Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Sargogen, Lord of Coils

Darksol the Painbringer's page

5,015 posts (5,020 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 5,015 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

synjon wrote:

My player wanted to know if he could add a single Metamagic feat to his arcane-bonded staff? His thought was if he could do that, and then take a couple Metamagic feats himself, he could avoid the need for a rod, and thus avoid having both hands full.

I'm not opposed to the idea, but I wanted to make sure if was allowed under the rules first. After that, I just wasn't sure how it would be priced.

As far as simply taking the effects of a Metamagic Rod and converting it into a staff, I don't personally see an issue other than conflicting mechanics. Staves almost always require a spell of some sort (usually two minimum), and charges to maintain it, whereas Rods don't have any of that sort of thing.

I mean, you could try to combine the two into a single item, but I imagine it would fall under the rules regarding combining magic item effects. Needless to say, it requires GM FIAT (which it appears you are the GM), and it gets expensive, fast, though there are a couple low level (and low cost) staves that can be pretty useful and manageable within the spell cost.

Metamagic Rods still require a hand for use, and the same goes for a Staff. If anything, a Staff can be argued to require two hands (though I don't see why a character needs two hands to use a Staff's spells or other abilities, though if he wants to attack with it, he'd need two hands), and Wands usually offer better consistency options without all that excess money requirement, so it's a down-grade either way.

gustavo iglesias wrote:

If you want to use it with the rules of normal metamagic rods, I'd price it as the price of the rod, x1.5 if the staff is already a magic item, or normal price if it doesn't, per normal custom magic item rules (because the Staff uses the same slot than the Rod. I would price higher if you try to build, say, gloves of metamagic, even if it is the only enchant in the gloves)

But there is also another possibility, which is this one, which might be useful to you:

Staff of the master

That staff has been errata'd to oblivion with a lot of the other "OP" items with this Ultimate Equipment Publishing Errata Document. It only works with the spells on the staff now if I remember correctly.

thaX wrote:

Each turn is a character taking his actions for that round. Every turn that happens in that round happens at the same moment in time.

The character gets that round of actions for his turn, once that is done you go to the next in the init order.

You want to separate the round into segments, when it already has actions and usages within the full round action already. The difference between your parsing of the Full Round and how the rules resolve it is that it has been getting resolved within the confines of the Full Round Action the whole time.

Yes, casting that spell would drop you out of invis. A kind GM would let you hold the charge and not drop your invisibility until you actually make the attack. A hard nose GM would drop it and explain why, then say "to late" when the player changes his mind when it happens. I hate hard nosed GM's.

Some would explain the interaction, that the spell would normally break Invis, let the player off for that moment and go on.

It is simple.

you start the turn, use some free action at the beginning, declare a full round action (like full attack), do the action, take your free and swift actions at the end and then end your round. Full Round Action done.

Yet your putting limitations on things that simply are not there. How long have we been playing the game? I believe we all are finding this out for the first time now, and it doesn't change anything, except the cheese attempted in the first thread.

So then why do you keep using the term "turn" when it says "round," and the term "round" when it says "turn"? (Though ironically enough, I don't think the latter issue has actually come up yet.) My point is that they're not synonymous. Linked, yes, but they aren't the same thing, and the rules use game terms like those deliberately. Same goes for Casting Touch Spells and Delivering Touch Spells.

The rules already separate the round of 6 seconds into segments, based on how The Combat Round with Initiative works, whether I want to do that or not is irrelevant and pointless to discuss. If it doesn't do that, then there's no difference between 1 Round and Full Round casting times, for one example, and I imagine I can list tons more if I decided to give a damn about listing more. Which I don't.

It would make sense if the spell made an attack or even hostile activity. But it doesn't. It's a charge that's on your hand. It's not a Fireball, where it deals damage upon casting. It deals damage upon touching, which requires action on the caster's part independant from the act of casting the spell.

But who am I kidding here? You can't possibly understand what that means! You've already demonstrated that you can't differentiate between casting the spell and touching with a cast spell, because you label them as the same activity! So OF COURSE you're going to say casting that spell breaks Invisibility, because you link an activity that doesn't break Invisibility (casting a spell) with one that does break Invisibility (delivering a spell's effects through hostile action), and associate them as the same activity.

It also explains why you think you can deliver a Full Round Action spell in the same turn you cast it, even though the Full Round Action spell isn't complete until your turn completes. But then you would say "Well, my Full Round Action spell finishes after my turn finishes, so I get my Touch Attack now," and then you'd do so before the next combatant in the Initiative order acts, even though you can't take Free Actions outside your turn unless it says otherwise (see "Speak" in the Free Action section). But as I said above, you say casting and delivering is the same activity, so it makes sense in that light.

Or at least, I imagine it would, because that's the only excusable thing I can come to expect from an interpretation like that, because saying anything else is outright bulls#!^.

...I mean, I did say it was a fun exercise, because it tells me exactly what your stance is in comparison to the RAW, and now that I know what that is, there's no need for me to discuss on the thread trilogy any further.

gustavo iglesias wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
thaX wrote:
It doesn't matter when you declare the full round action, the free action to Rage or Charge can be done before the attack and be considered a part of that action as well.

Not by any actual game mechanic of what it means to start and finish an action.

Let's take casting a spell because it's clearer.

While you are casting a spell, you can be interrupted. If your spell takes a full-round action because, say, you're a sorcerer casting a metamagic spell, then at any time during your full-round action you are casting and your spell can be disrupted.

If someone attacked you during a free action, let's say you were wielding a staff 2H and needed to let go to begin casting, you are not yet casting when you let go of your staff. If someone damaged you right after you let go of your staff, you wouldn't need to make a concentration check because:

1) you haven't started casting yet, which means
2) you haven't started your full-round action yet, which means
3) you can take free actions before you start your full-round action

To say otherwise just breaks the game.

Why would someone attack you when you let go the staff, instead of when you cast the spell? If they are attacking you because of an attack of oportunity, it's because you are already casting the spell. If they attack you because of a ready action, it's because the condition of the ready has been met. If that condition was "when casting a spell", then that's when the attack is done. If the condition was "when he drops a staff" then that would be it, but I don't know why someone would do that.

You missed the point he was making.

The point is that you can't begin casting a Metamagic spell while holding a two-handed weapon because you don't have the hands required to cast the spell. If you take a hand off to fulfill the requirements, which takes a Free Action, you're taking a Free Action before a Full Round Action, something which has been declared by RAW to be impossible due to the RAW that Full Round Actions take your entire turn, and therefore you're already starting casting before you can take your hand off to fulfill the requirements, meaning you're never able to cast a spell in the first place.

Or, as he politely put it: it "just breaks the game."

thaX wrote:

For those that read through the wall of text

*synopsis spoiler*

I never said that. And because I never said that, that means your entire synopsis post is a strawman.

What I said is that, from the RAW, Full Round Action spells don't have the same conclusion as Standard Action spells, and as such, the options you can do in comparison are different due to the separate results of each action that is taken.

I said that Quickened Spell requirements must be met at the same time that Full Round Action spell must be met because of how Full Round Actions function, and how restrictions of an action function. An exclusion due to not meeting restrictions of specific Swift Actions with specific requirements isn't to say you can't take Swift Actions at all, it only means you can't take those specific Swift Actions. Saying otherwise is being a strawman. Same goes for Free Actions.

The Full Round Casting rules only point out that the spell effect takes place in the same round of casting, and not afterward, like typical 1 Round Casting Time spells would (which also take a Full Round Action to perform). All that means is, once your turn ends, the spell takes effect (assuming you maintain concentration).

The funny thing is, per RAW, even that is not a guarantee, because the spell could go off at any point before the start of your next turn (as 1 round would have elapsed then), and still fulfill the "cast within the same round" clause, which means the RAW creates an uncertainty principle where the spell may or may not go off at a certain point in time, and there's nothing that tells us (or even indicates when).

Of course, the only rules-way you can conclude it takes effect as your turn ends is because of the concentration rules, since once your Full Round Action ends, you no longer need concentration (as it's not a 1 Round casting time), so saying the Full Round Casting passage is what determines when it takes effect is not only provably false, but also not as definitive as it should be written to convey the intent demonstrated above.

The Archive wrote:

I don't think either thaX or Darksol has sufficiently dismissed either:

PRD wrote:
A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action.


PRD wrote:
You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.

If you have thoroughly dismissed it somewhere, then sorry, I probably missed it somewhere in all the talk of the specific case of the whirlwind attack magus. Darksol did mention something to the effect of certain swift actions causing limits on further actions. And this can be true, after all if you use a swift action that (somehow) knocks you unconscious, you certainly aren't getting actions after that.

However, in the general case (not anything to do with the magus thing), what is the reason for not regarding the above? What is it that stops me from taking a swift action or 5-foot step distinctly before a full-round action when it states I can do so before other actions in the round? And what rules are you reading to get to that conclusion?

I will say it again, that I don't personally agree with it, and that it's now how I run things at my table, but that is what the RAW, as it's been shown to me, says.

Argument for The Archive:
Expanding on that RAW argument, let's take an Eldritch Scion Magus. Ignore Spell Combat and all that for a moment.

Eldritch Scion Magi have spontaneous spellcasting and rely on spells known like a Sorcerer or Bard would. So, for them, casting a Metamagic Spell is a Full Round Action (unless they get some ability to say otherwise, which as far as I know, they don't).

Now, in order to cast a Full Round Action spell, much like a regular Standard Action spell, you must:

-Have your material components (basic, expensive, or Foci) drawn and ready for use
-Have one hand free
-Must be able to speak the associated incantations in a strong, firm voice

The only difference between a Standard Action spell and a Full Round Action spell, is the action required to cast it.

Unfortunately, the RAW says that a Full Round Action, any Full Round Action, takes your entire round (read: turn, for the argument to make sense) to complete. Logically speaking, especially in terms of a pie graph, if something takes the entirety of something, that means your turn is devoted 100% to that action. This means that your turn is your Full Round Action, and your Full Round Action is your turn; the durations and constraints of both are equal, and you are never in an instance where you are performing Swift/Free Actions, or even 5-foot steps, before or after your Full Round Action. (Which, again I personally disagree with. But that's the logic behind it, even though it's actually a paradoxical fallacy.)

We also have a FAQ giving a general rule stating that if an action you take (such as TWF, or Spell Combat) has restrictions or limitations associated with that action, they last for the entirety of that action.

Taking the ideal regarding Full Round Action durations above in conjunction with the FAQ rule, because a Full Round Action (such as casting a Metamagic spell) lasts for your entire turn, and that Full Round Action has limitations/restrictions, those restrictions likewise last for your entire turn.

And that's just the general rules.

There's also the matter of Swift and Free Actions in conjunction to those Full Round Actions, and how they interact with Full Round Actions. Even with what you quoted, that doesn't take credence to denying restrictions/limitations on those Swift/Free Actions you wish to take, since what you've quoted is stated in the following sentence to function "like a free that regard." Unless you're suggesting that a Free Action gives you credence to ignore restrictions or limitations on actions, then you can't say for sure that sentence functions as you claim.

Even if you do, you'd be suggesting that (on the topic at hand), I don't require a hand holding nothing to hold the charge and deliver a Touch Spell. Not only is that silly, but ask any board member here, and they will tell you that A. You need a hand not holding anything, and B. Attempting to use that hand to hold or touch anything will discharge the spell, inadvertantly or not.

Of course, Spellstrike breaks that rule, but that's a Magus thing, which the argument has nothing to do with, but most importantly, it would make Spellstrike a (mostly) dead feature, because, I'm not required to deliver the Touch Spell with the hand holding the charge. I could deliver it with my feet, my elbows, knees, head, heck even a kiss, lick, or spitting would work! I could even urinate or defecate on the enemy to deliver the spell, how hilarious is that!?

It also creates funky rules interactions for those instances where you attempt to deliver the spell as a Free Action, miss, and then are somehow forced to use your hand for subsequent rounds of attempting to discharge the spell, because you can no longer do so as the Free Action that permitted you to otherwise ignore that limitation. Or more accurately, the spell discharges onto whatever your hand is touching at the start of your next turn if it isn't already discharged.

Back on topic with spellcasting; Standard Actions spells only require resolving a Standard Action, and as such don't take your entire turn to complete, and as such Free and Swift Actions can be taken before or after (along with 5-foot steps, if so desired). Full Round Actions Spells not only takes a different action to complete, but in the process, follow the rules of the associated action, and as such prolongs the fulfillment of certain conditions due to it taking a time longer than what the Standard Action spell takes. Namely, the ability to deliver a Touch Spell as a Free Action, and the ability to cast a Quickened Spell as a Swift Action.

Because a Metamagic Spell takes a Full Round Action, and a Full Round Action takes your entire turn, a Metamagic Spell takes your entire turn to complete. As such, the restrictions and requirements of casting a Metamagic Spell last for your entire turn, and the effects of your Metamagic Spell don't take place until your entire turn is complete.

Now Touch Spell rules state that I must cast a spell, and then touch the target. This creates an "in-tandem" situation, which is A->B. If A is casting the spell, and B is touching the target, that means I must have A in order to B. I can't do B if I don't fulfill the conditions set by A, which means B->A is not possible either. Yes, I can touch the target as a Free Action, but only in a round where I've already cast a spell, which once again means that the Free Action delivery requires A->B functionality as well.

In comparison to the Full Round Action rules previously discussed, this means that I cannot deliver the spell as a Free Action when I cast a Full Round Action spell, because my turn has ended, and as such I cannot take the Free Action required to deliver the spell. I cannot take the Free Action before my turn is complete, because that, by relation means that my spell isn't complete (and anything that would take place that could affect my spellcast would incur a concentration check that I would be required to make), and as such the conditions for being able to take that Free Action have not been met, meaning the option to take that Free Action isn't possible.

In short, if I have only one hand free, and I started casting a Metamagic Spell as a Full Round Action, unless I take a Free Action to drop whatever is in my other hand, I cannot take a Swift Action to cast a Quickened Spell (or even use Lay On Hands), as my free hand is occupied fulfilling Somatic components for the Metamagic Spell. Likewise, because a Full Round Action takes my entire turn, and a spell isn't complete until the action associated isn't complete, then I can't take the Free Action described.

That doesn't mean I can't take other Free Actions, like dropping items or speech, or other Swift Actions that don't require free hands, but certain actions, with certain restrictions or limitations, cannot be taken, simply due to conflicting restrictions (or inability to fulfill limitations).

thaX wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Core Rulebook wrote:

Note that this isn’t the

same as a spell with a 1-round casting time. Spells that take
a full-round action to cast take effect in the same round that
you begin casting, and you are not required to continue the
invocations, gestures, and concentration until your next
turn. For spells with a longer casting time, it takes an extra
full-round action to cast the metamagic spell.

Is there something you don't understand in this passage that says "...take effect in the same round that you begin casting..." where one would have to wait until the round is over? Do you not see the contradiction in your argument?

Or do you believe that there is no room for Free Actions and Swift actions inside of another action, despite the rules saying that they can?

Core Rulebook wrote:

Special Spell Effects

Many special spell effects are handled according to the
school of the spells in question. Certain other special
spell features are found across spell schools.
Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All
offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage
opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel
energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures
in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving
throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or
hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters
or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves
don’t harm anyone.

Is there something here you don't grasp? That spells are considered attacks when they do damage? They are not attack spells, they are considered an attack when they are used.

You accuse me of turning the argument into some pointing fingers and scarecrows when it is you that is not budging.

Taking effect in the same round =/= taking effect in the same turn.

Once again, you think turn and round are the same term, AND THEY'RE NOT.

I've said, repeatedly, that a Full Round Action spell takes effect AFTER YOUR TURN IS DONE, BEFORE THE START OF THE NEXT COMBATANT'S TURN. That doesn't mean it takes effect AFTER THE ROUND IS DONE, AT THE START OF YOUR NEXT TURN. BIG DIFFERENCE in results there. In fact, a KEY big difference between Full Round and 1 Round casting time, which you can't seem to comprehend, which is why there is no contradiction to be seen on my end, because the spell is still taking place within the ROUND that you cast. It's just not taking place within the TURN that you cast, which is physically impossible since you're trying to say Full Round Action Spells don't take your entire turn, but Spell Combat, which is also a Full Round Action, does. Do you not see the contradiction in that argument, which is (inadvertantly) yours?

I know what the RAW says. I also know what happens when you take the RAW for what it is; equating Spells to Attacks, like ones you make in Attack Actions, Full Attacks, or even AoOs. Which is precisely what you're doing with that equivalency argument, since A. That's what Whirlwind Attack is originally written to dismiss (Attacks you make in Attack Actions, Full Attacks, and AoOs), and B. You're extending that original dismissal to things outside of what is originally written within Whirlwind Attack (Spells that can be used to Attack with, but aren't in-and-of-themselves attacks you make within an Attack Action, Full Attack, or AoO).


Just for fun, let me ask you a simple question, and just forget all about Spell Combat, Whirlwind Attack, and any other fancy rules regarding spells, like Metamagics, Quickened Spells, and so on.

I am an Arcane Spellcaster, and I am in two different instances (not simultaneously, mind you). I have my hands free and am under the effects of the Invisibility spell in both instances. In one instance, I cast Shocking Grasp and hold the charge until my next turn, making no attempt to attack with that spell whatsoever. In the other instance, I cast Shocking Grasp, and (successfully) deliver the charge onto a creature.

Now, between those two instances, how many times have I potentially broken Invisibility (if at all), and where exactly does the breaking of Invisibility occur (if at all)?

(Think carefully now, because I'm only tracking how many times it's possible I've broken Invisibility, now how many times those scenarios would actually break Invisibility before I have to cast it again to regain its effects.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:

Again, the strawman darksol introduced.

listen, this is not any different than what we have done before, the only thing that is different is the revelation of a Full Round Action being used for the whole round. The hand is free for the casting of the spell, then after the attack is done, the sorcerer could regrip her quarterstaff. Where do you read that this is not possible?

The other combo in the first thread is an obvious try to loophole the rules into gaining an extra attack (from the spell) that would otherwise be prevented by the other ability. Other things prevent it than this simple issue, but this was factored to be the one obvious stopping block to using it.

Let's look at it like this. The casting of the spell is taking effort, and the free actions taken before and after are as that effort completes or has been used.

Is it easier to parse it out to the end of the Full Round Action, doing the free actions afterward? Knock yourself out, it is how most of us do it anyways. The point has been that the cheese from the other thread doesn't work in that manner, that is why I have been so adamant about this issue. The Free Action happens during the full round action anyways, no matter how the player parses it out. Any self respecting GM will look at the Whirlwind Attack/Spell Combat combo, and tell the player immediately that the two abilities do not work together, and the spell counts as an extra attack that is nixed by Whirlwind attack.

It's not a strawman if you can't grasp that the Free Action is taken separately from the action required to cast the spell. You've already demonstrated that you can't grasp that ideal, which is imperative for Johnny_Devo coming to the same conclusion I made, and is the sole reason you're calling the counterargument a strawman.

And you know what the point of the two relating threads are? To see what happens when you ditch the combination (because it was somehow confusing), and guess what? The problem isn't with the combination, it's with the fact you can't grasp how two specific Free/Swift Actions work in relation to the combination at hand. And yet, here we are, calling Magic the Gathering logic "strawman arguments," when we can use said logic to identify what single piece (or pieces) of the puzzle is causing the puzzle itself to implode.

Well, the thing is WE ARE looking at things like that. You aren't. Because you feel like you have to magically let Full Round Action spells work, even though the RAW, which you use to support your main argument, says the exact opposite. And then, when I point it out, you say I'm posing a strawman, or that it's irrelevant, or even not what the rules say even though A. I'm not the goofball who can't parse Touch Spell rules properly, B. I don't confuse game terms like "turn" and "round," or "weapon" and attack," and C. Eldritch Scion Magi cast spells spontaneously like a Sorcerer, so Full Round Action spells are in-fact relevant to the discussion of these sub-threads.

See, that's what is called "moving goalposts" in my book, and that's bulls#!^. We can't ever have proper debating if we have participants who refuse to accept the flaws in their rulings. I already accept that my RAW interpretation is wrong, because I don't agree with it. I NEVER agreed with it. It's stupid, it's nonsensible, and it's also not how the rules were intended, or assumed to be ran on these boards. But because you want to play in the RAW playground, I'm stuck using it, and then when I do use it (because you claim that my argument lacked evidence and didn't adhere to RAW, such as Spell Combat functioning like TWF), you call what I gathered a strawman, even though your interpretation likewise doesn't add up with how over 90% of the members on these boards run it, which means my interpretation is just as much a strawman as your interpretation. Two strawmen don't make either interpretation correct, which means we're back to square 1.

Calling it cheese requires proving that it's going against the intent of the subject in question. You can't prove that Whirlwind Attack was written to exclude spells as a whole, or that Whirlwind Attack excludes anything that can be even construed as remotely hostile. At best it's conjecture based on your own personal opinion. At worst, you're just flat-out wrong (and aren't willing to accept it).

Inlaa wrote:

Making another replacement character in the event that my character dies in the present campaign. (Haven't died yet, but I want to be prepared.) This one is going to be a DEX-to-damage mounted combat type.

The character will be a halfling with 15 point buy, and thus be small sized. Their mount must never grow larger than Medium size, and it must start as at least Small so it can be ridden with Undersized Mount (which can be retrained later). I've been considering mounts with climb speeds for dungeon utility for this reason, but other mounts would work as well.

I'm looking at using a few different classes here: 1 level of Unchained Rogue (for DEX to damage), 1 level of a class to get EWP: Elven Curve Blade or Elven Branched Spear, and then the rest of the way I'd go with Cavalier. I'd be tempted to grab Mad Dog for 2 levels and ask the GM to let the animal companion levels stack onto one companion just so I can use Gang Up with a +4 bonus to flanking.

The idea here is to use Piranha Strike and Risky Striker to boost my damage with the Elven Curve Blade or Elven Branched Spear and deal dex-based charge attacks from my mount. Spirited Charge would be good. Anything that lets me get a full attack while charging (or just moving) would also be good. Anything that makes my mount and I do more damage and contribute to a standard dungeon crew is good.

For reference, assume a mixture of casters and martials as companions. Assuming nobody dies, there's a wizard, a magus, and a brawler, but this character is being made in the event that both I (the support bard) and someone else dies.

Any and all advice to be had on building this character would be appreciated. This is my first mounted combat character with a real chance of hitting the table.

Halflings can have Riding Dogs, which are pretty cool, and should be approved for you to ride just about anywhere (and take with you into town, assuming you can keep it under control).

Using a reach weapon as a Small creature with a Medium mount isn't exactly going to be fun. When you charge, you get an attack, but your Mount doesn't. Simultaneously, if your mount gets to attack, you don't get to. With that being said, you may have to ditch the idea of a Reach weapon, especially because if you don't, you'll have to deal with silly 5-foot step mechanics in order for both you and your mount to make attacks.

I instead suggest taking a level of the Swashbuckler archetype, Inspired Blade, and picking up Fencing Grace. It's less feat intensive, you'll get Dexterity to Damage, and the big thing is that you can do this at level 1, WITHOUT being Human. The only downside is you can't wield a shield, but quite frankly, if you're going to be using two-handed "reach" weapons, then it's a loss you were willing to accept anyway.

You can take the class up to 3rd level, getting Nimble (+1 Dodge AC), an extra Deed, and Charmed Life (which is really good for your potentially bad save combination, and stacks with Halfling Luck benefits), and still have your mount be equal to your level via Boon Companion feat, though you don't have to if you don't think it's worth it. You can just take the 1 level dip, proceed straight to Cavalier (with whatever plan you were going there), and still be solid (though it reduces the value of the Boon Companion feat).

In my opinion, it's a toss-up. You get more Swashbuckler-based features (which can be good, like Precise Strike, Swashbuckler's Initiative, and so on, even though you may have to spend a feat on Extra Deed, or even Extra Panache), but you lose (and delay) Cavalier-based features. I mean, you could go Swashbuckler, Cavalier, back to Swashbuckler, and then finish with Cavalier if you wanted.

thaX wrote:

You are Wielding the weapons, holding them in such a way as to effect damage with attacks. You cast the spell in comparison, and that needs the hand to be free, not wielding any weapon, to do so.

The argument about occupied hands goes back to several faq's that mentions such and is "unwritten" basis for the background development of the rules. I suspect that you already knew this, wanting me to show you something in the Core Rulebook.


Two-Weapon Fighting

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get
one extra attack per round with that weapon.

If your wielding the weapon, your hand is holding something and is occupied. This is the same as when you have a wand held in the hand, a potion, or a shield (that isn't strapped on the arm).

There is no such occupation with a spell, either casting it or when it is ready to be discharged. The hand must be free to do so in Spell Combat.

If it wasn't obvious enough, the request he made was rhetorical.

Wield isn't properly defined (as it shouldn't be). At best, you can say that the Defending Weapon property FAQ is the closest RAW example to follow, and even that doesn't work for certain weapons (like spiked gauntlets, cestii, and so on), since you can't "hold" them to constitute "wielding" them. You also run into problems where wielding in certain instances have different implications in other instances (such as your TWF citation in comparison to the Defending Weapon property FAQ), making it an inconsistent term whose definition changes on a case-by-case basis.

I'll also point out that the only reason the Spell in Spell Combat being treated as an off-hand weapon is a problem is because Spell Combat refers to TWF, and the Armor Spikes FAQ says the hand is occupied for the entirety of the action. If it didn't have the TWF correlation, you wouldn't have that RAW issue (that it appears you're trying to circumvent, even though you're ironclad in sticking to the TWF RAW).

Goth Guru wrote:

I was admonishing myself to not discuss suggestions to the rules because some people freak out about it. Apparently only current RAW rules can only be questioned in the rules question forum. I am going to bring it up on the paizo product forum where your indignant shrieking belongs.

Every time I try to have a civil discussion about rules interpretation here, people start tossing about buzzwords like Strawman Argument like they are profanity. I will probably soon not only hide this topic but remove the bookmark for the Rules Questions from my bookmark bar entirely. As none of you can have a civil discussion here, any questions I have about what the rules mean, I will ask on other places on the Paizo website.

I could make a strong case that your very existence is a strawman argument. That's why the very expression is rules mush.


James Risner wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
while still maintaining being typed as a Dexterity Bonus

That isn't likely to be correct.

Especially considering the rules with ability swaps count as the new ability and not the old. So if you can use Int on Acrobatics, it isn't a Dex skill check any more.

But Confident Defense doesn't change the type associated with the bonus to AC. (That bonus also applying to CMD is possible, but per RAW, it doesn't apply.) It simply increases it for the purposes of determining what benefit it provides by an amount equal to your Charisma modifier. It's still categorized as a Dexterity bonus, and as such still follows the rules governed by it.

So, if I'm flat-footed, the Charisma bonus being added to my AC goes away, and if I wear armor, the Maximum Dexterity Bonus applies to the new value generated through adding your Charisma, because you're still receiving a Dexterity Bonus. It's just a modified Dexterity Bonus.

Sidestep Secret is the one that changes the type of bonus you're being granted, and as such, requires RAW to dictate you apply MDB and ACP and other associated subjects to the Charisma modifier you're using (which it has), otherwise you wouldn't follow those rules, because it's no longer a Dexterity Bonus.

@ Azten: Nice catch, I didn't think about it that way, and as such is another (although hair-splitting) reason why the OP's combination doesn't work.

The spell hand isn't occupied because it's holding the charge, it's occupied because it's using that hand to fulfill Spell Combat requirements. You don't even fulfill the free hand required for Somatic components in the case of Spell Combat, so how are you casting the spell from Spell Combat?

Again, no, they're implying that they can deliver the spell outside of the Full Round Action. If a Swift Action can be taken anytime you can take a Free Action, and you're saying I can take a Swift Action outside of a Full Round Action to cast a Quickened Spell, and a Free Action to deliver said Quickened Spel then I can take a Free Action outside of a Full Round Action to deliver a spell cast by that Full Round Action by the transitive property between the two action types.

thaX wrote:

So, you can touch someone as a free action.

Where does it say it is a separate action from the spell?

...You CANNOT be f%!@ing serious with that statement.

And you have the indecency of calling OUR arguments "Strawmen," and saying that we have no idea about the fundamentals of Touch Spells?

I said the spell completes when your turn completes. That's quite a ways different from saying the spell never completes, which is honestly quite silly. I can see why you'd call it a strawman if that's what you gathered, but you weren't even getting the counter-argument down, and then that means you're being a strawman to the strawman, and two strawmen don't cancel each other out to create a correct argument.

Again, the RAW says round, not turn. They're specific game terms, and should not be confused or interchanged. This is like the Spell Combat entry all over again, with people saying attack, not weapon. They're not the same term, they're not interchangable, and they never will be.

Even with RAI conveying the "turn" terminology, you're still trying to deliver a spell before it's complete, which is impossible to do, both as a Free Action, and as an activity in general. You've even said so yourself, by saying you can't take a Free Action for something you can't normally perform.

1. I call it a "RAW Strawman" because you call it a strawman, and it's the conclusion I come to based purely on RAW. Hence, "RAW Strawman." I don't agree with it, nor do I value the rules any more than them being RAW, which is why I'm categorizing it as a RAW "strawman", because it's the argument I make with the RAW presented to me.

4. Wrong, and wrong. My point there is that changing the action type required to cast a spell (Full Round, Swift, Immediate, Part of X Action, whatever), does nothing to alter the Touch Spell rules, which all Touch Spells adhere to, regardless of how they're cast. If I cast a spell, I deliver that spell after the action is resolved, no matter how that spell is cast, whether it's a Standard, Full Round, Swift, or part of another action entirely (hint hint, Spell Combat). Unless you have some ability that alters how Touch Spells function (in relation to the action you're casting, which Spell Combat doesn't do), I will always deliver that spell after it's cast, either as a Free Action if it's in the same round, NOT turn, or in place of an Attack if it's not in the same round(, NOT turn).

5. Yes, it does have to say it. It has to in order for it to become an exception to the general rule that Touch Spells are delivered outside of the action associated with the spell (because if they're delivered as part of the action associated with the spell, Free Action clause and ability to move clause is pointless and does nothing, because it's superseded by the exception imposed).

The burden of proof resides with those who are saying the exception is there. Am I one of those people? No. But you are. So I suggest you point to me what sentence in Spell Combat tells me that the Touch Spell you cast must be delivered right after you cast the spell associated with the ability, because me (and several others) aren't seeing it.

6. The ability doesn't say "off-hand use" though. It says "off-hand weapon," but even that makes no sense. You're the one who's saying it's an "off-hand use", so that means it's one of your strawman arguments.

7. Not disputing it's part of the Full Round Action. What's disputed in #6 is the fact that "off-hand use" is even said and can be taken as a valid answer. The only thing you can say for sure is that it's part of a Full Round Action, because the casting time or even duration required for casting that spell is not listed. Saying that it's a Standard Action also isn't technically correct, because the only limitation is that the spell cast within Spell Combat is normally 1 Standard Action.

9. No, no, no. F%!@ing hell, NO. You're contradicting yourself by saying this crap, both on saying you understand point #3, and by other things you've said. You can't let a character grip-shift to count as two-handed for AoOs (which you have specifically stated multiple times to allow), and then deny a character to grip-shift to two-hand a Spellstrike delivery because Spell combat. They're mutually exclusive events that take place within the same limitations. If I can't grip-shift to two-hand Spellstrike a spell cast through Spell Combat, whether it's outside my turn, or within Spell Combat, then I can't grip-shift to two-hand for the purposes of AoOs under the same conditions, because both are identical Free Actions (grip-shifting) that are occurring within the Full Round Action being taken (Spell Combat). The only difference is the reason for doing so (Spellstrike V.S. AoOs), which is irrelevant in the case of performing a Full Round Action like Spell Combat.

10. I asked what you meant by "self-contained," because that is neither a game term, nor a gamer term. That definition is flawed in relation to Touch Spells, because Touch Spells can be held, and you've stated repeatedly that they're a part of Spell Combat. Therefore, a held Touch Spell that isn't discharged in the same round means that Spell Combat, in that case, isn't resolved, because the spell effects haven't transpired.

Unless you're suggesting that merely casting the spell is part of it, in which case you're only proving my point that the Free Action to deliver the spell that was cast both A. Doesn't have to be taken, and B. Is irrelevant to Spell Combat's function and requirements (whereas you've stated before that delivering the spell is, in fact, part of Spell Combat).

-Once again, nobody's saying the spell cast from Spell Combat is a Quickened Spell except you. That's a strawman, created from a theoretical strawman, inadvertantly disguised as another strawman. (The Tropic Thunder Strawman, I call it.)

I'll also point out that if it is, then that's yet another condition as to why I can't cast a Quickened Spell in the same round I perform Spell Combat (as you can only do one Quickened Spell per round, both because Swift Action limitations, and by specific Quickened Spell limitations), an argument that I've never used (because it's a strawman).

I'm aware of that, I'm just ribbing you.

But those are situations you create when you make equivalency subjects like that. It's the same reason why there is a FAQ that says SLAs don't qualify for PRC and Feat subjects unless they specify the ability to cast a specific spell, because people were using things like the Aasimar Daylight SLA to qualify for Mystic Theurge, when they otherwise can't cast Arcane/Divine spells.

Same principle here. Stating that Spells are Attacks means that people will come to the conclusion that any time you attack, you can merely cast a spell, and eventually we're going to be thrown a (mostly useless) FAQ saying that you can't do that, despite the RAW saying Spells are Attacks. It's not exactly healthy for the game system to keep throwing in contradictory subjects like that.

thaX wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Yes, dropping out of a Full Attack Action after the first attack is resolved is a specific exception to the general rule of committing to an action once you undergo its resolution. I can't stop a spell mid-action because I realize an enemy has readied against my spellcast, meaning I have to make a concentration check or lose the spell. That's bulls%!^, and you know it.

Whirlwind Attack still isn't a Full Round Action. It requires a Full Attack Action, that much is true, but that doesn't mean that it's an activity in and of itself, the same way Rapid Shot and Hammer the Gap aren't Full Attack Actions. Except, by your argument, they are, which means I can't stack any of those subjects with anything else that is a Full Attack Action, like Spell Combat, TWF, and so on.

If you're going to say that all spells are attacks, then I can substitute a spell anytime I would make an attack. I mean, spells are attacks now, right? This applies for any attack, whether it's a regular Full Attack, TWF, or even on AoOs. See how silly that sounds? That's a strawman, which is permitted by your interpretation that spells are attacks, which therefore means it's not correct.

You can still make the concentration check, unless the GM is a total feeb.

Ok, Full Attack is a Full Round Action. Whirlwind attack is worded in such a way to effect a full attack from something else as a part of it. Specifically the wording of "When you use the full-attack action." Spell Combat is a Full Round Action already. It is my belief that these two can not be used together, nor do they have any benefit from doing so. (Unless the caster can use a buff spell in place of the spell attack)

They are considered an attack. They break invisibility and are considered extra attacks when using them as a part of Spell Combat with Whirlwind Attack. It is still a spell, one considered an attack by the caster, at the time of casting.

By the way, Spell Combat is a Full Round Action, not a Full...

Never said the GM wouldn't allow the concentration check. The point to my example there is that the player can't renege his standard action to cast the spell because the GM revealed stealthed enemy archers readied against that spellcaster to disrupt any spell he casts (and therefore possibly result in said spellcaster losing his spell). It's bulls#!^ at any table that I'd consider a gaming session, and I'd see to it that player be kicked out of said table if he tried doing anything like that.

Cool, so I can cast a spell anytime I would make an attack. Thanks, Shocking Grasps as part of Full Attacks and Scorching Rays as Attacks of Opportunity are just what this system needs!

So then This FAQ right here DOESN'T mean that Spell Combat is a Full Attack for effects reliant on Full Attacks?

thaX wrote:
Response to Johnny_Devo's Post

1. Clearly, you forget what happens when you try and enforce Full Round Action RAW as-is. You get "interpretations" like mine where you sit there and call it a strawman, even though that's exactly what the RAW says would happen in accordance to the defined game terms being used.

2. Having the ability at first level is clarified by the Magus table entry. Several 1st level features don't state that so-and-so class gets so-and-so feature at 1st level, so saying it's a problem in this case is irrelevant.

Off-hand is practically pointless to keep because TWF isn't mentioned either, which is the only place where an Off-hand matters (in the context of TWF).

The last is flavor text, which is about as flavor text as the Reactionary trait stating you were bullied as a kid. Quite frankly, a lot of flavor text can go out the window, especially when describing a given subject's game mechanics.

You're right, TWF itself doesn't disallow Dervish Dance anymore than Flurry of Blows does. Dervish Dance is disallowed because the spell (which is wielded in your hand) is specifically stated to be a weapon. It's not an unarmed "natural" weapon made armed through features, which is what an Unarmed Strike is, and doesn't shut down Dervish Dance.

Nice try, though.

3. It's a contention because Full Round Action RAW strawmen, as described in point #1. I'm surprised you even had to ask why it is.

4. That's bulls#!^ and you know it. Full Round Action spells don't change the A->B function any more than a Standard Action spell does, and you're just trying to make it work because you can't face the strawmen that were created with the Full Round Action RAW.

5. Speaking of strawmen, here's one now. Notice the stuff after the first part, as a full-round action, none of which says anything along the lines of "Which must be done as part of Spell Combat." Lacking such verbiage means you can't connect this any more than Spell-Like Abilities to Spells for requirements of feats, prestige classes, and so on (which required a FAQ to do so), and likewise means that it's a strawman interpretation until further clarification is granted. Which is unlikely to happen.

6. There's no such casting time or action as "Off-hand use," either in the Actions in Combat table, the Combat chapter as a whole, or even the Magic chapter. Strawman alert, burn it with fire.

7. First off, you contradicted yourself by saying the spell use is transformed to a Full Round Action by Spell Combat, as that implies the spell itself takes a Full Round Action to cast, when you've just said before that its casting time is "Off-hand use." (And before that, you've stated that it's a different casting time, though I forget what it was, exactly. Make up your mind, seriously.) Second off, imparting its abilities doesn't mean you have to use the Free Action to deliver it in the same action associated with the spell being cast.

(Skipping 8, as nothing to say there)

9. Clearly, Point #3 isn't as understood as you're suggesting, as the "The magus must have one hand free" restriction only applies for the duration of Spell Combat, which is a Full Round Action. The argument being made with this addendum is that "If a Full Round Action doesn't take your entire turn to complete (1), and shifting grip is a Free Action (8), then I can grip-shift outside of Spell Combat (the resulting point #9).

10. "Self-contained" in what manner, exactly? Also, nothing in Spell Combat says or even implies that the components of the ability (the spell or the attacks) have to be self-contained, which means that this is also a strawman argument.


And now you're the one proposing that the spell cast within Spell Combat is a Swift Action, which you called before to be a strawman argument that we created. Look who's the strawman now!

No, the spell suffers the -2 penalty because Spell Combat specifically says the spell suffers the -2 penalty, not because it's done as part of Spell Combat like you're saying. In fact, any attack you make with that spell (such as multiple attacks with Chill Touch) suffers the -2 penalty, even if it's made as a Free Action, as a Standard Action, as part of a Full Attack in the following round, whatever.

According to you, the -2 penalty would apply regardless of Spell Combat specifically stating so, which means the text is as redundant and pointless as the TWF text, and therefore shouldn't even be there, especially with the interpretation that you must deliver the Touch Spell during Spell Combat.

thaX wrote:
The character can't use a free action he does not yet have...

This is precisely what I am saying in relation to a Full Round Action Touch Spell. The caster does not have (more accurately, he does not fulfill the condition required to take) the Free Action to deliver the spell until the Full Round Action is complete. The Full Round Action isn't complete until his turn is complete.

That's all I'm saying.

And you're saying that waiting until the spell is cast shouldn't be the case for Free/Swift Actions? For real?

Then why the hell do we have rules text that says waiting until the spell is cast is exactly the case, with the Touch Spell in Combat entry effectively stating A->B, and Ranged Touch Spells in Combat providing a specific exception to the general rule of A->B, the Concentration rules requiring you to maintain concentration until the spell completes, and so on?

You have OVER THREE rules sources that tell us otherwise, and they are quite consistent and coherent to most everybody else on these boards, so I suggest you re-evaluate that philosophy, because if you present it to most anyone else, they're going to give you a strange look and throw the book at you to read it again until you get it right.

Yes, dropping out of a Full Attack Action after the first attack is resolved is a specific exception to the general rule of committing to an action once you undergo its resolution. I can't stop a spell mid-action because I realize an enemy has readied against my spellcast, meaning I have to make a concentration check or lose the spell. That's bulls%!^, and you know it.

Whirlwind Attack still isn't a Full Round Action. It requires a Full Attack Action, that much is true, but that doesn't mean that it's an activity in and of itself, the same way Rapid Shot and Hammer the Gap aren't Full Attack Actions. Except, by your argument, they are, which means I can't stack any of those subjects with anything else that is a Full Attack Action, like Spell Combat, TWF, and so on.

If you're going to say that all spells are attacks, then I can substitute a spell anytime I would make an attack. I mean, spells are attacks now, right? This applies for any attack, whether it's a regular Full Attack, TWF, or even on AoOs. See how silly that sounds? That's a strawman, which is permitted by your interpretation that spells are attacks, which therefore means it's not correct.

The Archive wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
thaX wrote:

You need not declare a Full Round Action right away, and can drop out of it after the first attack if need be. But since the Full Round Action takes the whole round to do, it is otherwise the full round.

If it is easier for the player to parse it out as before/after, it is fine to do so. We have likely been doing it for the past 20 years in this game. The only particular to keep in mind is trying to do shenanigans outside of the full round action to gain an advantage, which is what was wanted when this issue came up.

Common Sense should come into play here, most feats/abilities/actions spell out what can or can not be done, and how various things are parsed out within the activities performed. Whirlwind Attack, for example, states that any extra attacks are forfeit for a single attack on each target in range. If there are six targets, a free action is not going to enable a seventh. (A swift action will, if it results in an attack, such as Quickened spell being cast)

That's a specific exception to the general rule. If you declare anything other than the Full Round Action first, then you're forfeit from taking a Full Round Action per RAW, since that means your Full Round Action isn't taking the entire round as it's supposed to.

This is false. Provably false. It's just outright wrong and been brought up multiple times already.

PRD wrote:
A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action.

That RAW doesn't break the specific limitations of the actions you take, which is where the problem lies.

Lay On Hands still requires a Free Hand, and same with casting a Full Round Action spell (or any spell in general that has somatic components, Swift Action spells included), or delivering a Touch Spell after its cast; they have specific requirements that must be fulfilled in order to perform them.

Taking the RAW you quoted for granted, then that means the subjects I mentioned above (and several others) don't require the limitations I've described, which means that rule breaks the RAI (and other relevant RAW) of the options in question.

Goth Guru wrote:

That was me talking to myself.

If you think that was a strawman argument I am very proud!:p
There is no rule against Strawman Arguments on these boards.

It's hard to tell, since that reply was made directly after I stated Spell Combat's penalties would apply to the spell, regardless of it being an actual attack or not.

Either way, the interpretation is (technically) a strawman.

@ Johnny_Devo: To be fair, I'm not the one who used the term "strawman" first. That was thaX and co. who did. But since you seem confused as to why it's being thrown around, here's a link to help explain what a "strawman" is. (It took me a few looks for me to finally understand what the term was conveying, though.)

In short, a strawman is where you take a person's argument, misinterpret it, and present a supposedly relevant counterargument based on that misinterpretation. A solid example is Goth Guru's statement that Spell Combat would present a -2 to the Save DC of the spell you cast based on the rule that Spell Combat imposes a penalty to all attacks (and spells) you perform within that activity.

Ironically enough, people would throw that term out, even though it is entirely possible that they are incorrect (and therefore they are technically the strawman), because the ideal is that their interpretation is the correct one, whereas everybody else's is incorrect due to supposedly not grasping the rules (which is why they call everybody else "strawmen"). Of course, I don't recall using that term in that manner, I merely used the term "strawman" because I thought the definition was to refer to something that was irrelevant. I was half right, but only because the irrelevance was drawn due to not possessing the proper syntax in relation to the rules being discussed, resulting in a misinterpretation that (most likely) has no or incorrect application to the rules being discussed.

I hope that helps clear things up for you.

That's the damage of a dedicated blaster. (It's not a sorcerer, by the way.)

Considering that a good rule of thumb for determining unlikelihood of getting hit is equal to 20 + character level, 27 AC at level 9 is decent. Not optimal, but certainly good for a Cleric that isn't buffed.

Also, at 9th level, with average D10 hit dice and 14 Constitution (which is fairly hefty), a creature would have ~80 hit points. For a truly dedicated blaster, since they can cast an Intensified Empowered Fireball for a 4th level spell slot, and deal 1.5(13D6+13) damage, or an average of 59, that's almost 3/4 of their hit points gone within a single round, and that's just on one creature. Fireball is an area of effect.

Yes, there's a save DC, but our example creature (Giants) has crap Reflex, and a dedicated blaster will have a solid Save DC of 10 + 3 + 7 + 1, or approximately 21, so the likelihood of that creature making the save is pretty slim.

Full Round Actions take an entire round to complete. Therefore, Full Round Actions you perform don't take effect until one round later, at the start of your next turn, and any restrictions incurred from that Full Round Action last until the start of your next turn.

Greatswords (and other certain weapons) do not specify the material they are made out of. This means I can make a Greatsword out of Candy, or Bread, or Dirt. Or even, nothing at all.

Expanding on that bolded part.

-Step 1: Create Greatsword out of nothing, for no cost, no material, and no crafting check required (as it's impossible to make a check on something that has no material, which means no hardness, hit points, and so on)
-Step 2: Continue to create Greatswords out of nothing for as much as desired.
-Step 3: Vendor Greatswords of nothingness you created for 25 gold a piece.
-Step 4: ???
-Step 5: Profit.

Per RAW, it does. It increases all saving throws of those spells, which would include rider effects, such as what you've listed.

Per RAI, I don't think it would, primarily because Rime-Blooded isn't an effect of the spell (which is what those feats are meant to enhance), and is merely an effect of your bloodline when you cast those spells.

Either way, I'd chalk it up to table variance/Ask your GM, because at the end of the day, he says what happens at your table.

I'd request a character audit before moving forward with anything. As GM, you have every right to make sure your players are making their characters correctly, and if they are making mistakes, then you should be aware, and correct the situation; especially if the mistakes are giving them unprecedented power.

I don't know how a character is getting immunity to an element by 9th level, especially as a Fire Cleric/Elementalist combo, whatever that is. Fire Clerics get resistances, yes, and maybe Elementalists too, but I don't think Resistances stack, and Fire Clerics only get immunity when they hit level 20, which is basically their capstone. So, I'd demand an audit so you understand how he's coming up with that.

I'd only suggest cranking up mobs if the other characters are having just as easy of a time, and even then, I'd ask the players if they think the AP is too easy, and then proceed to ninja-buff the monsters to give them more of a challenge.

In regards to buffing the mobs to counteract the cleric, note that AC is a minor defense, especially at 9th level, and will proceed to become miniscule as the levels increase.

His Reflex saves ought to suck nuts, since Clerics don't get good Reflex saves, though I don't know how invested in Dexterity he is. Determine how much of it is Flat-Footed AC, and how much is Touch AC. Target the lesser of those two if you can, and he won't be nearly as bad to hit.

Clerics are also fairly reliant on buffs if they're wanting to participate in combat. Catching them off-guard, before they get time to buff, is also a fair tactic.

Remember, just because he invested in Escape Artist doesn't mean he's good at it. His Escape Artist roll replaces his entire CMB roll to break the grapple. Even with full skill ranks (9) plus Dexterity (I don't know how much), and maybe the class skill, that's at least a +12, which isn't bad, it's certainly an upgrade to what he's probably had before (which is ~6 + whatever crap Strength he has). But, I'd be careful with trying to nullify his character choice of investing in Escape Artist, because he'd know you're trying to cheat him out of it.

Think area effects; just because he's small, with big AC, and an Escape Artist, doesn't mean he can't be affected by things like Fireball, Web, and so on. Heck, even stuff that simply targets creatures likewise would work, since you don't even need an attack roll or anything to affect them.

**EDIT** If he's throwing fireballs (I think he only gets that 1/day as a Domain spell as a Cleric), counterspell him. Dispel Magic does wonders as a counterspelling agent.

Any information on the party and the cleric (as well as any special rules) would be appreciative as well, if you want more precise and helpful feedback.

Goth Guru wrote:
In spell combat, the quickened cheese spell is still -2 to hit. This is not the place to suggest -2 to the save DC for spells cast during spell combat, by the Mangus.

Nobody's suggesting a -2 to the hypothetical spell's Save DC except you. That's a strawman argument.

Talonhawke wrote:
Could someone refresh me on how you are combining SC with WA?

Whirlwind Attack alters a Full Attack Action that you take, be it TWF, Flurry of Blows, and so on.

Spell Combat FAQ says it counts as a Full Attack Action for Haste and other effects.

Therefore, Whirlwind Attack can be used in conjunction with Spell Combat, based that Spell Combat counts as a Full Attack Action for Whirlwind Attack.

People argue that the FAQ refers only to Haste and Haste-like effects, to which point I say, "Why would the FAQ say "and other effects," when anything that functions like Haste refers to and says it doesn't stack with Haste?" I also say that it's easy to have the FAQ say "and Haste-like effects," instead of "and other effects," so suggesting that it's limited to that is silly.

Especially when we have other things reliant on Full Attack Actions, such as Rapid Shot (for Eldritch Archer Magi), Hammer the Gap, and so on.

thaX wrote:

You need not declare a Full Round Action right away, and can drop out of it after the first attack if need be. But since the Full Round Action takes the whole round to do, it is otherwise the full round.

If it is easier for the player to parse it out as before/after, it is fine to do so. We have likely been doing it for the past 20 years in this game. The only particular to keep in mind is trying to do shenanigans outside of the full round action to gain an advantage, which is what was wanted when this issue came up.

Common Sense should come into play here, most feats/abilities/actions spell out what can or can not be done, and how various things are parsed out within the activities performed. Whirlwind Attack, for example, states that any extra attacks are forfeit for a single attack on each target in range. If there are six targets, a free action is not going to enable a seventh. (A swift action will, if it results in an attack, such as Quickened spell being cast)

That's a specific exception to the general rule. If you declare anything other than the Full Round Action first, then you're forfeit from taking a Full Round Action per RAW, since that means your Full Round Action isn't taking the entire round as it's supposed to.

Shenanigans is doing something that is obviously not intended. Denying a spell is not shenanigans, because the intent that Whirlwind Attack prevents spells is not only not RAW, but because it was written well before things like Spell Combat came to be (though Quickened Spells were still a thing), is highly unlikely to be enforced. It's the same reasoning why, for example, a Fighter wearing a Sash of the War Champion doesn't all-of-a-sudden get a free "flexible" Advanced Armor Training ability.

The argument is even more ironic when you say that you can use a Quickened Spell, but you can't use a regular spell allotted through Spell Combat, even though per RAW, the Quickened Spell suffers all of the same restrictions and limitations as the spell you normally cast, since the Quickened Spell takes place within the action that is restricting the regular spell, and cannot take place in any other point in time.

And that's assuming you can provide the somatic components provided for that Quickened Spell; which, based on the FAQ and restrictions associated with Spell Combat, you can't.

Agodeshalf wrote:

Since we keep circling back to spell combat...

If the spell combat take my entire round, and it's penalties and restrictions are in effect during that timeframe, then does that mean that I can't cast a quickened spell during spell combat because I have no free hand as spell combat is using both hands?

or can I cast the quickened spell *before* or *after* spell combat, and have a free hand that will be used in for spell combat?

I don't see how *both* can be true

The bolded portion is precisely what I've been saying this whole time. Of course this is actually harder to personally refute due to a FAQ and Spell Combat inadvertantly likening itself to the content within that FAQ. I don't think I can ever refute it, but if you cast a Quickened spell that doesn't possess somatic components (maybe a Quickened Still Shocking Grasp?), then it's plausible, but if the spell isn't discharged before you cast the other (regular) spell, then it dissipates as normal.

ShieldLawrence wrote:

I was inclined to think they could stack:

CHA to DEX (AC purposes only)

I was reading it as an inflated DEX bonus to AC and a CHA bonus to AC. Similar to an enhancement bonus to armor and an enhancement bonus to natural armor.

Both situations provided would work, the former of which would be the case with, for example, a Scaled Fist Monk and an Enlightened Paladin. (Which seems cool and is definitely worth trying for a campaign...)

Adding your Charisma modifier to your Dexterity modifier to AC still works, because you're merely improving your Dexterity modifier through adding your Charisma modifier. Of course, this means that your new Dexterity modifier to AC (which I imagine would also apply to CMD, but RAI would suggest no) is likewise limited by things that rely on it, such as being Flat-footed, and having a Maximum Dexterity Bonus with your current armor. It merely improves your existing Dexterity Bonus, which is already typed, by an amount equal to your Charisma modifier, which does not overwrite the existing type.

But it is not the same as the OP's situation, which is using Charisma in place of Dexterity, and then using Charisma as a flat improvement to his Charisma (which was Dexterity, but was changed into Charisma).

Even reversing the equation, the result is the same: You're still getting your Charisma modifier to AC twice. The difference here is that your example follows the restrictions of Dexterity while still maintaining being typed as a Dexterity Bonus. In the OP's example, that Dexterity Bonus is changed to a Charisma Bonus (and he only adds Maximum Dexterity Bonuses and Armor Check Penalties because the rules specifically say so).

I hope that helps explain it.

@ Johnny_Devo: Some addendums to your points.

1. The RAW actually says it takes an entire "round," not "turn," an oversight on my behalf I might add.

The argument is that it should be turn, and not round, but due to mechanical (and purposefully written) game terms, the RAW would actually suggest that a Full Round Action takes an entire round (meaning its effects wouldn't take place until the start of your next turn) to complete, meaning, for example, a Full Attack Action's results would not take place until the start of your next turn (since one round has not passed until then). Just food for thought.

2. Spell Combat would only take massive penalties if you lacked the TWF feats. At best, you're at -4/-4, but per the FAQ regarding special abilities, since you cannot finesse with Touch Spells (as they are not considered light weapons), it's -6/-6. Still hefty, but massive would be the -8/-12 you would have without the TWF feats. It'd also make the Magus more feat-reliant, which is probably not intended.

Of course, this would also mean that ITWF and GTWF (if the Magus was so inclined to take those feats) would break as well, since your off-hand weapon becomes a spell, and that means you would have multiple opportunities to either cast spells (or deliver a spell that you've cast with those extra attacks). In other words, feast (3+ spells with standard action casting time in a round) or famine (1 spell ever, and the feats do nothing since once the spell is discharged, you can't attack unless the spell is something like Chill Touch).

3. Expanding on this with point #1, if we took the RAW that it takes an entire round for the effects of a Full Round Action (barring exceptions like Full Round Action spells), this means that the restrictions of an action would extend until the start of your next turn. So, those Spell Combat/TWF/Flurry of Blows penalties? Would apply to any AoOs you make as well. Heck, it can even be argued that, because your hands are busy, you can't make AoOs with weapons in your hands, so unless you have natural weapons (like a Bite/Gore attack) or an Unarmed Strike, or non-hand weapon, you can't make AoOs. More food for thought.

4. If the intent is that they are supposed to be done as part of casting the spell, the line regarding Free Actions would be omitted entirely, and you likewise wouldn't be able to move before, during, or after casting, in the same vein you couldn't move before, during, or after attacking. (Spring Spell Metamagic feat, anyone?)

5. Again, the fact that Spell Combat specifically mentions that its penalties apply to any attacks made from the spell means that spells aren't inherently attacks, and that any attacks provided from the spell you cast aren't part of the normal Spell Combat routine that would normally suffer the penalties. Otherwise, the associated line would be omitted due to redundancy, since the base assumption is that the spell you cast from Spell Combat is an Attack (and suffers the issues mentioned in my point #4), and Spell Combat's penalties apply to all associated attacks you make through Spell Combat, spell or not.

6. A RAW argument against this would be that it specifically requires a hand free, even though the spell you cast may not have somatic components. To that point, I would argue that if the free hand required is for simply fulfilling the conditions required for Spell Combat, how are you fulfilling any somatic components for the associated spell you're casting during the Spell Combat action?

Other than that, I have nothing to add to (and otherwise agree with) the synopsis posted.

thaX wrote:

I know when the spell is cast. If your confused about that, please look at Grick's Guide for help.

The parallel to TWF is used to help acklemate the player to the purpose and use of the ability, not to hamstring the Magus into impossibilities such as the strawman you introduced.

Free Actions do not need to wait on the full round action to complete. Nothing in the rules quoted, FAQ's linked, or in the discussion as a whole has changed this. They simply can be done at any time the character can use them.

Can the Magus technically two hand a weapon after the full attack is over? Since the Spell Combat is a Full Round Action specifically, likely not. Would a GM allow for it to use for AoO's? I think so, though likely using the parsing commonly used by all of us.

You can finish the spell within your turn, the rules even say it.

Core Rulebook wrote:

Note that this isn’t the

same as a spell with a 1-round casting time. Spells that take
a full-round action to cast take effect in the same round that
you begin casting, and you are not required to continue the
invocations, gestures, and concentration until your next
turn. For spells with a longer casting time, it takes an extra
full-round action to cast the metamagic spell.
So this means that the spell takes effect before the turn is over, as a part of the full round casting. This is not turning the spell into a 1 round casting cost, just as Spell Combat does not turn a touch attack spell into a swift casting. The way you are parsing this is silly and extreme.

Grick's Guide has nothing to say besides what I've already mentioned, which is that the spell is only confirmed to be cast when the Full Round Action is completed, since A. the casting time of the spell is not specifically mentioned, and B. the time at which you start casting the spell is variant, and likewise is dependant upon the answer to point A, which you cannot confirm with absolute certainty.

The term is "acclimate," for your information. Acklemate just sounds like a misspelled word of something that's highly irrelevant. Anyway...If it's a parallel, then anything that Spell Combat does not change or alter in any way, means you revert to the TWF rules. Spell Combat does not replace the TWF penalties, which means you suffer regular TWF penalties in addition to the specified -2, and your penalties are increased significantly due to not possessing the TWF feat. Any other restrictions specified by TWF that Spell Combat does not change or clarify would, as I've said before, become enforced.

Of course, this would most likely result in Spell Combat being an absolute pile of trash until the late game, where you actually have so many bonuses to your attacks that you can spare to lose some to-hit and still hit reliably, which is most likely not intended. And if that's the case, then really, the "TWF parallel" makes things more complicated and confusing than what they need to be. As I've stated previously, Spell Combat is already fully quantified, the extraneous mention of TWF is filler text that can be cut out, and Spell Combat's function would not change from how Grick's Guide would run the feature.

You're right, general Free Actions don't have to, and that's not what I'm getting at. But you're talking about a specific Free Action that requires a specific condition to be able to do so for that action type.

You think I can take a Free Action to deliver a spell any time I want? No. No, you can't. You never could. You can ONLY, AND EVER ONCE, take a Free Action to deliver a spell, AFTER THAT SPELL HAS BEEN CAST in that round. If you have not cast a spell, you do not get the ability to deliver a spell for free for that round. That's it. Full stop.

By your insane logic, even in rounds after I've cast a Touch Spell, but failed to deliver it, I can take a Free Action to deliver it again, and can do so until I deliver that spell. Do the rules allow that? No. They don't. They never did. But according to you, I can, right?

Do you finally understand the argument I'm making in relation to this subject? The Free Action to deliver the spell AND ONLY the Free Action to deliver the spell, has to wait for the Full Round Action spell to complete, in order to do so. Nothing else has to, unless it likewise has conditional modifiers such as Free Actions to deliver Touch Spells.

You can't grip-shift outside of your turn for AoOs. It's a Free Action to do so. So, unless you can do so outside your turn (such as via a Readied Action, which is quite a waste), it's impossible by the rules. If you're going to rule that you can't grip-shift after Spell Combat, then I can't grip-shift after any Full Round Action.

You don't seem to understand the point that I made there; I said that the rules you quoted are the only reason a Full Round Action spell takes place in the same round that you're casting, and that by RAW, anything that is a Full Round Action has its effects delayed by 1 round. But again, that's what the RAW says. Call it a strawman if you want, but if you're going to use RAW to serve your argument, then quite frankly it's baggage that comes with your argument's package, and you either accept the package, or send it back to whatever crazy company you got it from.

I also never said that the spell cast by Spell Combat is a Swift Action. What I've said is that you can't cast both a regular spell (through Spell Combat) and a Swift Action spell at the same time, because you cannot fulfill somatic components for that Swift Action spell. But that's not the same thing.

You need to understand my arguments better, because if you're getting "Can't Quickened + Spell Combat because somatic component problems" to equate to "Spell Combat casts a Quickened Spell," then I don't know what the point of arguing this further becomes, since all it amounts to is my argument becoming strawmanned.

thaX wrote:

"Well sure, but Attacking with a hand sure does make that hand occupied."

With what? An attack?

Obviously, you are trying to make a point, but your skipping over the fundamental reason against two handing a weapon to Spellstrike with. The hand is already being used to cast and attack with the spell. It is the reason the free hand is needed, to cast and attack with the spell. If you can't attack with the spell, what is the point of using Spell Combat?

"you literally stated, word for word, the entire basis for my argument. The attack happens after the casting. Not during. The casting happens during spell combat, and the full-attack with the weapon happen during spell combat, but the attack granted by the spell happens after."

After what? Is there something here that make the Free Action have to wait until the turn is over? Or can it be used immediately after the spell is cast? Why would this have to wait until after the Full Round Action at all? I understand the Full Attack, as it is done within the Full Round action, but why limit free actions to be done until after a point of time that limits the character and makes the whole system break?

"It is very different."

In just the way I have described. The free action attack is confusing you, looking at the spell as a two pronged process instead of a basic attack spell that does damage to a target (via touch attack) Notice, the section does not differenciate between Melee and Ranged in the section, Ranged touch attack are described further down the page, the attack made as a part of the casting of the spell, not a Non Action.

If we're likening Spell Combat to TWF as the RAW says, and a relevant TWF FAQ says that using a two-handed weapon occupies both hands, meaning you can't use that hand to wield other weapons, such as a spiked gauntlet, then yes; attacking with that hand occupies that hand for the entirety of the action, which means you can't use that hand for anything other than the original acts in question.

This means if I was using TWF to throw two Javelins, I can't draw two more Javelins via Quick Draw and continue my TWF action with those, because my hands were already occupied making attacks. I have to attack with the two Javelins that I had already drew, and only those Javelins. If I attack with anything else, even an identical Javelin, with all of the same stats and everything, your activity won't work based on the FAQ, because the Javelin you draw, even if identical, are not the same entities as the ones you attacked with.

No, what he's saying is you already used the hand to cast the spell, which is the attack you're using for the TWF action that is Spell Combat. Unless the spell itself gives you an attack, like Scorching Ray, and not an option to attack, like Shocking Grasp, then you can't cast and attack in the same turn, even if you use Spell Combat. In fact, Spell Combat makes it worse because you're likening it to TWF, which has all of the restrictions, such as what I've listed above.

In terms of a Metamagic Spell that takes a Full Round Action, you can't because the spell isn't actually cast until the end of your turn, and the ability to deliver a spell as a Free Action doesn't occur until you successfully cast a spell, and you can only do so for as long as until the start of your next turn (as 1 round would have passed by then). Since you can't take actions outside your turn unless specified, and this Free Action lists no special exception, you can't take that Free Action at the time you would be granted the ability to, due to general combat rules.

In terms of Spell Combat, it creates a Schrodinger problem, because you aren't sure at what point exactly the spell is cast. It's not definitive that the spell you're casting in Spell Combat requires a Standard Action (or that it even takes a Standard Action to cast), nor is it definitive at what point you begin casting the spell either, as you can choose to either resolve the spell first, or resolve your attacks first. The only thing that's definitive is that Spell Combat, as an action, starts at the beginning of your turn, and ends at the end of your turn, and that the spell cast takes place somewhere during that action, so a GM is well within the rights to dismiss it on the same grounds as described above, since that's all the solid evidence they are left with.

For the record, the RAW you quoted actually says that it takes the entire "round," and not "turn," so the only reason a Metamagic Spell takes effect in the same round is because there is specifics that say so. Any other generic Full Round Action that you take (such as Spell Combat, or even a generic Full Attack Action) doesn't even take effect until the start of your turn in the next round. Ironic, isn't it?

With that being said, it's quite clear that the RAW does not match the intent of it taking your turn as you're arguing, which would impose that your argument in relation to the RAW is a strawman.

thaX wrote:


where did that one come from? It is free specifically to cast the spell and impart it's effects. It replaces the the off hand attack of TWF as a casting of the spell. Again, please look at the guide, it will explain.

Free specifically in relation to what?

The Spell Combat ability doesn't say you can deliver the spell that you cast in the same action that you cast. And if I can't use that hand casting the spell to two-hand my weapon to deliver a cast spell via Spellstrike, then I sure as hell can't use it to attack or deliver the cast spell, because it is likewise busy casting the spell for Spell Combat.

And Grick's Guide says nothing like what you're saying. It never once refers to TWF or an off-hand attack, except in the case of using an unarmed strike to perform TWF to deliver an already-cast touch spell, which is a strawman. And speaking of strawmen, that would likewise mean your constant referral of TWF and off-hand attacks in relation to Spell Combat, according to what Grick's Guide says, is also a strawman.

Oh, the irony, I dare say.

Relevant FAQ says no.

Simply put, Enlightened Paladin adds your Charisma to Dexterity for the purposes of calculating AC (heck, it doesn't even apply to CMD, per RAW). Sidestep Secret substitutes Dexterity for Charisma altogether, meaning the Enlightened Paladin would add your Charisma to your Charisma for the purposes of calculating AC.

Similarly, if you receive the Divine Grace benefit of the Enlightened Paladin and attempted to utilize Sidestep Secret's Reflex Save Bonus increase, they wouldn't stack as in both instances, you are adding your Charisma Modifier to AC.

The big benefit of dipping Paladin (especially Enlightened Paladin) is to not have to take stuff like this so your defenses don't suck nuts, so you can instead get better stuff.

You should already know what they say, you've quoted the RAW to us half a dozen times. Nothing in that entry, or any other entry, says performing Swift/Free Actions completes your turn, and you of all people should know that.

But you can't use those Free/Swift Actions outside of that Full Round Action, which is what we're trying to say is possible. Nobody is saying you can't perform general Swift/Free Actions over the course of a general Full Round Action, what we're saying is that you should be able to perform Swift/Free Actions before or after undertaking/completing a Full Round Action, where the restrictions and limitations of that Full Round Action no longer apply. (What I'm saying are that specific Swift/Free Actions can't be done over the course of specific Full Round Actions, if it wasn't obvious enough.)

And you've originally said that it's not possible to do, and we were given the RAW as to the reason why.

thaX wrote:
When you do the Full Round Action, you finish it as you perform any Swift/Free actions you have at your disposal.

Oh, really? That makes things so much clearer now!


That's also not a rule, nor what the rules say. Your Full Round Action ends when your turn ends. That's what the rules say, and that's what has been quoted to us, repeatedly. You're otherwise making up conditions for your Full Round Action to end when the rules say differently. Moving goal posts, in other words.

If I took a simple Full Round Action, with no Free/Swift Actions, my turn would still end at the same time than if I didn't take those same actions, especially when we take the RAW for what it says, and not what you want it to say.

thaX wrote:
Remember, Free/Swift actions can be done at anytime.

No, they can't. If they truly could, then you could perform Free/Swift Actions outside of the results and ramifications of a Full Round Action, and you've already made yourself explicitly clear that Swift/Free Actions can't work that way, so no, they can't "be done at anytime."

With you making that statement, you're either conceding one of the largest tenants of your argument (in which case you have no reason to say 1.5x Strength Spellstrike is impossible), or being a hypocrite.

Or dare I say, inventing your own strawman for your own argument.

You're talking like I'm a GM who is issuing this ruling, when I have posted that I'm merely providing Devil's Advocate to the side saying you can't take Free/Swift Actions before or after Full Round Actions, taking the RAW they're presenting as their proof, and providing examples as to why them taking it as proof is invalid. My stance has always been that you are able to perform Swift/Free Actions before or after Full Round Actions, and it still is.

RSX Raver wrote:
Johnny_Devo wrote:
RSX Raver wrote:
The FAQ about Spell Combat and Haste mentions the Spell Combat interacts with effects that grant additional attacks, not feats. Spell Combat is not the Full Attack Action and therefore is not eligible for Whirlwind Attack. Unless you can show a post where they clarified it, but I have no seen it anywhere. So that is not a valid scenario to even have a debate about.

The question answered was "Magus, Spell Combat: Does spell combat count as making a full attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects?"

And the answer given is a flat "Yes."

You have to admit that this is pretty convincing evidence, as whirlwind attack states "When you use the full-attack action".

I personally maintain that "feats" counts as "other effects", otherwise rapid shot would not work with ranged spell combat on the eldritch archer magus.

The further questions, like "how much do you actually benefit" and "do you even benefit at all" are questions I think deserve a FAQ, because the feat uses language that appears to be referring to differently used but undefined game terms.

You need to read the entire FAQ then.

FAQ wrote:
Edit 9/9/13: This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with effects that are essentially a full attack, even though the creature isn't specifically using the full attack action (as required by haste). The earlier ruling did not allow the extra attack from haste when using spell combat.
This ruling is for Haste and Haste-like effects, not Whirlwind. Feats are feats, not "other effects" because they consistently say the word feat when they mean them.

Assuming that the FAQ refers only and specifically to Haste, there would be no reason to add "and other effects" to the FAQ question then, since everything that grants any abilities like the Haste Spell would otherwise refer to (and say it doesn't stack with) the Haste Spell.

Even if it was addressed specifically for Haste, this is the inverted equivalent of saying that the Effective/Actual Size FAQ doesn't apply to Shield Spikes because the rules didn't say that it applied to Shield Spikes, despite containing content that would (and should) pertain to it.

Whirlwind Attack isn't the only thing that refers to taking a Full Attack Action. Let's say I'm an Eldritch Archer Magus, and I take Rapid Shot, are you telling me that if I Spell Combat I don't get the extra attack from Rapid Shot? What about Hammer the Gap, are you saying if I Spell Combat, I can't benefit from that feat either? I also imagine there are others, but those are some big ones.

RSX Raver wrote:
Everyone seems to assume that as soon as your Full Round Action ends, so does your turn. If I full attack, after my last swing of my weapon the Full Round Action is over. I can still 5 foot step, or cast a quickened spell, or use my Lay on Hands on myself. You deliver the spell as part of the Full Round Action, it is not that complicated. Everyone is reading way too much into the fluff text at the start of the description to Full Round Action. It is meant to give you an idea as to why you do not get a Move or Standard action when performing a Full Round Action.

Because the RAW specifically says a Full Round Action takes your entire turn to complete. Therefore, if your turn isn't finished, likewise your Full Round Action also isn't finished, because their durations are both synchronized and simultaneous.

If an entire turn is equal to X (which is the amount of time a turn takes in the combat round), and a Full Round Action is equal to an entire turn, then a Full Round Action is equal to X in terms of how long it takes to complete it, based on the transitive property of A=B=C -> A=C.

Again, you need to understand my argument better. You made the same mistake Squiggit (and thaX) made, assuming that I'm disallowing actions based on them simply being actions. That's wrong, and that's never what I've said.

What I've said is certain actions, such as Lay On Hands and Quickened Spells, which have restrictions and limitations listed in their respective features, apply, and are independant from the Full Round Action you're undertaking. In other words, you need to fulfill the restrictions and limitations for options separately.

For example, in order to use both a Quickened Spell/Lay On Hands and a Metamagic Spell, you need two hands free, the ability to speak (in the case of a Quickened Spell, you'll need to speak two incantations at once, though again, in-tandem is fine in my books), and the components (for both spells if using Quickened) at the time of casting. If you can't meet those requirements, you can't take those actions together.

It's no different than somebody arguing that they can wield four weapons at once while only having two arms.

Sure, if they're using two one-handed weapons, an unarmed strike (which is a weapon in this case), and armor spikes, they're wielding four weapons at once, but if they wanted to wield four one-handed weapons in their hands at once, and only have two arms...well, there you go, you have somebody who wants to try and do something but doesn't meet the requirements to do so (in this case, lacking of four arms to actually wield said weapons).

The above scenario (using both a Metamagic and Quickened Spell/Lay On Hands at once) is absolutely no different.

Thanks, Johnny_Devo, for clarifying my point. (And no, that's not sarcasm.)

Welcome to what I propose is Schrodinger's Touch Spell.

There is the Shield Gauntlet Style Feat Chain that lets you treat a Gauntlet/Spiked Gauntlet you wear as a shield that grants a +1 Bonus. It also counts as a Buckler for feats/abilities that rely on it, and it still treats you as having a free hand.

It requires Weapon Focus in your Gauntlet/Spiked Gauntlet, though, and that you normally have proficiency in bucklers and light shields.

Squiggit wrote:

What about a skirmisher ranger? I use surprise shift to move adjacent to an opponent as a swift action and then make a full attack against them.

Under the assumption that I must begin my turn with a full attack, this interaction becomes impossible as I cannot initiate the full attack from my starting position.

This leads to the even more bizarre result of ending up adjacent to a target with both my standard and move actions available and yet somehow unable to initiate a full attack.

I'm sorry I just can't buy that.

You need to read the arguments I made with the RAW more carefully, you're jumping to conclusions with other actions without understanding that the argument I make is based on the chain of events and the restrictions of said events.

The Metamagic Spell argument is that I can't deliver a spell that isn't cast (as a Free Action, at least). A spell isn't cast until the action associated with the spell is completed (except in the case of 1 Round Spells, but that's its own exception, and is otherwise specifically listed). The action associated with a spell is a Full Round Action. A Full Round Action takes your entire turn to complete. Therefore, the Metamagic Spell takes your entire turn, start to finish, to cast. And we all know that once your turn finishes, with the exception of Immediate Actions (or abilities that let you take activities outside your turn), you can't take any other actions, including the Free Action to deliver the spell you just cast.

The Quicken Spell argument can be made in tandem with the Metamagic Spell argument, but the big thing to note is that the Quickened Spell can only be done while performing a Metamagic Spell, as the Metamagic Spell, as I've described above, like other Full Round Actions, takes your entire turn, start to finish, to complete. This means that you must be able to fulfill the components for both spells at once in order to be able to cast them. If you can't do both at once, you can't do both of them at the same time at all. In other words, you need two hands for Somatic components (even if very briefly), you need to be able to speak two sets of incantations at once for Verbal components (I don't even think that's plausible, but the argument that you can mix the incantations to function in tandem works well enough for me), you need to have your Material/Focus components drawn before you proceed to cast the spell, and so on.

When you apply the Quickened Spell argument to other Full Round Actions with similar or identical restrictions, such as TWF and Spell Combat, you realize that the ability to do so under those conditions is impossible as you are unable to fulfill the components required. Hell, even things like Lay On Hands, which likewise require a hand free, can't be done under those circumstances.

Going over your example, you can still do what you said you're going to do, because the Swift Action can be done as you start your Full Attack, before you make any attack rolls. There are no restrictions or limitations listed in a generic Full Attack Action (or a Full Round Action in general) that would make you unable to perform the Swift Action Trick you described. Yes, you must declare that you are going to Full Attack, but you don't have to make all of your attack rolls the instant you declare a Full Attack.

Whereas, with my examples, I've given explicit reason why you can't do so, and that is because of the limitations/restrictions of the actions you're undertaking interfere with themselves. If the Full Attack you make has any restrictions, such as requiring two hands using specific weapons, in the case of TWF, those restrictions are upheld for the entirety of the action you're taking, and would apply even if you're attempting to do other actions in conjunction with that action.

thaX wrote:
Ok. Let us take a look at Free Action, as I quoted in the other thread.

Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of

time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions
while taking another action normally. However, there are
reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as
decided by the GM.
So, where does it say I need to wait for the other action to complete? I don't see it. I see that a Free Action can be taken while taking another action, exactly the opposite of what you just expanded on. So, why can't I take a Free Action again?

Except, the Free Action to deliver the spell can't be done until the spell is cast. It's a specific restriction imposed on that type of Free Action that trumps the general limitations (or lack thereof) of Free Actions.

Read the RAW again:

Touch Spells in Combat wrote:
Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

So, time for some Reading Comprehension 101. Take the bolded portion. Note that it's separated by commas. The first section's content denotes a condition, the second section's content denotes an activity you can perform in relation to fulfilling the first section's listed condition. Switching the two sections around, we get this sentence:

Touch Spells in Combat (For Dummies) wrote:
You may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action in the same round that you cast the spell.

This means that you may only be able to Touch a Target as a Free Action in the same round that you cast the spell. If you don't cast a spell within a given round, you can't touch as a Free Action.

Otherwise, delivering a spell is making a Touch Attack, which is a Standard Action to make the Attack Action (or done as part of a Full Attack Action), as is the general rule for delivering Touch Spells.

thaX wrote:
Because you parroted the strawman that Darksol introduced, that a spell could not be completed in a full round action because it's effects needs to be done after the full round is over. The rules never say this.

Yes they do. You just can't admit what horrible RAW monster you've created.

Full Round Actions take your entire turn to complete. This is what the RAW says.

A Spell isn't complete until the action being spent to cast the spell is complete; in the case of a Metamagic spell, a Full Round Action. Based on the current rules, I don't see anything that would indicate otherwise. If you do, feel free to point it out, but you and I both agreed on this point before, so if you do point anything out, that tells me your stance on this matter changed.

You can only deliver a Touch Spell as a Free Action in the same round you complete casting it. This is what the RAW says.

You can't take actions outside of your turn unless an action (or action type) specifically says otherwise. This is what the RAW says.

So, let's add all that up into a nice little (sensible) loopy circle.

An Intensified Shocking Grasp takes a Full Round Action to cast. The Full Round Action takes your entire turn to complete. This means the spell isn't complete until your turn is likewise completed. This means that the conditions to deliver the spell as a Free Action only exist after your turn is done (as your turn is finished, but the round isn't, unless you're the last in Initiative, but even then). The ability to deliver the spell as a Free Action cannot be done outside your turn, as there is no explicit mention of being able to do so, meaning you're forced to hold the charge as your turn ends, because you have no spell that is cast until your turn ends, meaning the conditions to make a Free Action Touch never appear until your turn ends.

Squiggit wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:
Free and swift actions take place DURING full round actions. There is no space before or after.

I just don't see why not. There's no special rule that says your turn immediately ends after you complete a full round action, nor that a full round action needs to be the first thing you take in a turn.

From a more subjective perspective, this idea also ends up doing some wonky things to the rules and shutting down interactions that seem like they should work.

It's not an explicit statement, it's simply a result of applying logistics to the RAW (that thaX only selectively adheres to because he knows if he adhered to all of it, it'd be too extreme for him).

The fact that the RAW is "shutting down interactions that seem like they should work" tells us that either A. We've been reading things wrong this whole damn time (go figure), or B. The RAW isn't as restrictive as it logistically would lead itself. Either way, a FAQ/Errata is definitively needed.

Now, onto the logistics.

The RAW states that a Full Round Action takes your entire turn to complete.

If your entire turn is quantified as taking X seconds to do in relation to the combat round, then that means a Full Round Action takes X seconds to complete, because a Full Round Action eats up your entire turn. Fairly simple, right?

The RAW also says you can do Swift and Free Actions on top of it, but because the RAW regarding Full Round Actions takes up your entire turn, there is never a point, either before or after, that you can perform Swift or Free Actions, separate from a Full Round Action. The same is true of any action that you perform within a Full Round Action. Hell, if you had an ability to perform two Full Round Actions at once, both Full Round Actions would have to be started at the beginning of your turn, and complete when your turn completes.

Problem is, several key functions require things to be taking off after-the-fact (or even before-the-fact) of a Full Round Action.

One common example is Metamagic Touch Spells. Intensified Shocking Grasp is popular amongst Magi, and takes a Full Round Action to cast. Problem is, since that eats up your whole turn, you're never given an opportunity to deliver the spell as a Free Action (much less be able to 5-foot into position, which is funny since we have RAW saying you can, but the logistics would tell you no, as it creates a fun little issue with the requirement of a concentration check).

Another example are Quickened Spells in addition to Full Round Actions (such as a Quickened Shocking Grasp in addition to Spell Combat). A FAQ gives a general rule that an action's requirements or limitations function for the entirety of you taking that action. Since a Full Round Action lasts for the entirety of your turn, a Full Round Action like Spell Combat has specific limitations and requirements (one-handed weapon/free hand only) results in you being unable to cast a Quickened Spell because both hands are occupied by Spell Combat, and you cannot cast it before or after you undertake Spell Combat. It's a matter of mutual exclusiveness; if you perform the Swift Action first, then you're not able to perform Spell Combat (as Spell Combat must be the first action you take), and vice-versa (though in this case, you're limited by inability to cast the spell by not meeting its requirements).

That's not even taking into consideration how you can deliver said spells before they can even be cast, either as a Free Action or otherwise.

These are just a few of several issues that crop up when we take the RAW for what it is. This is precisely what I've been trying to expose with that RAW from the very beginning by playing Devil's Advocate, demonstrating how broken and silly the RAW interpretation is, meaning the RAI interpretation (that it's flavor text at best, demonstrating that it's the largest action type a character can perform in a given round) is the only sane and therefore correct answer.

thaX wrote:
The issue seems to be if Free/Swift actions are prevented by certain full round actions by some readings. To my mind they are not prevented and can be used as they always have been.

Well yeah, it's not prevented because of the action type it is. Nobody's saying that. It's prevented based on the requirements of the action being taken. What we're saying is that you can only take those actions if you can meet the pre-requisites for those actions.

You're trying to impart that you can deliver a Full Round Action spell in the same turn you cast it, which is impossible since A. it specifies round, and not turn (and you can't seem to understand what difference that makes), and B. the spell isn't finished until the action required to cast that spell is finished, at which point we've already agreed that attempting to deliver a spell before a spell is cast does nothing and is impossible.

You're also trying to say that Quickened Spells cast during Spell Combat don't require a free hand to fulfill somatic components, but you have one hand holding/wielding a one-handed/light weapon, and you have another hand occupied by the act of performing Spell Combat (regardless of if the spell you cast has somatic components or not). So how are you fulfilling somatic components for that spell if the hands performing Spell Combat are occupied until your turn ends?

And that's not even getting into being able to deliver that spell upon casting it as well, which is just a repeat of the first point.

thaX wrote:


Can you take free and swift actions before and after a Full Round Action(s)?

Answer. No. You take them during a Full Round Action. Typically, before or after the Full Attack within the Full Round Action.

A Spell that typically takes a Standard action being cast as a Full Round Action because a Sorcerer is using a Metamagic feat or a similar reason uses it's effects in that round, still within the full round action as the spell is cast.

Now, if it helps the player to parse things by thinking of segments of a turn that doesn't actually exist, by all means, do so. The rules won't change. Just remember, this will not allow for extra particulars that are limited by the Full Round action being used, such as gaining an extra attack outside of a whirlwind attack, or two handing a weapon to deliver the effects of a spell cast with Spell Combat through the weapon with Spellstrike to get 1.5 times str mod for the weapon hit.

The extreme limitations that Darksol is using are already proven false when a player can perform a free/swift action at any time. This has been quoted by both "sides" in all three threads for over 1200 posts.

Please, leave the strawman in the field and stay on topic.

It's not a strawman. It's the RAW you've cited that you're not willing to accept wholly because you know for a fact that it breaks the game in several unintended ways if you do. Not understanding the argument or caring to understand the argument being presented doesn't make it a strawman.

thaX wrote:
It is allowing you to cast the spell in a different way, that is the change. The casting time did not, however, turn into a swift action. Ozy and Darksol keep thinking that it does.

You didn't read what I said.

I said it turns it into an indeterminate amount of time to cast, as we're left with Schrodinger's Spellcast. I only reference Swift Action because if you ever tried to cast a Quickened Spell in addition to Spell Combat, the ability to do so works only with a very select amount of spells, most of which are only available to specialized/niche slots, or if you're a multi-armed race due to requiring multiple hands for somatic components (as well as drawing components for spells as well).

The only time you can definitively say that the spell from Spell Combat is cast, is when Spell Combat finishes, and that's only under normal circumstances.

Taking Ozy's Stagger example into consideration, if you had a spell left undischarged from the previous round, and decided to take your attacks first, you wouldn't have even cast a spell at all when Spell Combat is forcibly ended, and you'd likewise be unable to take a Free Action to deliver the spell, and that's only determined when your Spell Combat action ends.

I don't even think you could take a Swift or Free Action after the fact, since you took a Full Round Action with special limitations (that last your entire turn), and got Staggered. I mean, if we go with the RAW argument that Full Round Actions take your entire turn, and your Full Round Action is forcibly ended, then that means your turn is, likewise, forcibly ended, meaning any ability to take those Swift/Free Actions are forcibly ended as well.

1 to 50 of 5,015 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.