| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I completely understand the notion that someone who can cast spells AND fight in melee combat is super strong and needs to be balanced in some way to not outclass all other options, but it wouldn't be my first decision to take one of the classes first core features and immediately have it apply negatives to dice rolls unless ALL the other classes had very similar drawbacks, and I honestly just disagree with giving such a penalty in general.Here's the thing. I don't think you do understand it, at least not fully. It's free action spellcasting packaged into a full attack, which no one else can do, and in exchange you're just taking the Two-Weapon Fighting penalty... which everyone else with that feat has to take. Also see the next to last quoted reply.
Here's the actual thing: 2 attacks with a -2 penalty are more likely to get at least 1 hit than 1 attack without a penalty.
Let's say you hit on an 11 or higher, so a 50% chance to hit and a 50% chance to miss.
Now let's give you a -2 penalty to your attack rolls but you get 2 attacks. That means you now need a 13 to hit, which is a 40% chance to hit and a 60% chance to miss. Now the chances if you hitting with both aren't great , you only have a 16% chance of that. However the chances that you miss with both is also smaller , you have a 36% chance that both will miss, which means you have a 64% chance that at least 1 attack will hit. Not only is that a higher number than your single attack , but it also includes the chance that both of your attacks hit. So you end up with a 16% chance to hit twice and a 48% chance to hit once, which will be 60% more damage on average than your single attack would have been.
Now the math will change with this depending on what you need to roll to hit, so those percentages won't stay the same, but it works out that 2 attacks at a -2 to hit is always better than 1 attack at -0 except if you originally needed an 18 on the die to hit. Any other number needed you'll be better off attacking twice. The downside of TWF is usually that your offhand gets a -50% damage modifier, but the Magus not only ignores that part, but also gets to add spell damage if they really want to. So the only real downside for a Magus using Spell Combat/Strike is that they're restricted to 1-handed weapons and don't get the +50% damage modifier that 2-handed weapons get ... and you were allowed to ignore that downside.
I think a much better way to balance such a concept is to put on other limitations, such as having limited types of spells that you can cast w/ Spell Combat or having to choose a limited number of your spells when prepared that can be cast with Spell Combat, and have it become broader or increased as you hit certain levels.
Seriously, look up the Occultist. I really think the problem is that you wanted to play a particular kind of character and the Magus didn't quite give you what you wanted. I love the Magus but the Occultist is my number 1 favourite class, and it sounds to me like it would suit you better. All you need to be good in melee is the Transmutation Implement, and after that you can customize it however you want. You don't get Spell Combat, but you do get an incredible weapon buff that works wonders with a reach build for AoOs, meaning with good positioning you can cast on your turn and attack with AoOs ... or you can just wail on enemies if you prefer, that also works fine.
Well-addressed and put-together post that got weirdly quoted and I was too tired to piece it back together
I think we've really touched upon my big issue with PF1, which is what I already mentioned a couple of times, and that is the idea of being bad instead of being inexperienced. I won't go over that again very much, but you gave a bunch of examples that either weren't quite one-to-one with the Spell Combat being the core 1st lvl class feature that the class is essentially designed around giving you negatives on your attack rolls, or it was a fair example but is even more proof that PF1 takes it too far in early levels IMO. You seem so focused on the portion that it gives you TWF essentially as a feat to accomplish something other characters would need to spend a feat for, but wouldn't a martial class like Fighter easily get that as a bonus feat? The Fighter could also choose a different style of fighting and build towards that, but a Magus ignoring Spell Combat is ignoring the majority of their kit, which is why I said it would be akin to a Fighter starting with a negative BAB just flat-out at 1st lvl.
A class shouldn't inherently make a character bad or worse at the core functions that class is supposed to provide, even at beginning levels. Mechanically, the class should allow the player to feel like they can do what their class is designed to do right at 1st lvl, but that they can't do it as well as they could later on with more experience.
A class shouldn't require feats to be taken to make the class more playable, as those feats should be for customizing your individual playstyle and not patching holes in the core design.
A class shouldn't feel like it's fighting against itself, and it definitely shouldn't take until about halfway to the level cap or just shy of it to start to feel good to play.
I know a lot of folks who prefer older TTRPG systems really dislike 5e, and trust me that the lack of options in 5e is the thing I dislike about it the most, but I think 5e nailed early levels in classes really well so that early encounters are still scary and they feel their lack of experience but not that they suck. Some people say 5e makes you too OP too fast or that the classes are really frontloaded and that is a conversation to be had, but it really seems to work. One of the reasons I'm trying to get my friends to try PF2 is because I think it may have the best of both worlds that I want...but they don't want to stray from PF1 just yet.
Regardless, I think it is pointless to debate about this further and just agree to disagree, since we even disagree on what limitations to early levels are good or bad design-wise. I appreciate you enjoying my character concept though, and it's one that stuck with me enough that I will attempt to recreate her in PF2 someday and see if I get what I'm looking for then.
-----------------------------------------------------------
As for Mr. Rizz (cringe I know, sorry), I dig the math but MAN does the math not dig me. In a different PF1 campaign with a different DM, I rolled under 10 back-to-back in a battle where the AC to hit was like 22 or something. This is why I stress out sometimes about trying to either min-max at least my to-hit bonuses or just play a caster because rolling poorly consistently in combat feels awful. I don't remember, but my first PFS character was a gnome alchemist and I'm pretty sure my to-hit with my bombs at 3rd lvl was fairly high.
I read up on what you said with the Occultist and I see what you mean, although the flavor of how they get their abilities wouldn't work with Tonga as a character it was still a good read. I think this is the class that Thaumaturge takes a lot from for PF2 and it makes sense, and the concept of someone who just believes in their own superstitious BS hard enough to make it real sounds amazing.
I hope to see you and some of the others here in the next thread I make to get some help balancing theme and good choices to make my replacement character, and I forget who the chad here who pushed Skald was but it won my DM over for me to have one as a replacement in case this next character dies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no really kept up with this thread, so pardon me if I'm repeating points or not entirely relevant.
As far as a Reach Magus goes its uh...difficult to say the least. You can get there eventually with improved Whip Mastery but thats level 9 at the earliest. The Flying Talon is a 1h reach weapon but it doesn't threaten, so you don't get AoOs ever.
Long Arm seems like the best option, so you wield whatever one handed weapon you want. Turn 1 you can Long Arm and move up to position, turn 2 you can spell-combat Frostbite and start smacking people with frost bite AoOs (I believe this works). Another option to Long Arm is Enlarge Person (but you can't spell combat Enlarge Person due to its casting time AND it lowers your Dex so fewer AoOs)
Sure you're eating 2 spells each combat this way, but you'll hit Spell Recall by level 4 (at level 4 you're looking at 2+Int Arcane Points) and you'll have 4 first level spells each day. You can burn an arcane point to recover your spent resources. Assuming you have 5 arcane points, that gives you exactly 3 fights during the day at "full power" at level 4:
Fight 1: Arcane Pool Enhance (1), First Level Spells (2)
Fight 2: Arcane Pool Enhance (2), First Level Spells (4)
In-between Fights: Arcane Pool Spell Recall (4)
Fight 3: Arcane Pool Enhance (5), First Level Spells (6)
And that still leaves you with both your 2nd level spells for the day in case things don't go as planned.
This all works with either strength or dexterity, so you can go Level 1: Weapon Finesse, Level 3 (or 1 if Human): Combat Reflexes. That leaves you with a lot of resources, every feat from level 5+ to do your thing. Once you've got 4th level spells in your pocket you can start using Monstrous Physique 2 instead to get up to Large Size as part of Spell Combat. Plus at that level you'll have Lunge so you'll have 15ft of reach during your turn, 10ft of reach otherwise meaning you can force enemies into your reach. Foes with more reach than you will still be an issue, but unless you're constantly fighting huge "tall" creatures you'll not be seeing too many things with 15ft of reach.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
{. . .} RAW, a Magus need to understand a spell before writing it into a spellbook, and I don't think he can do that with a memorized spell, but, still RAW, there is no need to understand a spell when you write it into a scroll (a wizard don't understand a cleric spell when he helps him writing a clerical scroll), so I think the correct procedure is to have the Magus memorize an unknown spell, write it in a scroll (takin a feat or with the help of another character) and then learn it from the scroll.
More costly than learning spells from another caster's spellbook, but still useful.
Failing the spellcraft check to understand a spell is practically impossible, with a DC of 15+spell level, as you can take 10 on the check.
Being able to Scribe scrolls is one of the solutions to the "limited" number of spells available to a Magus. Most spells with a duration of 1 minute/level or more can be written into scrolls and cast before a battle.
Ruling against understanding a spell that you have memorized by way of Knowledge Pool would be a reasonable mechanism for ruling against transferring spells from Knowledge Pool into your spellbook (like your GM ruled). But as you said just above, Scribe Scroll is a Rules As Written workaround to that. And this oddly makes Scribe Scroll more powerful in the hands of a Magus than it does for a Wizard, even though the Wizard gets it for free (barring a few weird archetypes and PFS1). So you would need to add a house rule against letting you Scribe Scroll from Knowledge Pool spells. Skald's Spell Kenning combined with the Scribe Scroll that they get for free does some of the same thing (and doesn't have the hypothetical restriction I just proposed), but to a lesser extent. This is because they have limited spells known and can't outright learn the off-list spells they can get with it, and its uses per day increase more slowly with level than the Arcane Pool Points (and thence Knowledge Pool uses per day) of a Magus. So if some party wants to cheese filling out the Wizard's spellbook from levels 1 - 6 using the Skald's Spell Kenning, at least it's more party investment (in time and coordination), and takes longer.
Note that the 2nd Edition Magus outright doesn't have Knowledge Pool at all (nor can I see any equivalent by a different name, although I wouldn't swear that I didn't miss something in some weird Magus feat or something). This suggests that the developers were not keen on repeating 1st Edition's Knowledge Pool. Nevertheless, I still prefer 1st Edition overall, but I will give 2nd Edition credit for introducing some Magus build options that were either cramped (Skirnir --> Sparkling Targe) or essentially absent ({None} --> Inexorable Iron) -- although even then it is at a terrible cost in reduced spellcasting.
* * * * * * * *
I now have this almost perverse desire to roll up a Human Kensai for our next campaign.
Ha Taidana has devoted himself to mastery of the sword, arcane arts that further his mastery of the sword, and nothing else. He does not merely abstain from any other such activities; he actively despises them as a distraction from the attainment of exactitude and perfection.
Strength 7, Dexterity 20, Constitution 12, Intelligence 16, Wisdom 12, Charisma 8
Traits: Magical Lineage, Master of the Sudden Strike, Wary of Danger; Meticulous (drawback)
Feats: Weapon Finesse (Human Bonus feat), Slashing Grace (1st level), Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Katana (Magus), Weapon Focus: Katana (Magus)
Notes: Taidana spends 10 sp a day on an untrained hireling to carry his equipment (that is, everything but his sword, clothing, and spell components) for him, a trained hireling to cook for him, a trained hireling to wash and groom him, and a trained hireling to sharpen his blade.
If I had a way to squeeze in Improved Initiative at 1st level, I would.
{. . . Post_Boundary . . .}
Not just that, but slashing grace doesn’t even work with Spell Combat. I’m embarrassed all around! :D
Replace Katana with Aldori Dueling Sword and your problem is solved for only the cost of having your Critical range be 1 worse. And even though it is a Finesse weapon when you have Exotic proficiency with it (granted by Kensai), you can still 2-hand it for more damage when you're not using Spell Combat (like for instance when using a multitouch spell like Chill Touch or Frostbite) . . . except that it doesn't work for this build in particular, since you dumped Strength. If you went slightly less nuts on Dexterity (get 18 instead of 20 -- modifier +4 instead of +5), you would be able to get Strength up to 13, and if you hard-dumped Charisma, that gets your Strength up to 14, and then two-handing the weapon would even make a small positive difference. I don't like dumping, but this would be hard-dumping just 1 ability score instead of hard-dumping 1 ability score AND soft-dumping 1 ability score. And then having a decent if not outstanding Strength while still having an enviable Dexterity would mean you would actually be decent with ranged weapons outside of the Crossbows group -- you wouldn't want to use them most of the time, but at least you would be able to shoot up when flying enemies start bombing you and you don't want to waste spells on them.
On the other hand, Master of the Sudden Strike and Wary of Danger are both Race Traits (normally you can only have 1), and they are from different human ethnicities and regions, making them hard to get even if you went through the hoops to get both legally. But Master of the Sudden Strike seems awfully situational, so I'd drop that and either bag the drawback (Meticulous) or get another trait instead. (Wary of Danger is more generally useful, and Brevoy even has some Kellids, so combining it with Aldori Dueling Sword training isn't even a cheese.)
* * * * * * * *
One other random thought: If you're so Knee-Deep in the Dead that you have to worry about running out of Chill Touches (even though Chill Touch is a multitouch spell), it might be worth your while to get the Close Range Magus Arcana (which I wouldn't normally recommend due to it normally being unnecessary) so that you can Spell Combat + Spellstrike with the Disrupt Undead Cantrip. Can't remember off the top of my head if Disrupt Undead has an optional Focus component that leads you do more damage with it like some damaging Cantrips do. Then, once you have Close Range, you might as well make use of it with other damaging Cantrips (generally this means Acid Splash or Ray of Frost) when you're up against living opponents that you don't want to waste non-Cantrip spells on. Unfortunately it only converts single Ranged Touch Attacks into melee attacks, so as you level up it starts wasting parts of spells like Scorching Ray, but even on just the Cantrips, you could get decent mileage out of it.
Phoebus I think you went a bit too far there.I completely......
That's fair, and I appreciate you calling it as you (correctly) read it. Apologies to you, ForsakenM!
As for Mr. Rizz (cringe I know, sorry), I dig the math but MAN does the math not dig me. In a different PF1 campaign with a different DM, I rolled under 10 back-to-back in a battle where the AC to hit was like 22 or something. This is why I stress out sometimes about trying to either min-max at least my to-hit bonuses or just play a caster because rolling poorly consistently in combat feels awful. I don't remember, but my first PFS character was a gnome alchemist and I'm pretty sure my to-hit with my bombs at 3rd lvl was fairly high.
Funny thing about probability calculations… they are purely theoretical… probability calculations assume all variables are equal, which in reality the variables are rarely ever equal. Take the classic coin toss, you have a 50% chance of getting either heads or tails, but if you flip the coin slightly higher or slightly lower on different tosses the result can actually be changed increasing the probability of one side over the other. The same thing happens if you change how you flip the coin to get more or fewer flips. Which side is up at the start of toss, if you catch snd flip before the reveal, if you catch it in the air or let it hit the floor… every single variable factors into the final result and can skew that 50% chance heavily in one direction or another. The same is true with dice as well… even funnier though, probability with dice actually breaks down even more when all variables are actually equal too… if you could perfectly duplicate a roll from the starting position of the dice, the number of shakes, how heavily they are shaken, how many times and in what directions the die roll in your hand or cup, the number of bounces, direction if the roll, down to the distance of the roll… you’d always get the same exact result, every time.
Probability with digital dice rollers is even more unreliable since the moment a random number generator enters the equation all results are predetermined to a certain degree and don’t follow standard probability for anything.
I won't go over that again very much, but you gave a bunch of examples that either weren't quite one-to-one with the Spell Combat being the core 1st lvl class feature that the class is essentially designed around giving you negatives on your attack rolls, or it was a fair example but is even more proof that PF1 takes it too far in early levels IMO. You seem so focused on the portion that it gives you TWF essentially as a feat to accomplish something other characters would need to spend a feat for, but wouldn't a martial class like Fighter easily get that as a bonus feat?
Respectfully, I would offer that the problem lies with the comparison itself: there is no direct equivalent to Spell Combat, and most of the classes you cited don't provide characters anything as good at level 1. I responded to/with what was provided/available.
A class shouldn't inherently make a character bad or worse at the core functions that class is supposed to provide, even at beginning levels. Mechanically, the class should allow the player to feel like they can do what their class is designed to do right at 1st lvl, but that they can't do it as well as they could later on with more experience.
Please take this as a good faith question, not me being snarky: does the Magus really make a character bad or worse at the start? That is, does the -2 to attack you incur via Spell Combat really make your character worse? I would humbly offer to you that it does not, anymore than taking a Fighter incurring a -2 penalty to get a bonus attack makes him worse. For a Fighter, the benefit comes from the opportunity for extra damage. For a Magus, the benefit comes from the opportunity to inflict a whole range of effects--which can, and often do, make that -2 to attack a moot point.
Example: a level 1 Magus casts Blade Lash at an Orc warrior from 10 feet away, trips his opponent with a +10 bonus, then takes a 5-foot step and attacks him while he is prone (and takes a –4 penalty to AC against melee attacks), then takes an attack of opportunity against him when he tries to get up (and still takes a penalty to AC).
Was the Magus in that example worse for having a -2 penalty? Did that penalty, which is there for the sake of balance against semi-comparable abilities, matter more than the sum of the effects produced and the synergy involved? Did it feel like that Magus is fighting against itself? I would humble offer that it did not.
Regardless, I think it is pointless to debate about this further and just agree to disagree, since we even disagree on what limitations to early levels are good or bad design-wise. I appreciate you enjoying my character concept though, and it's one that stuck with me enough that I will attempt to recreate her in PF2 someday and see if I get what I'm looking for then.
No worries whatsoever. I hope you didn't my parting points, above. They're offered more in a spirit of clarification than a "you're wrong" parting shot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I've been thinking about this, and the Magus is actually pretty OP. Not many other classes allow a full round attack, plu allows for casting of a spell, and grants an extra attack. When you think about action economy, that's right off the charts.
The only thing I can think of that comes close to it is Runic Charge, and even then only if your character also has access to Pounce.
So, I've been thinking about this, and the Magus is actually pretty OP. Not many other classes allow a full round attack, plu allows for casting of a spell, and grants an extra attack. When you think about action economy, that's right off the charts.
My GM seemed to think the same thing. He didn’t want to see a shocking grasp build, or me using the arcane mark gag. That, coupled with my refusal to dump any stats below 10 made for a pretty weak character. The dervish bard in our group did way more damage. I still had tons of fun with it. Got some good use out of color spray at lower levels, and added a level of occultist to boost my strength score. If I’d gone with a dual talent human, I probably could have got my power level up a little higher.
|
So, I've been thinking about this, and the Magus is actually pretty OP. Not many other classes allow a full round attack, plu allows for casting of a spell, and grants an extra attack. When you think about action economy, that's right off the charts.My GM seemed to think the same thing. He didn’t want to see a shocking grasp build, or me using the arcane mark gag. That, coupled with my refusal to dump any stats below 10 made for a pretty weak character. The dervish bard in our group did way more damage. I still had tons of fun with it. Got some good use out of color spray at lower levels, and added a level of occultist to boost my strength score. If I’d gone with a dual talent human, I probably could have got my power level up a little higher.
The Magus doesn't get an extra attack. I get to cast a spell, and the spell can allow him to make an attack. But generally, when he does that he trades a touch attack for a normal AC attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Magus doesn't get an extra attack. I get to cast a spell, and the spell can allow him to make an attack. But generally, when he does that he trades a touch attack for a normal AC attack.
It's been a few years, but surely a level 5 Magus using Spellstrike and Spell Combat at the same time can cast Shocking Grasp and attack twice with the same weapon, where a level 5 Fighter would only attack once. That sounds a lot like an extra attack to me.
|
|
The Magus doesn't get an extra attack. I get to cast a spell, and the spell can allow him to make an attack. But generally, when he does that he trades a touch attack for a normal AC attack.It's been a few years, but surely a level 5 Magus using Spellstrike and Spell Combat at the same time can cast Shocking Grasp and attack twice with the same weapon, where a level 5 Fighter would only attack once. That sounds a lot like an extra attack to me.
Without spellstrike he gets to attack once with his weapon and once with a touch attack with Shocking grasp. The same number of attacks, but one come from the spell.
It is being able to cast a spell while using spell combat that matters, not the attack that comes from the spell.
And your fighter can make 2 attacks using two-weapon combat. BTW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Magus doesn't get an extra attack. I get to cast a spell, and the spell can allow him to make an attack. But generally, when he does that he trades a touch attack for a normal AC attack.So, I've been thinking about this, and the Magus is actually pretty OP. Not many other classes allow a full round attack, plu allows for casting of a spell, and grants an extra attack. When you think about action economy, that's right off the charts.My GM seemed to think the same thing. He didn’t want to see a shocking grasp build, or me using the arcane mark gag. That, coupled with my refusal to dump any stats below 10 made for a pretty weak character. The dervish bard in our group did way more damage. I still had tons of fun with it. Got some good use out of color spray at lower levels, and added a level of occultist to boost my strength score. If I’d gone with a dual talent human, I probably could have got my power level up a little higher.
six to one, half a dozen to another.
At the end of the day, the magus can make a full attack action, cast a spell, and potentially attack with the weapon again. If that weapon has any kind of enhancements, say, flaming, or keen, or shocking etc, then hitting with that weapon with a spell attached is more substantial than just making a touch attack with a spell. And like I mentioned, not many classes can come close to do that.|
|
A magus gets to cast a spell while attacking with a weapon. The spell he cast will have other effects, including the possibility to get an extra attack.
Sorry, but yours and Matthew are the kind of arguments that trigger me, as they are the same kind of imprecise argument as those of people that say that someone is flat-footed when they meant to say that he is denied his dexterity bonus.
Different things that have different rules governing them and have different consequences.
Without spellstrike he gets to attack once with his weapon and once with a touch attack with Shocking grasp. The same number of attacks, but one come from the spell.
And a wizard casting the same spell only gets to cast the spell and discharge it using a free action. And possibly a move action to get next to the target. The bonus weapon attack is notably missing. Of course a wizard and a magus are in the same boat if they need to use a move action to get into position.
So a magus could cast burning hands for instance, then 5’ step up and do a weapon attack as a full round attack. Meanwhile, the wizard can do nothing of the kind. This is at 1st level with only spell combat. At second level, spell strike comes on line. Now we are performing 3 standard actions: Weapon attack, cast a spell, weapon attack. The TWF fighter is only doing 2 weapon attacks. And only in the case of arcane mark is the spell going to be trivial.|
|
Without spellstrike he gets to attack once with his weapon and once with a touch attack with Shocking grasp. The same number of attacks, but one come from the spell.
And a wizard casting the same spell only gets to cast the spell and discharge it using a free action. And possibly a move action to get next to the target. The bonus weapon attack is notably missing. Of course a wizard and a magus are in the same boat if they need to use a move action to get into position.
So a magus could cast burning hands for instance, then 5’ step up and do a weapon attack as a full round attack. Meanwhile, the wizard can do nothing of the kind. This is at 1st level with only spell combat. At second level, spell strike comes on line. Now we are performing 3 standard actions: Weapon attack, cast a spell, weapon attack. The TWF fighter is only doing 2 weapon attacks. And only in the case of arcane mark is the spell going to be trivial.
"I am invisible, he is flat-footed" again.
All the spells that allow you to make an attack a part of casting it give you one or more free attacks. No one says "A wizard casting shocking grasp is making two actions, casting a spell and making an attack." It is all a single action.
When an 11th-level spellcaster cast scorching ray, he is making 4 actions?
When a guy with the whole two-weapons combat chain makes 4 attacks with his primary hand and 4 attacks with his secondary hand he is making 2 full attacks?
No to both.
When a magus is using spell combat he is using a full round action that allows him to make all his iterative attacks with one hand and cast a spell with the other.
He is not making a full attack (even if it counts as one for some interactions), nor he is making 2 attack actions.
That matter because what he can do with his special action aren't the same things someone can do with 2 attack actions. The kind of simplification you do with your argument is the source of a lot of rule misunderstanding.
The whole point of Spell Combat is that it gives you an extra (activity during a full-round action) that other classes don't get. It allows you to cast an extra spell while still attacking. If that's a touch spell, it turns that extra spell into an extra touch attack. With Spellstrike, you can turn that extra touch attack into an extra melee attack.
The Fighter can also get an extra melee attack, but has to take Two-Weapon Fighting and get a second (light) weapon, an investment the Magus doesn't have to make.
To someone playing that Fighter, it definitely feels like their Magus ally casting Arcane Mark is getting an extra attack.
|
|
To someone playing that Fighter, it definitely feels like their Magus ally casting Arcane Mark is getting an extra attack.
How many fighters will be happy to trade one of their class abilities for "You can take a full round action that allows you to make all your attacks with one weapon and an extra attack at full BAB, but all your attacks suffer a -2 to hit and when using this ability you are limited to one-handed weapons used in one hand"?
What would you trade away for that?
Bravery?
"It feels like" is correct, but "it doesn't work like" is even more correct, and that is my whole point.
It gives the ability to cast a spell and make all your iterative attacks with one hand while taking a specific, class-enabled full-round action.
There are feats chains, class-specific abilities, and other stuff that allow people to make more attacks or add other actions.
I don't see people using this kind of aggravated tone when speaking of archers that get extra attacks from their chain feats, monks that get extra attacks from flurry of blows, gunslingers reloading muzzleloader weapons and firing several times in 6 seconds, and so on, but apparently, the magus ability is something that galls some people.
BTW, it doesn't get you an extra attack. Spell combat gets you the ability to cast a spell while making your iterative attacks.
Casting the spell has the usual limitations, it can cause an attack of opportunity, in alternative it requires a concentration check or to play the 5' step dance.
Deciding to use spell combat locks you into using a full round action, without the possibility to interrupt it after the first attack and take a move action, even if you kill your opponent with one attack. You have a penalty to the attack even if you decide that you don't want to cast a spell, after all.
lol
BTW, it doesn't get you an extra attack.
shrug, I can roll an attack with my weapon and deal weapon damage when I use Spellstrike. Pretty much feels like an extra attack to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And a wizard casting the same spell only gets to cast the spell and discharge it using a free action. And possibly a move action to get next to the target. The bonus weapon attack is notably missing. Of course a wizard and a magus are in the same boat if they need to use a move action to get into position.
.
I thought I was done posting in this thread. I made a mistake though, and want to correct it. The magus can actually use spellstrike, even if they cast, then move. Or they can just use a regular touch attack. Which ever seems best for the situation.
To someone playing that Fighter, it definitely feels like their Magus ally casting Arcane Mark is getting an extra attack.How many fighters will be happy to trade one of their class abilities for "You can take a full round action that allows you to make all your attacks with one weapon and an extra attack at full BAB, but all your attacks suffer a -2 to hit and when using this ability you are limited to one-handed weapons used in one hand"?
Minor nitpick here… but otherwise I agree with everything you just said… the limitation of spell combat isn’t “a one-handed weapon used in one hand”. It is a light or one handed weapon with an empty off-hand. It doesn’t actually strictly limit you to one-handed attacks, although under most circumstances the limitations as written will result in only being able to use one-handed attacks. A character with extra hands or a prehensile limb that counts as a hand can in fact by RAW use spell combat while wielding a one-handed weapon in two hands. It does still limit you to only one weapon, and you still can’t use it with actual two-handed weapons, but any weapon classified as one-handed is perfectly usable with spell combat when used in two hands provided you still have a free hand. Using a free action to take a hand off a weapon doesn’t work here either because spell combat requires a free hand for the entire action and only permits that free hand to be used to cast a spell.
|
|
shrug, I can roll an attack with my weapon and deal weapon damage when I use Spellstrike. Pretty much feels like an extra attack to me.
BTW, it doesn't get you an extra attack.
Do you realize that now you are speaking of spellstrike, which only converts the free attack(s) from casting a spell into a weapon attack, but still doesn't give you an extra attack?
You guys mix Spellstrike with Spell combat and think that the free touch attack you get from casting a spell isn't an extra attack, but that it becomes an extra attack when it is converted to a melee attack.
The base power of the Magus is that he can cast a spell while making all his iterative attacks. At a cost, as he has several limitations when doing that.
Chell seems to be the only one that gets how it works.
I repeat the question, what class feature of a fighter or barbarian you guys be willing to trade for the ability to make the attack a magus will get for using Arcane mark, with all its limitations?
I haven't even cited one of the costs: you need to play the 5' dance or you need to make a concentration check to get the attack.
A low levels a concentration check when casting a cantrip works about 50% of the time.
Getting that kind of "extra attack" costs exactly 1 feat, but the one you get through the feat always works and can be upgraded.
Yes the Spell Combat/Spellstrike combo gives you an extra attack. Call it what you want, but a level 2 Magus can make 2 weapon attacks and deal spell damage in the same round, if that doesn't count as an "extra attack" I don't know what does.
Minor nitpick here… but otherwise I agree with everything you just said… the limitation of spell combat isn’t “a one-handed weapon used in one hand”. It is a light or one handed weapon with an empty off-hand. It doesn’t actually strictly limit you to one-handed attacks ...
Unfortunately it does.
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.
If I had someone playing a Kasatha or something I'd let them abuse this because what's the point of allowing Kasatha at the table if you won't let them use extra hands, but Rules As Written it's a 1-handed weapon in 1 hand.
As for Mr. Rizz (cringe I know, sorry), I dig the math but MAN does the math not dig me.
I get it, I'm a meme at my table at this point. 9 crits in a 4 year long campaign using an 18-20 weapon almost the entire time -_-
I read up on what you said with the Occultist and I see what you mean, although the flavor of how they get their abilities wouldn't work with Tonga as a character it was still a good read. I think this is the class that Thaumaturge takes a lot from for PF2 and it makes sense, and the concept of someone who just believes in their own superstitious BS hard enough to make it real sounds amazing.
I don't remember the exact flavour of your character, but my Occultist is flavoured with basically the same spell-casting flavour as a Magus. She learns magic through study, she just doesn't have a spellbook. Either way no pressure, I just really thought that would solve half the problem.
And yes, the Thaumaturge is basically a discount-Occultist. Don't get me wrong, the Thaumaturge is my favourite 2E class but it doesn't excite me quite the same way as the Occultist .
Do you realize that now you are speaking of spellstrike, which only converts the free attack(s) from casting a spell into a weapon attack, but still doesn't give you an extra attack?
You guys mix Spellstrike with Spell combat and think that the free touch attack you get from casting a spell isn't an extra attack, but that it becomes an extra attack when it is converted to a melee attack.
*I* was speaking of the Magus's class abilities in general.
And I think you are still missing the point I am trying to make. yes, with spellcombat I get to make a full round attack AND cast a spell (like haste or shield etc), but with Spellstrike, if that spell is a touch spell (like shocking grasp), not only can I make that touch attack with that spell, but I can deliver it through my weapon, dealing an extra set of weapon damage, in addition to that spells damage.
So in total the magus can deliver a full round attack, and a spell, and 1 more attacks worth of damage. Call it whatever you want, but that's effectively an extra attack.
|
|
Do you realize that now you are speaking of spellstrike, which only converts the free attack(s) from casting a spell into a weapon attack, but still doesn't give you an extra attack?
You guys mix Spellstrike with Spell combat and think that the free touch attack you get from casting a spell isn't an extra attack, but that it becomes an extra attack when it is converted to a melee attack.
*I* was speaking of the Magus's class abilities in general.
And I think you are still missing the point I am trying to make. yes, with spellcombat I get to make a full round attack AND cast a spell (like haste or shield etc), but with Spellstrike, if that spell is a touch spell (like shocking grasp), not only can I make that touch attack with that spell, but I can deliver it through my weapon, dealing an extra set of weapon damage, in addition to that spells damage.
So in total the magus can deliver a full round attack, and a spell, and 1 more attacks worth of damage. Call it whatever you want, but that's effectively an extra attack.
So, the 2 core features of the class, together, allow it to do something specific to the class if the magus spend resources (spells are resources, Arcane mark isn't one, but that combo is weaker than two-weapons combat). And you feel envy for that.
What are you willing to trade to get those class features, if they are so good?
Barbarian Rage?
The fighter bonus feat and weapon training?
Without spells it isn't so good, let's try some different classes.
You will trade a Summoner Eidolon and Summon monster?
An Inquisitor Judgement and Solo tactics?
Or it isn't that good when compared to those features?
You and the others don't seem willing to reply to that simple question, maybe because you don't see it as an advantageous trade.
@MrCharisma
No.
Spellcombat gives you the ability to cast a spell while making all your attacks.
Spellstrike allows you to change a free touch attack you get when casting a spell into a free melee attack with the spell as a rider.
The free attack comes from the spell.
Without spellstrike you still get the free attack. Sure, it allows you to do more damage if the attack hits. I need to list all the class features of other classes that allow do increase the damage?
We should remove all things that allow us to do more damage?
If rolling more attacks is so good, why do most martial characters use 2-handed weapons?
I repeat the question, what class feature of a fighter or barbarian you guys be willing to trade for the ability to make the attack a magus will get for using Arcane mark, with all its limitations?
But that's an incomplete question that doesn't support your argument, Diego.
Would I trade away, e.g., Bravery, Armor Training, Weapon Training, etc., for the ability to cast Arcane Mark and by virtue of doing so make a second attack with both it and my first attack incurring a -2 penalty? No, I would not. It's marginally better than picking up Two-Weapon Fighting and using a light weapon in my off-hand.
The point, however, is that Spell Combat and Spellstrike aren't limited to cantrips. A better question is whether I would trade away any one of those features for the ability to cast 1st-6th level spells while effectively making a full attack, and for the ability to deliver 1st-6th level spells as part of a melee attack with the penalties indicated above. The answer to that is absolutely, yes.
|
|
I repeat the question, what class feature of a fighter or barbarian you guys be willing to trade for the ability to make the attack a magus will get for using Arcane mark, with all its limitations?But that's an incomplete question that doesn't support your argument, Diego.
Would I trade away, e.g., Bravery, Armor Training, Weapon Training, etc., for the ability to cast Arcane Mark and by virtue of doing so make a second attack with both it and my first attack incurring a -2 penalty? No, I would not. It's marginally better than picking up Two-Weapon Fighting and using a light weapon in my off-hand.
The point, however, is that Spell Combat and Spellstrike aren't limited to cantrips. A better question is whether I would trade away any one of those features for the ability to cast 1st-6th level spells while effectively making a full attack, and for the ability to deliver 1st-6th level spells as part of a melee attack with the penalties indicated above. The answer to that is absolutely, yes.
Well, so now you want to take 3 features. Spellcombat, spellstrike, and 6 levels of spells. And whant to pay with 1 feature. No surprise you are willing to trade.
In the same vein, my Magus will willingly trade away spellstrike to get the Fighter bonus feats, weapon training, and armor training.
Let's make a somewhat equal trade.
For Spellcombat, Spellstrike, and 6 levels of spells, are you willing to :
- Downgrade your BAB to 3/4, and drop the barbarian rage?
- Or downgrade to 3/4 BAB and renounce weapon training and the fighter extra feats?
Getting 6 levels of spells is a different feature, so let's use classes that already have them.
I made the same question for the Inquisitor and the Summoner.
What will you trade away for spellcombat and spellstrike?
My whole point is that when asked to pay for that "extra attack" no one is willing to trade something significative.
Diego, I'm sorry, but that strikes me as a borderline disingenuous argument. You know very well that those added class features come in exchange for reduced BAB, reduced HP, and delayed access to armor. Saying "wait, only cantrips count" is as contrived as me saying "would you take Weapon Training if it never granted a bonus and only gave you the penalties associated with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat."
All that said, there's no need to argue Spellstrike's worth purely on its own, because Paizo already did this with the VMC Magus. It's the equivalent of a feat delayed until 11th level. And even then, it comes with the implied cost and benefits associated with a spellcasting class, which grants Spellstrike far more range than simply tacking on additional damage to an attack.
To answer your follow-on questions, though, my answer is yes where mechanics are concerned and no where flavor is concerned.
Diego, I apologize for my last response. It was over the top. I disagree with you, but it wasn't my intent to be so vehement about it.
|
|
Diego, I'm sorry, but that strikes me as a borderline disingenuous argument. You know very well that those added class features come in exchange for reduced BAB, reduced HP, and delayed access to armor. Saying "wait, only cantrips count" is as contrived as me saying "would you take Weapon Training if it never granted a bonus and only gave you the penalties associated with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat."
To someone playing that Fighter, it definitely feels like their Magus ally casting Arcane Mark is getting an extra attack.
As you can see, it isn't an argument that I introduced.
All that said, there's no need to argue Spellstrike's worth purely on its own, because Paizo already did this with the VMC Magus. It's the equivalent of a feat delayed until 11th level. And even then, it comes with the implied cost and benefits associated with a spellcasting class, which grants Spellstrike far more range than simply tacking on additional damage to an attack.To answer your follow-on questions, though, my answer is yes where mechanics are concerned and no where flavor is concerned.
"Yes" what?
It seems to agree that there can be an exchange, but you don't say what it should be.I have seen posts that to me sound like people lamenting the kind of benefit a Magus gets from spellstrike+spellcombat, but, apparently, no one is to say where what this power is worth in their eyes.
I have no problem with the tone, my tone isn't mild.
|
|
Diego, people are willing to give up all of that to play Magus. Its why that class is so popular. Saying "but are you willing to give it up X, Y, and Z?" Doesn't support your point and you are looking hostile, even if that is probably not intended.
I am hostile. As I said several posts ago:
"Sorry, but yours (TxSam88 ) and Matthew are the kind of arguments that trigger me, as they are the same kind of imprecise argument as those of people that say that someone is flat-footed when they meant to say that he is denied his dexterity bonus.
Different things that have different rules governing them and have different consequences."
Yes, people are willing to play a Magus, it isn't at all a bad class, but the posts of people crying "the Magus gets an extra attack" when the mechanic works differently (to repeat it again, a magus gets to cast a spell while making all of his iterative attacks with one hand) completely disregard what other class can do and single that out as it was something outrageous.
We have things like:
And a wizard casting the same spell only gets to cast the spell and discharge it using a free action. And possibly a move action to get next to the target. The bonus weapon attack is notably missing. Of course a wizard and a magus are in the same boat if they need to use a move action to get into position.
So a magus could cast burning hands for instance, then 5’ step up and do a weapon attack as a full round attack. Meanwhile, the wizard can do nothing of the kind. This is at 1st level with only spell combat. At second level, spell strike comes on line. Now we are performing 3 standard actions: Weapon attack, cast a spell, weapon attack. The TWF fighter is only doing 2 weapon attacks. And only in the case of arcane mark is the spell going to be trivial.
The MAGUS, the only class that gets 3 standard actions. LOL
When people distort the rules to make that kind of argument some level of hostility is warranted.
What I hear is envy because the Magus gets an "extra attack", but it is the kind of envy that doesn't consider the costs of what the Magus had to pay for that.
When using Arcane mark it is worth 1 feat, of 1/10 of the bonus feats feature of the fighter.
When the Magus uses spells he is burning a limited resource, so part of the cost is there. The Magus has 3/4 BAB, so another part of the cost is there, when using spellcombat he is locked into a full-round action and has a penalty to his to hit, and so on.
As you can see, it isn't an argument that I introduced.
But no one in this thread has been arguing they're only getting an extra attack, or using Spellstrike + a cantrip as what you'd be getting in exchange for, e.g., Weapon Training, DIego.
"Yes" what?
What I meant is that yes, I would trade the class features you listed in exchange for Spell Combat, Spellstrike, and 1-6 spellcasting. The second part of my answer was merely pointing to the fact that those classes would no longer be recognizable as a Barbarian or as a Fighter.
I have seen posts that to me sound like people lamenting the kind of benefit a Magus gets from spellstrike+spellcombat, but, apparently, no one is to say where what this power is worth in their eyes.
By lamenting, do you mean that they don't think it's good enough, or that it's too good? I, personally, think it's a remarkable class feature.
I have no problem with the tone, my tone isn't mild.
Fair enough, thank you!
Unchained monk gets an extra attack at no penalty.
And then later, another extra attack at no penalty for the cost of a ki.
And then later, yet another extra attack at no penalty.
I'm not sure what the point of this current derail is about. Magus gets an extra attack, when a specific set of of criteria are met. A lot of the game is about various builds getting extra attacks when certain criteria are met.
|
|
As you can see, it isn't an argument that I introduced.But no one in this thread has been arguing they're only getting an extra attack, or using Spellstrike + a cantrip as what you'd be getting in exchange for, e.g., Weapon Training, DIego.
Not something I have been arguing. That argument is for people that want spellstrike and/or spellcombat, the whole features.
For Arcane mark and spell combat, I asked if they were willing to trade Bravery. That combo is worth 1 feat, or 1/10 of the bonus feats feature of the Fighter. It is slightly worse than two-weapons combat. It does 2-3 more points of damage, but at least half of the time you need to make a concentration check to avoid an AoO, with a 25% chance of failing it at 5th level if you have 18 int.
"Yes" what?What I meant is that yes, I would trade the class features you listed in exchange for Spell Combat, Spellstrike, and 1-6 spellcasting. The second part of my answer was merely pointing to the fact that those classes would no longer be recognizable as a Barbarian or as a Fighter.
Yes, they wouldn't be a Barbarian or a Fighter anymore, but taking class features means trading away something.
I have seen posts that to me sound like people lamenting the kind of benefit a Magus gets from spellstrike+spellcombat, but, apparently, no one is to say where what this power is worth in their eyes.By lamenting, do you mean that they don't think it's good enough, or that it's too good? I, personally, think it's a remarkable class feature.
I mean the posts I cited, the chorus of "but the magus gets extra attacks".
I have no problem with the tone, my tone isn't mild.Fair enough, thank you!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes the Spell Combat/Spellstrike combo gives you an extra attack. Call it what you want, but a level 2 Magus can make 2 weapon attacks and deal spell damage in the same round, if that doesn't count as an "extra attack" I don't know what does.
Minor nitpick here… but otherwise I agree with everything you just said… the limitation of spell combat isn’t “a one-handed weapon used in one hand”. It is a light or one handed weapon with an empty off-hand. It doesn’t actually strictly limit you to one-handed attacks ...Unfortunately it does.
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.If I had someone playing a Kasatha or something I'd let them abuse this because what's the point of allowing Kasatha at the table if you won't let them use extra hands, but Rules As Written it's a 1-handed weapon in 1 hand.
{. . .}
I see this as being indeterminate, because the Magus text (from 2011) was obviously written without consideration of somebody having more than 2 hands. Kasatha aside (2014), they really should have considered spells like Monstrous Physique (2011, in Ultimate Magic like Magus). If they wanted to restrict you to using just 1 weapon, the ability description should have explicitly said so, like saying that you can be wielding a weapon in only 1 hand -- saying "the other hand" just assumes you have only 1 other hand, which is an invalid assumption if you have Monstrous Physique altering yourself (never mind Kasatha, which we can excuse for not being out yet). If they wanted to allow you to use more than 1 weapon if you had more than 2 hands, they shouldn't have said "the other hand" in the text quoted above, because that implies somebody that has only 2 hands. Where you do get potentially hosed or a windfall (depending upon just what you are) is if you are using natural weapons -- you have to take the Natural Spell Combat Magus Arcana once for each type of natural weapon you have -- so technically allowed, but unaffordably expensive in build cost if you have a lot of different natural attacks, while being fairly cheap in build cost if you have a bunch of natural attacks of the same type. Not exactly the same thing, but closely enough related to be worth mentioning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure what the point of this current derail is about.
Me neither brother.
<Spell Combat requires a 1 handed weapon>I see this as being indeterminate, because the Magus text (from 2011) was obviously written without consideration of somebody having more than 2 hands.
Spell Combat also references TWF, which generally doesn't allow 2-handed shenanigans. Honestly, I basically agree with you but I think RAW it's not allowed. RAI who knows, but RAF I'd allow it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure what the point of this current derail is about.Me neither brother.
Spell Combat also references TWF, which generally doesn't allow 2-handed shenanigans. Honestly, I basically agree with you but I think RAW it's not allowed. RAI who knows, but RAF I'd allow it.<Spell Combat requires a 1 handed weapon>I see this as being indeterminate, because the Magus text (from 2011) was obviously written without consideration of somebody having more than 2 hands.
Its the otherway around though… RAW it is allowed, RAI is still unknown though. The wording is open ended enough that it doesn’t actually shut down two-handed attacks with one-handed weapons if you have 3 or more hands. It does still firmly shut down using more than one weapon though, and the FAQ backs up the only one weapon ruling. The FAQs are silent on use of extra hands though.
Two-handing a one-handed weapon with an extra hand meets all requirements and restrictions of spell combat.
Do you have a free hand with which to cast a spell? Yes
Are you using a light or one-handed weapon? Yes
Is the weapon in your other hand? Yes
Are you using only one weapon? Yes
Are there any more explicit requirements or restrictions? No
Also, for the record, a super strict reading of spell combat treats the free action attack from touch spells (and by extension spellstrike) as an off-hand attack. The spell cast is an off-hand attack, therefore any attacks made as part of the casting of said spell are also off-hand attacks. For most spells this is meaningless, but it does mean spellstrike with spellcombat is supposed to be at half str. Spellcombat lacks the wording included in flurry of blows that removes offhand damage penalties, and it does explicitly call out the spell cast as being an off-hand attack. I doubt there is a single table that applies the rules this strictly though.
Strictly RAW, spellcombat does not prevent two-handed attacks with one-handed weapons if you have extra limbs, and spellstrike with spellcombat is an offhand attack. RAI, these both may be unintentional or intentional we simply don’t know.
|
|
Excuse me, but what parts of the Polymorph rules allow you to use manufactured weapons in more than 2 hands?
You get natural attacks with multiple limbs, but nothing in the Polymorph rules gives you the ability to use more than two limbs to attack with manufactured weapons.
Multi-Armed is a racial trait for Kasatha, but Monstrous Physique doesn't give it.
Differently from previous versions of the game, in Pathfinder you don't become the creature, you only don a "latex suit" that gives you a specific set of abilities, based on the creature whose form you are mimicking.
If an ability isn't on the list or in the Polymorph rules, you don't get it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In addition to these benefits, you gain any of the natural attacks of the base creature, including proficiency in those attacks.
Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although a creature must forgo one natural attack, be it a claw, slam, or tentacle attack, for each weapon clutched in a limb that would otherwise make a natural attack). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of their type.
|
|
In addition to these benefits, you gain any of the natural attacks of the base creature, including proficiency in those attacks.Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although a creature must forgo one natural attack, be it a claw, slam, or tentacle attack, for each weapon clutched in a limb that would otherwise make a natural attack). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of their type.
Right, but it is relevant only for creatures with natural attacks that can be traded away.
A Kasatha doesn't have natural attacks, so it can't trade them for weapon attacks.
A Gargoyle has them, but only two claw attacks.
A four-armed Gargoyle has four claw attacks, so for it, it works.
None of that works for the Magus, unless he takes one of the archetypes that allow him to use spell combat with natural weapons. As we have already seen the Natural Spell Combat arcana is limited to wereshark-kin.
Paizo rewrite has made Polymorph less prone to abuse, but even more complicated than before, as different limitations to it are in the descriptions of the spells and scattered in multiple places in the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we're going to be technical about it, the Natural Spell Combat Arcana is also available to "those who associate with [weresharks and wereshark-kin]." It is not restricted the same way as, e.g., feats with a racial prerequisite.
None of that works for the Magus, unless he takes one of the archetypes that allow him to use spell combat with natural weapons. As we have already seen the Natural Spell Combat arcana is limited to wereshark-kin.
I would love to know what book you’re finding an archetype for magus that allows for the use of natural weapons… there are three different (realistically only two, since two of the three are almost identical) unarmed combat archetypes… but none for natural weapons…
And as others have pointed out multiple times now… Natural Spell Combat is NOT wereshark exclusive. Members of absolutely any race can qualify as “those who associate with [weresharks and wereshark-kin].” It basically just says give a reason why your character might have been able to learn this. You need only have associated with ONE wereshark or wereshark-kin in your life to qualify… perhaps you met one in your youth while visiting a far away island with your family… if you associated with one ever, then the arcana is available.
I’m wondering if Diego can’t see my posts, because I mentioned the wereshark work-around a long time ago
|
|
Sure, if you want to cheese it, "You need only have associated with ONE wereshark or wereshark-kin in your life to qualify… … perhaps you met one in your youth while visiting a far away island with your family" can cut it, but it is using really smelly cheese.
"Associated" to me sound as requiring something more significant than "having spent some time chatting with a wereshark-kin".
I suppose it is a matter of taste.
|
|
I would love to know what book you’re finding an archetype for magus that allows for the use of natural weapons… there are three different (realistically only two, since two of the three are almost identical) unarmed combat archetypes… but none for natural weapons…
Probably I was misremembering some third-party material that I have seen.
And thinking that this FAQ wasn't simply covering all the possibilities, even if none exist in the Paizo books:
Magus: When using spell combat, can the weapon in my other hand be an unarmed strike or a natural weapon?
Yes, so long as the weapon is a light or one-handed melee weapon and is associated with that hand. For example, unarmed strikes, claws, and slams are light melee weapons associated with a hand, and therefore are valid for use with spell combat. A tail slap is not associated with a hand, and therefore is not valid for use with spell combat.
posted April 2013 | back to top
I would love to know what book you’re finding an archetype for magus that allows for the use of natural weapons… there are three different (realistically only two, since two of the three are almost identical) unarmed combat archetypes… but none for natural weapons…
Probably I was misremembering some third-party material that I have seen.
And thinking that this FAQ wasn't simply covering all the possibilities, even if none exist in the Paizo books:
Magus: When using spell combat, can the weapon in my other hand be an unarmed strike or a natural weapon?
Yes, so long as the weapon is a light or one-handed melee weapon and is associated with that hand. For example, unarmed strikes, claws, and slams are light melee weapons associated with a hand, and therefore are valid for use with spell combat. A tail slap is not associated with a hand, and therefore is not valid for use with spell combat.
posted April 2013 | back to top
The FAQ does clarify that Claws and Slams don’t require the Natural Spell Combat arcana to be used with spell combat… though the other FAQ about multiple weapons makes it clear that you don’t get to use them in addition to spell combat… they must be used as your main-hand attack, and still follow your normal limitations for natural weapons… which makes using natural weapons for spell combat a horribly ineffective choice… natural spell combat grants the chosen natural attack in addition to your normal attacks, which is better… but an arguably terrible use of arcana… I’d love to play a natural weapon magus, but sadly its not possible without burning multiple arcana on natural spell combat… and more often than not would be better off using a weapon or taking an unarmed archetype…
Sure, if you want to cheese it, "You need only have associated with ONE wereshark or wereshark-kin in your life to qualify… … perhaps you met one in your youth while visiting a far away island with your family" can cut it, but it is using really smelly cheese.
"Associated" to me sound as requiring something more significant than "having spent some time chatting with a wereshark-kin".
I suppose it is a matter of taste.
The point is that the RAW leave the door open to players and GMs alike to access that Arcana as desired. Whether the plot device used to form the association in question "stinks" or not comes down to the effort said player and GM put into it.