muti atk with spells

can you muti attack with a spell that has to make a ranged attack?

No, as casting the spell is a standard action. Doing a full-attack is a full action. You wouldn't get the action economy to do both. There are a spells (like magic missile) that do an extra attack if you cast it as a full action instead of a standard though.

See if your DM will let you play magus. Their spell combat and spellstrike lets you cast a spell and full attack on the same turn.

shooting a gun is a stranded action that you can turn into a full action atk, so a spell with a range atk roll would not follow same rules? now of course save or fail spells no.

also magic missile has to have different targets per missile.

shooting a gun is a stranded action that you can turn into a full action atk, so a spell with a range atk roll would not follow same rules? now of course save or fail spells no.

No. Casting a spell and shooting a gun are not the same.

well yeah but the question is more to if both are a stranded action why can i not use muti atk since i can not find where the rules say no

They rules do say no. An attack is a standard action. As an OPTION you can full attack. This is specifically only with ranged or melee weapons. There is no such option for spellcasting. You are very definitely allowed one standard action spell a round. If you can find a move action, or Swift action spell, feel free to cast those as well. But I cannot recall a damaging spell that would take up those smaller actions.

well yeah but the question is more to if both are a stranded action why can i not use muti atk since i can not find where the rules say no

Because the rules are very clear on what you can use multi-attack for.

First off, let us look at what a "Full Attack" is.

A "Full Attack" is not simply spending your move action to make an attack, then spending your standard action to make an attack.

It is its own special move, a Full Attack, is a special move defined as such:

"You can spend a full action to make two attacks, each with
a –4 penalty to the attack rolls. These attacks can be made
with the same weapon or different weapons, though certain
weapons have a firing speed so slow that you can’t shoot
them more than once in a round, even with a full attack. These
weapons have the unwieldy special property (see page 182)."

"Attack" is a standard action - It is defined in the rules on page 244 of the CRB.

"Cast a Spell" is a standard action - It is defined in the rules on page 246 of the CRB.

You're looking for something in the rules to tell you that you can't do it. That is basically saying, "Unless the book says no, then it is yes." Which isn't how the game works. You want them to prove a negative, which is impossible. The book doesn't say you CAN do it which is what you need to find.

The book says that you can make two attacks. It does not say you can cast two spells.

-----

A spell is NOT a weapon.

You cannot say, "Because it says it can be done with two weapons means I can do it with spells, because it doesn't explicitly say I can't."

It *does* explicitly say you can do it with *weapons* on the other hand.

-----

I mean, here's one:

The book doesn't say that I have to roll the dice. It says I need to use a die. It doesn't say I can't place the dice how I want them to land. It doesn't say I can't use weighted dice that always come up high numbers.

Is it okay for me to use weighted dice against you so all of my attacks are natural 20s? I mean, the book never mentions weighted dice at all. So that, under your logic, is allowed right?

Of course it isn't. You don't need the book to say no, you kind of need it to say yes.

Kagerage wrote:

well yeah but the question is more to if both are a stranded action why can i not use muti atk since i can not find where the rules say no

Because the rules are very clear on what you can use multi-attack for.

First off, let us look at what a "Full Attack" is.

A "Full Attack" is not simply spending your move action to make an attack, then spending your standard action to make an attack.

It is its own special move, a Full Attack, is a special move defined as such:

"You can spend a full action to make two attacks, each with
a –4 penalty to the attack rolls. These attacks can be made
with the same weapon or different weapons, though certain
weapons have a firing speed so slow that you can’t shoot
them more than once in a round, even with a full attack. These
weapons have the unwieldy special property (see page 182)."

"Attack" is a standard action - It is defined in the rules on page 244 of the CRB.

"Cast a Spell" is a standard action - It is defined in the rules on page 246 of the CRB.

You're looking for something in the rules to tell you that you can't do it. That is basically saying, "Unless the book says no, then it is yes." Which isn't how the game works. You want them to prove a negative, which is impossible. The book doesn't say you CAN do it which is what you need to find.

The book says that you can make two attacks. It does not say you can cast two spells.

-----

A spell is NOT a weapon.

You cannot say, "Because it says it can be done with two weapons means I can do it with spells, because it doesn't explicitly say I can't."

It *does* explicitly say you can do it with *weapons* on the other hand.

-----

I mean, here's one:

The book doesn't say that I have to roll the dice. It says I need to use a die. It doesn't say I can't place the dice how I want them to land. It doesn't say I can't use weighted dice that always come up high numbers.

Is it okay for me to use weighted dice against you so all of my attacks are natural 20s?...

get over yourself, i asked a question and wanted a full reply to that question. no need to attack me like a small child who has to share his toys. how about just give a nice reply and not be rude to others who just want to better understand, not only for themselves but for players who might have also asked this question.

also thanks for the rules that i missed due to this being a new system

EDIT took out attack on other posters

kagerage come on that last post was everything you where upset at HWalsh for. Maybe he/she went overboard but still.

true mike roper i went on the attack too, i am sorry for my lack of judgment.

So my understanding is spells can't do mulitattack that said if you want that in your life ( and who would not) talk to your GM if it's a home game and try to work somthing out. Maybe a metamagicish feat that allows you to burn a spell higher to get two attacks of a lower spell at the same penalties as full attack?

possibly, id have to look at the difference in damage out put of magic attack spells vs weapons. limit which spells can or cant.

I'm sorry if you thought I was attacking you, that wasn't my intention. I was simply going in-depth and giving an anecdotal example.

also magic missile has to have different targets per missile.

This is incorrect.

You can target a single creature or several creatures, but each missile can strike only one creature.

Kagerage wrote:

also magic missile has to have different targets per missile.

This is incorrect.

CRB wrote:

You can target a single creature or several creatures, but each missile can strike only one creature.

see that last part got me each missile can strike only one creature for some reason I got in my head one target per missile.

andrewmarvell wrote:

Kagerage wrote:

also magic missile has to have different targets per missile.

This is incorrect.

CRB wrote:

You can target a single creature or several creatures, but each missile can strike only one creature.

see that last part got me each missile can strike only one creature for some reason I got in my head one target per missile.

That is a slightly awkward wording, yeah. I have no clue why anyone would think an individual missile could hit multiple targets, so I don't realy get what that line exists for, other than causing further confusion

see that last part got me each missile can strike only one creature for some reason I got in my head one target per missile.

It seems to be a common misreading because, like The_Defiant said, the wording is particularly unclear.

well my techno player will be happy...and so will I since my shooting stars just got an "upgrade"

Magic missile can all be on the same target. The confusion is caused by poor wording. Nothing really has changed for MM since 1977.

also magic missile has to have different targets per missile.

Apparently, at one point the rules did prohibit more than one missile per target, as some Paizo people have actually quoted that incorrect rule.

well yeah but the question is more to if both are a stranded action why can i not use muti atk since i can not find where the rules say no

That's not how the rules work. In Starfinder the rules tell you what you can do, not what you can't.

For instance, the rules never say that you don't get full technomancer spell progression by just playing a human race character (that is getting all the spell casting ability of a technomancer without even playing the class).

But I think we can all agree that's just absurdly wrong. So just like the rules don't say you can't turn a spell into a full attack, doesn't mean it's right.

Remember this, as it applies to all rules in Starfinder and Pathfinder. The rules tell you what you can do. Not what you can't.