I'm in a bit of a hurry so I only skimmed your post, but it looks like you're correct.
THIS GUIDE is amazing. Read it (and read the first few posts after the OP since he did make a couple of typos that get corrected there).
For your game I'd suggest either linking your GM to that guide or printing it out and showing him/her and the rest of the group.
It is worth noting that a dex magus using slashing/fencing grace loses dex-damage while using spell-combat since it uses two weapon fighting rules etc etc.
But yes, by the rules written you can use arcane mark to "spellstrike" an enemy and gain an extra attack for the round (although check that one with your GM first since it is pretty cheezy).
EDIT: I linked you to the wrong page. Should be fixed now =P
Just as an FYI; Dervish Dance will still net you dex to damage even during spell-combat (until an errata identical to the one applied to slashing/fencing/starry grace is applied).
Scimitars also happen to be nearly mechanically identical to rapiers.
Yeah, they've got it in for dex to damage magus builds. For those of us that don't play society, ignore the nerf at will. ;)
I think this is pretty much the basic thing a Magus does.
Yeah, they've got it in for dex to damage magus builds. For those of us that don't play society, ignore the nerf at will. ;)
Dex to damage still works if you're not casting spells that round. And when you're critting for 20d6 of shocking grasp damage, it's bit niddly to worry about an extra 3-4 pts.
The RAW already allows you to do this.
The full text of Spellstrike, from the PRD:
At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell.
This attack uses the weapon's critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar effects), but the spell effect only deals ×2 damage on a successful critical hit, while the weapon damage uses its own critical modifier.
Emphasis (and separation) mine.
You have it right there; Spellstrike specifically has ramifications for if you decide to utilize Spell Combat along with Spellstrike, making it possible to do both at the same time.
Grick's Guide to Touch Spells also goes further in-depth to explain this, though to be honest, it's overkill, because all this tells me is that GMs don't read the fine print when it comes to the Magus class.
And that's not a good excuse.
Well I mean, that's exactly what spellstrike and spell combat say they do, so yeah that's how they work. Your GM cheated you, there's no playing it safe there.
Might want to have a talk with the VC you have in the area, GMs aren't supposed to house rule society games.
Not quite correct. Judges are empowered to do whatever they need to do to make games run, that includes making on the spot rules calls if needed.
Yeah, they've got it in for dex to damage magus builds. For those of us that don't play society, ignore the nerf at will. ;)Dex to damage still works if you're not casting spells that round. And when you're critting for 20d6 of shocking grasp damage, it's bit niddly to worry about an extra 3-4 pts.
That's actually as many as 6 or 7, depending on your build, per attack, so up to 18-21, multiplied 2x for critical hits. No, it's not piddly, and there is a steep tradeoff to get it.
I'm just not buying the rationalization.
BURN THE WITCH!!!
(ok I'm paraphrasing here)
I've never played PFS (so I could totally be wrong here) but from what I remember the PFS GMs are only required to learn the core rule-book by heart. Anything not in the core rule-book (for example: The entire Magus class) you have to bring in official copies of all relevant material for the GM.
Even if that's not the case ...
"the GM played it safe and asked me to look into it after the game. which seems fair." (darktemplar45 - 20/08/2016).
The GM was wrong, but (s)he made the right call in this case. That call was "I'm making a snap-ruling and we'll check the rules properly when it won't interrupt everyone's game".
There's no call here to get angry at anyone, the GM made a mistake & the player & GM are working it out in a peaceful and agreeable manner.
If you take all this information to the GM and they still don't accept it, THEN you can report them, but it's always worth trying diplomacy first (this goes for other aspects of life as well, not just Pathfinder).
On top of all that, the Magus really is a confusing class. If you don't believe me, go read that guide that Darksol (Praise the Sun) & I linked. Anything that needs a guide that long isn't exactly obvious, so don't be too hard on anyone who doesn't get it right away.
Yeah, they've got it in for dex to damage magus builds. For those of us that don't play society, ignore the nerf at will. ;)
Dex to damage still works if you're full-attacking and not using spell-combat.
Dex to damage still works if you're using spell-strike and not using spell-combat.Really all it does is make shocking-grasp less appealing.
Rime-Frostbite is better.
(for the following I'm going to ignore misses & crits just to make it easier)
At level 8, 24 dex, +2 scimitar.
Full attack:
1d6+7(dex)+2(weapon)+2(Arcane pool)
+1d6+7(dex)+2(wep)+2(AP)
= 29 damage (average)
Spell-combat (intensified shocking grasp):
1d6(wep)+0(dex)+2(wep)+2(AP)+8d6(shocking grasp)
+1d6(wep)+0(dex)+2(wep)+2(AP)
+1d6(wep)+0(dex)+2(wep)+2(AP)
=50.5 damage (average)
Spell -combat (rime frostbite)
1d6(wep)+0(dex)+2(wep)+2(AP)+1d6+8(frostbite)
+1d6(wep)+0(dex)+2(wep)+2(AP)+1d6+8(FB)
+1d6(wep)+0(dex)+2(wep)+2(AP)+1d6+8(FB)
=57 damage (average) +fatigued +entangled.
You totally don't need dex to damage to still have a viable character.
Yes a strength character in the same boat would do better damage, but then your dex character should have a higher AC, Initiative & more AoO's & better skill checks & etc etc dex is a better stat.
I agree with you that in home games I'd let dex to damage work, but for PFS where you could have a STR magus & a DEX magus show up to the same game, it's worth balancing so that one of them doesn't feel left out.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Hey Guys so this came up in a society game i played yesterday and there was some debate at the table about a feature i thought i understood but i could be wrong. the gist of it is Can my magus use Spell Combat with Spell-strike to effectively gain and "extra attack"?
Echoing all of the above, yes you can. And yes, you can also do this with cantrips.
Dex to damage still works if you're full-attacking and not using spell-combat.
Dex to damage still works if you're using spell-strike and not using spell-combat.
Yes, but to be fair, in most situations using Spell Combat is more important than getting dex to damage. Ideally you'd have both; another option for that is an Agile weapon.
Yeah, they've got it in for dex to damage magus builds. For those of us that don't play society, ignore the nerf at will. ;)Dex to damage still works if you're full-attacking and not using spell-combat.
I know how it works. I'm not buying the spell combat rationalization, and what you give up is not piddly.
Why is it a rationalization when that's how the rules work? I mean, weren't the rules actually clarified or rewritten to work that way?
Also, you don't have and endless supply of shocking grasps, frostbites, or corrosive touches. Everybody keeps analyzing this as if you are using these spells all day - you aren't. You're probably using arcane mark, or brand (hexcrafter), to get the extra attack, and thus giving up the extra damage for a large number of your attacks, particularly during early levels.
Why is it a rationalization when that's how the rules work? I mean, weren't the rules actually clarified or rewritten to work that way?
Um, that's what the rationalization is. They rationalized that your hand is occupied. Before the FAQ, it was not. Your comment doesn't make sense.
There's also the rationalization that "it still works, just not with spell combat," which I've explained in detail as the problem in the first place.
To be fair, the reason I could see Spell Combat as disallowing the Grace feats is because they do not work with the "two weapon combat like" abilities that exist in Pathfinder.
Of course, Flurry of Blows includes the phrase "as if using the Two Weapon Fighting Feat". Brawler's Flurry just flat out says "a brawler has the Two Weapon Fighting feat" So these two are obvious. However, this gets shakey when it comes to the Magus because the ability says "This functions MUCH LIKE two weapon fighting"
Since the ability functions LIKE two weapon fighting, but strictly isn't two weapon fighting, there is room for argument that since the Magus is only performing an action like two weapon fighting they should still benefit from the Feat. Now the argument is pedantic, but I see where people are coming from.
Of course this whole line of reasoning starts faltering with the Unchained Monk who quite strictly does NOT have the two weapon fighting feat line nor can he ever benefit from it. Nor are his hands ever full. In which case, there is no reason other than developer whim that the Grace feat line does not work with the Unchained Monk's flurry of blows.
Anyway, I personally house ruled the Grace line of feats to work with Spell Combat since the damage doesn't bother me or disrupt my encounters since I have room to adjust for higher damage output. In PFS that isn't an option so I imagine the damage output might disrupt the encounter structure.
I do, too, ShroudedInLight, but none of my current players use the magus so it's moot.
My gripe really comes down to the comparison between STR and DEX builds. If they nerf dervish dance the same way, a dex-based magus will always be (significantly) inferior, which essentially kills the build.
I do, too, ShroudedInLight, but none of my current players use the magus so it's moot.
My gripe really comes down to the comparison between STR and DEX builds. If they nerf dervish dance the same way, a dex-based magus will always be (significantly) inferior, which essentially kills the build.
And it should be. That was supposed to be the choice in building a Strength vs. Dexterity builds. Dexterity gave you heightened defense, higher initiative counts, and bonuses in Reflex saves.
Now essentially you want to take away the only thing that Strength brings to the table besides carrying capacity. What I'm seeing is some needed pullback on a trend that already has gone too far.
Here's a thought. Rationalise why you think dex to damage SHOULD work with spell combat?
If a rationalization is a lot like an excuse or cover up I don't see how a DM enforcing the actual rule is a rationalization. I guess you're saying that Paizo making the rule was a rationalization though. It sounds to me more like it was just a ruling you don't like.
I think "rationalization" often carries a negative connotation of illegitimacy, delusion, or dishonesty whereas Paizo's ruling here seems legitimate and fairly reasonable at least to me. I mean, if you need a hand free to use Spell Combat and Paizo rules that means Spell Combat uses that hand I don't see why that's illogical or requires a defense mechanism.
Here's a thought. Rationalise why you think dex to damage SHOULD work with spell combat?
Speaking as a former fencer and current martial artist, Dexterity to damage represents (IMHO) two things; first, being fast enough to get around someone's guard, and second, being precise enough to hit them in a particularly vulnerable spot. As a simple example, hitting someone with your fist in the rib cage will generally not disable them, but if you can hit them specifically in the floating ribs, you can actually break those ribs, to much greater pain and internal damage. Hitting someone in the funny bone will paralyze an arm while just hitting them in the arm doesn't do much. Since this is a fantasy world, I can also start talking about acupoints, nerve strikes, dim mak, and a whole bunch of other martial arts tales.
In the context of spell combat, dex to damage applies to both aspects as well; I can deliver spell damage directly to a very sensitive spot.
Dexterity gave you heightened defense, higher initiative counts, and bonuses in Reflex saves.
At a substantial cost in feats. Don't forget that part.
Here's a thought. Rationalise why you think dex to damage SHOULD work with spell combat?
Because there's nothing in your hand?
I do, too, ShroudedInLight, but none of my current players use the magus so it's moot.
My gripe really comes down to the comparison between STR and DEX builds. If they nerf dervish dance the same way, a dex-based magus will always be (significantly) inferior, which essentially kills the build.
And it should be. That was supposed to be the choice in building a Strength vs. Dexterity builds. Dexterity gave you heightened defense, higher initiative counts, and bonuses in Reflex saves.
Now essentially you want to take away the only thing that Strength brings to the table besides carrying capacity. What I'm seeing is some needed pullback on a trend that already has gone too far.
But not without a significant cost:
2 feats and significant damage.The DEX build magus was weaker to begin with. It will no longer be built if dancing dervish is nerfed.
If a rationalization is a lot like an excuse or cover up I don't see how a DM enforcing the actual rule is a rationalization. I guess you're saying that Paizo making the rule was a rationalization though. It sounds to me more like it was just a ruling you don't like.
It's a ruling I disagree with, so, um, duh? I'm not allowed to have an opinion? You're the arbiter of opinions?
I think "rationalization" often carries a negative connotation of illegitimacy, delusion, or dishonesty whereas Paizo's ruling here seems legitimate and fairly reasonable at least to me. I mean, if you need a hand free to use Spell Combat and Paizo rules that means Spell Combat uses that hand I don't see why that's illogical or requires a defense mechanism.
Reasonable to you, but your opinion. I see no reason I should accept this line of reasoning just because you say I should. This isn't the rules forum.
If a rationalization is a lot like an excuse or cover up I don't see how a DM enforcing the actual rule is a rationalization.
For the record, I never said this, and I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from insinuating as such. A GM can rule however he wants, and in a PFS game, I would expect the rules to be followed.
You are, for whatever reason, bent out of shape because I simply don't agree with your opinion. "Rationalization" is what everyone does to justify to themselves the legitimacy of everything they deal with in life. There's no onus on me, or anyone else, to agree with the rationalization others use when formulatING an opinion. Deal.
I wouldn't say Dex magus's won't be built at all, but they are unlikely to be built before players can purchase agile weapons, which will kill them out in PFS and regulated play almost entirely.
Of course, players always could go back to the old Dex standard of 13 Strength so you grab power attack. Though for Magus' its not worth grabbing Power Attack since they would rarely if ever two hand their weapon. Thus going for Finesse, a Wazaki, and Piranha Strike would be the closest they could come to competing with strength builds. A significant reduction in damage, and still costs one more feat than Strength Builds.
Until +2 weapons become available, the Dex character will lack +Stat to damage for every swing of their weapon. Since +Stat is usually 3-6, you could average it as 4.5 and then multiply that by the number of strikes a character is likely to make until they buy an Agile version of their weapon (an 8150+ gp investment usually made between 6-8th level). Significant damage loss for half your PFS career is a steep price to pay for being a fancy fencer.
I mean, if you need a hand free to use Spell Combat and Paizo rules that means Spell Combat uses that hand I don't see why that's illogical or requires a defense mechanism.
I dunno. "Paizo says so" is not a particularly compelling argument from a philosophical or epistemological standpoint. If druids can't wear metal armor, and Paizo rules that leather armor is made of metal, are we supposed to simply ignore everything we understand about the word "leather"?
Here's a thought. Rationalise why you think dex to damage SHOULD work with spell combat?Because there's nothing in your hand?
Pretty sure there's a spell in your hand ...
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.
@taks - You're the one who said my comment made no sense, prompting my further response to explain it. I've never claimed that you aren't entitled to your opinion, just that enforcing the rule doesn't require any rationalization and creating the rule doesn't seem to either. It sounds like you agree with the first point, so I'll apologize for any misunderstanding about that part.
@Orfamay Quest - I think that going from "You need a hand free to use Spell Combat, so I'm ruling that Spell Combat uses that hand" to "You can't wear metal armor, so I'm ruling that leather armor is made of metal" is a pretty big leap.
Here's a thought. Rationalise why you think dex to damage SHOULD work with spell combat?Because there's nothing in your hand?Pretty sure there's a spell in your hand ...
At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast.
I don't see how having a spell in your hand constitutes denying dexterity to damage.
I'm sure Slashing Grace is shut down by effects like Spell Combat because it functions like TWF, an effect that Slashing Grace specifically disallows, not because the hand is holding the charge of a touch spell.
Spells don't make your hand un-free unless the spell is an object or similar subject being held in your hand (such as Produce Flame or Flame Blade).
This is what makes the Dervish Dance feats so great.
Here's a thought. Rationalise why you think dex to damage SHOULD work with spell combat?Because there's nothing in your hand?Pretty sure there's a spell in your hand ...
At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast.I don't see how having a spell in your hand constitutes denying dexterity to damage.
I'm sure Slashing Grace is shut down by effects like Spell Combat because it functions like TWF, an effect that Slashing Grace specifically disallows, not because the hand is holding the charge of a touch spell.
Spells don't make your hand un-free unless the spell is an object or similar subject being held in your hand (such as Produce Flame or Flame Blade).
This is what makes the Dervish Dance feats so great.
So you're saying you think it's more realistic that someone could literally hold the raw elements in their hand (which they conjured out of thin air) without it even slightly distracting them from their extremely delicate and intricate sword techniques?
Bearing in mind that if they touch ANYTHING with that hand they're going to literally kill whatever they touch. Somehow that's less likely to disrupt their fancy-pants sword-stylings than just holding a dagger?Or in the cast of spell-combat and spellstrike, holding that phenomenal cosmic power and also channelling it through your weapon into your enemy (while still not touching anything else etc etc) is somehow "not that hard"?
Seems legit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it were someone who was inexperienced with drawing the powers of arcane magic, sure, you may have a point.
But we're talking about a Magus; they're the pinnacle of gishing, the aspect of wielding both blade and spell simultaneously, and flawlessly. They have special training to accommodate what you would call "slightly distracting" raw elements, so suggesting that their spellcraft gets in the way of how they fight is absolutely ridiculous, and is grasping at straws.
If you didn't notice, I provided a purely mechanical standpoint, the flavor had nothing to do with it; Slashing Grace doesn't work with Spell Combat because it behaves like the TWF action (which Slashing Grace specifically disallows), not because there's a spell being held in your hand.
If the case is that a spell in your hand disallows Slashing Grace, then Spellstrike would likewise disallow Slashing Grace, because the spell would have to first be on your hand before you could channel it through your sword...
If it were someone who was inexperienced with drawing the powers of arcane magic, sure, you may have a point.
But we're talking about a Magus; they're the pinnacle of gishing, the aspect of wielding both blade and spell simultaneously, and flawlessly. They have special training to accommodate what you would call "slightly distracting" raw elements, so suggesting that their spellcraft gets in the way of how they fight is absolutely ridiculous, and is grasping at straws.
You're right, a level 1 magus is "the pinnacle of gishing".
If you didn't notice, I provided a purely mechanical standpoint, the flavor had nothing to do with it;
Thank you for providing the pinnacle of non-flavour-based standpoints.
Slashing Grace doesn't work with Spell Combat because it behaves like the TWF action (which Slashing Grace specifically disallows), not because there's a spell being held in your hand.
That's a good point actually, once the spell is held you can do what you like with it ... So really the only thing stopping you from using slashing/fencing grace is the act of casting a spell in the same round as using your weapon. That hardly seems distracting at all. You'd definitely be able to concentrate on using your special weapon technique for the round a lot more easily when casting a spell than you would when trying to hold something.
If the case is that a spell in your hand disallows Slashing Grace, then Spellstrike would likewise disallow Slashing Grace, because the spell would have to first be on your hand before you could channel it through your sword...
You got me there. Actually since both fencing and slashing grace both say they don't work "anytime another hand is otherwise occupied" it's possible that the strictest ruling would say that you can only spellstrike with fencing grace using spells that don't contain somatic or material components (or by casting the spell 1 round before you use spellstrike). No more "Cast spell, move, deliver spell through spellstrike" for people anymore. Shall we ask for another errata?
pinnacle pinnacle pinnacle pinnacle pinnacle pinnacle pinnacleYou raise some really good points there. I'm sure we're all very impressed with your rethoric.
A pinacle is a point. I get it! Very clever ^_^
If it were someone who was inexperienced with drawing the powers of arcane magic, sure, you may have a point.
But we're talking about a Magus; they're the pinnacle of gishing, the aspect of wielding both blade and spell simultaneously, and flawlessly. They have special training to accommodate what you would call "slightly distracting" raw elements, so suggesting that their spellcraft gets in the way of how they fight is absolutely ridiculous, and is grasping at straws.
You're right, a level 1 magus is "the pinnacle of gishing".
If you didn't notice, I provided a purely mechanical standpoint, the flavor had nothing to do with it;Thank you for providing the pinnacle of non-flavour-based standpoints.
Slashing Grace doesn't work with Spell Combat because it behaves like the TWF action (which Slashing Grace specifically disallows), not because there's a spell being held in your hand.That's a good point actually, once the spell is held you can do what you like with it ... So really the only thing stopping you from using slashing/fencing grace is the act of casting a spell in the same round as using your weapon. That hardly seems distracting at all. You'd definitely be able to concentrate on using your special weapon technique for the round a lot more easily when casting a spell than you would when trying to hold something.
If the case is that a spell in your hand disallows Slashing Grace, then Spellstrike would likewise disallow Slashing Grace, because the spell would have to first be on your hand before you could channel it through your sword...You got me there. Actually since both fencing and slashing grace both say they don't work "anytime another hand is otherwise occupied" it's possible that the strictest ruling would say that you can only spellstrike with fencing grace using spells that don't contain...
Mock my statement if you will, but tell me, what other level 1 classes can both effectively attack and cast spells in the same turn? Sure, there's always Swift Action spells, but those are quite limited in their uses and power, and Magi can do that with regular, Standard Action spells, whereas the other clowns can't.
And that gap only gets wider and more obtuse with levels, when Spellstrike and Quicken Spells (and even Spellstoring Weapons) come into play, not to mention metamagic reduction cheese. So yes, even at 1st level, I'd make the claim that Magi are the pinnacle of the gish playstyle.
The big thing stopping you from using Slashing/Fencing Grace is Spell Combat functioning as a TWF action, which Slashing/Fencing Grace specifically disallows. That's it.
Also note that those same restrictions don't apply to Dervish Dance, which the classic Dex-to-Damage Magus was originally built upon. In fact, Dervish Dance is actually better, since it's nowhere near as feat-intensive, which means you can start on it as early as 3rd level for any race, whereas the other wouldn't be usable until 5th level for certain race/class combos, and that's just stupid.
Darksol has the right of it. It has nothing to do with hands of effort, it's 'functions as'.
Which is why flurry doesn't work either, despite the monk's ability to flurry with his unarmed strikes while his hands are otherwise occupied wielding things he can't flurry with. It references two-weapon fighting.
Now this is a very interesting point because, as I mentioned earlier in the topic, the Unchained Monk's flurry does not reference Two Weapon Fighting in any way shape or form.
Ergo, since the Magus is disallowed because Spell Combat functions as Two Weapon Fighting then the Unchained Monk should be allowed to use Slashing Grace since the UC Monk's Flurry is not Two Weapon Fighting, like Two Weapon Fighting, nor does it function as Two Weapon Fighting.
Strictly being a pedantic RAW lawyer.
Darksol has the right of it. It has nothing to do with hands of effort, it's 'functions as'.
Which is why flurry doesn't work either, despite the monk's ability to flurry with his unarmed strikes while his hands are otherwise occupied wielding things he can't flurry with. It references two-weapon fighting.
Now this is a very interesting point because, as I mentioned earlier in the topic, the Unchained Monk's flurry does not reference Two Weapon Fighting in any way shape or form.
Ergo, since the Magus is disallowed because Spell Combat functions as Two Weapon Fighting then the Unchained Monk should be allowed to use Slashing Grace since the UC Monk's Flurry is not Two Weapon Fighting, like Two Weapon Fighting, nor does it function as Two Weapon Fighting.
Strictly being a pedantic RAW lawyer.
UCMonk gets the short end of the stick. Behold!
You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied.
Right, but there are two separate abilities both named Flurry of Blows and only one of them references Two Weapon Fighting.
The question is, did they mean both Flurry of Blows or just the one that references and functions exactly like TWF?
Right, but there are two separate abilities both named Flurry of Blows and only one of them references Two Weapon Fighting.
The question is, did they mean both Flurry of Blows or just the one that references and functions exactly like TWF?
Doesn't matter. The point is, it specifically references the Flurry of Blows class feature, the same way that Spell Combat specifically references the TWF action.
Both types of Monk are utilizing the Flurry of Blows class feature. Therefore, a Monk who is using Flurry of Blows, regardless of what version of the Monk you use, will not benefit from Slashing/Fencing Grace.
That's it. Period. End of discussion.