[Spell Combat] 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.
At 10th level, a Magus is able to cast Monstrous Physique II and take on the form of a Four-Armed Gargoyle. While in this form, he has one hand free to cast a spell, can wield a light or one-handed weapon in another hand, and then has two hands free.
If the Magus invests in the Natural Spell Combat Arcana (Claws), he could make his normal attacks with his weapon and his remaining claw attacks with his two non-casting and non-occupied hands while in this form.
But could the Magus invest in Multiweapon Fighting, instead, and wield a light or one-handed weapon in each of his two spare hands, allowing him to cast a spell, take his normal attacks, and then take another two attacks with his third and fourth limbs?
I totally get that Natural Spell Combat and an Amulet of the Mighty Fist is a less taxing way and possibly* more economic way of achieving the same thing. This is about
* I say “possibly” because a character might be less picky about what magic weapons enemies drop if we’re talking about free attacks.
The issue that will be brought up is that no where in the text of that feat does it say you get any more attacks than two weapon fighting grants. There is no "one sword attack per hand with sword" principle.
So, yeah, without GM kindness you got nothing.
I’m familiar with that old debate, but frankly I find no point in the feat, or it’s wording, or the way it’s used in the Bestiaries—if it’s simply Two-Weapon Fighting by another name.
More to the point, I’m less worried about a debate about the feat itself and more invested in its compatibility with Spell Combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we assume that multiweapon fighting does give us additional "metaphorical hands of effort" the next linguistic hurdle we need to cross is that spell combat specifies one empty hand and "the other" hand with a light or one handed weapon. As long as that "other hand" can be read as "other handS" for someone with more than 2 hands you should be good.
|
Read the older threads about this question. The consensus seems to be that when you use spell combat you are locked into using two hands.
Magus, Spell Combat: When using spell combat, do I specifically have to use the weapon in my other hand, or can I use a mixture of weapons (such as armor spikes and bites) so long as my casting hand remains free?
You specifically have to use the light or one-handed melee weapon in your other hand.
Magus, Spell Combat: If I use spell combat, how many weapon attacks can I make?
You can make as many weapon attacks as you would normally be able to make if you were making a full attack with that weapon. For example, if you are an 8th-level magus (BAB +6/+1), you could make two weapon attacks when using spell combat.
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 implied that spell combat did not allow the extra attack from haste (because spell combat was not using the full attack action).
Keep in mind that spell combat has a “meta” rules. It requires a free hand and only allows one hands worth of attacks, because it might be too strong to allow otherwise. Flavor text is added to explain why this is, like comparing it to two weapon fighting, but the limitation is very intended and not meant to be circumvented.
Of course, the stronger option is to take the euryale form and have the natural spell combat arcana for bite. Then you could spell combat with 6 bite attacks. Then your only hard decision is if you’d rather have your weapon attacks with the secondary bites, or skip the weapon and have 6 primary bites.
Read the older threads about this question. The consensus seems to be that when you use spell combat you are locked into using two hands.
Magus, Spell Combat: When using spell combat, do I specifically have to use the weapon in my other hand, or can I use a mixture of weapons (such as armor spikes and bites) so long as my casting hand remains free?
You specifically have to use the light or one-handed melee weapon in your other hand.
Magus, Spell Combat: If I use spell combat, how many weapon attacks can I make?
You can make as many weapon attacks as you would normally be able to make if you were making a full attack with that weapon. For example, if you are an 8th-level magus (BAB +6/+1), you could make two weapon attacks when using spell combat.
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 implied that spell combat did not allow the extra attack from haste (because spell combat was not using the full attack action).
The older threads that I'm aware of don't address a Magus with more than two hands, though. Neither do the FAQs you quoted.
Keep in mind that spell combat has a “meta” rules. It requires a free hand and only allows one hands worth of attacks, because it might be too strong to allow otherwise. Flavor text is added to explain why this is, like comparing it to two weapon fighting, but the limitation is very intended and not meant to be circumvented.
The thing is, I think we're very much getting into RAI territory now, as opposed to RAW. And where RAI is concerned, Natural Spell Combat threw considerations of Spell Combat becoming too strong straight out the window.
Of course, the stronger option is to take the euryale form and have the natural spell combat arcana for bite. Then you could spell combat with 6 bite attacks. Then your only hard decision is if you’d rather have your weapon attacks with the secondary bites, or skip the weapon and have 6 primary bites.
Gah, I just realized I hit send on my original post without finishing it. I agree wholeheartedly that the bite option is both mechanically better and more straightforward. This purely comes down to a flavor and image I have in mind for a specific character build and backstory.
To you both, I realize this is starting to sound like "please tell me what I want to hear." I promise you, that's not where I'm coming from. I think there is a lot of room where RAI is concerned to argue both for and against the validity of Spell Combat with Multiweapon Fighting. I was hoping to see if there had been any developer notes that more established veterans had saved over the years that could have bridged the gap between RAI and RAW, because the unfortunate reality of the Paizo FAQ/errata system is that it's largely reactive and based on the questions readers can think of. It's not comprehensive enough to answer every question that comes up.
Keep in mind that spell combat has a “meta” rules. It requires a free hand and only allows one hands worth of attacks, because it might be too strong to allow otherwise. Flavor text is added to explain why this is, like comparing it to two weapon fighting, but the limitation is very intended and not meant to be circumvented.The thing is, I think we're very much getting into RAI territory now, as opposed to RAW. And where RAI is concerned, Natural Spell Combat threw considerations of Spell Combat becoming too strong straight out the window.
That’s power creep for you. What you are wanting would probably require another arcana that was never created.
|
|
I think the FAQs are clear:
Magus, Spell Combat: When using spell combat, do I specifically have to use the weapon in my other hand, or can I use a mixture of weapons (such as armor spikes and bites) so long as my casting hand remains free?
You specifically have to use the light or one-handed melee weapon in your other hand.
Magus, Spell Combat: If I use spell combat, how many weapon attacks can I make?
You can make as many weapon attacks as you would normally be able to make if you were making a full attack with that weapon. For example, if you are an 8th-level magus (BAB +6/+1), you could make two weapon attacks when using spell combat.
You can use only the specific weapon in your primary hand and you are limited to as many attacks as it can make.
You aren't making a full attack. You are using spell combat, which is a specific kind of full-round action, with its own rules.
There are a few threads about this question, and most of the posters agree that it works that way.
Put another way: to use your other limbs you need to make a full attack. You are making a full attack? No, you are making a special kind of action, so you don't benefit from things that trigger when making a full attack.
I think the FAQs are clear:
I don’t. Every single FAQ was written in reference to a creature with two hands.
There are a few threads about this question, and most of the posters agree that it works that way.
I respect that, but we’re talking about subjective opinions here.
Put another way: to use your other limbs you need to make a full attack. You are making a full attack? No, you are making a special kind of action, so you don't benefit from things that trigger when making a full attack.
We know that Spell Combat has evolved beyond that. We know that, at a bare minimum, you can incorporate into Spell Combat bites, claws, talons, wings, gores, stingers—however many natural attacks you can have an Arcana devoted to, in fact—in addition to the full range of attacks you already get.
This dovetails into Milkiador’s position:
What you are wanting would probably require another arcana that was never created.
I agree in part, but I don’t think you don’t need a new Arcana. Natural Spell Combat already allows a Magus to use other body parts. A Magus should take that Arcana for the limbs in question, to allow them to be used in conjunction with his weapon attacks, the same as he would with, e.g., his wings (if he took a form that granted wing attacks). And just as the FAQ indicates, he could carry weapons in each of those limbs and take attacks with them with no penalty so long as he didn’t try to take extra attacks. In order to get extra attacks, though, he’d need Multiweapon Fighting. In order to get those and use Spell Combat, he’d need to ensure at least one hand was free to cast spells and one hand was wielding a qualified weapon (or was itself a qualified weapon).
I totally get the point of contention, but it’s probably fair to say the discussion is moot as we’re discussing intent rather than presenting and acknowledging RAW specific to this question. At the same time, I certainly can’t tell you or Diego that I’m definitively right. Accordingly, I’ll just withdraw the question and file it away as a homebrew idea to pitch to my GM. :)
|
|
We know that Spell Combat has evolved beyond that. We know that, at a bare minimum, you can incorporate into Spell Combat bites, claws, talons, wings, gores, stingers—however many natural attacks you can have an Arcana devoted to, in fact—in addition to the full range of attacks you already get.
Natural Spell Combat (Ex) (Blood of the Moon pg. 21): The magus can use his spell combat class feature [b with a natural attack of his choice[/b]. If he does, he gains a +2 bonus on concentration checks. If the natural attack is made with an appendage that would normally hold a weapon (such as a claw attack), the magus cannot wield a weapon in that appendage while making natural attacks with it. If the natural attack is a bite or other attack that does not require a free appendage to make, the magus can use the natural attack in addition to all of the attacks he could make with his melee weapon, if he has one. A magus can select this arcana more than once. The bonus on concentration checks does not stack. Each time he selects this arcana, he selects another natural weapon. For example, a magus could select this arcana twice, choosing claw attacks and bite attacks. This would allow him to use a full-round action to make all of his claw attacks with his free hand and all of his bite attacks in addition to casting a spell. This arcana otherwise functions exactly like the spell combat class feature.
You need the arcana, and one arcana for each attack!
This dovetails into Milkiador’s position:
What you are wanting would probably require another arcana that was never created.I agree in part, but I don’t think you don’t need a new Arcana. Natural Spell Combat already allows a Magus to use other body parts. A Magus should take that Arcana for the limbs in question, to allow them to be used in conjunction with his weapon attacks, the same as he would with, e.g., his wings (if he took a form that granted wing attacks). And just as the FAQ indicates, he could carry weapons in each of those limbs and take attacks with them with no penalty so long as he didn’t try to take extra attacks. In order to get extra attacks, though, he’d need Multiweapon Fighting. In order to get those and use Spell Combat, he’d need to ensure at least one hand was free to cast spells and one hand was wielding a qualified weapon (or was itself a qualified weapon).
Melkiador is right. You need permission, and that requires an arcana that gives it. Natural combat doesn't do that.
Do you want to invent the arcana? Speak with your GM, but it is not RAW, as that isn't how the rules work.
I totally get the point of contention, but it’s probably fair to say the discussion is moot as we’re discussing intent rather than presenting and acknowledging RAW specific to this question. At the same time, I certainly can’t tell you...
You need the arcana, and one arcana for each attack!
For each type of attack, yes.
Melkiador is right. You need permission, and that requires an arcana that gives it. Natural combat doesn't do that.
This is the circular argument I alluded to, above. Absent RAW, you’re offering what you feel is the RAI most compelling to you.
That position boils down to “Natural Spell Combat allows you to use a given appendage or appendages in combat as proficiently as the given creature type can do so naturally, but in the case of arms and hands does not afford you the ability to hold and wield weapons with them—even if you take a feat that expressly allows creatures with three or more limbs to do so.”
Again, you’re more than entitled to this position, but ultimately you’re relying on RAW examples that reference creatures with two hands and RAI regarding Natural Spell Combat. We are seeking to fill a RAW gap, and it does not appear that we will arrive at a consensus. And that’s alright!
|
|
This is the circular argument I alluded to, above. Absent RAW, you’re offering what you feel is the RAI most compelling to you.
In Pathfinder you need permission to do something and you don't have it. You only have permission to make a natural weapon attack.
Multiattack doesn't give you multiple attacks, it only modifies the penalty when making them.
Probably you can't even take Natural spell combat, as it is limited to wreshark, wereshark-kin, or those that are associated with those races.
New Magus Arcana
The following magus arcana are available to weresharks, wereshark-kin, and those who associate with these races.
Natural spell combat is the third of those new arcana.
In Pathfinder you need permission to do something and you don't have it. You only have permission to make a natural weapon attack.
I understand what you're trying to say, Diego, but again: that's an argument predicated on incomplete RAW.
Probably you can't even take Natural spell combat, as it is limited to wreshark, wereshark-kin, or those that are associated with those races.
Natural spell combat is the third of those new arcana.New Magus Arcana
The following magus arcana are available to weresharks, wereshark-kin, and those who associate with these races.
That bit of context is the second reason behind me withdrawing my question. The first being that this comes down to bridging RAW with RAI, the second being that this is a race-specific Arcana that would require GM blessing to begin with. The first makes this entire topic a circular argument, the second makes the discussion a moot point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
New Magus Arcana
The following magus arcana are available to weresharks, wereshark-kin, and those who associate with these races.
Between that and the wayang spellhunter, there is a shocking number of magi coming from the same place and living the same backgrounds. I wonder if they have reunions. "Shark Friends of Minata"
That's something that could (and arguably should) have been made into fun meta-influenced writing, actually. Certain traits, class features, and feats became such staples over the years that their flavor text could easily have been updated in campaign setting-specific books: rather than being limited to a certain ethnic, racial, or religious group, the group itself could have been made into an "origin point" for a growing tradition. Who brought the tradition of the Wayang Spellhunters to Avistan? When and where?
The older threads that I'm aware of don't address a Magus with more than two hands, though. Neither do the FAQs you quoted.
They may not explicitly address it, but that doesn't mean they don't cover it.
The first FAQ Diego Rossi quoted explicitly says "You specifically have to use the light or one-handed melee weapon in your other hand." weapon, not weapons, singular. Also, it answers the question of whether you can "use a mixture of weapons" with a clearly negative response.
I was hoping to see if there had been any developer notes that more established veterans had saved over the years that could have bridged the gap between RAI and RAW
What for? If you insist that MWF grants bonus attacks, you have clearly stopped caring about written rules, and live in a world of "make up your own rules", so why do you need some Dev comment? Just ignore the text in the book, and the FAQs, about Spell Combat's restrictions, just like you ignore what the feat actually says it does.
You don't need a statement by member of Paizo, because your character is not based on what is written by Paizo, anyway.
I find no point in the feat, or it’s wording, or the way it’s used in the Bestiaries—if it’s simply Two-Weapon Fighting by another name.
It literally tells you that it "replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms." You refuse to accept reality.
Not that "the feat is bad so the interpretation must be wrong" would be a valid argument in any case...
More to the point, I’m less worried about a debate about the feat itself and more invested in its compatibility with Spell Combat.
This sounds a lot like "I don't want to be told that I'm wrong". If you refuse to accept how the rules very clearly are, there can be no constructive rule debate.
In order to get extra attacks, though, he’d need Multiweapon Fighting.
No, no, no! Multiweapon Fighting doesn't allow you to do anything! It literally has zero effect on what options you have. It changes absolutely nothing except some numbers on attack rolls. If you can't do something without MWF, you can't do it with MWF, period. No exception.
You think there is a gap in the RAW, but if you would only accept realty on how MWF works, you'd see that this is not the case. There is no arcana that allows you to use multiple weapons because it doesn't make any sense to do so, as there's no benefit - unless you're using natural weapon, which is why there's an arcana for that, and that only.
The first FAQ Diego Rossi quoted explicitly says "You specifically have to use the light or one-handed melee weapon in your other hand." weapon, not weapons, singular. Also, it answers the question of whether you can "use a mixture of weapons" with a clearly negative response.
Again, by its very language, the FAQ in question presumes two hands. Not that it really matters, because the discussion is very much done. Diego and I may not agree on every point, but I'm under no illusion that I'm arguing RAW at this point.
What for? If you insist that MWF grants bonus attacks, you have clearly stopped caring about written rules, and live in a world of "make up your own rules", so why do you need some Dev comment? Just ignore the text in the book, and the FAQs, about Spell Combat's restrictions, just like you ignore what the feat actually says it does.
From the above paragraph and on, you've been arguing a point that has already been settled, Derklord. Feel free to dial back the tone accordingly, or don't, as is your wish.
Well, crap. I somehow cut out the quoted reply to Diego acknowledging he was correct re: Multiweapon Fighting and extra attacks. Sorry about the confusion, everyone!
|
|
Personally, I think that Paizo has lost a great opportunity with the ARG.
They should have specified that the ability to make multiple attacks and the ability to use multiple arms to wield weapons are racial traits, put them in the universal monster rules, and printed the lists of the creatures that already have them.
That would have cleared a lot of confusion with the rules about the typical character having two arms and opened up the options to write how some abilities originally described for creatures with two arms work when used by creatures with more arms or more natural attacks.
It's been forever since I've combed through the ARG races exhaustively, but as I recall there are 2-3 races with extra limbs or tails that are qualified as able to grasp things but not wield weapons; Tieflings, who can roll a vestigial limb (a term that implies it cannot wield a weapon); and Green Martians, who possess the following feature:
Multi-Armed: A green Martian has four arms. One hand is considered its primary hand; all others are considered off hands. It can use any of its hands for other purposes that require free hands.
Absent any rules or qualifying text to the contrary, free hands can grasp weapons. Absent Multiweapon Fighting, they can make attacks with those weapons, provided the wielder does not exceed their normal number of attacks. With Multiweapon Fighting, the wielder can exceed their normal number of attacks.
You're right, it would have been very nice to have comprehensive rules that addressed relevant class features, feats, etc. At the end of the day, though, I have no doubt some of this would have been deemed redundant or superfluous by the Paizo folks. That is, I imagine they would have pointed to this paragraph ...
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.
... and reminded us that nothing above conflicts with, e.g., a Four-Armed Gargoyle from swapping out all four claw attacks it gets for four attacks with manufactured weapons (albeit with a non-proficiency penalty).
|
|
... and reminded us that nothing above conflicts with, e.g., a Four-Armed Gargoyle from swapping out all four claw attacks it gets for four attacks with manufactured weapons (albeit with a non-proficiency penalty).
The problem is that sometimes it conflicts, and it is never clear when it does or doesn't.
I don't feel that a gargoyle can swap its claw attacks for weapon attacks, but someone polymorphed into a gargoyle maybe can.
One of the questions is "the claws are dextrous enough and shaped the right way to wield weapons?", and the answer generally is a GM's call. It is part of what a GM does, but we have Society play where having a uniform answer matters.
The image of the gargoyle in the Bestiary has opposite thumbs, others lack them, and an image isn't a rule reference.
Not ideal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel monstrous humanoids should have a default assumption that if they have arms, they can use those arms to wield weapons. Magical beasts would have the opposite assumption.
I feel monstrous humanoids should have a default assumption that if they have arms, they can use those arms to wield weapons. Magical beasts would have the opposite assumption.
This is where I stand, as well, and I think the language used in the natural attacks section I quoted above deliberately leaves room for GMs and players to take advantage of.
I don't feel that a gargoyle can swap its claw attacks for weapon attacks, but someone polymorphed into a gargoyle maybe can.
One of the questions is "the claws are dextrous enough and shaped the right way to wield weapons?", and the answer generally is a GM's call. It is part of what a GM does, but we have Society play where having a uniform answer matters.
The image of the gargoyle in the Bestiary has opposite thumbs, others lack them, and an image isn't a rule reference.
Not ideal.
It’s not anything nearly so subjective. Monstrous Humanoids are proficient with all simple weapons and any weapons mentioned in their entry. Gargoyles are thus proficient with simple weapons, and can use them in place of attacks with their natural weapons, as indicated in the quoted section.
they did and they passed on it. For 10 years. One can only conclude they don't want PCs with more than 2 arms and leaving it mired in the GM's area is what Paizo wants.
I think the second part of that statement is closer to the money than the first. The people who opened the door to all this were the designers and leads for Ultimate Combat and the Bestiary, so I find it difficult to imagine that they didn’t make the connection between the Monstrous Physique spells and Natural Attack rules. At the same time, while feeling comfortable enough to include the spells in question in the Magus Spell List, there must have been some decision not to provide information on how they and Spell Combat interacted for another two year, by way of a Player Companion title. That thought process is why I was interested in any contextual insights on the matter that developers and designers may have left on these forums.
The interaction between Spell Combat and Multiweapon Fighting is much simpler: they are different full round actions and can't be combined.
Unless there is an arcana or a feat that allows attacks with multiple weapons when using Spell Combat the way Natural Spell Combat does with multiple natural attacks, you are limited to attacks with a single weapon. Considering an amulet of mighty fists or bodywrap of mighty strikes is cheaper than multiple weapons, the Natural Spell Combat arcana is the more "optimal" choice anyway.
The interaction between Spell Combat and Multiweapon Fighting is much simpler: they are different full round actions and can't be combined.
Multiweapon Fighting uses either the attack action or the full attack action, and is subject to the same rules.
With respect, everything stated in the second paragraph has been discussed. Multiple natural attacks can already be substituted with multiple weapon attacks. The point of contention comes down to whether or not the language used in the Spell Combat FAQ reflects an assumption of two hands or a limitation to two hands. The cheaper price of an AMF is something I stated in the initial post.
The "attack action" is a single attack (or equivalent*), not multiple attacks. Note that you cannot normally add a separate single attack (normally a standard action) on top of a full round action per RAW, either; that's why the magus has Spellstrike.
There are some abilities/specific options that allow more than one attack with a standard action (e.g., Cleave), trigger additional attacks/maneuvers with a successful attack/result (e.g., Shield Slam or Cleaving Finish), or combine movement with a full attack (e.g., Pounce). However, these are specific exceptions to general rules in the RAW.
Gaining extra attacks from more than one weapon when using Spell Combat is not documented as a specific exception to the general Spell Combat rules in the RAW. At best, you can make normal iterative attacks with different weapons; just like attacking with different weapons without using Two-Weapon Fighting.
*- such as a disarm or trip maneuver
The "attack action" is a single attack (or equivalent*), not multiple attacks. Note that you cannot normally add a separate single attack (normally a standard action) on top of a full round action per RAW, either; that's why the magus has Spellstrike.
My apologies, I didn't make myself clear. My point was that Multiweapon Fighting does not introduce anything new in terms of what type of action it entails. The only new ground it broke came down to the number of hands/weapons involved.
Gaining extra attacks from more than one weapon when using Spell Combat is not documented as a specific exception to the general Spell Combat rules in the RAW.
Again, this point of contention has already been qualified and discussed. Not that there's anything wrong with you weighing in, of course, or telling me I'm wrong! It's just that--with one exception, below--you're not introducing a new point.
At best, you can make normal iterative attacks with different weapons; just like attacking with different weapons without using Two-Weapon Fighting.
The main point of contention lies with the language of the Spell Combat class feature and the relevant FAQ, which focuses on "the off-hand weapon," a "light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand," and "his melee weapon." That is, language that focuses on a singular off-hand and weapon. If we accept that a Magus can use multiple off hands, however, then whether he distributes his normal number of attacks (his attack at full BAB plus iterative attacks) among additional off-hands or takes one or more extra attacks with them, then we're acknowledging that the language in question merely addresses creatures with two arms/hands, and that it does not limit creatures with more than two arms/hands from using them. At that point, all that's left to debate is whether the extra attacks with additional limbs/appendages/body parts that the Natural Spell Combat Arcana allows you to take can be substituted with attacks using weapons held in appropriate limbs, as per the Natural Attacks rule.
But again, as I offered to Derklord, I don't think that debate is going anywhere. I'm not convinced that the RAW being cited in favor of a single spellcasting hand and a single off-hand is comprehensive... but for the same exact reason I can't plausibly argue that I'm definitely right, either.
You won’t be able to get any more attacks with a manufactured weapon this way than you would have normally with spell combat, but… you can use those extra arms to use tour weapon two-handed provided it was a on-handed weapon to start with, since spell combat explicitly calls for the use of a “light or one-handed melee weapon”. Using a one-handed weapon in two-hands is still attacking with a one-handed weapon. Natural spell combat only allows you to add extra natural attacks to your normal spell combat attacks.
The magus can use his spell combat class feature with a natural attack of his choice. If he does, he gains a +2 bonus on concentration checks. If the natural attack is made with an appendage that would normally hold a weapon (such as a claw attack), the magus cannot wield a weapon in that appendage while making natural attacks with it. If the natural attack is a bite or other attack that does not require a free appendage to make, the magus can use the natural attack in addition to all of the attacks he could make with his melee weapon, if he has one. A magus can select this arcana more than once. The bonus on concentration checks does not stack. Each time he selects this arcana, he selects another natural weapon. For example, a magus could select this arcana twice, choosing claw attacks and bite attacks. This would allow him to use a full-round action to make all of his claw attacks with his free hand and all of his bite attacks in addition to casting a spell. This arcana otherwise functions exactly like the spell combat class feature.
A few things to note here… it only lets you add natural weapons, if you have a manufactured weapon in that a hand with a claw attack you cannot add it, and natural spell combat in claws actually allows you to make a claw attack with the hand that was used to cast a spell.
Also, the very last line of the arcana is rather interesting as it implies natural spell combat is not just an arcana that adds to spell combat, but a whole separate spell combat ability entirely… which may have some unintended implications with a few archetypes that don’t normally get spell combat…
Chell,
I think I confused matters by dovetailing into the Natural Spell Combat Arcana in the discussion above, when the intent was only to reference to it as a precedent for Spell Combat involving more than the free hand used to cast spells and the off-hand used to wield a light or one-handed weapon.
You won’t be able to get any more attacks with a manufactured weapon this way than you would have normally with spell combat, but…
To be clear, "this way" involves casting Monstrous Physique II to assume the form of a monstrous humanoid with three or more appendages capable of wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon, drawing additional light or one-handed melee weapons with the extra off hands the above form provides, and using them according to Multiweapon Fighting.
Anyways, as I've offered to Diego, Melkiador, and Dragonchess Player already: I don't believe the RAW is comprehensive in that it does not address creatures with three or more arms/hands, so while I don't agree with the position that Spell Combat is only about what you can do with your spellcasting hand and your free off hand, I can't definitely dispute it, either.
... you can use those extra arms to use tour weapon two-handed provided it was a on-handed weapon to start with, since spell combat explicitly calls for the use of a “light or one-handed melee weapon”. Using a one-handed weapon in two-hands is still attacking with a one-handed weapon.
I really like that idea, and it adds new dimension to a Magus that is proficient with the Elven Curve Blade, Estoc, or Katana (or who wants to wield said weapons later in their career but not become proficient with them). It's a great way for any 10th level Magus who wants to add reach and damage to his melee attacks. Like the idea I'm proposing in my original post, it does not require the Natural Spell Combat Arcana at all. Last but not least, it also comes with the advantage of not being as contentious as what I proposed!
Also, the very last line of the arcana is rather interesting as it implies natural spell combat is not just an arcana that adds to spell combat, but a whole separate spell combat ability entirely… which may have some unintended implications with a few archetypes that don’t normally get spell combat…
I respectfully disagree. However the last sentence may read, the first sentence in the Arcana's description requires the Magus to have the Spell Combat class feature to begin with.
Again, by its very language, the FAQ in question presumes two hands.
Again, it does not matter! Your question doesn't actually have anything to do with multiple hands, but rather with multiple weapons, and that question is answered by the FAQ.
What you're doing here is aking to when riding a bike and facing a street sign that says "no vehicles allowed", you'd claim "well, the sign assumes cars, so my bike is fine". No, a bike is a vehicle, and is thus covered and thereby disallowed.
This here is the same. The FAQ says you can't use "a mixture of weapons", which is exactly what you're trying to do. You're claiming a loophole (that what you wan't isn't explicitly addressed) which simply doesn't exist, as Pathfinder as a rule system doesn't require explicit listing.
No vehicles means no vehicles, regardless of which vehicle you're using, and no mixture of weapons means no mixture of weapons, regardless of why you have the mixture in the first place.
Normally, a creature can attack with any number of different (manufactured) weapons (if they have enough attacks from BAB, Haste, etc.). Using the TWF rule option limits this to only two weapons. Spell Combat, which soemwhat imitates TWF, limits your choices in almost exactly the same way, only to a single weapon rather than two, because the spell beign cast replaces the other weapon.
The rules are consistent, and the lack of comprehensiveness you keep claiming doesn't exist.
Sure, there could be a rule option that allows usign more than one manufactured weapon, but that there isn't doesn't mean the situation isn't covered by the rules.
From the above paragraph and on, you've been arguing a point that has already been settled, Derklord.
Apparently, it isn't, because you're still claiming that MWF grants bonus attacks, or really does anything beyond changing a numerical value:
With Multiweapon Fighting, the wielder can exceed their normal number of attacks.
This is indisputably wrong.
Again, it does not matter! Your question doesn't actually have anything to do with multiple hands, but rather with multiple weapons, and that question is answered by the FAQ.
I disagree, Derklord, and at this point it would be best for us to recognize the difference between me arguing a point to someone and me clarifying what my position was.
What you're doing here is aking to ...
Not-quite-analogous comparisons aside, what I was doing was arguing that the language of the RAW does not preclude more than two hands (and by extension, more than two weapons) to be associated with Spell Combat, but that it focuses exclusively on the physiology of the overwhelming majority of creatures that can be Magi.
You disagree, which is fine, but now feel the need to continue a debate that--again--is moot, rested, and put aside. My only interest in this thread, if it isn't clear, is to clarify to posters who commented after my last reply to Diego what my position was--and to reiterate that I concede that I cannot prove my opinion is definitely right.
Apparently, it isn't, because you're still claiming that MWF grants bonus attacks, or really does anything beyond changing a numerical value:
You're absolutely right here, I have a terrible habit of conflating the Two-Weapon Fighting rules with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. Mea culpa! All the same, the error is entirely secondary to the key point of contention: whether or not Spell Combat can allow for attacks by more than one manufactured weapon when the Magus has three or more arms. A topic that, again, is moot--as I am as disinclined to assert that my position is anything more than a subjective RAI-based opinion and I am unconvinced that the RAW extends to creatures with three or more arms.
Last word goes to you, if you wish it!