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

4,773 posts (4,777 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 4,773 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

thaX wrote:

Darksol, your talking about phrasing and parsed snippets again. The act of casting the spell takes the place of the off hand weapon in Spell Combat. Period. Whatever you see in the FAQ or elsewhere that seems to change this simply is not there.

Now, if a spell is being held, one can use the effects of that spell (to attack) as one of the attacks used while doing the Whirlwind attacks, but it would not allow the casting of the spell, as that ability (Spell Casting) can not be used with the other (Whirlwind Attack). They both use the same action. (full round attack)

The Magus can, however, use Spell Strike with a held spell during either action.

But they aren't mutually exclusive in terms of action economy.

Spell Combat is a Full Round Action clarified to be a Full Attack Action for effects reliant upon Full Attack Actions per a relevant FAQ.

Whirlwind Attack has the text "When you are making a full attack action," in the very first sentence of the feat description.

Therefore, the issue is not with action economy, because one is the action (Spell Combat), whereas the other modifies that very same action (Whirlwind Attack).

I mean, by that logic, you can't Fight Defensively and Full Attack in the same round, because both take a Full Round Action to do, since according to the rules (and your interpretation of said rules), they're mutually exclusive because both require Full Round Actions to do. Right?

Except, if I know you well enough, you'd say "Actually, they can be used together, because Fighting Defensively only applies modifiers to your attacks and AC," to which point, you're argument is hypocritical and thus fruitless, since that's basically all Whirlwind Attack is doing in relation to Spell Combat.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Jodokai wrote:
Gisher wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Unarmed strikes by and large follow the rules for manufactured weapons. They let you attack based off of your base attack bonus , two weapon fight with your left and right fist, and combine with natural weapons in ways natural attacks can't.

But obviously you can't cast magic weapon on a normal persons fist.

That's an interesting choice for your example

Magic Weapon wrote:
You can't cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk's unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell.

As I read that, it says that all Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapons. Not just 'treated as' Natural Weapons, but actually Natural Weapons. As far as the spell is concerned, what makes a Monk's Unarmed Strike different from an average person's Unarmed Strike is that it is also considered a manufactured weapon. I have to say that isn't the way I thought this worked, but there it is.

And that is the only location it's like that. So either we believe that one singular spell is worded incorrectly or we believe every other place is worded incorrectly.

If a monk has a bite attack and the make an unarmed strike, the bite is treated as a secondary natural attack, if unarmed strike was a natural attack they would both be primary

And Monk Unarmed Strikes do count as Natural Weapons for the purposes of effects that improve Natural Weapons. For the purposes of improving the Bite Attack, the Monk would use this class ability to have his Unarmed Strike count as a Natural Weapon.

I agree, but to a point.

If there was an effect that improved only the Bite Natural Attack, an Unarmed Strike would not qualify for its effects, because an Unarmed Strike is not a Bite Natural Attack. It's an Unarmed Strike. Therefore, it wouldn't receive that benefit.

Monk Unarmed Strikes only count for effects which (generically) improve Natural Weapons. You couldn't even, for example, take Improved Natural Attack (Unarmed Strike), because an Unarmed Strike doesn't count as a Natural Weapon for the purposes of being a valid selection for the feat, it only counts as a Natural Weapon for the purposes of effects which improve Natural Weapons, but not for any selection or similar pre-requisites.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The funny thing is that the rules don't say you're replacing your off-hand attack with a spell being cast. You're replacing your off-hand weapon with a spell being cast. That's a big difference.

If I was simply performing TWF, and I had an ability that let me sheathe a weapon of my choice (without provocation, of course,) to draw another weapon that I have sheathed yet, you would rule that, because I substituted the weapon, I don't get the attacks associated with that off-hand weapon?

Because that's exactly what we're doing here with Spell Combat. We're treating off-hand weapons and off-hand attacks as being the same thing. They're usually in tandem, but that doesn't make them the same thing. Off-hand Attacks are the extra attacks you get from performing the TWF action. Off-hand Weapons are the means of carrying out those very same extra attacks. They are different.

I wouldn't necessarily call it complaining. Complaining, near as I can tell, usually involves someone expressing dissatisfaction or unhappiness.

While we do have some of that here, we're also explaining why we don't like it, and (in the explainer's eyes,) they are genuine concerns that apply to the points being brought up. In some cases, we're even proposing ideas to improve or replace certain rules sets to make the game better as a whole.

That's not complaining. That is critiquing.

@ Cyrad: Clearly, that's not the context, because if it was, then the first mention of forfeiting the attacks you normally make would be all that is necessary to say "No, you don't get attacks from Haste, TWF, and so on." The whole mention of getting attacks from feats, spells, and so on, is irrelevant when you put that "context" to light.

I don't think Paizo wrote the second sentence in an attempt to reinforce an already clear statement; that you don't get the attacks from the full attack you're making. If anything, it makes more sense that they wrote the second sentence to include things that would provide attacks outside of what a full attack would include, such as a Quickened Touch or Ranged Touch Spell, or even Paired Opportunists and Outflank (I think that's the combination, I'd need to double check to be sure). Just for examples, of course, but it is certainly possible.

graystone wrote:
EDIT: the BEST armor might be to make the level 20 ninja a ninja 19/Scales Fist Monk 1 so it's Cha is it's 'armor'. ;)

Not to mention, he could be wearing Monk's Robes (so he counts as 5th level for Unarmed Strike Damage and AC), and he takes the Unarmed Combat Mastery (Master Ninja Trick), so he adds his Ninja level - 4 as his Monk level for unarmed damage.

In other words, he could deal damage as a 20th level Monk while only technically being 1st level.

Pretty cool, huh?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Try the Armor of the Shadow Lord.

Increases your Sneak Attack, tells you how to sneak (perhaps provides Aid Another?), has a nice vibe for your character, and plus you won't lose out on any of your Dexterity Bonus.

Bonus points that you simply bump it up to a +5 armor.

@ Cyrad: At best, the intent is unclear. The only thing we can say for sure is that the feat says you forfeit attacks you would normally get, as well as extra attacks from feats, spells, and other abilities, because that's what the feat says. Whirlwind Attack was written before there was ever such an ability that let you substitute weapons (or attacks) with other combat options (such as drinking a potion, casting a spell, using a magic item, whatever) in a given full attack option, so gauging that it was written to substitute anything that resembles a full attack option is impossible to support, simply due to the fact that no such intent ever needed to be enforced at the time of publishing, and no errata was applied to accommodate any such changes or abilities being published later in Paizo's product line(s).

Also, how is Scorching Ray not considered an extra attack? It's actually considered up to three attacks that are generated outside of what you normally get with a full attack, meaning they're additional. That is literally the dictionary definition of "extra".

Not to mention, that because the Whirlwind Attack feat specifically calls out attacks from spells, and Scorching Ray isn't something that you can just "hold the charge" on and discharge it through a melee attack (unless you have the proper Arcana), that means Scorching Ray would have to attack, which means it would not do anything if cast during a Whirlwind Attack, due that it is providing you extra attacks (and not because it's part of your full attack option).

Kitty Catoblepas wrote:
Magentawolf wrote:
Monks do not provoke because they have Improved Unarmed Strike, not because their attacks are natural weapons. (Which they're not)
But unarmed strikes are in the Natural Weapon group. Why wouldn't they be natural weapons?

The problem isn't that they're not natural weapons. (They actually technically aren't, but a Monk's Unarmed Strike is treated as one.)

The problem is that they're not PRIMARY natural weapons. Unless it says it's a secondary or primary natural weapon, then it isn't, and because it's not quantified, you can't say that it counts as a PRIMARY natural weapon for the purposes of benefitting from feats like Power Attack, which specifically reference PRIMARY natural weapons.

In addition, if you tried to use unarmed strikes in conjunction with other natural weapons, your other natural weapons would be treated as secondary, whereas your unarmed strikes remain unchanged, because for other purposes, they are considered a manufactured weapon (and as such, revert all other natural attacks to secondary).

I hope that brings a final and solid answer to this ridiculous debacle...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This thread radiates a strong necromancy aura...

Calthropstu wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Calthropstu wrote:
That ruling implies you are incorrect: hovering is a move action.

"Action: None. A Fly check doesn't require an action"

You are never going to 'get it' if you insist on ignoring statements patently contradicting your pre-suppositions.

I'm not ignoring anything, you are.

The check itself is not the action. The action is "Flying."

Hover is listed as a "flying maneuver" ie: a maneuver that is enabled by the fly action. NOWHERE does it state that hover is not considered a move action, nor does it state that it counts as "not moving" for the round.

Now, the fact that your character does not leave his square IS an argument one can take, however not all movement requires you to leave your square. Hover, going by the rules as written there, is a maneuver done as part of the fly movement action that moves you zero spaces.

This is why stunned causes you to fall: you cannot perform the fly action.

Seriously, it really is all there. As such, flying creatures do not get their full attacks when hovering, stunning et al causes you to fall, and a plethora of other things happen as well. Maybe it was intentional by the designers, maybe it's an oversight... there are certainly a large number of oversights in the game.

Flying is not listed as an action in the table regarding "Actions in Combat," so the idea that "Flying" is, in and of itself, an action, is wrong, because both the skill description, and the table, say they aren't actions. So, that's two rules sources that say they aren't actions, and a singular implausible intent that says they are; needless to say, you're fighting uphill in this part of the battle.

Your character doesn't have to leave his square if he doesn't want to, nor does he have to move. Relevant text regarding Fly Checks:

Fly (Check) wrote:
You generally need only make a Fly check when you are attempting a complex maneuver. Without making a check, a flying creature can remain flying at the end of its turn so long as it moves a distance greater than half its speed. It can also turn up to 45 degrees by sacrificing 5 feet of movement, can rise at half speed at an angle of 45 degrees, and can descend at any angle at normal speed. Note that these restrictions only apply to movement taken during your current turn. At the beginning of the next turn, you can move in a different direction than you did the previous turn without making a check. Taking any action that violates these rules requires a Fly check. The difficulty of these maneuvers varies depending upon the maneuver you are attempting, as noted on the following chart.

Bolded relevant parts of the entry.

So, you really only make a check when performing a flight maneuver, and says that if you go against the normal rules of flying (which not only implies that the flying rules are generic, but also that they can be broken if you so solemnly wish), you have to make a check to do so.

Several examples of them are in the table they describe, which includes going against the non-bolded portions of the above text (such as turning or flying at angles larger than 45 degrees); I'm certain being able to hover in the same square, without moving, would easily fall under that pretense.

You're also incorrect about why the Stunned condition causes creatures who are flying to fall. The reason why is because you cannot do ANYTHING, whether it's taking any action, or performing any activity (including flight), you full-stop CANNOT DO IT.

I mean, by the logic of flight not being an action, and your bi-polar claim of "If it's not an action, I can still do it," that means I could likewise take a 5-foot step while Stunned, right? And provide flanking for my other teammates and perform Attacks of Opportunity even though I'm Stunned (since it doesn't take an action to make Attacks of Opportunity, and if you threaten the area, you still flank)? What about delaying until after the Stunned condition takes effect (and therefore, still being able to act within that round, cheesing the results of the Stunned condition)?

When you throw your logic in those identical "non-action action" situations, not only does your assumption create ridiculous shenanigans, but it also breaks other parts of the game that your interpretation results in.

So yes, it was an oversight. But it's not our oversight, or the developers' oversight. Well, I suppose you could say that it was ours. But something from that word is missing. Something with both a longer and shorter line intersecting at a 60 degree angle into a singular line. Like this.

Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The teleportation restriction and such only applies to the Summoned Monster. Tell me, is your PC a summoned monster?


I didn't think so.

Therefore, those restrictions would not apply to the person who summoned the creature.


Also, the Visage of the Bound description already has its own special rules, which means it would supersede whatever rules you were trying to implement onto it.

If you throw out the teleportation limits because they aren't specifically mentioned in the Visage of the Bound, an item in the player companion line that is often very light on editing and consideration of how its items fit into the bigger picture, then you also have to throw out the limits on SLAs with expensive components. Which means a standard Summon Monster IX lets you bind a Glabrezu and hand out a free Wish. Which means someone with Summon Monster VI and the Summon Evil Monster feat can bind an Efreeti to hand out three free wishes. And several options can raise dead or resurrect.

Good luck with that.

It's not even because they're not mentioned in the item description. That's just icing on the cake.

The spell restrictions only apply to the monster you summoned, if those monsters were bound here through, say, a Greater Planar Binding, they could likewise use those SLAs. They don't apply to you, because you're not a summoned monster.

So if they have SLAs with expensive components, or can accomplish crazy things, the item lets you emulate them yourself, even if only for rounds per day. Either way, welcome to the Caster/Martial Disparity.

The teleportation restriction and such only applies to the Summoned Monster. Tell me, is your PC a summoned monster?


I didn't think so.

Therefore, those restrictions would not apply to the person who summoned the creature.

It'd make for an interesting and very funny campaign (where a summoner trying to summon some powerful being to serve him instead summons some lowly adventurers after fizzling the spellcast, or messing up ingredients), but PCs are almost always not summoned monsters.


Also, the Visage of the Bound description already has its own special rules, which means it would supersede whatever rules you were trying to implement onto it.

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
No to whirlwind attack and cheesing off a spell at the same time. Come on...

It's not cheese if you're using a class feature exactly as it was intended (casting a spell while being able to full attack).

@ Cyrad: That could very well be the intent, but the wording doesn't reflect that. It mentions that you forfeit regular attacks, as well as attacks from feats, abilities, and spells. That's it. Spells aren't attacks any more than if you were affected by an Invisibility spell. In fact, if it didn't mention that it forfeited attacks from spells, our example Magus could theoretically cast Scorching Ray (quickened or otherwise), and still benefit from that spell normally. However, because Scorching Ray gives the character attacks from spells, it's not permissible under the rules of Whirlwind Attack.

Even if Whirlwind Attack was written well before you had the ability to substitute weapons (and/or attacks, though RAW doesn't say you lose the off-hand attack associated with TWF, which means you technically should get 2 attacks, one for your base off-hand via TWF, and one for your free action to deliver the spell, but that's semantics and obviously not intended), the ideal that the wording for Whirlwind Attack still only covers attacks, when there are options to do more than simply attack when it comes to a Full Attack Action (as evidenced by Spell Combat), it would need more precise wording to extend the intent that it removes all sorts of action economy associated with attacks.

**EDIT** That would include being able to cast a Quickened Spell and the free action to deliver it, since those are extra attacks allotted from the general ability to deliver touch attacks, which I feel many who are part of this discussion would disagree. Of course, you could do so after the results of the Whirlwind Attack were determined. But not during.

First, long question is long.

Second, technically it would. However, the question then becomes "What's the HP of your theoretical corpse?" Whether your "corpse" has the same hit points as yourself is a whole different question. To which end, based on petrification rules, I'd say it would be.

MrCharisma wrote:

Alright, let's try looking at this differently and see if it changes anything for anyone...

The default assumption for this thread has been the following order of operations:

1. Full-Attack.
2. Swap Full-Attack for Spell-Combat.
3. Insert Whirlwind-Attack into Spell-Combat.

When we look at it this way, Whirlwind-Attack says it replaces all attacks, but the spell may or may not be an attack, so it may or may not be replaced. Let's try ...

1. Full-Attack.
2. Swap Full-Attack for Whirlwind-Attack.
3. Insert Spell-Combat into Whirlwind-Attack.

Does this order change the way people think about this? This is purely a thought exercise to see if it changes anyone's perception of the problem at hand.

Pathfinder doesn't deal with "Order or Operations" so if it does work it should work in either order. If it doesn't work it should not-work in either order.


To me, it doesn't change, because the order to Full Attack is all the same action to do. This is no different than trying to apply, for example, Combat Expertise and/or Power Attack to your Full Attack regime, or even Fighting Defensively. It's all part of the same action, you aren't spending separate actions; at best, you're basically using ON/OFF switches for whether you wish to use or not use these abilities.

Also, in the second combination, the spell you're casting via your off-hand still isn't an attack unless it generates one upon casting (such as via Scorching Ray or Acid Arrow). Until then, it's a spell. Even so, if those same spells are applied to their weapon via Spellstrike and the proper Arcana, it's not an attack until you make the roll to attack via your main-hand weapon, and by that point, it's an attack with a main-hand melee weapon, not with a spell (or off-hand, which subsumes the clause of "losing" the off-hand attack), and as long as the clause of "one attack per enemy within reach" is met, it doesn't matter how the attack (or any of its potential riders) are carried out.

And yes, I understand that the people are saying that the attack normally associated with the off-hand in terms of TWF is part of the "spell" being cast, but Spell Combat alters the TWF regime to not have an off-hand attack whatsoever, and in Whirlwind Attack, it's pointless to TWF because, if you already have both weapons out, you can attack with either weapon against a given enemy within reach. This is evidenced by the TWF FAQ found here.

Until a FAQ or other "official" clarification from a dev post comes in and says that the spell is treated as an off-hand attack for effects related to it, then we're better off just calling it table variation at this point.

swoosh wrote:
Daedalus the Dungeon Builder wrote:
And then you get people going as a Wizard 1/Sorcerer 1/Cleric 1/ Druid 1/ Psychic 1/ Witch 1/ Oracle 1/etc.

Oh no, a 7th level character who can cast a bunch of first level spells at a higher CL.

I think you're dramatically overstating how powerful that would be. Because first level spells are kind of not very impactful at higher levels anyways.

Tell that to the people who think Potions of Shield, Divine Favor, True Strike, et. al. are overpowered.

Or wands for that matter.

CBDunkerson wrote:

I don't care enough to want to see this answered instead of something else. It's an implausibly rare combination that just doesn't matter much one way or the other.

Put another way, this is NOT 'frequently' asked.

There are several questions and concerns that aren't asked "frequently" that are thrown on the FAQ page, but you don't see us complain about them.

If you don't think this is worthy of a FAQ, then it could at least warrant a developer comment; even if it's not official, they could offer insight or intent that we're missing.

That's correct.

But it's only once per day, and you have to spend an equivalent spell slot for it, and you can only do it for 8 rounds. If you mess it up, you'll have to wait 24 hours before you can do so again.

You're also going to have to get this one crafted, as the likelihood of coming across a Hound Archon version of the Visage of the Bound is pretty slim, as there are hundreds of different types of outsiders. Of course, since you took the crafting feat, that's a non-issue.

Tarantula wrote:
No, you can't. **EDIT** At least, not during the Whirlwind Attack.**EDIT** You give up bonus or extra attacks from feats, spells or abilities when using Whirlwind Attack. That would include the free action to deliver the touch spell, because you're gaining an extra attack outside of what Whirlwind Attack allows.
Whirlwind forces you to give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack for each opponent within reach. The regular attacks are from the full attack action. The swift action to cast shocking grasp and the attack from the spell are not your regular attacks from a full attack action, and so whirlwind doesn't stop it.

Whirlwind Attack forfeits both regular attacks, and attacks allotted through feats, spells, and abilities. The ability to deliver a touch spell as a free action as part of casting a touch spell would likewise be forfeited. Again, that's only if cast during the Whirlwind Attack. If it was cast after Whirlwind Attack took place, it'd be legal, but if it's during, it's not, because extra attacks would be forfeited.

It's a lot like using Spell Combat, and doing the sword attacks before the spell. In that example, you're only getting maybe one attack, assuming the spell actually casts, with the effects of that Touch Spell. If you do the Spell first, and the free attack there misses, you still have the remainder of your full attack to deliver that spell (via Spellstrike, anyway).

As the title says. Bonus points if you expand on how you'd change it/them. It can be a class, a rule, a concept, anything, or multiples of things (such as multiple classes or rules or concepts).

I'll start off with mine (and they are, for the most part, in no particular order).

My list:
1. The Almighty C/MD: This is obvious for a lot of people, myself included. It's probably the biggest thing that plagues this style of game in my opinion, and is most commonly believed to simply be a problem that's been passed from 3.X to here. Unfortunately, I don't think this can be fixed without a complete overhaul of the game and class design, which would most likely mean a new edition (at the very least, if not a whole new line of games).

2. "Feat Taxes/Staple Feats": Less obvious, but for those who know what feat taxes are, or know of the feats that everyone takes, this is fairly straight-forward. The easiest fix here is that you either remove options entirely (which won't make feats simply be a numbers boost), and accomodate any relevant changes it would cause, or you make them common options for everyone to utilize, as long as they would otherwise meet the pre-requisites for it back when it was a feat. Weapon Focus/Specialization, several other Fighter-only feats, Combat Expertise, Power Attack, Point-Blank Shot, Improved Initiative; all are prime examples of feats that can be removed or adjusted to be standard combat options, freeing up feat slots for more cool and interesting abilities.

3. The Big 6: This locks almost all players into specific item choices, because the game requires that these attributes are factored into the player's abilities in some manner, otherwise they will not be powerful enough to deal with the dangers that face them. While I'm all for setting bars, I think this can be better done with things like requiring certain abilities or options available to the PCs, and not "Oh, you don't have enough AC for this enemy. Whoops. Rocks fall, everyone dies?" The Automatic Bonus Progression does a lot to shore this up, but when it's merely an optional rule (even if a popular one), and when there are certain aspects of it that leave a lot to be desired, it's fairly easy to chalk this up as a "thing to change."

4. Weapons and Armor: If you haven't noticed, most everyone has identical armor and weapon choices. Full Plate, Mithril Breastplate, Greatsword, Scimitar...this sort of thing not only gets old fast, but really cuts back on the whole "characters are unique" concept that Pathfinder/D&D really tries to create. While I understand that certain classes specialize in certain weapons, either flavor-reasons, mechanical reasons, or whatever, I think it would be better if these armor or weapon choices had more impacts on the player's decision-making. In other words, there is no "best" weapon, but a weapon that does something that the player values the "most" for their character. One example that I can give is, if using the Javelin in place of, say, a Composite Bow, you could utilize Power Attack when throwing it, despite it being a ranged weapon (and therefore normally requiring Deadly Aim). The Composite Bow does offer more range, but if you want that extra damage (without sacrificing feats), the Javelin will help you out more. This needs a lot of work, but I think this is something that would greatly benefit a system such as this one, so that you aren't running into people with almost identical builds all the time.

5. VMC: For those who don't know this abbreviation, it stands for Variant Multi-Classing. (I see it asked almost all the time on these forums, so now you know what it stands for.) In a lot of cases, VMC is severely under par, or requires absolute system and character mastery in order to make use of it. In the latter case, it's awesome. In the former case, it's a waste of space and time. Even if it is an optional rule, it's awesome, and means you can multi-class without really multi-classing; but, in a lot of cases, it needs buffs, or revisions, because it otherwise results in broken or useless aspects. And when you're giving up half of your character feats for them...

Alright, I've listed my "Top 5" (and boy, it was hard to determine what should be up there), as well as potential means to change it (if I knew of any). What are other peoples' thoughts on things that they would like to change about the rules?

As an aside...:
Please don't derail this thread with arguments about certain things on peoples' list, most notably C/MD and Falling Paladins. It's okay to bring them up as a point that you'd like to change in your list (or don't, and keep the opinion that it's just fine to yourself), but I'd rather not have this thread locked and people banned for arguing over controversial topics. Thanks in advance!

**EDIT** I applied a band-aid to any potential Wall of Text syndrome that may occur from the OP. I hope it's good enough...

Tarantula wrote:
You can whirlwind, then cast a quickened shocking grasp, and take the free action to touch attack that the spell gives you.

No, you can't. **EDIT** At least, not during the Whirlwind Attack.**EDIT** You give up bonus or extra attacks from feats, spells or abilities when using Whirlwind Attack. That would include the free action to deliver the touch spell, because you're gaining an extra attack outside of what Whirlwind Attack allows.

You could still cast the Quickened spell, and deliver it in place of one of the attacks allotted from Whirlwind Attack (if applicable, either normally or via Spellstrike), but you cannot utilize the free action rule, since that's a general ability of casting touch spells.

You likewise couldn't use spells like Acid Arrow or Scorching Ray, since those spells grant attacks outside of what Whirlwind Attack allows (though, if utilized via Spellstrike with the right Arcana, their effects can occur on enemies that are hit through the likes of Whirlwind Attack).

@ Gilfalas: Relevant FAQ says that Spell Combat is considered a Full Attack Action for Haste and other effects, which can very easily include stacking things like Hammer the Gap, which is a feat. Whirlwind Attack, which is also a feat, can likewise be applicable on the same token of it being (or involving) Full Attack Actions.

@ Kryzbyn: To be honest, the reason why people are saying TWF with Whirlwind Attack doesn't work is because you don't need to TWF to utilize Whirlwind Attack. If I am dual-wielding whips (it's ridiculous, but play along for now), and I perform a Whirlwind Attack, I could execute any of the allotted attacks with either whip of my choosing, no TWF required. The only time I apply TWF would be if I accept the penalties and perform the proper attacks, which you don't do with Whirlwind Attack.

Spell Combat is different in that your off-hand never attacks (unless your delivering the touch spell normally instead of via Spellstrike), and even if it does, Whirlwind Attack would negate whatever extra attack you would get if you tried to deliver the spell as a free action. Granted, you could still deliver the spell via a Touch Attack, but it would replace one of the attacks against one of the enemies of your choice in your Whirlwind Attack, as it rightfully should.

Cavall wrote:
Saying it's "silly" (3 times this page alone) doesn't make it a true statement or add weight to the argument.

Neither does pointing that out.

Yet here we are. Isn't this a fun little place?

Tarantula wrote:

No. TWF uses your off-hand weapon to give you an extra attack.

Spell combat changes that extra attack into casting a spell.

Whirlwind attack requires you give up any extra attacks.

Therefore, you give up casting a spell when using whirlwind attack because it replaces the attack given by TWF.

Casting the spell IS the extra attack. You give it up to whirlwind.

For starters, nice TL;DR.

Secondly, if the attack is already replaced, then Whirlwind Attack doesn't all-of-a-sudden replace what the attack was replaced with, especially when what the attack was replaced with, isn't an attack, which is what Whirlwind Attack replaces.

At best, you can argue that this is like archetypes, in that you can't do both because both replace the same thing, and as such, you can only ever do one. Too bad this isn't about archetypes, and as such, the logic does not apply here, even if it could make sense. (It's like arguing being able to Aid Another with Saving Throws all over again.)

At worst, you can mix and match game terms (attacks, weapons, spells, and so on), and come to the conclusion that they're all the same, since they're apparently interchangable, in which case you're resulting in wizards and clerics casting 2 or 3 spells in the same round, not including Quickened spells, or Spellstoring weapons/armor, which is utter madness, because spells = weapons = attacks (and therefore, spells = attacks, which means you can substitute spells in place of attacks).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarantula wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Byakko wrote:

I agree with the people saying you won't be able to cast the spell, as you've forfeited your offhand attacks by using Whirlwind Attack.

(even if the spell isn't an attack spell, it still requires the equivalent of 2-weapon fighting... which W.A. forbids)

I never said you didn't lose the off-hand attacks. Nobody is saying that. If anything, everybody is in agreement, that you lose attacks associated with your off-hand.

But you don't lose your off-hand weapon, which is what the spell is replacing; the weapon. Not the attack, but the weapon. There's a big difference there.

Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.

You use spell combat, your off-hand weapon is a spell being cast. Spell combat functions like two-weapon fighting. In order to get the benefit of having an off-hand, you must make a full-attack.

Spell combat is a full-round action, but has been clarified to count as a full-attack action.

Whirlwind attack is a full-attack action, but you give up any bonus or extra attacks.

The casting of a spell replaces the extra attack you would get by TWF, and is given up when you choose to instead whirlwind attack.

Look at the bolded parts. They are in no way relevant of each other. You can attack without weapons, and you can wield weapons and not attack (except Defending weapons, but that's a special case). In fact, Spell Combat, when casting, a spell doesn't attack at all.

Let's look at two examples.

-Magus uses Spell Combat. He uses his "off-hand weapon" to cast Shield. He automatically touches himself, no action or attack roll required. His "off-hand weapon" is utilized (assuming concentration checks are met and such), and no attack is done, either to himself or another creature. Any other attacks he makes will always be with his Main Hand, as he has no off-hand to attack with.

-Magus uses Spell Combat. He uses his "off-hand weapon" to cast Shocking Grasp. Assuming concentration checks are completed, he then must spend a free action to deliver the Touch Attack, either through the hand, or via Spellstrike. This is a COMPLETELY SEPARATE action from casting a spell, or simply attacking with an off-hand weapon. He can choose to not take the free attack, and simply carry on with his Main Hand attacks if he so wishes (though 9 times out of 10, people will always take the free attack). If he does so, then once again, no off-hand is being attacked with.

In the first example, there is no attack to be made from casting a spell. Why? Because Shield is a personal spell, and once it's cast properly, there remains no off-hand weapon to attack with. The idea that a spell is an attack in this instance is silly.

In the second example, there is still no attack with your off-hand to be made. Why? Because Shocking Grasp simply lets you make a one-time touch attack that deals XD6 points of damage. You don't have to if you don't want to, and can either dismiss the spell, discharge it harmlessly into the ground or wall, and so on. The ability to deliver it requires spending a Free Action, separate from whatever other actions you've done during the round, to do so, via the standard method (Touch Attack) or the Spellstrike method. This is something that happens regardless of whether Spell Combat is done or not.

So really, proposing that your "off-hand weapon" gives you a free attack, is a major misnomer in relation to Spell Combat, because the "free attack" is NOT from the "off-hand weapon" granted to you, but from the general spellcasting rules regarding Touch Spells.

If you were given an attack outside of what the off-hand weapon already is, then I'd get two extra attacks, one from the generic TWF assumption of your off-hand, and one from the ability to deliver a Touch Spell. Surely, you're not suggesting that Magi have been shorting themselves an entire full BAB attack this whole time, have you?


It's time I brought out the big guns. Read this, and it will only reinforce my points.

Byakko wrote:

I agree with the people saying you won't be able to cast the spell, as you've forfeited your offhand attacks by using Whirlwind Attack.

(even if the spell isn't an attack spell, it still requires the equivalent of 2-weapon fighting... which W.A. forbids)

I never said you didn't lose the off-hand attacks. Nobody is saying that. If anything, everybody is in agreement, that you lose attacks associated with your off-hand.

But you don't lose your off-hand weapon, which is what the spell is replacing; the weapon. Not the attack, but the weapon. There's a big difference there.

@ Tarantula: You're only enforcing my point. If ITWF and GTWF give off-hand attacks, and you're saying that the spell being cast only removes an off-hand attack, and I have 3, then that means I can cast still cast 2 more spells, since I have 2 more off-hand attacks that can be used to cast spells.

I can play this silly game all day, at the end of it, you're ignoring that it changes the weapon aspect of TWF, not the attack(s) associated with it, if any.

I already demonstrated the difference that makes in relevance to the explanation I gave to Cavall. You can simply substitute Unarmed Strike with Touch Spell, and it'd still get the same effect across.

Zolanoteph wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Zolanoteph wrote:
Druid VMC barbarian for raging bears, trees etc

I did this for a Caster/Summoning Druid who had a 20 Wisdom and only had 14 Strength, with a level dip in UCMonk. We also were forced to use the UCBarbarian Rage effects (which weren't bad).

When I was able to cut down a CR 9 creature in half at 7th level in a single full attack action, with all of my stuff going (Power Attack, Rage, Pounce), I could only imagine if I was more optimized for melee combat with the 20 Strength.

Even with the base stuff and Wild Shape, I was doing 1D6/1D8 + 5 Strength + 4 Power Attack + 2 Rage + 1 Enhancement, per attack, and when Wild Shaped into a Tiger (GM wouldn't allow Dire for whatever reason), getting 5 attacks, all at full BAB...yeah, nothing is going to last very long.

Not to mention, summoning 2 similar creatures that can do an identical attack pattern in the round prior, it's ridiculous.

Yeah. This is how the other VMC options should work, but for the most part they don't. Besides barbarian, sorcerer, wizard, alchemist, cavalier and Oracle the VMC options run the gamut from situational to sucky

Out of all the ones you listed, Barbarian and Oracle are perhaps the only ones that can be good, and even Oracle is extremely niche, since a lot of revelation options and ability scalings are garbage. Not to mention, dealing with a stupid curse can make or break certain builds.

I just think that if you're going to be giving up half your feats, the abilities better be doing some pretty awesome stuff; most of the time, you're better off keeping the feats, because you'll be too feat starved to fulfill the other aspects your character needs to accomplish.

James Risner wrote:

If you follow what it's trying to say, your success rate at predicting the final result of a FAQ is greatly improved.

D&D is the opposite of Magic the Gathering. In magic there are combos. Using Sprll Combat with Whirlwind would work fine with MTG. It's not an "attack" so it works (in MTG terms.) In D&D/Pathfinder, it uses you offhand attack economy. You forgo that action economy inside the Full Action

I am following what it's trying to say. There is no such thing as "offhand attack economy," it's not a game term, it's not a written rule, it's not an unwritten rule, and it's not brought up in the feat text, meaning that it's basically made-up (and therefore irrelevant to your case). Using that as a rules argument is not only silly, but also just as fallacious as saying all spells are attacks. I should be able to take a Full Attack Action and cast 2 or 3 spells (depending on BAB), since I can apparently substitute spells for attacks for all intents and purposes, like you're claiming.

@ Tarantula: Except the rules for TWF are altered drastically in the case of Spell Combat, so translating altering an off-hand weapon to mean it's still an off-hand weapon is impossible. The only reason it's a -2 penalty across the board is because the feature says so; it's actually not mentioned that it replaces the original TWF penalties, so you should actually be incurring penalties as if you don't have the TWF feat, and don't have a light weapon (so, -8/-12, not including the concentration sacrifices if taken).

Even if the assumption that the -2 penalty replaces the typical TWF penalties, you can't say that for sure, since the only thing that changes via Spell Combat is that the off-hand is casting a spell, not making an attack.

Hell, we could even take this a step further, and state that if I take Improved and Greater TWF feats, that I can cast a 2nd and 3rd spell if I so chose, since spells are attacks for Spell Combat, right? And Improved/Greater TWF gives me extra off-hand attacks, right? And if I had extra limbs, I could MWF and cast spells from those extra hands, right?

Except they're not attacks. They're spells. Just like how spells aren't weapons, they're spells. At best, they're weapon-like spells, but they're still not weapons, they're spells.

@ Cavall: Just because it counts as a weapon doesn't mean it no longer can be used with Whirlwind Attack. What matters is attacks. That's what the feat says: attacks. Not weapons; attacks.

The Magus could be wearing full plate, breastplate, or even nothing at all, and it still wouldn't matter in the case of Whirlwind Attack because there is no text that says Whirlwind Attack can only be performed in light/medium/heavy/no armor. That's exactly what the relevance of weapons are here.

Even if I did have two weapons to attack with (say, an unarmed strike and a whip, just for fun), and performed a Whirlwind Attack, I could make some attacks with one weapon (unarmed strike), and other attacks with another (whip); the only rule is that I do not exceed the rule of "one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach." So I could attack all enemies within 15 feet of me with the whip, but I could only ever attack enemies adjacent to me with the unarmed strike, since the unarmed strike does not have a reach of 15 feet.

It doesn't matter how the attacks from Whirlwind Attack are carried out, as long as the rule regarding one attack per enemy within reach is followed.

Seager wrote:

Wow. This is a ton of information to process and mull over. Thanks for all the help and advice, guys.

Let me try to clarify a few things. Firstly, we're using the retraining rules outlined here. So retraining a couple feats or skills wouldn't be ridiculous but I can't change my race. Not that I'd want to necessarily, as I've always loved playing a boring human in a world of elves and dwarves for some strange reason.

Secondly, I'm not opposed to making full attacks or anything really, it just seems that with TWF you're making so many attacks that each turn in combat will take half an hour and that seems rude to the other players.

Now overall, it seems like sword and board is perfectly fine even without TWF however, in order to use Stand Still(and possibly eventually Combat Patrol), I need a reach weapon? So that seems my biggest choice, switch to a reach weapon(which are all two handed?) or retrain Stand Still to something better.

Oh and regarding my skill choices, I'm inclined to agree that Disable Device was a waste. I originally thought I'd be able to get away with wearing breastplate but that hasn't been the case. I think I really need to get Full Plate asap which will destroy my Disable Device check. And Profession I really only took for RP reasons, I'm not opposed to not putting any more ranks in it. However, I'm not really sure what other useful skills there would be for me. We have most of the knowledge skills taken care of, only missing dungeoneering and engineering I believe, our swashbuckler and cleric both have very solid conversational skills and our witch has survival down pat.

Human race is fine. If anything, I would've suggested the Dual Talent alternate racial trait, since you're already a Fighter and get feats every level, and the skill point per level won't absolutely destroy you (since it appears you actually have a positive Intelligence, which is good), and can be shored up via your Favored Class Bonus.

As long as your bonuses to hit and damage are properly calculated, and you designate what you're applying to your attacks (such as Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and so on), full attacks don't take a whole lot of time. TWF does make it take longer, since you're factoring in more attack rolls (and more penalties/modifiers to your to-hit), but nobody is saying that you should TWF. Basic iteratives with a Sword and Board are fine, and can still certainly be competent.

That's what I'd suggest. Stand Still might help against medium-sized enemies who are using basic weapons and trying to go after your squishies, but if enemies have reach weapons, or are larger sized, Stand Still will not do you a whole lot of good. I don't personally like it as a feat because of that factor; if it factored in the wielder's reach, it could certainly be powerful, but because adjacent is required...

As far as the whole two-handed thing, there is a feat in the Armor Master's Handbook, called Shield Brace, with Shield Focus as a pre-requisite, and it allows the following:

Shield Brace wrote:
Benefit: You can use a two-handed weapon sized appropriately for you from the polearm or spears weapon group while also using a light, heavy, or tower shield with which you are proficient. The shield's armour check penalty (if any) applies to attacks made with the weapon.

So, you could pick up a Masterwork Light Shield (or Mithril Heavy Shield) and a Nodachi (which is considered under the Polearm Weapon Group, and has the 18-20/X2 multiplier you'd want), and deal just as much damage as a Two-Handed guy, while having the defenses of a Sword and Board guy.

Ironically enough, Dungeoneering and Engineering are both class skills for the Fighter, so I'd suggest putting points in those instead of Disable Device (and either Profession: Soldier or Geography), as Aberrations and Constructs (the latter being one of the more powerful enemies to deal with) are creatures that you will want to have a solid understanding of, otherwise you'll be left to either run or die.

Zolanoteph wrote:
Druid VMC barbarian for raging bears, trees etc

I did this for a Caster/Summoning Druid who had a 20 Wisdom and only had 14 Strength, with a level dip in UCMonk. We also were forced to use the UCBarbarian Rage effects (which weren't bad).

When I was able to cut down a CR 9 creature in half at 7th level in a single full attack action, with all of my stuff going (Power Attack, Rage, Pounce), I could only imagine if I was more optimized for melee combat with the 20 Strength.

Even with the base stuff and Wild Shape, I was doing 1D6/1D8 + 5 Strength + 4 Power Attack + 2 Rage + 1 Enhancement, per attack, and when Wild Shaped into a Tiger (GM wouldn't allow Dire for whatever reason), getting 5 attacks, all at full BAB...yeah, nothing is going to last very long.

Not to mention, summoning 2 similar creatures that can do an identical attack pattern in the round prior, it's ridiculous.

James Risner wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I hope that clarifies my stance.
It does. So I disagree with your reading of the rules. Specifically because the Spell Combat spell is using your off-hand action economy and you forfeit that with Whirlwind Attack. Short of a FAQ, it's unlikely we will get on the same interpretation.

If spells are attacks, like you're positing they are, then quite frankly I should be able to cast two spells as a Full Attack Action. Heck, as a Cleric, I could cast over 4 spells, as both a Full Attack Action and a Swift Action.

But they're spells. Not attacks.

Whirlwind Attack only removes extra attacks. Not spells.

Seager wrote:

Hi there, I'm new to these forums and Pathfinder in general but I'm hoping you guys can help me out a bit. I'm playing a fighter that just hit lvl 6 last night and I'm not sure what feat to take or really how to build him in general. My party consists of a swashbuckler focused on damage and looking cool, a priest who focuses on healing and fire spells and a witch focused on buffs/debuffs, all of whom are built very squishy. My intention with the fighter was to play a tanky guy who could manipulate the battlefield, sort've a guy who fought smart rather than hard if that makes sense.

** spoiler omitted **

Unfortunately, I built this guy before reading more extensively on fighters. As I understand it, fighters should specialize on one weapon. And if you're going sword and board you have to go into the dual wielding stuff to do any damage, which honestly, sounds annoying to me. I'd rather not have to make 8 attack rolls and I'd rather spend those feats on something else. So I'm debating whether I should switch it up to a two hander since the damage from that seems to scale better than the AC from a shield. And really, I'm just kind of at a loss on what to take that'll help me keep my party alive. I understand that this isn't an MMO and tanking isn't really a thing but I'm hoping there's stuff that can somehow help me soak up damage for the party. Are the repositioning or trip feats worth it? Or should I just focus on survivability and rely on Stand Still to keep the enemies on me?

As a fellow boardmember who made a Fighter guide (it was two-handed based, but it gave me a lot of understanding about optimization and Fighter values), let me start you off with some observations of your current build.

Current Build Issues:
1. Your skill selection is a little much. Disable Device is only solid if A. you have it as a class skill, and B. you can disable magic traps, like a Rogue can. I understand you're trying to fill the role of disabling traps, but I think there are better ways to disable traps than that. You don't get much skill points as a Fighter, so you'll want to spend them wisely. Things like Profession: Soldier are also not worthwhile, since they are barely used, if at all. Selecting skills that are used a lot, and accomplish a lot with their usage, are the ones you'll want to spend points in. Of course, try not to overlap skills that other party members select, unless the overlap doesn't matter (such as Perception V.S. Knowledge skills).

2. Fast Learner for any Human character is equivalent to the likes of the Toughness feat. The Toughness feat is alright, but I wouldn't pick up feats like those unless you're running out of required feat choices. Feats like Iron Will (which shore up your biggest weakness, a poor Will Save), Improved Initiative, and so on, are much more valuable for those "static" feats, since one bad Will Save is all it can take for you to either miss out on entire combats (and therefore be unable to do your job), or take out your entire team (because charm/dominate spells mean you're now the enemy's biggest asset), and starting late in combat means you're playing a reactive playstyle of halting the enemy advance, when you're trying to play a proactive playstyle of making sure the enemy doesn't advance at all.

3. Weapons like Bastard Swords are really only good in the early levels, where damage dice is the majority of your damage, and static bonuses aren't so common. In the later levels, like you're reaching now, things like Strength, Weapon Enhancements, Weapon Training, Feats, and so on, will really cut down on the value of damage dice, especially if you aren't actively making the damage dice increase in value (which Fighters mostly suck at). My suggestion is to select a different weapon, preferably one where you don't have to do stuff like that. Weapons with 18-20/X2 (which multiply most all of your static bonuses), or with simply better critical multipliers (Falcata is another solid weapon, definitely worth the proficiency feat), are going to be more valuable to your character, especially if damage is a concern.

4. Sword and Board isn't necessarily bad, and doesn't require you to be attacking with your shield (AKA TWF) to be effective. Shields are primarily a defensive boon, and to be honest, trying to attack with your shield as a Fighter is inoptimal; Shield Martials are better as Slayers or Rangers, who can get the best Shield feats without having to deal with ridiculous requirements to acquire them, and can attack with shields without any issue. As Fighters, the requirements are a little steep (even for your well-rounded build), and require spending feats on stuff you probably don't want, to get the stuff you do want. Even then, there are much better options for you, as a Fighter, to make use of.

With the above current issues, here are my suggestions:

Build Suggestions:
1. Look over some of Paizo's soft-cover books for solid Fighter-only/specific options. The Armor Master's, Weapon Master's, and Magic Tactics Toolbox books are a great place to start, and offer the vanilla Fighter amazing options that are well worth the price of admission. Since they're first party products, the GM shouldn't have much of an issue allowing them in comparison to third party products.

The Fighter-specific stuff can be mostly found on the D20PFSRD site; most specifically, here, so you can get a teaser as to what you can expect from the above book suggestions.

2. Talk to the GM about the retraining rules in Ultimate Campaign. Several of your feats, such as Fast Learner and Stand Still, are kind of bad choices in my honest opinion. I understand Stand Still works as a control aspect, which you want to specialize in, but with your current weapon of choice (a Bastard Sword), you are not going to get much accomplished with it, because Stand Still works best when you have Reach to stop them. In other words, either change the feats I suggested into other worthwhile stuff, or change your weapon of choice to have Reach. The Fauchard is a highly valued weapon of choice, since it has 18-20/X2, and Reach, which is practically unheard of.

3. Trip and Reposition feats have fairly hefty requirements, and will not work on a lot of enemies simply due to them being larger sized than you are. There is also a lot of disparity between CMB and CMD, meaning unless you're super-specialized in it (which you aren't, as it'd require class features to supplement your abilities), you're going to fall behind and wish you selected other feats. There are better combat maneuvers to specialize in that don't have to deal with stupid requirements and limited usability. Dirty Tricks and Sunder are prime examples of those (though Sunder can destroy potentially acquired gear, so I'd caution against that and ask the GM how he'd run acquiring gear you've sundered before pursuing it).

**EDIT** Provided a band-aid for my wall-of-text-syndrome.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It's also one of the most feat-intensive and stupid things I've ever seen; a Magi's feats are much better spent on things like Extra Arcana/Arcane Pool, Metamagic feats, Power Attack...the list goes on. Quite frankly, if somebody can pull this off and actually be effective, I'd actually praise them for not being Dervish Dance Magi #985547387892364x10^34th like everybody expects them to be.

You could get a Qinggong Sensei monk to share Whirlwind Attack with a standard Magus build via Mythic Wisdom.

That said, I still don't believe it would do anything. Whirlwind Attack cancels all other attacks. The spell part of spell combat is stated to be an attack. Ergo, it is cancelled.

No, it's not an attack, which Whirlwind Attack nullifies. It's a spell, which Whirlwind Attack doesn't care about.

The attack you make for casting a spell for free comes after you spend the standard action (and succeed at any relevant concentration checks) to cast the spell. In fact, you must spend separate actions in conjunction to do so; Standard Action to cast the spell, then Free Action to deliver it within the round (or is otherwise a Standard Action or part of an attack to do so).

Whirlwind Attack would cancel any Free Touch Attacks made for casting the spell, or Touch Attacks generated by casting the spell, such as Acid Arrow, Scorching Ray, and so on. But it does not cancel spells, because the feat doesn't say anything about spells, only attacks.

@ James Risner: I hope that clarifies my stance.

Lady-J wrote:
i just wish vmc wasn't all or nothing deal like if there was an ability you didn't want/didn't fit the character concept you just wouldn't have to pay the feat to gain said feature. much like how i dislike archetypes from being all or nothing

Then you're left with people making threads about why class features, most importantly, the class-defining ones, aren't simply Feats that any character can take, and then the seams break down, and you're left grasping at trying to put the frayed books of Pathfinder back together, but realizing that, since you've gazed into the infinity, it's already gazed back at you, and-

Excuse me. I was just about to go on a C'Thulian rant.

What I meant to say, was "It's a balance thing."

Whirlwind Attack may apply when you take a Full Attack Action.

TWF is a Full Attack Action.

Therefore, you can apply Whirlwind Attack when you perform TWF.

Spell Combat functions much like TWF, and counts as a Full Attack Action for effects that rely on it.

Therefore, you can apply Whirlwind Attack when you perform Spell Combat.

Whirlwind Attack replaces whatever attacks you'd normally get, whether through TWF, applying Haste, casting Touch spells, and so on.

It's not difficult. It's not a "twisting of the RAW argument." It's absolutely legal to do, and the ramifications for doing so are completely quantified.

It's also one of the most feat-intensive and stupid things I've ever seen; a Magi's feats are much better spent on things like Extra Arcana/Arcane Pool, Metamagic feats, Power Attack...the list goes on. Quite frankly, if somebody can pull this off and actually be effective, I'd actually praise them for not being Dervish Dance Magi #985547387892364x10^34th like everybody expects them to be.

Revolving Door Alternate wrote:
avr wrote:
VMC summoner sucks. Not only is the eidolon weak it reads like you only get it for a round per level, useless for scouting or as a mount...

Are you sure about that?

I thought that just meant you couldn't summon any monsters while you have your eidolon out like a normal summoner.

Nope, based on my reading, it's only temporary like the summon monsters.

Needless to say, the problem with a lot of VMCs is that they are underpowered for what you're getting, or are simply broken and don't work the way people want them to.

Magus VMC is a prime example, since Spellstrike only works well with single attacks, whereas optimization requires the ability to full attack, which Spell Combat allows (but Spellstrike doesn't). Whereas Barbarian VMC is an example of a good VMC, since you're getting solid abilities that are well worth the price of admission (Rage, Rage Powers, DR, and so on).

Yes, it's increased. Re-reading the Universal Monster Rule, it says:

Powerful Charge wrote:
When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, its attack deals extra damage in addition to the normal benefits and hazards of a charge. The attack and amount of damage from the attack is given in the creature’s description.

So, whenever the creature would hit with a powerful charge, it would take the base damage (the gore), and then add the powerful charge damage on top of it.

For this creature, its powerful charge would deal a total of 8D6+26.

Whirlwind Attack replaces attacks, not spells. Spell Combat substitutes the off-hand weapon (and the attacks associated with it) with a spell. Therefore, Whirlwind Attack doesn't replace the spell, because the attacks that the off-hand would normally grant, are already forfeited.

If the spell itself granted something like a Ranged Touch Attack, in the case of Scorching Ray, those attacks would be forfeited, since those are extra attacks outside of what you're accomplishing with the Whirlwind Attack, but if you have an Arcana or what have you that lets you apply them to your attacks, the spell effect would still trigger on attacks made via Whirlwind Attack.

How about we cite the full Whirlwind Attack feat before we jump to conclusions here:

Whirlwind Attack wrote:

When you use the full-attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach. You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent.

When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.

So, from the description, we gather that:

1. Whirlwind Attack is a Full Attack Action, and not a special Full Round Action like everyone is saying it is.
2. You forfeit any standard attacks you would normally get to make one attack against all enemies within reach.
3. Whirlwind Attack forfeits bonus/extra attacks granted by feats, spells, or abilities.

Now, what about Spell Combat?

Spell Combat wrote:
At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty). If he casts this spell defensively, he can decide to take an additional penalty on his attack rolls, up to his Intelligence bonus, and add the same amount as a circumstance bonus on his concentration check. If the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still take the penalty. A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks.

From this, we gather that:

1. Spell Combat is normally a special Full Round Action, but because of the FAQ and general description, it counts as a Full Attack Action for the purposes of Haste and other effects.
2. The off-hand weapon is a spell with a casting of one standard action, which may or may not include a free attack or touch attack to deliver the spell, depending on what is cast.
3. He is permitted to make all of his attacks.

It's quite clear that Spell Combat can work with Whirlwind Attack. However, Whirlwind Attack forfeits any attacks from spells (such as Haste, or even the free Touch Attack to deliver a spell), feats, class features, and so on. There's also the matter of there being very few multi-touch spells, and the ones that do exist, suck nuts by the time a Magus can make use of this tactic.

Lady-J wrote:
would we then be able to flag this for faq darksol?

If you want this to be the FAQ thread, then sure.

But, I don't think it would be a good idea, since I doubt it would warrant a proper answer.

master_marshmallow wrote:

It's an effect, it works.

Items aren't effects. They create effects, or enhance existing or creatable effects, but they aren't in and of themselves effects. The only time an item is an effect is in the case of the Fabricate spell, and even then...

Unless you can prove that an item is an effect, which is doubtful, you're left with table variation, at best. At worst, you're left with the Touch of Corruption class feature requiring FAQ/Errata to function the way you're claiming it functions, to which I say "make a thread and wait for an answer."

Java Man wrote:
So how do I know when something is an effect or a property?

It's a property because what is enhancing the feature in question is an item. Items aren't feats, spells, or effects (which I assume is what you're trying to get me to say, that items are effects, which is wrong).

Sure, items can create effects, or enhance existing ones (such as the description that the item in question allows). The only time an item is an effect is in the case of a spell such as Fabricate, and usually the ramifications for such are easily and clearly defined as simply creating an actual item.

That's not the case here. The bracers aren't an effect of a feat, spell, or other feature. They're an item, crafted through a feat or other ability. The item is improving the Lay On Hands feature. Touch of Corruption is treated as Lay On Hands for spells, feats, and effects, of which items aren't. Therefore, it stands to reason that items which improve Lay On Hands don't improve Touch of Corruption, since items don't fall into the listed ramifications.

You're more than welcome to make a FAQ about what all falls into the "other effects" portion of the Antipaladin Touch of Corruption ability (it certainly could use a touch up and clarification), but as it is currently written, and as I interpret the written rules, it doesn't look like the bracers, as written, function properly for Antipaladins (and quite frankly, it's more fitting that way).

**EDIT** Coding is hard...

It's the property of an item, not an effect of an item.

Claxon, it says feat, spell, or effect.

The bracers are an item, not a feat, spell, or effect, as the entry describes.

Therefore, the bracers would not be applicable for use with the Antipaladin's Touch of Corruption feature.

That being said, I think there should be an Antipaladin equivalent, so here's my take on the matter:

Bracers of the Merciless Knight wrote:
These cold iron and silver bracers are engraved with images of fiendish creatures. When worn by an antipaladin, he is considered four levels higher for the purposes of determining the uses per day and dice rolled for his touch of corruption class feature. Additionally, once per day, the wearer can infuse a use of touch of corruption with additional power, providing doom unto the target creature, as the spell, if the creature fails the saving throw of the touch of corruption.

Do with that as you may.

Fellfire wrote:
I would say, yes. Lycanthropy is extremely virulent. It can be transmitted through sexual contact.

More properly, it's genetic. If a character with lycanthropy mates with a creature who is (or isn't) lycanthropic, the newborn creature would also suffer from the effects of lycanthropy, since the parent(s) is/are afflicted with the disease of lycanthropy.

A lot of diseases normally aren't genetic, but Lycanthropy isn't just a disease, but also a curse.

Here's an entry for proof regarding contraction of Lycanthropy:

Contracting Lycanthropy wrote:
Inheritance: Those creatures born with the blood of lycanthropy fully within them are known as natural lycanthropes. These individuals are every bit as accursed as their afflicted counterparts, save that they are, for the most part, capable of controlling their bestial urges. While they can transform at will and are not so attuned to the mysterious influence of the phases of the moon, the blood of the beast still burns brightly within them, and many natural lycanthropes turn toward a path of depravity and insatiable hunger. For the most part, natural and afflicted lycanthropes tend to bear children born with the curse. It remains a mystery as to exactly how far down a familial line the curse of lycanthropy runs before it manifests only as skinwalker children or is diluted to the point of non-expression.

The bolded parts provide compelling evidence to suggest that mating with other Lycanthropes results in creating Lycanthropic offspring.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's the Curse of Lycanthropy entry:

Curse of Lycanthropy wrote:
A natural lycanthrope’s bite attack in animal or hybrid form infects a humanoid target with lycanthropy (Fortitude DC 15 negates). If the victim’s size is not within one size category of the lycanthrope’s size, this ability has no effect.

Per RAW, if they're turned into their hybrid form (usually by choice or through some sort of activity, as per a full moon), the lycanthropy would be transferred through a bite attack. Of course, she could have possibly made the save (it's only DC 15, and even with average stats, it's a 25% chance). If they're in their humanoid form, it wouldn't transfer, though many GMs would argue that it's not something that should be linked to their form (and more to their being, and as such, any sort of bite attack would apply), but that's what the rules say.

Here's more relevant information:

Lycanthropy wrote:

A creature that catches lycanthropy becomes an afflicted lycanthrope, but shows no symptoms (and does not gain any of the template's adjustments or abilities) until the night of the next full moon, when the victim involuntarily assumes animal form and forgets his or her own identity. The character remains in animal form until the next dawn and remembers nothing about the entire episode (or subsequent episodes) unless he makes a DC 20 Will save, in which case he becomes aware of his condition.

A remove disease or heal spell cast by a cleric of 12th level or higher cures the affliction, provided the character receives the spell within 3 days of the infecting lycanthrope's attack. Alternatively, consuming a dose of wolfsbane gives an afflicted lycanthrope a new Fortitude save to recover from lycanthropy.

You may not know for sure if she is contracted or not unless you perform something akin to a Heal skill check (or perhaps more accurately, a Perception skill check) to determine if that is the case, and it's only truly definitive when they turn under the full moon. Otherwise, your character probably has no clue (though he can certainly question it if he has reason to).

Of course, a strong enough Cleric can cleanse the disease, but only within 3 days of being afflicted. After that, the Cleric is no good. Wolfsbane is another, much cheaper (and probably more available) option, as far as I know, but it's a poison, something which most Paladins have ethical qualms for using.

The only other problem is that it's not fool-proof, and is heavily dependent upon the consumer's own fortitude (as they must remake the save, though if they're given some anti-disease alchemical goods, it's basically a coin flip).

Needless to say, in most cases, once you're turned, you're turned. There isn't much to do in the way of fixing it, especially if it's let go for so long. Either way, that Paladin is going to be swallowed up in his own fury and anger after failure, or realize that his path is too dangerous for him to involve potential love lives, for fear that he may be forced to one day deal with the pain of loss.

Well, let's look at the to-hit on average, assuming ABP.

To-Hit Calculations:
1st level - +4 (0 BAB, 4 Dexterity)
2nd level - +6 (1 BAB, 1 Masterwork, 4 Dexterity)
3rd level - +7 (2 BAB, 1 Masterwork, 4 Dexterity)
4th level - +8 (3 BAB, 1 Enhancement, 4 Dexterity)
5th level - +8 (3 BAB, 1 Enhancement, 4 Dexterity)
6th level - +9 (4 BAB, 1 Enhancement, 4 Dexterity)
7th level - +11 (5 BAB, 1 Enhancement, 5 Dexterity)
8th level - +13/+8 (6 BAB, 1 Enhancement, 6 Dexterity)
9th level - +14/+9 (6 BAB, 2 Enhancement, 6 Dexterity)
10th level - +15/+10 (7 BAB, 2 Enhancement, 6 Dexterity)
11th level - +16/+11 (8 BAB, 2 Enhancement, 6 Dexterity)
12th level - +18/+13 (9 BAB, 2 Enhancement, 7 Dexterity)
13th level - +18/+13 (9 BAB, 2 Enhancement, 7 Dexterity)
14th level - +20/+15 (10 BAB, 3 Enhancement, 7 Dexterity)
15th level - +22/+17 (11 BAB, 4 Enhancement, 7 Dexterity)
16th level - +25/+20 (12 BAB, 4 Enhancement, 9 Dexterity)
17th level - +26/+21 (12 BAB, 5 Enhancement, 9 Dexterity)
18th level - +27/+22 (13 BAB, 5 Enhancement, 9 Dexterity)

I'll probably get my Enhancement stuff much sooner than that, since I can enhance my Arcane Bonded Bow at cost (a shame I don't get the free flexible spell slot, though), and my Arcane Pool can add to it. Starting off, 1st level is going to suck nuts.

The problem with the Reach Spellstrike arcana is that it takes until 9th level to acquire. That's way too long to be going without metamagic'd burst spells, especially since Magi are the de facto nova class, and you can't retrain character traits, or I definitely would.

You are right about the Clustered Shots, though. I could probably just not take it altogether, since I can enhance my bow for cost, and for enemies who do have the DR, I can pump the enhancement bonus up and just say screw them. It'd certainly let me take Intensify spell sooner, which is awesome, or I could take Extra Arcana and get both Reach Spellstrike and Hasted Assault at the same time, likewise awesome (or Extra Arcane Pool, since Spell Recall gets expensive very fast, though Improved Spell Recall helps, and is just around the corner).

Agreed, but you need the caster levels to back it up. I can't just pick it up by 5th level and do 10D6.

I won't reach 10D6 until 10th level, and I won't get a feat for it until 11th level (or 9th; it may be worthwhile putting off Clustered Shots, but with Rapid Shot and Hasted Assault working in my favor, giving me 3 full BAB attacks, having that much DR to deal with can be a pain in the early levels, even with an Arcane Bonded Bow).

And with the Snowball traits, I'd get more mileage out of the Empowered effect sooner than I would the Intensified effect, since I can still cast Empowered Snowballs basically for free.

Per RAW, no. It's just like how humanoid creatures usually have 10 fingers, but can only ever benefit from 2 rings at any given time (usually one in each hand).

So, while they can wear two head items, they can only ever benefit from one at any given time.

Goes to show you that two heads really aren't always better than one...

1 to 50 of 4,773 << 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.