Why the Magus gets that extra attack (and why your GM should be okay with it)!


Advice

51 to 65 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
People might choose to focus on it rather than address the argument but all that tells me is they don’t know how to address the argument.

Yeah, no. You're arguing in bad faith is enough that I need to hear.

I'll admit it sounds like I misinterpreted the events that occurred here for sure, in that I'd not caught the conversations and back/forth took place after the game and for that, I'll sit here shamed knowing I put stress on the OP for no good reason.

My base message is -"If you have a disagreement and have been overruled at the table about how something works, deal with it or leave. Don't let it ruin the game itself."

And regarding arguments...

Quote:
...stopping a game to discuss a rule is not only acceptable it is essential...

You and I will NEVER EVER agree on this point, organizers have even chipped in to note how it's best to let the game continue and how they allow them the freedom to be wrong sometimes in order to keep the game moving smoothly forward.

If you want to stop a game dead in the middle of the session, ESPECIALLY a PFS game, to argue over a bit of ignorance in a call you don't like/understand you do not belong in an organized game and are a selfish, self-serving egotist in my opinion.

If I were in that position and had made a call of one type or another and someone pulls the rug out from under the game to argue I'd tell them to calm down or leave.


Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
MrCharisma wrote:
<Swearing is Bad>
If that is indeed the case then I’ll try and remember and stop ...

I honestly wasn't expecting anyone on the internet to actually listen and adjust their behavior at the request of others. Thank you for the bottom of my heart for surprising me in this.

Regarding your point, Yes it is acceptable to stop the game in certain circumstances to argue a rule.

If you're missing out on a +1 circumstance bonus to hit for 1 round, it's acceptable to stop the game for exactly 6 seconds (1 round) to argue the point. If the GM isn't convinced, move on with your life (and you can discuss it with the GM after the game).

If you're losing a powerful class feature for a whole game session (say you're missing out on an extra attack as part of your full-attack action, as a random example I just thought of =P ) then it is acceptable to stop the game and argue, but you still have to put a time-limit on it. The exact time you can spend on this without upsetting the rest of the party is going to vary from group to group, but anything more than 1 minute is probably pushing things. If your GM doesn't think Rage stacks with the Belt of Strength you just bought, at a certain point you just have to move on. It's acceptable to talk about this with the group between sessions - and even bring it up before the next session when you're all together to get some consensus - but stopping the game mid-fight for a 20 minute argument is just going to ruin the game for everyone ... EVEN IF YOU'RE RIGHT.

TLDR: You can argue it, but at a certain point it's the GM's job to keep the game moving, so let them do that. Playing as a less powerful character for 1 session isn't going to hurt you that much.

From the OP's posts it looks to me like (s)he has been assertive but courteous during the sessions, and tried to correct the mistake out of session.

The GM in question has apparently not done the research required, and probably should be reported. Hopefully this will not get them banned (losing a GM isn't a great solution), but instead will get them educated. If the GM learns the rules it's a win/win. Once again I'd like to state that this IS a difficult set of rules to follow when you first look at them, so the initial ruling wasn't a "bad" ruling even if it was a "wrong" ruling. It's only a problem when it keeps happening (which is what prompted this thread apparently).

Themetricsystem wrote:
If you want to stop a game dead in the middle of the session, ESPECIALLY a PFS game, to argue over a bit of ignorance in a call you don't like/understand you do not belong in an organized game and are a selfish, self-serving egotist in my opinion.

And on the other hand, it seems disingenuous to call someone out for swearing and then start name-calling. (Saying "you are being selfish" is different to saying "you are a selfish person". One is a behavior, the other is a person.)

Your point is valid: Don't stop the game for everyone just because you think it works differently.

However I think there is a time and place for a rule-challenge in game (as I stated above).

Personally I think I fall right between Themetricsystem and Chromantic Durgon <3 as to the appropriateness of challenging the GM. It's acceptable in moderation.

At the end of the day, the GM is the "Judge", so for the game to function you have to obey their rulings. Appeals are fine as long as they don't interfere too much with the running of the game. If you disagree with the final decision you can change your character, change your own understanding of the rules, or find another game (or for PFS report them).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

”]People might choose to focus on it rather than address the argument but all that tells me is they don’t know how to address the argument.”

Yeah, no. You're arguing in bad faith is enough that I need to hear.

Nope, I argue in good faith that you will address my points that I put time and energy into laying out clearly articulately and with support.

I don’t do that for giggles. You finding any excuse to avoid addressing them just tells me you don’t know how to address them. It’s not some grand set up to trick you. I simply inferred something based on your behaviour.

Quote:


You and I will NEVER EVER agree on this point, organizers have even chipped in to note how it's best to let the game continue and how they allow them the freedom to be wrong sometimes in order to keep the game moving smoothly forward.

If you want to stop a game dead in the middle of the session, ESPECIALLY a PFS game, to argue over a bit of ignorance in a call you don't like/understand you do not belong in an organized game and are a selfish, self-serving egotist in my opinion.

If I were in that position and had made a call of one type or another and someone pulls the rug out from under the game to argue I'd tell them to calm down or leave.

Your ability to jump from my suggesting people should be allowed to discuss rules, to implying I said I want to “stop a game dead” is not only incredible it’s exactly then kind of thing you were apologising for doing to the OP just slightly up this very same post.

Not to mention this is “not a bit of ignorance I don’t like/understand. It is a major error on behalf of the GM which will negatively impact the player is a very major way. If GMs at pathfinder society (and in general) should not have free reign to remove major class features for no reason at all.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
MrCharisma wrote:


If you're losing a powerful class feature for a whole game session (say you're missing out on an extra attack as part of your full-attack action, as a random example I just thought of =P ) then it is acceptable to stop the game and argue, but you still have to put a time-limit on it.

If I am playing a martial character and the gm says I get one less attack than the rules say I do the time limit for arguing is exactly as long as it takes me to either convince them they are wrong or realize they will not be convinced. At which point the game would end because I would get up and leave. If a GM doesn't know the rules well enough to run the game, then I wouldn't trust them to run the game fairly. No gaming is better than bad gaming.


I understand how it's supposed to work, but it still feels odd, not mechanically, but visually.

Spell Combat makes sense because you are using your offhand to cast and touch the combat, but combining it with Spell Strike makes it seem like the Magus gets a form of Flurry of Blows. Suddenly, s/he can strike twice his/her main hand, something that Fighters can't do until 2nd level.

I guess the Monk can do it, but only with a limited number of weapons and then it's an argument about whether he is attacking with is main hand or something else.

The ability is triggered while casting his spell though. Somehow, casting a spell allows him to strike twice and nothing in the text explains it, thematically (again, I'm not arguing the mechanics).

Again, Spell Combat makes sense - you are casting a spell while fighting, and during it, you can release your spell as part of the attack with your hand that is isn't being used for anything else.

Spellstrike makes sense - you can cast your touch-based spell through your weapon.

It's the combination - that someone you can attack twice with your main hand while casting a spell, that doesn't make sense to me. How is the Magus doing it, and why is this act limited to when he casts a spell. Can he fake casting a spell, and get the bonus attack? If not, why not?

Paizo Employee

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Legowarrior wrote:
[...] How is the Magus doing it, and why is this act limited to when he casts a spell?

Magic.

Quote:
Can he fake casting a spell, and get the bonus attack?

Not unless he can fake the spell's magic as well.

Quote:
If not, why not?

Lack of magic. More specifically, it might help to look at this through the lens that most offensive touch spells give you a free touch attack as part of the casting. Regardless of whether or not you take that attack, the spell is still normally a standard action, so part of the magic of that spell is also "speeding up your reflexes" or something similar and helping you deliver it. A magus has the ability to take that magical energy and focus it through their sword, allowing them to make an attack in a fraction of the time they'd normally be able to thanks to the magic essentially acting as an accelerant during that moment when it initially releases.

So a magus casting a non-touch spell is fighting with his blade, on the balls of his feat, swings with his sword while his fingers dart through the motions and then makes a bladed dash through the enemy ranks.

A magus casting a touch spell goes through all the exact same steps, except in the moment where the spell releases. Instead of reaching out and touching the opponent, the magus redirects that magical energy that would normally "propel" his hand forward into his sword instead, allowing him to strike a second time with the blade as the magical energy courses through it.


Ssalarn wrote:
Legowarrior wrote:
[...] How is the Magus doing it, and why is this act limited to when he casts a spell?
Magic.

Yeah the way I alwasy think of this is to be a little like ARCANE STRIKE. The Magus uses a little of their energy to power an extra attack, and can infuse that attack with more magical energy if the spell deals more damage. Remember that if they're casting within melee range of an enemy they either provoke an attack of opportunity or they cast defensively. Either way they probably have to make a concentration check, and if they fail the check they lose the extra attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Legowarrior wrote:

I understand how it's supposed to work, but it still feels odd, not mechanically, but visually.

Spell Combat makes sense because you are using your offhand to cast and touch the combat, but combining it with Spell Strike makes it seem like the Magus gets a form of Flurry of Blows. Suddenly, s/he can strike twice his/her main hand, something that Fighters can't do until 2nd level.

I guess the Monk can do it, but only with a limited number of weapons and then it's an argument about whether he is attacking with is main hand or something else.

The ability is triggered while casting his spell though. Somehow, casting a spell allows him to strike twice and nothing in the text explains it, thematically (again, I'm not arguing the mechanics).

Again, Spell Combat makes sense - you are casting a spell while fighting, and during it, you can release your spell as part of the attack with your hand that is isn't being used for anything else.

Spellstrike makes sense - you can cast your touch-based spell through your weapon.

It's the combination - that someone you can attack twice with your main hand while casting a spell, that doesn't make sense to me. How is the Magus doing it, and why is this act limited to when he casts a spell. Can he fake casting a spell, and get the bonus attack? If not, why not?

Legowarrior is right. My typical visualizations of Spell Strike and Two-Weapon Fighting clash. Visualizations don't override the mechanics of the game; in fact, the mechanics seldom offer a visualization beyond the name and limits of the ability. Nevertheless, we players create visualizations to enable imaginative intuition about the mechanics.

I envision Spell Combat as Two-Weapon Fighting, because Spell Combat says, "This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast." The usual way I envision Two-Weapon Fighting is that the fighter can strike twice without the incredible speed of a +6 BAB or a Haste spell because the two attacks with the two weapons overlap in time. They are separate weapons, so they can do two separate things at the same moment. (Though the mechanic treats them as consecutive. Simultaneous mechanics are a pain to write.) For a magus using Spell Combat for a touch attack with a spell, the spell charge is used in one hand as if it were a second weapon. The physical weapon in the other hand is still separate and can act independently.

The usual way I envison Spellstrike is that instead of the touch spell manifesting on the fingers of a gesturing hand, the magic jumps over to the magus's blade. Thus, when he hits with the physical weapon, he also hits with the touch spell.

Combine the two, and the physical weapon is no longer separate from the spell because the spell is wrapped around the weapon.

Since my visualization does not match the mechanics, I ought to switch to a new visualization of either Spellstrike or Spell Combat or their combination.

The text of Spellstrike says, "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. ..."

One flaw in my old visualization of Spellstrike is that if the spell wrapped itself around the weapon, waiting to touch the enemy, then it would still be a touch attack. Instead, it converts into a regular attack against regular AC. Maybe I needed a different visualization anyway.

I know of two other mechanics that give an extra attack at highest base attack bonus: Attack of Opportunity and Haste. An attack-of-opportunity visualization would be that the spell pushes the enemy's defenses aside to create an opportunity to also attack with the melee weapon. That seems contrived and does not explain the touch-to-regular effect.

The Haste visualization would be that the magus speeds up because he is casting a spell. That would need more explanation, since spellcasting is more naturally envisioned as distracting and slowing the magus because of the concentration.

Though Two-Weapon Fighting requires two separate weapons, another variant of Two-Weapon Fighting does not. The monk's Flurry of Blows says, "When doing [a Flurry of Blows], he may make one additional attack, taking a –2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat." It is like Two-Weapon Fighting, but a November 2012 FAQ says that it requires only one weapon.

Paizo FAQ" wrote:

Monk Flurry of Blows: When I use flurry of blows, can I make all of the attacks with just one weapon, or do I have to use two, as implied by the ability functioning similarly to Two-Weapon Fighting?

You can make all of your attacks with a single monk weapon. Alternatively, you can replace any number of these attacks with an unarmed strike. This FAQ specifically changes a previous ruling made in the blog concerning this issue.

I envision the monk's flurry with a single weapon as the monk's incredible sense of balance, combined with the odd shape of monk weapons or the versatility of an empty hand, allows a possible second strike on the backswing after the first swing.

This visualization could work for the magus. The magus is not necessarily exceptionally balanced, though some magi have high dexterity. A regular fighter relies on his footwork and his weight for thrusting his weapon. A magus casting a spell is manifesting magical energies. What if those energies also had a physical effect to push or support the magus so that he can swing his weapon as if he had a monk's highly-trained balance? Releasing the manifestation of a prepared spell and wrapping it around himself, weapon and all, could let him move better or faster. Better is all we need for a Flurry of Blows visualization and faster is all we need for a Haste visualization.

This is like Ssalarn's idea that, "part of the magic of that spell is also 'speeding up your reflexes' or something similar and helping you deliver it."

This visualization would also be spectacular for Paizo art. Draw the magus in mid-attack with the spell energies streaming around him and accelerating his attack.


Mathmuse wrote:
One flaw in my old visualization of Spellstrike is that if the spell wrapped itself around the weapon, waiting to touch the enemy, then it would still be a touch attack. Instead, it converts into a regular attack against regular AC. Maybe I needed a different visualization anyway.

I think this is actually just a case of the mechanics not matching the flavour. From the pictures/text I've seen your description sounds exactly like what the creators intended, but having the weapon attack target touch AC was just too un-balanced. You could make an attack roll and compare it to regular AC and touch AC, but that's just getting needlessly complicated. Targeting regular AC was simply the easiest work-around, and I think it's a good one.

Regarding the speed of attacks (like, for a regular fighter/rogue/etc), 6 seconds is a loong time in a fight. I remember playing Neverwinter Nights back in the day, and they directly translated the mechanics into the game so that you'd get 1 attack every 6 seconds ... combats were weird, with everybody standing still for most of the fight.
The way I visualise combat is that everyone's ducking, weaving, punching, kicking, blocking, screaming, etc, etc, all the time - It's just that at low levels most of those attacks are really just keeping the enemy at bay. About once every 6 seconds you create an opening for a solid attack, and that's what you're visualising with your attack roll. As you level up you get better at creating/finding these opportunities, so you're able to get more chances to meaningfully affect the enemy.


It's been ignored so far, but Ssalarn's method of associating this combination of mechanics is pretty elegant.

Grand Lodge

Your extra attack does not have to be with your weapon. People do it so they can crit with the scimitar.

This is when the magus cast the spell touches his sword then swings. Cinematically the magus is syphoning a small amount of electricity to give him the speed need for a second attack.

But there are times that you are better off not doing this.

If you are going for a rime frostbite or an authoritative spell hitting more accurately may be the better option, especially if you are not using a high crit range weapon. With this you cast frostbite, take your touch attack entangle and fatigue the enemy so it is easier to hit with your main weapon.


Grandlounge wrote:

Your extra attack does not have to be with your weapon. People do it so they can crit with the scimitar.

I mean, they also do it to add their weapon damage to the attack.

It may not seem like a big deal at higher levels, but some 6-8 damage can make a pretty significant difference well up in the single digit levels.

On the topic of visualization: My own dex-based Magus I envisioned as doing a lot of fancy twirling motions, passing the sword from hand to hand throughout the attack sequence.

As for Spellstrike, I feel like you can probably describe the spell effect as having some form of energy that you can push out of your hand and into the target, which explains why you only need to make contact with an outer layer of steel and padding to deliver deadly chills or whatnot.

I imagine that the energy doesn't so much surround your weapon as flow into it, still being pushed out towards the enemy, still having those interesting secondary effects like the electricity jolting towards metal and guiding the rest of it, but it's not external any more in the same way, so you actually have to make real contact (AC) and not just get close enough for the energy to make contact (TAC)

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It’s a lot more than 6-8 damage in most cases. You don’t get most static damage modifiers on a touch attack. But if you hit with your weapon, you get all of them. So STR/DEX bonus, enhancement bonuses, additional properties on the weapon (frost, flaming, etc.) Weapon Specialization, Bane if you’re using a Bane baldric or a dip into Occultist, power attack, etc. etc. It could easily be 20-30 extra points of damage or more. The reason it’s worth risking missing in most cases is that if you do miss, then the charge is held in your weapon and you can deliver it with your next attack. It’s not like the spell is lost.

But yes, there are times when you really want to land the spell with your first attack, and in those cases, you don’t have to use your weapon.

With regards to why a low level character would elect to use a cantrip for a second attack every round, keep in mind that your chances of hitting with at least one of your two attacks at -2 are going to be better than your chance to hit with a single attack at normal bonus in most cases.

If you’re +7 at 2nd level trying to hit AC 18, you have a 50% chance of hitting with a single attack.

If you’re +5 with spell combat/Spellstrike trying to hit an AC 18, each attack has a 40% chance of hitting, but there’s a 64% chance that at least one of those attacks hits.


Ferious Thune wrote:

With regards to why a low level character would elect to use a cantrip for a second attack every round, keep in mind that your chances of hitting with at least one of your two attacks at -2 are going to be better than your chance to hit with a single attack at normal bonus in most cases.

If you’re +7 at 2nd level trying to hit AC 18, you have a 50% chance of hitting with a single attack.

If you’re +5 with spell combat/Spellstrike trying to hit an AC 18, each attack has a 40% chance of hitting, but there’s a 64% chance that at least one of those attacks hits.

Fun fact, that works most of the time, but it doesn't work if you need exactly an 17, 18 or 19 on the die to hit, MATH TIME ...

Spoiler:
H = 1 - M (where H = chance to hit at least once, and M = chance to miss)

When making 2 attacks, the equation to hit AT LEAST ONCE becomes

H = 1 - (M×M)

Let's take your example Magus with a +7 to hit

If you have an enemy with 27AC or higher vs your +7 to-hit the equation looks like:

1 attack: H = 1 - 0.95 = 0.05 = 5% chance to hit.

2 attacks: H = 1 - (0.95×0.95) = 0.0975 = 9.75% chance to hit (at least once).

Better off attacking twice.

The equation for 2 attacks assumes you take a -2 to hit with both attacks, but since a 20 always hits the highest miss-chance is 0.95 (or 95%).

Let's say the enemy has 26ACvs your +7 to-hit, now you hit on a 19 or higher on a d20 to hit.

1 attack: H = 1 - 0.9 = 0.1 = 10% chance to hit.

2 attacks: H = 1 - (0.95×0.95) = 0.0975 = 9.75% chance to hit at least once.

Better off attacking once, but there's not much difference (this option does have a very small chance of hitting twice, so maybe better?)

Let's say the enemy has 25AC vs your +7 to-hit. Now you need an 18+ on a d20 to hit.

1 attack: H = 1 - 0.85 = 0.15 = 15% chance to hit.

2 attacks: H = 1 - (0.95×0.95) = 0.0975 = 9.75% chance to hit at least once.

Now it's significantly better to attack only once.

Let's say the enemy has 24AC vs your +7 to-hit. Now you need a 17+ on a d20 to hit.

1 attack: H = 1 - 0.8 = 0.2 = 20% chance to hit.

2 attacks: H = 1 - (0.9×0.9) = 0.19 = 19% chance to hit.

Back to a very small difference, but attacking once has a slight advanatage for hitting at least once.

Let's say your enemy has 23AC vs your +7 to hit.

1 attack: H = 1 - 0.75 = 0.25 = 25% chance to hit.

2 attacks: H = 1 - (0.85×0.85) = 0.2775 = 27.75% chance to hit at least once.

Better off attacking twice.

I'll let you fill in the rest, but the lower the enemy's AC compared to your attack-roll the better the 2-attack combo gets. If you need a 17 or 19 on the die the difference is minimal, but they are slightly better off attacking once. If you need an 18 on the die you'll hit 50% more often if you only attack once than if you attack twice. For any other numbers you're better off attacking twice.

(Someone feel free to check my maths, I'm good but I'm not infallible)

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I did say in most cases... But thanks for figuring out which ones the exceptions are. Average Expected AC for a APL+4 (CR 6) creature at level 2 is 19, so hopefully you're not fighting a lot of AC 25+ opponents. When you are, sure, use one attack if you want.

51 to 65 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Why the Magus gets that extra attack (and why your GM should be okay with it)! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.