| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want my Magus to wield a polearm and Spell Combat without resorting to a 2 level dip in Titan Mauler Barbarian. Can I do this with:
Choke Up
Additional Prerequisite(s): Acrobatics 1 rank, Climb 1 rank
You can take a –2 penalty on attack rolls and damage rolls until the beginning of your next turn in order to choke up on and wield a two-handed polearm sized for you in one hand, as long as you do not make attacks with your other hand.
it seems like it may conflict with:
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.
I know Spear Dancing Style and Quarterstaff master are a way to do this...however I'm interested in a STR based Kensai build. Just not sure if I can do it without the Titan Mauler dip...
Thoughts???
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm... in Spell Combat it specifies that it functions as if it were two-weapon fighting, which is important since that determines that it's a seperate technique. Since Choke Up's only prerequisite for use is that you do not attack with your other hand, and a spell is not an attack, I'd consider this a valid combination.
Obviously this can be rather open to interpretation, however.
The spell counts as using up your off-hand....
It's a grey area. I'm not sure how it should be run.
In that case, I would go conservative and assume it doesn't work until more evidenced can be found to justify it.
The spell counts as using up your off-hand....
It's a grey area. I'm not sure how it should be run.
In that case, I would go conservative and assume it doesn't work until more evidenced can be found to justify it.
Yep if your playing a home game ask your GM to rule on it. If it's PFS I would either avoid it or bring it up at the start of the session and get a ruling from the gm.
|
The "while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand" is what stops you. It doesn't matter if you're only weilding the weapon in one hand. It's still a two-handed weapon.
The Jotungrip ability of the Titan Mauler Barbarian archetype is the only way I know around that restriction since Jotungrip says "it is treated as one-handed when determining the effect of Power Attack, Strength bonus to damage, and the like".
You could get a polearm sized for a small creature (assuming your Magus is medium sized) and use it one handed without needing a feat or taking an attack penalty. Just slightly lower base weapon damage.
You still take a penalty, but you can technically have a 1 handed reach weapon.
Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.
It doesn't matter if the weapon is too big or too small, you take a -2 penalty per size category difference for it.
I also think that getting 1 handed reach weapons by way of undersized polearms is cheesy, but is technically legal.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
If you use your off-hand to cast any offensive spell, then that counts as making an attack (in the sense that it would break an invisibility spell, among others). Such spells would also prohibit choking up.
It's also not unreasonable to just claim that spell combat counts as two-weapon fighting regardless of what you cast, therefore attacking with both hands and blocking choking up entirely.
It's up for debate, but personally I'd say it doesn't work. But as CBD points out, the Magus has other ways of using a reach weapon.
|
It doesn't matter if the weapon is too big or too small, you take a -2 penalty per size category difference for it.
Right.
I also think that getting 1 handed reach weapons by way of undersized polearms is cheesy, but is technically legal.
Logically, if a 3' person can hit targets 10' away with a given two handed weapon it should be easier for a 6' person to do so with the same weapon held in one hand. Thus, if anything, 'reach weapons for small characters' is the 'cheese'... but obviously they didn't want to impose a significant combat penalty on small characters.
That said, the small polearm seems a better option than Choke Up. The OP didn't specify which polearm, so I'm gonna assume a Halberd for demonstration purposes;
Choke Up: May or may not work with Spell Combat. -2 to hit. 1d10 - 2 damage = 3.5 average. Costs a feat.
Small Halberd: Definitely works with Spell Combat. -2 to hit. 1d8 damage = 4.5 average.
Thus, the 'small polearm' route is equal or superior to 'Choke Up' in all ways. Basically, if you DON'T waste a feat you can get an extra point of damage on average... and not have to worry about table variation for use with Spell Combat.
I'll agree with you that reach weapons probably shouldn't exist for small characters shouldn't give 10ft reach (but thanks to Pathfinder's grid system it's either 5ft or 10ft no in between), but was allowed to make being a small melee character less disadvantageous.
OP here...
While I would love to use a polearm one-handed with Spell Combat I just can't bring myself to submit a medium character using a small polearm to any Recruitment.
Oh the irony... A medium character using a small Polearm with Spell Combat is legal but using Choke up is not...
begins bashing head
|
|
While I would love to use a polearm one-handed with Spell Combat I just can't bring myself to submit a medium character using a small polearm to any Recruitment.
Hrrrmm... this is another of those weird hangups a lot of people have which I just don't 'get'.
Let's try this another way. Why exactly do you want to use a polearm? Is there a particular polearm you are looking at? For example, is it just for reach? If so... you can go with Lunge instead.
While I would love to use a polearm one-handed with Spell Combat I just can't bring myself to submit a medium character using a small polearm to any Recruitment.Hrrrmm... this is another of those weird hangups a lot of people have which I just don't 'get'.
Let's try this another way. Why exactly do you want to use a polearm? Is there a particular polearm you are looking at? For example, is it just for reach? If so... you can go with Lunge instead.
I was looking at the Fauchard for AOOs, tripping, and crit-fishing using Enlarge Person to threaten a large area
|
|
Hmmm... I just noticed something in the Spell Combat text;
"...while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand"
So in addition to the 'a hand used to cast a spell is an attack' people you'd have to deal with the 'two handed weapons remain two handed weapons when wielded in one hand' people... which could potentially wipe out Choke Up, Quarterstaff Master, Titan Mauler, and Phalanx Soldier at some tables.
Personally, I'd allow any of the above to work with Spell Combat, but you'll definitely encounter table variation.
Crazy possible alternate option;
Shield Brace allows you to use a polearm with a light/heavy/tower shield. Normally, this wouldn't help because the shield would occupy the hand you need to cast the spell. However, Upsetting Shield Style allows you to use a buckler as a light shield for all feats/abilities. A buckler would NOT prevent the hand from casting a spell and is specifically ok'd for use with Spell Combat.
Two-handed weapons wielded in one hand do not lose their classification as two-handed weapons, unfortunately. This was brought up previously concerning the use of a Lance while making a mounted charge. In this case, it was ruled that you can actually wield a Lance in one hand and yet still get 2-handed damage with Power Attack. From that ruling, I'd say that simply holding a two-handed weapon in one hand is not enough to satisfy the requirements of Spell Combat.
Hmmm... I just noticed something in the Spell Combat text;
"...while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand"
So in addition to the 'a hand used to cast a spell is an attack' people you'd have to deal with the 'two handed weapons remain two handed weapons when wielded in one hand' people... which could potentially wipe out Choke Up, Quarterstaff Master, Titan Mauler, and Phalanx Soldier at some tables.
...
Quarterstaff Master states that you can "wield the quarterstaff as a one-handed... weapon." I make a distinction between "wielding as a one-handed weapon" which would let you use it with Spell Combat, and Choke Up's ability to merely "wield a two-handed weapon in one hand." In either case, I would still consider a quarterstaff to be a two-handed weapon when trying to apply something like a Weapon Special Ability that only works with one-handed weapons.
This whole issue is one of the bigger FAQ issues that I hope gets addressed quickly.
|
|
Quarterstaff Master states that you can "wield the quarterstaff as a one-handed... weapon." I make a distinction between "wielding as a one-handed weapon" which would let you use it with Spell Combat, and Choke Up's ability to merely "wield a two-handed weapon in one hand." In either case, I would still consider a quarterstaff to be a two-handed weapon when trying to apply something like a Weapon Special Ability that only works with one-handed weapons.
Ditto except that I don't make a distinction. If you are able to wield something in one hand then it is a one handed weapon for the purposes of all abilities related to such.
This whole issue is one of the bigger FAQ issues that I hope gets addressed quickly.
Personally, I think it already has been.
That's in response to a question about bastard swords specifically, but also talks about the fact that items which can be 'used as' a different type of item should then be TREATED as such an item type for effects... specifically including Titan Mauler allowing other 'one-handed weapon' effects to apply.
It seems a fairly easy concept to separate physical aspects of an item (e.g. the cost of making medium armor out of adamantine does not change if you have an ability which allows you to treat medium armor as light armor) from how the item is used (e.g. if you have an ability granting Weapon Finesse with a weapon that does not normally allow it then that weapon can also benefit from any other abilities requiring Weapon Finesse). Yet some refuse to see it that way.
Ditto except that I don't make a distinction. If you are able to wield something in one hand then it is a one handed weapon for the purposes of all abilities related to such.
This is explicitly not the case for the Lance wielded in one hand while on horseback.
See this thread and others like it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not so much an exception; if something allows you to treat a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon, then the weapon is a one-handed weapon for all intents and purposes. If it lacks that specific text, then a two-handed weapon is treated as a two-handed weapon regardless of how it is wielded.
The difference here is that one case allows for something normally disallowed (wielding a two-handed weapon with one hand) while the other case changes the classification for something, therefore using all preexisting rules of the new classification (treating a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon).
Choke up allows you to wield a two-handed weapon in one hand; it does NOT allow you to consider a two-handed weapon a one-handed weapon, which is necessary for Spell Combat to function.
|
|
Just to be clear though. Using under/oversized weapons does change the actual weapon category.
Correct?
Regardless of whether it 'changes the weapon category', or whether such a distinction between different abilities even exists (I don't believe it does), using jotungrip and other abilities that allow you "to treat a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon" is specifically FAQd as allowing other one-handed weapon effects;
An unusual case of the handedness rule is an ability that allows you to treat a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon. For example, the titan mauler's jotungrip (which allows you to wield a two-handed weapon with one hand) allows you to wield a bastard sword in one hand even without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency, and (as the ability states) treats it as a one-handed weapon, therefore it is treated as a one-handed weapon for other effects.
Additionally, do you or do you not get x1.5 damage using choke-up and power attack?
With the exception of the lance (while mounted), a two-handed weapon wielded in one hand does not get 1.5x strength and power attack.
Weapons, Two-Handed in One Hand: When a feat or other special ability says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon, does it get treated as one or two handed weapon for the purposes of how to apply the Strength modifier or the Power Attack feat?
If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
a two-handed weapon wielded in one hand does not get 1.5x strength and power attack.
Again, the distinction is between a two-handed weapon wielded in one hand (via special case, such as the lance) and a two-handed weapon treated as a one-handed weapon (when the rules say so).
The first case changes ONLY the wieldability. The second case changes all aspects, including strength/power attack bonus. You may not believe there is a distinction, but there is.
edit: removed spurious left square bracket
|
|
There is a distinction between "wield one-handed" and "wield in one hand" with the former counting the weapon as one-handed for all rules elements and the latter only freeing up one of your hands for other purposes (eg. using a shield, drinking a potion, etc). This is established by the various FAQs on the matter.
Great! It's "established". That means someone can actually quote/link the FAQ(s) which spell this out. Right?
'cuz I don't buy it.
The mounted lance still gets 1.5x strength when used one-handed. So far as I can tell, nothing else does... and I CAN cite (and have cited) a FAQ saying that.
This FAQ is the one that says two-handed weapons wielded in one hand (NOT two-handed weapons treated as one-handed) still get the +50% power attack.
The way this faq and the one you quote reconcile is through the distinction Kazaan and I mention. Otherwise, they would be contradictory.
See threads like this one
Much as we'd like FAQs to spell everything out, they don't.
|
|
This FAQ is the one that says two-handed weapons wielded in one hand (NOT two-handed weapons treated as one-handed) still get the +50% power attack.
The way this faq and the one you quote reconcile is through the distinction Kazaan and I mention. Otherwise, they would be contradictory.
OR they reconcile by the "Yes" FAQ you cite applying only to the mounted lance.
Much as we'd like FAQs to spell everything out, they don't.
Not everything is going to be spelled out explicitly...
So... NOT "established".
...because the Paizo staff doesn't operate under the presumption that people reading their books are morons who need everything spelled out in painfully exacting detail.
...
Your failure or refusal to accept this is your own lapse in reasoning, not ours.
The obnoxious attitude does not make your case stronger.
It seems implausible to me that the developers would make a huge (and completely unstated) distinction between "wield one-handed" and "wield in one hand"... especially as many of these abilities don't use either of those phrases. Indeed, with a quick search I couldn't find ANY which use that wording.
I'm not sure how much leeway there really is here to call people out for attitude on any side... This might be better off left alone. Suffice to say that in PFS it's an unwise choice, otherwise ask the GM.
The terms used are "treat as a" vs "wield"
Examples
Lance: "While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand."
Slashing Grace: "When wielding your chosen weapon one-handed, you can treat it as a one-handed piercing melee weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a swashbuckler's or a duelist's precise strike)"
Net Adept: "You can treat a net as a one-handed melee reach weapon with a 10-foot reach."
Estoc: "When you wield an estoc with one hand, treat it as a one-handed weapon; when you wield an estoc with two hands, treat it as a two-handed weapon."
Jotungrip: "The weapon must be appropriately sized for her, and it is treated as one-handed when determining the effect of Power Attack, Strength bonus to damage, and the like."
I need to start my evil commute, so these are all I have time for right now.
|
|
The terms used are "treat as a" vs "wield"
Examples
Slashing Grace: "When wielding your chosen weapon one-handed, you can treat it as a one-handed piercing melee weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a swashbuckler's or a duelist's precise strike)"
Estoc: "When you wield an estoc with one hand, treat it as a one-handed weapon; when you wield an estoc with two hands, treat it as a two-handed weapon."
Bolding added.
If these are opposite conditions, what does it mean when they BOTH appear?
You can keep trying if you want... but the evidence seems to suggest that this supposed 'different terminology', which distinguishes between when one vs two handed effects are applicable, doesn't actually exist.
OP here...
To any that are interested in getting this officially answered, please press the FAQ request on the opening post
You can keep trying if you want... but the evidence seems to suggest that this supposed 'different terminology', which distinguishes between when one vs two handed effects are applicable, doesn't actually exist.
The two you selected are both in the "treat as" category, while only the first one is in the "wield" (only) category, as it does NOT say "treat a lance as a one-handed weapon when wielded on horseback.
thanks for the FAQ request. I wanted to specifically FAQ Choke Up as it seems quite clear that Jotungrip works with spell combat unless you violently torture the English language ;)
|
|
The two you selected are both in the "treat as" category, while only the first one is in the "wield" (only) category, as it does NOT say "treat a lance as a one-handed weapon when wielded on horseback.
So, if I understand you correctly, your position is that any 'two-handed weapon one-handed' ability with the wording "treat as" works as a one-handed weapon for all effects. However, if it only says "wield", without any "treat as" wording, then it remains a two-handed weapon for all effects.
Yet... in the post immediately before yours I had just quoted a FAQ which literally equates those two terms;
"If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon..."
So, even if we accept your view of the super secret wording distinction... that FAQ turns your position... into my position. That is, anything wielded in one hand is treated as a one-handed weapon.
Yet... in the post immediately before yours I had just quoted a FAQ which literally equates those two terms;"If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon..."
So, even if we accept your view of the super secret wording distinction... that FAQ turns your position... into my position. That is, anything wielded in one hand is treated as a one-handed weapon.
No. The first clause of that sentence is telling you WHEN the following clause is active. It is not making the blanket statement that any weapon wielded in one hand is treated as a one-handed weapon in all respects.
|
|
"If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon..."No. The first clause of that sentence is telling you WHEN the following clause is active.
That clause being, "If you're wielding it in one hand". No other qualifiers or restrictions. We agree that's "WHEN the following clause is active". When wielding any weapon in one hand.
It is not making the blanket statement that any weapon wielded in one hand is treated as a one-handed weapon in all respects.
I have never argued that a two-handed weapon wielded in one hand should be treated as a one-handed weapon in ALL respects. For instance, I don't believe the FAQ intends that the weapon should suddenly have fewer HP... but I do think it means that weapon should be usable with Spell Combat.
The FAQ is certainly saying that a weapon wielded in one hand is treated "...as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on." The strength and power-attack bonuses we had been discussing are directly stated, so the question becomes where to draw the line between "and so on" and "in all respects". For me, anything dependent on how the weapon is used is included and only physical properties of the weapon are excluded.
It works and it's 100% rules legal, because when you use choke up, according to the FAQ, you treat the weapon as a one-handed weapon for all purposes, including Spell Combat.
There is nothing to discuss here. The rules speak clearly.
Certainly a -4 to hit and -2 damage to use Spellcombat while one-handing a polearm is not overpoweringly broken. It just opens up a new type of build... I'm sick of rapier wielding Magi. A little diversity is a good thing.
Help support diversity by clicking FAQ request on the opening post..
This message brought to you by the End discrimination of 2 handed Magi Society.
If you're tired of the usual Magus shtick, you could always go for an Eldritch Knight. There are more classes and spells and abilities to do it with than ever, and some of them are pretty amazing.
Edit: I guess you could also go Skirnir with Shield Brace to use a polearm and shield for Spell Combat.
yeah Skirnir would work. but such a lackluster archetype uuggghh
Well, that's the thing with Magus... fun enough, but ultimately pretty same/same and not nearly as powerful later on.
Out of curiosity, why strength-based Kensai? A normal strength-based Magus can be wearing mithral fullplate by level 7 if they want to.
If I wanted a uniquely themed Magus, I'd go for a Frostbite Hexcrafter with Hex Strike: Evil Eye, and then use Monstrous Physique: Gargoyle to make flying Hex-Strike-weapon-claw-bite-gore attacks with Frostbite stacked on every attack.
The FAQ is certainly saying that a weapon wielded in one hand is treated "...as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on." The strength and power-attack bonuses we had been discussing are directly stated, so the question becomes where to draw the line between "and so on" and "in all respects". For me, anything dependent on how the weapon is used is included and only physical properties of the weapon are excluded.
We must agree to disagree. I still contend that the wording of the rule allowing a particular two-handed weapon to be wielded in one hand determines if it is treated as a one-handed weapon in ALL respects or ONLY those addressed by the rule.