Recently an issue came up where during play a veteran player had questioned the ability of a 5th lvl Magus to cast and attack with his weapon twice. Basically during a full round action my character cast shocking grasp (big surprise) delivered with my whip and then used his normal attack to hit with his whip again.
The other players position was spell combat allows you to do either but not both and does not allow a second attack with the same weapon. In the end we did not agree and the position was this character would not be allowed at tables he GM's.
Am I missing something? It seems this is opened up at lvl 2 as a Magus and the attacks take a -2 penalty along with a low bab class this doesn't seem like an exploit but a valid strength of the class.
Is there a thread I can refer this player to and what can be done to prevent banning a legal character from society play?
Any help would be appreciated.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just have him read spellstrike's writeup:
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. If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks.
Indeed, understanding how this ability functions is pretty integral to understanding the magus. Just have him read it over.
It's the same thing with say an ectoplasmatist spiritualist:
So my ninth level spiritualist casts brand, uses ectoplasmic combat and activates his haste boots for an attack routine of +15/+15/+15/+10. He can't two-hand the weapon, because the spell takes a hand to use, but may deliver all the attacks with the same weapon(so, a +2 ectoplasmic lash with mindshock, vicious and corrosive on).
|
|
I think the rule about touch attack spells requiring a further action, this free touch attack, is the lynchpin in this. Before reading the magus back in 2011 or whatever we used to have characters concentrate on their touch attacks next to their targets because in our mind there was no separation between the spell and the delivery. It's a weird but wonderful rule.
Thank you for the replies and I just wanted to have a sanity check.
I have only been playing Pathfinder a couple years and as you know it is a rather complex game so I just wanted to double check.
To press my luck next week I will cast arcane mark to really fan the flames. :-O
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're absolutely in the right rules-wise. You should also examine the possible underlying issues, though: the whip magus is a very powerful character, and can easily dominate games. I won't say it's a loophole, but it is a *very* powerful option that isn't the "norm" they take into account when designing and balancing scenarios. Make sure you're letting other people play, too. (Not defending the GM's approach, by the way.)
Along these lines: "fanning the flames" with a GM is a bad idea, unless you're going to replace the GM when they get tired of dealing with people trying to do that.
You're absolutely in the right rules-wise. You should also examine the possible underlying issues, though: the whip magus is a very powerful character, and can easily dominate games. I won't say it's a loophole, but it is a *very* powerful option that isn't the "norm" they take into account when designing and balancing scenarios. Make sure you're letting other people play, too. (Not defending the GM's approach, by the way.)
Along these lines: "fanning the flames" with a GM is a bad idea, unless you're going to replace the GM when they get tired of dealing with people trying to do that.
It's not even the GM that's throwing his toys out the pram, it's another player.
Yes, the weird intaction of spell combat and spellstrike is magusflurry with a side of cheese
:
This Changes the mechanics of Spell Combat plus Spellstrike from
Full Attack + Touch Spell
to
Full Attack + Touch Spell + Free Attack
This is correct. In its previous incarnation, spellstrike was not even really a bonus.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
(PS, we also added a few cool new touch spells for them to use)
______
so print that out and show it to them (preferably not on a night they're DMing)
|
It's not even the GM that's throwing his toys out the pram, it's another player.You're absolutely in the right rules-wise. You should also examine the possible underlying issues, though: the whip magus is a very powerful character, and can easily dominate games. I won't say it's a loophole, but it is a *very* powerful option that isn't the "norm" they take into account when designing and balancing scenarios. Make sure you're letting other people play, too. (Not defending the GM's approach, by the way.)
Along these lines: "fanning the flames" with a GM is a bad idea, unless you're going to replace the GM when they get tired of dealing with people trying to do that.
The fact that it's another player and not the GM doesn't make the idea of fanning the flames any better. My advice to the OP is to take the high road and remember to cooperate worth the others at the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This was settled years ago. The veteran player seems to not understand the magus class. To be fair, this does take careful reading, as I also saw a GM make this mistake once, but he later admitted it was a mistake.
The logic behind magusflurry really DOES sound like a rules lawyer trying to pull a fast one.
Thanks for the input Lamplighter, you make an excellent point and I completely agree with you about allowing others to shine. I typically play a form of battlefield control for this exact reason. My Magus is actually a hexcrafter with limited offensive touch spells. Thinking about the game I can see what might have caused the ire as at that moment I was flying (hex) and during the next round I whipped an NPC twice from distance.
My comment about arcane mark was actually in jest. It might be legal but it can be overpowered when you do so with a strength Magus build.
Yes, the weird intaction of spell combat and spellstrike is magusflurry with a side of cheese
:
This Changes the mechanics of Spell Combat plus Spellstrike from
Full Attack + Touch Spell
to
Full Attack + Touch Spell + Free Attack
This is correct. In its previous incarnation, spellstrike was not even really a bonus.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing(PS, we also added a few cool new touch spells for them to use)
______so print that out and show it to them (preferably not on a night they're DMing)
Perfect link! Thanks, as this is what I am looking for :-)
And yes at the time this was another player as the GM had no issue until the debate began. It ended with my agreeing to just cast evil eye and pick up the debate the following week with some form of proof.
|
Is there a thread I can refer this player to
THIS POST should improve your fellow player's understanding of how spellstrike and spell combat work (and work together).
Is there a thread I can refer this player toTHIS POST should improve your fellow player's understanding of how spellstrike and spell combat work (and work together).
I noticed this and read over the post while creating the character but not to be daft I wasn't sure who Grick was. His post does do a terrific job of detailing Magus combat mechanics and helped me understand them. I just wasn't sure if I could use this to support a rules dispute as it might not be "official".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow. I totally missed this. And Muser's quote from Ultimate Magic doesn't really help. You need to quote both the Spell Combat and Spellstrike rules to clarify this. One or the other isn't enough.
And to think, I've killed 2 PCs in 3 times GMing [redacted], even though I was denying the BBEG one of his attacks per round, because I was doing this wrong!
|
|
I noticed this and read over the post while creating the character but not to be daft I wasn't sure who Grick was. His post does do a terrific job of detailing Magus combat mechanics and helped me understand them. I just wasn't sure if I could use this to support a rules dispute as it might not be "official".
The beauty of his post is that all he does is quote the rules and then apply them to simple examples. There are no leaps of logic or twisting of ambiguous wording to get to something that doesn't feel right.
If a player reads that and doesn't understand or still doesn't feel convinced, I'd ask him to re-read it, as hopefully the message will sink in.
Wow. I totally missed this. And Muser's quote from Ultimate Magic doesn't really help. You need to quote both the Spell Combat and Spellstrike rules to clarify this. One or the other isn't enough.
And to think, I've killed 2 PCs in 3 times GMing [redacted], even though I was denying the BBEG one of his attacks per round, because I was doing this wrong!
Well that's because like most other 1-7s it scales badly. Once you hit level 4 it mechanically starts getting easier and easier.
|
|
Wow. I totally missed this. And Muser's quote from Ultimate Magic doesn't really help. You need to quote both the Spell Combat and Spellstrike rules to clarify this. One or the other isn't enough.
In my defense, I figured OP and his conversant were already familiar with the combat portion having reviewed it and then disagreed. I was just filling them in with my quote.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The feedback was appreciated Muser and you were correct in the assumption of my reading the rules. To be honest I even pulled up the Paizo rules and read them to the group to no avail. With the information everyone has provided and the reference posts. This should bring some light to this class mechanic.
As a side note the person in question just signed up for a game I'm running next month with a lvl 2 Magus. Kind of funny but hey it's the best way to understand a class :-)