I found an old thread asking if you could use spell combat when charging if you have pounce. This post mentioning an FAQ seemed in favor of it:
Actually... it might be allowed because of the change to the FAQ.
"Magus, Spell Combat: Does spell combat count as making a full attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects?
Yes."So, define what other effects is, consider whether pounce falls under that grouping, and you got your answer.
1) So now pf1e is done and the rules are set, can you use spell combat when charging if you have pounce?
2) Is there anything stopping you throwing a weapon as one of your attacks before you end your charge? (The pounce ability doesn't specify they have to be melee attacks or that they have to be made at the end of a charge, see below)
When a creature with this special attack charges, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).
Can you back up any answers with RAW, FAQ links or quotes, thank you.
1: Other effects relating to spell combat was never defined. Just because the rules are no longer being updated doesn't mean everything was answered.
2: The charge action is the rule that specifies that you take your attack at the end of the charge. ('After moving, you may make a single melee attack.' - pounce changes the single attack but not the after moving) There's a feat and maybe a rage power? that alter that, but the default is clear.
So now pf1e is done and the rules are set, can you use spell combat when charging if you have pounce?
You can do that since April 2013. Does spell combat count as making a full attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects? Yes.
So that's a yes to spell combat pouncing and a no to thrown attacks on a pounce?
Alright then, moving on from those questions.
I suppose I could instead just choose to be mounted and not charge or pounce, that way I might be able to use spell combat with my throwing weapons while my mount moves up to its speed:
"You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving."
So can I use spell combat with a thrown trident if my mount moves its speed or less?
So that's a yes to spell combat pouncing and a no to thrown attacks on a pounce?
Correct. The feat Flinging Charge explicitly says "effect that would grant you more than one attack at the end of your charge (such as pounce)", leaving no doubt that pounce is an effect, and thus one of the things that Spell Combat counts as a full attack for, per the FAQ.
Note that Spell Combat forces you to make all attacks with the same weapon.
1. Iffy. Spell combat counts as making a full attack action but it isn't a full attack action. This one will probably see table variance.
The sole purpose of "counts as" text is to make other stuff apply to or work with something. If rule options wouldn't apply to "counts as" stuff, that text would do absolutely nothing. That cannot be correct.
Note that Spell Combat forces you to make all attacks with the same weapon.
Sounds like a job for ricochet toss or a blinkback belt then.
Response to your second to last post (which wasn't there when I started my last post):
So can I use spell combat with a thrown trident if my mount moves its speed or less?
"As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon". If you throw it, it counts as a ranged weapon. You need to be a Eldritch Archer to make Spell Combat with a weapon at range.
With that archetype, the mounted stuff does work. General rules are the one thing that don't count as effects, so the sentence "You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving." does not apply via the FAQ, but thankfully, that sentence doesn't actually do something - it's explanatory text and not rule text. There is nothing that disallows taking a full-round action containing ranged attacks when on a moving mount. The potential penalties (-4 for double move, -8 for run) would apply, of course.
Hold up, i thought spell combat worked fine for thrown weapons? Dont tridents count as one handed melee weapons even if you're throwing them?
I thought that'd be a ranged attack with a one-handed melee thrown weapon / both a melee and ranged weapon.
If weapons stop being their weapon classification when they're thrown doesn't that mean that the throwing enchantment would stop working every time you try to throw the weapon enchanted with it because the enchantment only works with melee weapons?
That really limits the usefulness of the throwing magus arcana and cripples the card caster archetype... Not to mention the Myrmidarch archetype that seems built around throwing weapons because they dont get the ranged spell combat ability either!
I genuinely find it hard to believe they lose their classification on the weapons table when being thrown...
Are you 100% sure a trident stops being a one-handed melee weapon during any turn you throw it, rather than the attack just being a ranged attack with a one-handed melee thrown weapon? Do you have RAW, an FAQ link or a quote to back that up?
I hope im not coming across as rude, I just want to get to the bottom of things!
And one quick thing:
If you are right and I'm forced to stack the eldritch archer archetype with the kensai archetype i planned on taking, do I lose proficiency in the trident while throwing it?
A kensai is proficient in simple weapons and in a single martial or exotic melee weapon of his choice.
Thrown tridents aren't melee weapons while they're being thrown. They're ranged weapons at that time. Being proficient in a weapon is taken to be proficient in all its uses though.
There are a bunch of references to this, e.g.
When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, ...
With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within ...
but I'm not sure there's an actual definition. It's clear anyway.
BTW, an eldritch archer can only use spell combat & spellstrike with ranged weapons. You can throw a trident to use that (since thrown tridents are ranged weapons, not a ranged attack with a melee weapon), but tridents are sucky ranged weapons. I don't recommend it.
Right. Well at least kensai eldritch archer works...
I know tridents dont have the best range but thats why I was hoping for pouncing/riding closer to make up for their range.
Its funny how many rules misconceptions my groups and I have that dont come to light until I start asking questions on these forums.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If weapons stop being their weapon classification when they're thrown doesn't that mean that the throwing enchantment would stop working every time you try to throw the weapon enchanted with it because the enchantment only works with melee weapons?
It's a bit complicated, not the least because it's not properly written down and we have to patch together different parts of the rules. The short version is this: Passive and/or permanent things use what the weapon is listed as, whereas active things and stuff that triggers upon using the weapon in combat check for how it is actually used.
Evidence: This FAQ basically puts down what I said above in regards to the handedness of a bastard sword. Many ranged combat feat, including PBS, Rapid Shot, and Precise Shot, use the term "ranged weapon", if a thrown melee weapon would count as a melee weapon, they wouldn't work with the weapon. Indeed, even the basic rules use the term "ranged weapon", e.g. the attack bonus rules ("With a ranged weapon, your attack bonus is the following: Base attack bonus + Dexterity modifier + size modifier + range penalty", CRB pg. 179).
If you are right and I'm forced to stack the eldritch archer archetype with the kensai archetype i planned on taking, do I lose proficiency in the trident while throwing it?
No, as that is a permanent/passive effect. Proficiency, weapon enchantment placement (including from active abilities like Arcane Pool), and selecting a weapon for a feat or passive class features (like unRogue's Finesse Training) all check for the list entry.
Not to mention the Myrmidarch archetype that seems built around throwing weapons because they dont get the ranged spell combat ability either!
That at least seems to be intended, as its Ranged Spellstrike grants something similar to Spell Combat at 11th level.
I hope im not coming across as rude
You're not, at least not as far as I'm concerned. If everyone would ask for evidence when they seen some random guy on the internet make a statement, the world would have a whole lot less problems!
Thanks for being understanding and guiding me through it.
Another in my endless string of questions:
If I hold my kensai weapon in one hand but attack exclusively with a one handed ranged weapon from my other hand during spell combat, do I still get my kensai intelligence bonus to ac?
At 1st level, when a kensai is wielding his chosen weapon, he gains the canny defense ability.
Instead of a light or one-handed melee weapon, an eldritch archer must use a ranged weapon for spell combat. She doesn’t need a free hand for ranged spell combat.
|
It is worth reading the whole FAQ, as the note at the bottom explain what was adderessed.
Magus, Spell Combat: Does spell combat count as making a full attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects?
Yes.
Edit 9/9/13: This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with effects that are essentially a full attack, even though the creature isn't specifically using the full attack action (as required by haste). The earlier ruling did not allow the extra attack from haste when using spell combat.
It is a big stretch of the FAQ reading that as: "When I am making a full attack I can use spell combat".
If you use pounce you get to make a full attack at the end of a charge, you aren't using spell combat. Spell combat is its specific action and you aren't using that action.
The faq allows you to use abilities that work with full combat when you are using spell combat, not to get the option to make a full attack thanks to some other ability and convert it to spell combat.
|
I think this all falls into the broad category of "stuff that interacts in ways that aren't clear and that we didn't exactly intend but we don't see a way to straighten it out without putting out individual rulings for each of the 78 possible permutations that have been identified (so far) so let's put out a new edition of the game."
So now pf1e is done and the rules are set, can you use spell combat when charging if you have pounce?You can do that since April 2013. Does spell combat count as making a full attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects? Yes.
Incorrect. Charge is a full round action. Spell combat is a full round action. Neither is something you can do as part of another actions 'full round action'.
Pounce lets you make a full attack at the end of a charge. Spell combat is not a full attack. Though it counts as one for other effects that require you to be making a full attack to trigger (ie haste, etc). eg charge-pounce does not require you to be making a full attack to trigger it, rather the reverse, it triggers the ability to make a full attack.
This is similar to the frequent vital strike with x questions.
Basically
Pounce=doublemove+FAA
Spell Combat=spell+FAA
Anything that affects FAA still changes as normal when it gets carried out as a part of the two previously mentioned actions, but as they are two different actions, they have different end results.
Another in my endless string of questions:
If I hold my kensai weapon in one hand but attack exclusively with a one handed ranged weapon from my other hand during spell combat, do I still get my kensai intelligence bonus to ac?
I'd say 'no' based on this FAQ - you need to attack with the weapon to be considered wielding it for in-combat benefits.
I'm not sure how that interacts with throwing the weapon, but going by the text of Unfolding Wind Strike ("you double the range increment of any thrown weapon you wield"), I'd say it works if you have the weapon in hand at the time the ability checks for it, i.e. when you're attacked. So it works with Blinkback Belt + Quick Draw or Ricochet Toss, but not Returning.
It is worth reading the whole FAQ, as the note at the bottom explain what was adderessed.
The FAQ may be written because of Haste, but it is not limited to Haste. The Devs could've edited the question to cut off after "Haste", but they left the "and other effects" in there.
And yet it is.
Prove it. Prove that the game (not players) treats things that naturally are something and things that "count(s) as" something differently. Prove that the term "count(s) as" does not make things be treated functionally identical. Unless you can do that, we must tread the two things identical.
Of course, if you succeeded, that would make literally hundreds of rule elements stop working, and thus couldn't possible be the intended reading.
Pounce lets you make a full attack at the end of a charge. Spell combat is not a full attack. Though it counts as one for other effects that require you to be making a full attack to trigger (ie haste, etc). eg charge-pounce does not require you to be making a full attack to trigger it, rather the reverse, it triggers the ability to make a full attack.
The FAQ doesn't say SC counts as a FAA for stuff that requires one, it says it counts as a FAA "for the purpose of haste and other effects". That "require" part is solely your creation.
The FAQ can be reworded to the functionally identical statement "Spell combat counts as making a full attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects." I have proven that Pounce counts as an effect. Therefore we can condense the two to say "Spell combat counts as making a full attack action for the purpose of pounce."
Pounce says "When a creature with this special attack charges, it can make a full attack (...)"
The even both use the term "make", so the literally only difference here is between "full attack" and "full-attack action".
Is there a difference? The rules about the full-attack action are to be found in the CRB under the header of "full attack" - no "action". Likewise, Haste says "When making a full attack action", but this FAQ says it works with Pounce (which uses the term "full attack"), that shows the rules make no difference between the two phrases.
The rules use "full-attack action" and "full attack" interchangeably, which thus means that the "it can make a full attack" (the term used in the description of pounce) is synonymous with "it can make a full-attack action". Therefore, pounce can be treated as using the same phrase as the FAQ, which means the two must be compatible. Q.E.D.
Flurry of Blows works with pounce despite being a special kind of full-attack action (it doesn't follow the normal rules for natural attacks being added, for instance). Spell Combat was intended to "[function] much like two-weapon fighting", very similar to FoB, but was written as "full round action". When they realized that this has the unintended effect of not allowing things that interact with FAAs, they made the FAQ to change that and make Spell Combat act as if it would use an FAA for the interaction with other rule elements.
I see a bunch of statements in this thread that Pounce and Spell Combat don't work to gether, but I see no evidence.
I see a bunch of statements in this thread that Pounce and Spell Combat don't work to gether, but I see no evidence.
|
|
I see a bunch of statements in this thread that Pounce and Spell Combat don't work to gether, but I see no evidence.
Your position is that of someone that treats the rules as a mathematical equation where changing the order of the factors doesn't change the result, but rules are text, and changing the order modifies the meaning.
As already stated:
- Full round action charge+pounce = full attack
isn't the same as:
- Full round action spell combat = full attack
you can't derive
- Full round action charge+pounce = Full round action spell combat
The FAQ doesn't say SC counts as a FAA for stuff that requires one, it says it counts as a FAA "for the purpose of haste and other effects". That "require" part is solely your creation.
Read the FAQ again.
Yes.Edit 9/9/13: This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with effects that are essentially a full attack, even though the creature isn't specifically using the full attack action (as required by haste). The earlier ruling did not allow the extra attack from haste when using spell combat.
Haste gives us a context within which to understand what "other things" might also be impacted. So when the FAQ asks about "haste and other effects", those other things are things that have some similar properties to haste. eg, trigger off of you doing a full attack. If that is the trigger, then they also trigger off of Spell combat. Given they specifically call out the property on haste that is needed to meet the condition, then that is the property "other effects" also need.
Note also, that the FAQ isn't about spell combat and full attack being interchangable. The FAQ is about how things that can interact with full attack can also interact with spell combat. FAA at the end of charge-pounce isn't a interaction. charge pounce is the interaction, which grants a FAA as the result of that interaction. Just like rolling sneak attack damage isn't an interaction of making a sneak attack, rather its the result of the interaction between a rogue making an attack while meeting the requirements of target being flat-footed/flanked/etc.
FAA and haste have an interaction of granting an extra attack at +1 to hit. SC and haste have that same interaction. Other effects need to have an interaction for this FAQ to be applicable to them.
When they realized that this has the unintended effect of not allowing things that interact with FAAs, they made the FAQ to change that and make Spell Combat act as if it would use an FAA for the interaction with other rule elements.
Not quite. The original ruling was that haste (and other things that required a full attack) did not work with spell combat. So they were fully aware of the effect, and ruled that was as intended (not an unintended effect). They then reversed the decision. It is important to understand this historical context and what that means for spell combats action.
If they had wanted spell combat to be a special form of a full attack action the final FAQ answer would have been "a monk magus can make a flurry of blows spell combat as a full-attack action." But they didn't. So you cannot swap in spell combat anytime you could do a full attack (aka, charge-pounce).
This is also why I reference vital strike + x threads. eg, you cannot use vital strike and cleave together. Cleave takes a standard action, and lets you make an attack (and maybe more). Vital strike can be done anytime you use an attack action (eg, a standard action to make an attack). However, even though cleave takes a standard action, and it lets you make an attack, it is not an attack action (eg, the specific standard action to make an attack) - it is its own special standard action. VS does work with gory finish, as both feats state "when using the attack action". Gory finish also would not work with cleave.
Likewise, spell combat works much like a full attack action (specifically a TWF full attack action), but it is not a full attack action. It is its own special full round action. You'd need a new ability called spellpounce "At the end of a charge you may take a spell combat action" to use it.
If something A (charge-pounce) allows B (faa), and B allows C (haste and other effects), that does not mean that if D (spell combat) also allows C, that A allows both B and D. B and D are not interchangable.