needed to go back to the DM with an argument above and beyond what the naysayers consider sacrosanct: an argument and a rules citation.
*offer not valid with mutually exclusive values of "the right answer". The one right answer subject to change. If symptoms persist for more than four hours discontinue use and start an FAQ

BigNorseWolf |

It's not really a ruling. It's Spell Combat. It's how the ability works.
Call it a clarification then.
The ability doesn't spell out how they're supposed to interact in unison, and the right answer doesn't explicitly grant any of the required secondary powers for getting to the correct answer of magusflurry such as being able to use the same limb twice in a round.

![]() |

So, as Magus, I can declare Spell Combat, swing with my sword at -2, cast Corrosive Touch, declare Spellstrike, then swing with my sword again at -2?
Or is it I declare Spell Combat, cast Corrosive Touch, declare Spellstrike, then swing my sword at -2 to deliver the spell?
You can cast the spell at the start of spell combat or at the end, not in the middle of it if you have multiple attacks.
AFAIK if it is a touch spell you make the free touch attack as your first attack after casting, so it should be:start spell combat
cast corrosive touch
make your spellstrike (at -2)
make your full attack (at -2)
or, in alternative
start spell combat
make your full attack (at -2)
cast corrosive touch
make your spellstrike (at -2)
Note that you need to successfully cast your spell to get the free attack.

![]() |

As one who started unfamiliar with it, and did rule the wrong way at first... While I still agree its not that difficult to misinterpret I wouldn't say its unreasonable. Magus isn't full BAB so they get iterative attacks later, plus they are forbidden from wielding a weapon in their offhand. I mean look at it this way, as a level 1 melee focused Druid I could get off FOUR attacks in a single round including my lion, and the lion had ZERO penalties because its claws and bite are all Primary Natural Attacks. And there was no limit on how often I could do that. A Magus however is still limited to this trick when he has spells available to him, unless he figured out that Arcane Mark has a range of touch. In a home game I wouldn't allow Arcane Mark to pull that as it's cheesy as a damned Infernal Contract. But even so the damage output is limited to 2 weapon strikes each with a -2 penalty (and probably having to make a concentration check). Especially if the Magus favors dex over strength (as most do), it is paltry compared to my Druid and Lion's 4 attacks with no penalties (which were at a +4 to hit at level 1 for the Druid, and +1 for the Lion... Without flanking. For a damage output of 2d6+5+2d4+2). There isn't even a feat tax to make that happen, just the base class.
Getting the extra attack with Arcane mark:
1) require him to successfully cast a spell2) give him a -2 penalty.
3) never give him more iterative attacks.
compare it with TWF and you will se that it isn't particularly cheesy.
My point is, there are a lot of far far far more effective ways to cheese up your damage output at low levels than the Magus. The advantage the Magus has is a limited number of times per day they can jack up their damage by augmenting it with a spell. Plus this particularly ability becomes far less useful at higher levels compared to other classes that can TWF effectively (such as a TWF Fighter, Ranget or Rogue).
So you have decided to nerf a major ability of a class because you don't like the esthetic.
You suffer from the same problem I had and overcome thank to this forum: you feel that there is a difference between touch attack spells and touch spells. But it don't exist. If you want you can cast invisibility and use it to get a extra attack with spell combat.
bbangerter |

It's the attacking with a limb that you've already attacked with that bothers me, not the casting through a weapon. Doing that from a full attack with +6 BAB doesn't bother me because of the huge penalties on the iterative attacks that represent how difficult it is to attack that quickly in a short period.
It just feels like you shouldn't be able to essentially two-weapon fight with a single weapon, especially when you're casting a spell AND focusing that spell though a weapon that you're in middle of swinging.
Are you also opposed to a monk using flurry of blows with a temple sword? Or an archer using rapid shot?
In both cases a single weapon with an extra attack beyond BAB.

thejeff |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
thejeff wrote:It's not really a ruling. It's Spell Combat. It's how the ability works.Call it a clarification then.
The ability doesn't spell out how they're supposed to interact in unison, and the right answer doesn't explicitly grant any of the required secondary powers for getting to the correct answer of magusflurry such as being able to use the same limb twice in a round.
This I agree with.
And I find it a major source of frustration with PF's design approach. (and 3.x's in general). The "hide the intent from the players and let them figure out the implications" approach. I understand that not all interaction in a complex game can be spelled out, but basic intended functionality should be.
BigNorseWolf |

And I find it a major source of frustration with PF's design approach. (and 3.x's in general). The "hide the intent from the players and let them figure out the implications" approach. I understand that not all interaction in a complex game can be spelled out, but basic intended functionality should be.
In college i took a management and communications class (there's far more of that in forestry than you'd imagine) One of the team building/point games I came up with was to hand two teams a small lego set, and tell them to write directions for how to put it together for the other team.
They ALL went right to "put the long pieces down. Perpendicular to that put the small square, on top of that..." with NO ONE ever saying "you're making a plane."

BigNorseWolf |

Xaimum Mafire wrote:Yes, save that you forgot step 2.... concentration roll to cast your spell.So, as Magus, I can declare Spell Combat, swing with my sword at -2, cast Corrosive Touch, declare Spellstrike, then swing with my sword again at -2?
Step 2 is get a level in swashbuckler so they WILL take an AOO at you... :)

![]() |

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:Step 2 is get a level in swashbuckler so they WILL take an AOO at you... :)Xaimum Mafire wrote:Yes, save that you forgot step 2.... concentration roll to cast your spell.So, as Magus, I can declare Spell Combat, swing with my sword at -2, cast Corrosive Touch, declare Spellstrike, then swing with my sword again at -2?
Just to be clear, Spell Combat requires a concentration roll regardless of whether you are threatened or not.

![]() |

BigNorseWolf wrote:Just to be clear, Spell Combat requires a concentration roll regardless of whether you are threatened or not.Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:Step 2 is get a level in swashbuckler so they WILL take an AOO at you... :)Xaimum Mafire wrote:Yes, save that you forgot step 2.... concentration roll to cast your spell.So, as Magus, I can declare Spell Combat, swing with my sword at -2, cast Corrosive Touch, declare Spellstrike, then swing with my sword again at -2?
Why?

Gisher |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

thejeff wrote:
And I find it a major source of frustration with PF's design approach. (and 3.x's in general). The "hide the intent from the players and let them figure out the implications" approach. I understand that not all interaction in a complex game can be spelled out, but basic intended functionality should be.In college i took a management and communications class (there's far more of that in forestry than you'd imagine) One of the team building/point games I came up with was to hand two teams a small lego set, and tell them to write directions for how to put it together for the other team.
They ALL went right to "put the long pieces down. Perpendicular to that put the small square, on top of that..." with NO ONE ever saying "you're making a plane."
I used to run a somewhat similar activity with my middle and high school students. I would lay out all of the materials for making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and groups of students would have to write instructions for making and eating said sandwich. Clear, unambiguous instructions. And of course I would always end up making a mess because I would take any loophole that led to disaster.
"You didn't say which side of the bread I should spread it on."
"You never told me to take the lid off the jar."
etc.
It was always a fun, goofy experience for everyone, but it did give them a little understanding as to why we are always so picky about notation and organization in math.

Drahliana Moonrunner |
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |

graywulfe wrote:Why?BigNorseWolf wrote:Just to be clear, Spell Combat requires a concentration roll regardless of whether you are threatened or not.Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:Step 2 is get a level in swashbuckler so they WILL take an AOO at you... :)Xaimum Mafire wrote:Yes, save that you forgot step 2.... concentration roll to cast your spell.So, as Magus, I can declare Spell Combat, swing with my sword at -2, cast Corrosive Touch, declare Spellstrike, then swing with my sword again at -2?
The mechanics of spell combat state that a concentration roll is part of the process. Aside from the Level 20 capstone power, no exception is given for this.

BigNorseWolf |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

BigNorseWolf wrote:Ah, but you haven't defined what a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is. Messing this one up isn't even a challenge."Make a peanutbutter and jelly sandwich"
"Eat a peanutbutter and jelly sandwich"
You didn't define what a peanut butter and jelly sandwich was when you gave the assignment out, so obviously you thought that it was a clear enough description THEN.
A is A after all.

Gisher |

Gisher wrote:BigNorseWolf wrote:Ah, but you haven't defined what a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is. Messing this one up isn't even a challenge."Make a peanutbutter and jelly sandwich"
"Eat a peanutbutter and jelly sandwich"
You didn't define what a peanut butter and jelly sandwich was when you gave the assignment out, so obviously you thought that it was a clear enough description THEN.
A is A after all.
I gave my classes more detailed rules and instructions. My post here was just an overview. I wasn't expecting anyone to play. :)

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Mad Alchemist wrote:The mechanics of spell combat state that a concentration roll is part of the process. Aside from the Level 20 capstone power, no exception is given for this.graywulfe wrote:Why?BigNorseWolf wrote:Just to be clear, Spell Combat requires a concentration roll regardless of whether you are threatened or not.Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:Step 2 is get a level in swashbuckler so they WILL take an AOO at you... :)Xaimum Mafire wrote:Yes, save that you forgot step 2.... concentration roll to cast your spell.So, as Magus, I can declare Spell Combat, swing with my sword at -2, cast Corrosive Touch, declare Spellstrike, then swing with my sword again at -2?
It says, "If you cast defensively..." Nothing says you must make concentration checks if you are not threatened.

Dallium |

Mad Alchemist wrote:The mechanics of spell combat state that a concentration roll is part of the process.graywulfe wrote:Why?BigNorseWolf wrote:Just to be clear, Spell Combat requires a concentration roll regardless of whether you are threatened or not.Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:Step 2 is get a level in swashbuckler so they WILL take an AOO at you... :)Xaimum Mafire wrote:Yes, save that you forgot step 2.... concentration roll to cast your spell.So, as Magus, I can declare Spell Combat, swing with my sword at -2, cast Corrosive Touch, declare Spellstrike, then swing with my sword again at -2?
They don't state that at all.

![]() |

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:It says, "If you cast defensively..." Nothing says you must make concentration checks if you are not threatened.Mad Alchemist wrote:The mechanics of spell combat state that a concentration roll is part of the process. Aside from the Level 20 capstone power, no exception is given for this.graywulfe wrote:Why?BigNorseWolf wrote:Just to be clear, Spell Combat requires a concentration roll regardless of whether you are threatened or not.Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:Step 2 is get a level in swashbuckler so they WILL take an AOO at you... :)Xaimum Mafire wrote:Yes, save that you forgot step 2.... concentration roll to cast your spell.So, as Magus, I can declare Spell Combat, swing with my sword at -2, cast Corrosive Touch, declare Spellstrike, then swing with my sword again at -2?
Yeah there is absolutely nothing in Spell Combat that states you have to make a concentration check, it merely state that if you so choose to cast defensively (or of course if you get hit by an AoO when casting) that you are able to increase the penalty on your attack roll in order to boost your concentration check. Even the True Magus ability at level 20 explicitly calls out casting defensively.

Xaimum Mafire |

Xaimum Mafire wrote:It's the attacking with a limb that you've already attacked with that bothers me, not the casting through a weapon. Doing that from a full attack with +6 BAB doesn't bother me because of the huge penalties on the iterative attacks that represent how difficult it is to attack that quickly in a short period.
It just feels like you shouldn't be able to essentially two-weapon fight with a single weapon, especially when you're casting a spell AND focusing that spell though a weapon that you're in middle of swinging.
Are you also opposed to a monk using flurry of blows with a temple sword? Or an archer using rapid shot?
In both cases a single weapon with an extra attack beyond BAB.
Rapid Shot is just loading two arrows at a time and it costs a feat to do it.
Flurry of Blows doesn't involve casting a spell on top of swinging twice.
I'm not sure why my opinion is so offensive...

![]() |

graywulfe wrote:Why?BigNorseWolf wrote:Just to be clear, Spell Combat requires a concentration roll regardless of whether you are threatened or not.Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:Step 2 is get a level in swashbuckler so they WILL take an AOO at you... :)Xaimum Mafire wrote:Yes, save that you forgot step 2.... concentration roll to cast your spell.So, as Magus, I can declare Spell Combat, swing with my sword at -2, cast Corrosive Touch, declare Spellstrike, then swing with my sword again at -2?
It don't say that anywhere. It work as casting a spell: you can make a concentration check to cast defensively or you can make a concentration check to successfully cast the spell if damaged. I either fail you lose the spell.

![]() |

Mad Alchemist wrote:The mechanics of spell combat state that a concentration roll is part of the process. Aside from the Level 20 capstone power, no exception is given for this.graywulfe wrote:Why?BigNorseWolf wrote:Just to be clear, Spell Combat requires a concentration roll regardless of whether you are threatened or not.Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:Step 2 is get a level in swashbuckler so they WILL take an AOO at you... :)Xaimum Mafire wrote:Yes, save that you forgot step 2.... concentration roll to cast your spell.So, as Magus, I can declare Spell Combat, swing with my sword at -2, cast Corrosive Touch, declare Spellstrike, then swing with my sword again at -2?
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. 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.
If
True Magus (Su): At 20th level, the magus becomes a master of spells and combat. Whenever he uses his spell combat ability, he does not need to make a concentration check to cast the spell defensively. Whenever the magus uses spell combat and his spell targets the same creature as his melee attacks, he can choose to either increase the DC to resist the spell by +2, grant himself a +2 circumstance bonus on any checks made to overcome spell resistance, or grant himself a +2 circumstance bonus on all attack rolls made against the target during his turn.
to cast the spell defensively
At this point I should agree with BNW. Reading the rules is difficult.

![]() |

bbangerter wrote:Xaimum Mafire wrote:It's the attacking with a limb that you've already attacked with that bothers me, not the casting through a weapon. Doing that from a full attack with +6 BAB doesn't bother me because of the huge penalties on the iterative attacks that represent how difficult it is to attack that quickly in a short period.
It just feels like you shouldn't be able to essentially two-weapon fight with a single weapon, especially when you're casting a spell AND focusing that spell though a weapon that you're in middle of swinging.
Are you also opposed to a monk using flurry of blows with a temple sword? Or an archer using rapid shot?
In both cases a single weapon with an extra attack beyond BAB.
Rapid Shot is just loading two arrows at a time and it costs a feat to do it.
Flurry of Blows doesn't involve casting a spell on top of swinging twice.
I'm not sure why my opinion is so offensive...
Well "using the same limb is offensive to me, but actually all the other example of using the same limb again don't offend me" isn't an opinion that most of us would find agreeable.

Paladin of Baha-who? |

To clarify, we don't find it offensive, we find it confusing. Or at least a bit nonsensical.
Lots of classes have class features based around being able to attack faster than normal. Numerous feats do this as well. Most of them do not require the use of additional limbs or weapons to do it. (By the way, loading two arrows at a time is Manyshot, not Rapid Shot. Rapid shot is actually taking more than one shot in a full attack action.)

thorin001 |

BigNorseWolf wrote:Just to be clear, Spell Combat requires a concentration roll regardless of whether you are threatened or not.Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:Step 2 is get a level in swashbuckler so they WILL take an AOO at you... :)Xaimum Mafire wrote:Yes, save that you forgot step 2.... concentration roll to cast your spell.So, as Magus, I can declare Spell Combat, swing with my sword at -2, cast Corrosive Touch, declare Spellstrike, then swing with my sword again at -2?
No more than any other spell does.

Xaimum Mafire |

Xaimum Mafire wrote:Well "using the same limb is offensive to me, but actually all the other example of using the same limb again don't offend me" isn't an opinion that most of us would find agreeable.bbangerter wrote:Xaimum Mafire wrote:It's the attacking with a limb that you've already attacked with that bothers me, not the casting through a weapon. Doing that from a full attack with +6 BAB doesn't bother me because of the huge penalties on the iterative attacks that represent how difficult it is to attack that quickly in a short period.
It just feels like you shouldn't be able to essentially two-weapon fight with a single weapon, especially when you're casting a spell AND focusing that spell though a weapon that you're in middle of swinging.
Are you also opposed to a monk using flurry of blows with a temple sword? Or an archer using rapid shot?
In both cases a single weapon with an extra attack beyond BAB.
Rapid Shot is just loading two arrows at a time and it costs a feat to do it.
Flurry of Blows doesn't involve casting a spell on top of swinging twice.
I'm not sure why my opinion is so offensive...
It's ham-fisted. It's not thematic, just ham-fisted. Rapid firing a bow? Logical. Punching someone, then elbowing them with the same arm? Thai boxing 101. Hitting someone with a sword, then hitting them again with the ONLY reason being that you cast a spell that you discharge through your hand and the rules say you can hit them with your sword instead? It's just weird, like the effect is there because of some odd wording, as if the Magus's signature damage mechanic was an accident instead of design.
Every other example that's been brought up is where concept was imagined and a rule was designed around. If Spellstrike was written along the lines "If you've already attacked with your weapon this round and do not have another attack (such from a high BAB), and you have hit with your weapon and cast a spell with a touch attack using Spell Combat, you may discharge it through the weapon with which you've already hit without making another make attack roll. If done this way, the touch spell automatically hits and the spell affects the target," then that wouldn't bother me at all and would make sense. Weaker, sure, but it doesn't break immersion.