Proof Spellstrike gives extra attack with Spellcombat?


Rules Questions

201 to 217 of 217 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Or they could a tossed in some flavor text that says "the power of the magic flowing through you allows you to attack a little faster than normal" or other similar fluff nonsense. It'd make it seem less weird, it'd make it sound like less of an accident. We know its intentional, but to some reading it the first time it doesn't ring as intentional.


hasteroth wrote:
Or they could a tossed in some flavor text that says "the power of the magic flowing through you allows you to attack a little faster than normal" or other similar fluff nonsense. It'd make it seem less weird, it'd make it sound like less of an accident. We know its intentional, but to some reading it the first time it doesn't ring as intentional.

^This.

Or if you could Spellstrike with all spells for a free weapon attack, instead getting a free weapon attack because of a happenstance that the developers were ok with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xaimum Mafire wrote:


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...

It sounds then like then the issue isn't getting the extra attack, but that you can't visualize it for the magus? (Ok, that probably sounds snarky, I don't mean it to be - but I'm leaving the comment, because I do want to be blunt so the issue is clear).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Xaimum Mafire wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Xaimum Mafire wrote:
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.

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...

So hitting someone with a temple sword and using flurry of blow to hit him again 3 times as it fighting with two weapons is "Thai boxing 101"?

Firing 2 arrows at the same time is (multishot) is "logical"?

Very selective of what you accept or don't accept.


I've explained myself. The extra hit with Spellstrike/Spell Combat comes from a quirk in the rules about touch spells, which is ham-fisted. For your snark about the temple sword, swap thai boxing with kung fu. If you can't understand that, then you just can't understand it.


Xaimum Mafire wrote:
I've explained myself. The extra hit with Spellstrike/Spell Combat comes from a quirk in the rules about touch spells, which is ham-fisted. For your snark about the temple sword, swap thai boxing with kung fu. If you can't understand that, then you just can't understand it.

Okay, I'm swapping in kung fu - the real-world martial artist can do it but the magical wizard swordsman can't? No, I don't understand it. Fencers do it all the time, boxers job with their front hand repeatedly incredibly quickly, kung fu practitioners use feints and repeated strikes with the same sword in quick succession.

It's a magical wizard swordsman. What's wrong with him being able to staby-stab someone twice in six seconds while quickly casting a spell at the same time?

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I think it is a stretch to call the rules about touch spells a quirk. It's necessary to make touch spells worth getting up close. If the spell is touch, you get a free attack to try and deliver it.

The interaction with spellstrike is a bit unclear, but straightforward. If you can make a touch attack, make a weapon attack instead.


bbangerter wrote:
Xaimum Mafire wrote:


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?
...
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...
It sounds then like then the issue isn't getting the extra attack, but that you can't visualize it for the magus? (Ok, that probably sounds snarky, I don't mean it to be - but I'm leaving the comment, because I do want to be blunt so the issue is clear).

People remember complex rules by building a framework around them, a visualization built out of the rule's themes that lets them quickly answer rules questions. Xaimum Mafire has a visualization built around real-life physical fighting. The combination of Spell Combat and Spellstrike does not work with this visualization.

The physical aspect of Spell Combat is easy to visualize: the magus attacks with a sword in one hand and casts a spell with the other hand. The physical aspect of Spellstrike is a little harder to visualize: the magus casts a touch-attack spell that has a final gesture to reach out with the spell's charge and touch the target, perhaps with an unarmed strike, but instead the spell's charge jumps to his sword so that he can touch the target with the sword, with a weapon strike.

Combining these two images leads to a contradiction. The magus attacks with the sword in one hand and casts a touch-attack spell with the other hand so that he can deliver the spell's charge with the weapon strike of a sword that is already being used for another weapon strike. Oops. Yes, I can see Xaimum Mafire's objection. I had missed it myself before her explanation, because I was viewing Spell Combat and Spellstrike more abstractly and did not examine the physical details of the combination.

However, maybe I am mis-visualizing Spellstrike. I don't like the spell's charge jumping to the sword in the magus's other hand. Other people in this forum mentioned viewing it as a whole-body charge, so that it does not have to jump, and a spellcaster without Spellstrike can deliver the charge with any unarmed strike: fist, elbow, kick, or head butt. Let's consider a third option: the magus keeps the spell's charge in the hand that cast the spell, but transfers the sword into spellcasting hand to bring the sword to the charge rather than the charge to the sword. Transferring the grip on a sword is a free action. In that visualization, the magus attacks with each hand once, though not simultaneously.

Whenever my sister forced me to play tennis with her, my backhand was non-existent, so I would transfer the tennis racket from hand to hand to always hit the ball forehand. It was easier than learning backhand. People can also think of the moment in Princess Bride, "I am not left-handed!"


Mathmuse wrote:


However, maybe I am mis-visualizing Spellstrike. I don't like the spell's charge jumping to the sword in the magus's other hand. Other people in this forum mentioned viewing it as a whole-body charge, so that it does not have to jump, and a spellcaster without Spellstrike can deliver the charge with any unarmed strike: fist, elbow, kick, or head butt.

I think that's the way to think about it, except that spellcasters without Spellstrike don't have enough control over their magic (and their fists) to deliver a spell effectively with an actual unarmed strike.

Remember that if you touch anything the spell discharges -- there's no "cast with my left hand but deliver an unarmed attack with my right while preserving the charge" rule. (As usual in Pathfinder, clothing and personal equipment is handwaved as part of "you," so you don't automatically discharge your spell if you're wearing earrings.) So whatever the magic effects as, it's not simply a glow confined to your left hand.

The mage has enough control to be able to do something useful with a touch spell in "normal" combat.


KingOfAnything wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Mad Alchemist wrote:
graywulfe wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Xaimum Mafire wrote:

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?

Yes, save that you forgot step 2.... concentration roll to cast your spell.
Step 2 is get a level in swashbuckler so they WILL take an AOO at you... :)
Just to be clear, Spell Combat requires a concentration roll regardless of whether you are threatened or not.
Why?
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.
It says, "If you cast defensively..." Nothing says you must make concentration checks if you are not threatened.

Since the whole point of using spell combat is mixing melee and magic, it stands to reason that you're going to be casting in melee when using the spell combat mechanic. So unless you want the automatic AOO, it goes without saying that you WILL be casting defensively.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Mad Alchemist wrote:
graywulfe wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Xaimum Mafire wrote:

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?

Yes, save that you forgot step 2.... concentration roll to cast your spell.
Step 2 is get a level in swashbuckler so they WILL take an AOO at you... :)
Just to be clear, Spell Combat requires a concentration roll regardless of whether you are threatened or not.
Why?
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.
It says, "If you cast defensively..." Nothing says you must make concentration checks if you are not threatened.
Since the whole point of using spell combat is mixing melee and magic, it stands to reason that you're going to be casting in melee when using the spell combat mechanic. So unless you want the automatic AOO, it goes without saying that you WILL be casting defensively.

Avoiding the AoO is as easy as a five-foot step. Yes, you most likely will be casting defensively. But, Spell Combat does not "require a concentration roll regardless of whether you are threatened or not".


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
KingOfAnything 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.

It says, "If you cast defensively..." Nothing says you must make concentration checks if you are not threatened.
Since the whole point of using spell combat is mixing melee and magic, it stands to reason that you're going to be casting in melee when using the spell combat mechanic. So unless you want the automatic AOO, it goes without saying that you WILL be casting defensively.

Well, that's what the five foot step is for. Cast, step, slash, slash, and no concentration check required.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


Since the whole point of using spell combat is mixing melee and magic, it stands to reason that you're going to be casting in melee when using the spell combat mechanic. So unless you want the automatic AOO, it goes without saying that you WILL be casting defensively.

While that is true, this:

Quote:


Just to be clear, Spell Combat requires a concentration roll regardless of whether you are threatened or not.

is still a false statement.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


Since the whole point of using spell combat is mixing melee and magic, it stands to reason that you're going to be casting in melee when using the spell combat mechanic. So unless you want the automatic AOO, it goes without saying that you WILL be casting defensively.

Against opponents with 5' of reach or less:

Cast spell while out of reach, move 5', attack
Enlarge person & reach
Use a whip
The Lunge feat
Make your attacks, move 5', cast (don't work with spellstrike)

Against enemies with longer reach:

Cast bladed dash, move and make your attacks
Cast Force Hook Charge

All remove the need for a concentration check.


King of anything wrote:
Avoiding the AoO is as easy as a five-foot step. Yes, you most likely will be casting defensively. But, Spell Combat does not "require a concentration roll regardless of whether you are threatened or not".

Its a little harder for than that for magi, they're suffering from murphey's law of melee. If the enemy is in range, then so are you. 5 foot stepping away to cast a spell means you've moved out of range for the reason to cast the spell.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
I think that's the way to think about it, except that spellcasters without Spellstrike don't have enough control over their magic (and their fists) to deliver a spell effectively with an actual unarmed strike.

Actually, they do. Anyone, not just those using Spellstrike, can deliver a touch spell using an Unarmed Strike or Natural Weapon.

PRD/Combat wrote:
Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.


Kazaan wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I think that's the way to think about it, except that spellcasters without Spellstrike don't have enough control over their magic (and their fists) to deliver a spell effectively with an actual unarmed strike.

Actually, they do. Anyone, not just those using Spellstrike, can deliver a touch spell using an Unarmed Strike or Natural Weapon.

PRD/Combat wrote:
Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.

I stand corrected.

201 to 217 of 217 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Proof Spellstrike gives extra attack with Spellcombat? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.