5
\$\begingroup\$

I am building a whip using magus. The game we are playing has us at level 6, which is too low for me to get the feat which allows me to threaten with a whip. However, when holding a touch spell you threaten. Since you can deliver spells via your weapon with spell strike, this means that a magus using a whip and holding a touch spell (such as chill touch or shocking grasp) threatens all squares within 20 feet, correct?

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat

"Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I can't find the rule saying you are threatening with an hold touch spell, other than the fact you can use your hand (with an unarmed attack) to do an opportunity attack. Can you link a specific paragraph if it exist ? I could just be looking in the wrong places. \$\endgroup\$ – Luris Nov 18 '15 at 15:36
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ "Armed" Unarmed Attack rules only apply to unarmed attacks. A Magus attacking with a whip is armed... with the whip. Therefore, the "a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell" caveat doesn't apply as armed or threatening with a whip. \$\endgroup\$ – Salteris Nov 18 '15 at 23:58
3
\$\begingroup\$

A whip does not threaten, and so therefore, you would not be able to threaten the range of the whip, regardless of having a touch spell available, whether or not you can channel it via the whip. Nothing about being able to channel touch spells into a whip changes the (lack of) ability of the whip to threaten.

The rule noted, about "Armed" Unarmed attacks, specifically only applies to unarmed or natural attacks. While the whip does not threaten, it is a weapon, and does not count at all as being unarmed. Therefore, this exemption does not apply to the whip.

You would, however, be able to threaten within 5 feet of you, since you can use any part of your body to deliver a touch spell, and so therefore can threaten at normal melee range, even if wielding other weapons. This threatening would not be with the whip, though. If something did provoke an AoO, you would only be able to deliver the touch spell via an unarmed attack, not with your whip.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Apparently a more clear answer... :/ \$\endgroup\$ – Salteris Nov 18 '15 at 21:06
  • \$\begingroup\$ Clearly. I should stop trying to answer questions while at work :) \$\endgroup\$ – Luris Nov 18 '15 at 21:15
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ [Citation Needed]. One thing says you don’t threaten, the other says you do. You need to do something to justify your claim that the whip non-threatening thing trumps the held-charge threatening thing. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Nov 18 '15 at 21:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ One says you are armed, but don't threaten, the other says you are armed, but do... just not with the weapon that doesn't. If your argument held, a Magus/Titan Mauler using a pole-arm, while holding the charge could threaten @ 5ft with the pole-arm. \$\endgroup\$ – Salteris Nov 18 '15 at 23:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ I've made an edit to try and cater for the Armed unarmed thing. Personally, it seems pretty obvious to me that a rule about changing unarmed attacks to count as armed would not change the way a weapon works, but I guess not. \$\endgroup\$ – YogoZuno Nov 22 '15 at 21:36
-1
\$\begingroup\$

Incorrect

The confusion you have, in this issue, is the idea of:

However, when holding a touch spell you threaten.

You do, but not 'threaten' per se. It's because, in the assumed instance of you being unarmed carrying your wizardly robes in one hand (to keep out of the mud) and your wand of sleep (b/c every Wizard needs that... always), when you cast a touch spell, you are now armed.

So, in the situation of a Magus using a whip, you are already armed (but not threatening) then you cast your touch spell. You cannot then be 'more armed' and therefore 'more threatening' in this situation. Whips do not threaten, but that doesn't mean you aren't armed. You can still use the touch spell with your hand and threaten in 5ft with another weapon in your other hand (or if per DM the handle of the whip), but you cannot threaten with the whip just because you are now armed with a touch spell as well.

The reason you cannot threaten with the whip isn't because you aren't armed it's simply because of technique. The high BAB whip feat gives you the technique to threaten, not an advanced armed status allowing you to use the whip... better(?).

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ whips do not threaten unless you have a feat which I cant get yet \$\endgroup\$ – Fering Nov 18 '15 at 19:34
  • \$\begingroup\$ Ah, let me revise. \$\endgroup\$ – Salteris Nov 18 '15 at 19:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ There, sorry about that. I assumed whips had a 5ft threat area and didn't read the SRD. \$\endgroup\$ – Salteris Nov 18 '15 at 19:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ Magus are allowed to deliver touch spells using a weapon. Whips are the only manufactured weapon I know of which do not threaten, which is the purpose of the question. \$\endgroup\$ – Fering Nov 18 '15 at 19:54
  • \$\begingroup\$ Right, but being able to use touch spells doesn't automatically allow you to threaten. You only threaten with a touch spell because it assumes that your empty hand was unarmed before casting. The Magus allows you to use spells in an armed hand. You're asking, "If I hold a dagger in my hand and tape a whip to my wrist, can I now threaten @ 15ft?" \$\endgroup\$ – Salteris Nov 18 '15 at 20:11

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.