If you Quickened the Disintegrate, then it is a Swift Action. Then you could use Rapid Shot, but I suggest not to, because you are imposing yourself a penalty you do not need to impose.
That bolded section is incorrect. You still can not use rapid shot with disintegrate. It has been used with your swift action. The rules do not allow you to apply a full round action to the spell.
Yeah I'm in agreement we are getting nowhere with this conversation so this will be my last bit. As I've said before casting a ranged touch attack is a standard action, yes. It is also incredibly broken to gve spellcaster full attack and I can't deny this but that is the point I'm getting at as well. You are all saying you can only cast one spell a turn because casting a spell is a standard action. That being said casting a ranged touch attack is a attack, yes you have to cast a spell to do it but that is part of the attack as the rules explicitly state. From there since casting a ranged touch attack is for all intents and purposes exactly like a regular ranged attack there is no rule saying you can't use a full attack action with ranged touch attacks. Is it ridiculously unbalanced? Absolutely but the point I'm trying to make is that I see no reason it shouldn't work that way other than 'because casting the spell somehow isn't an attack even though the rules says it is'. At higher levels going without precise shot is fine but at lower levels you are going to have to burn two feats or forgo ray attacks altogether. I was writing this because I feel according to RAW it works like this but as far as RAI it's an unnecessary ruling that causes everyone involved a headache.
If you believe us then go to enworld and rpg.net, and ask the same question.
there is no rule saying you can't use a full attack action with ranged touch attacks.
I agree and we never said you could not use a full attack with ranged touch attacks. We said that a spell(the ones listed) would not allow you to full attack because that spell uses your standard action. By the rules you do not get a standard action and a full attack in the same round.
That bolded section is incorrect. You still can not use rapid shot with disintegrate. It has been used with your swift action. The rules do not allow you to apply a full round action to the spell.
If you Quickened the Disintegrate, then it is a Swift Action. Then you could use Rapid Shot, but I suggest not to, because you are imposing yourself a penalty you do not need to impose.
He's saying you can use your swift for the Disintegrate and then you still have a full attack to be able to rapid shot with, he agrees you can't rapid shot disintegrate, just that you could technically use a bow using rapid shot and a swift disintegrate.
Yeah I'm in agreement we are getting nowhere with this conversation so this will be my last bit. As I've said before casting a ranged touch attack is a standard action, yes. It is also incredibly broken to gve spellcaster full attack and I can't deny this but that is the point I'm getting at as well. You are all saying you can only cast one spell a turn because casting a spell is a standard action. That being said casting a ranged touch attack is a attack, yes you have to cast a spell to do it but that is part of the attack as the rules explicitly state. From there since casting a ranged touch attack is for all intents and purposes exactly like a regular ranged attack there is no rule saying you can't use a full attack action with ranged touch attacks. Is it ridiculously unbalanced? Absolutely but the point I'm trying to make is that I see no reason it shouldn't work that way other than 'because casting the spell somehow isn't an attack even though the rules says it is'. At higher levels going without precise shot is fine but at lower levels you are going to have to burn two feats or forgo ray attacks altogether. I was writing this because I feel according to RAW it works like this but as far as RAI it's an unnecessary ruling that causes everyone involved a headache.
The bolded section is where you're wrong. If you'd care to prove me wrong by quoting the rule where it explicitly states that the spell is part of the attack please do so, I'd love to be corrected. But if you can't the bolded section is wrong and that is were the your logic falls apart and puts you spouting nonsense about full attacking with spells. If you do have proof then you are correct and will correct years of uncorrect thought.
Edit: The rule is that you get a free attack as part of the spell, not a free spell as part of some attack.
He's saying you can use your swift for the Disintegrate and then you still have a full attack to be able to rapid shot with, he agrees you can't rapid shot disintegrate, just that you could technically use a bow using rapid shot and a swift disintegrate.That bolded section is incorrect. You still can not use rapid shot with disintegrate. It has been used with your swift action. The rules do not allow you to apply a full round action to the spell.
If you Quickened the Disintegrate, then it is a Swift Action. Then you could use Rapid Shot, but I suggest not to, because you are imposing yourself a penalty you do not need to impose.
Ok.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I'm in agreement we are getting nowhere with this conversation so this will be my last bit. As I've said before casting a ranged touch attack is a standard action, yes. It is also incredibly broken to gve spellcaster full attack and I can't deny this but that is the point I'm getting at as well. You are all saying you can only cast one spell a turn because casting a spell is a standard action. That being said casting a ranged touch attack is a attack, yes you have to cast a spell to do it but that is part of the attack as the rules explicitly state. From there since casting a ranged touch attack is for all intents and purposes exactly like a regular ranged attack there is no rule saying you can't use a full attack action with ranged touch attacks. Is it ridiculously unbalanced? Absolutely but the point I'm trying to make is that I see no reason it shouldn't work that way other than 'because casting the spell somehow isn't an attack even though the rules says it is'. At higher levels going without precise shot is fine but at lower levels you are going to have to burn two feats or forgo ray attacks altogether. I was writing this because I feel according to RAW it works like this but as far as RAI it's an unnecessary ruling that causes everyone involved a headache.
Chess Pwn and wraithstrike are correct. The source of your confusion lies in the part that I bolded. Casting Disintegrate grants you a free ranged touch attack as part of the casting. It is not true that you can cast Disintegrate in place of an iterative attack. The spell still takes a standard action to cast, and as wraithstrike points out, using a standard action precludes using a full-round action in the same round.
In a combat round you basically have three ways to divide your time into action types.
Type I
1 full-round action
1 swift action
a reasonable number of free actions
Type II
1 standard action
1 move action
1 swift action
a reasonable number of free actions
Type III
2 move actions
1 swift action
a reasonable number of free actions
None of those let you use a full-round action and three standard actions like in your example.
Edit: Ninja'd by Chess Pwn. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok.He's saying you can use your swift for the Disintegrate and then you still have a full attack to be able to rapid shot with, he agrees you can't rapid shot disintegrate, just that you could technically use a bow using rapid shot and a swift disintegrate.That bolded section is incorrect. You still can not use rapid shot with disintegrate. It has been used with your swift action. The rules do not allow you to apply a full round action to the spell.
If you Quickened the Disintegrate, then it is a Swift Action. Then you could use Rapid Shot, but I suggest not to, because you are imposing yourself a penalty you do not need to impose.
I had the same confusion about this, wraithstrike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just posting the rule for clarification.
Ranged Touch spells in combat: Some spells allow you to use ranged touch attacks as part of casting the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a seperate action.
So note how it says that the attacks are part of the spell, not the spell as part of the attacks.
If you don't cast a spell then you have no attacks. If you cast a spell you do what the spell says to do, and some spells have you make attacks, and those attacks are considered weapon attacks at that point. Up until the spell is done you have no "weapon" to attack with, once the spell is done and you have your weapon, you've already used your standard action, so you only have a move, swift and free actions, and some of those free actions can be attacking with the weapon the spell made.
I'm just posting the rule for clarification.
Ranged Touch spells in combat: Some spells allow you to use ranged touch attacks as part of casting the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a seperate action.
I already said the attack is part of the spell. There was never any disagreement on that from any of us. I think you may be misreading what we are saying if you think we disagreed especially since you thought we said ranged attacks are not allowed as a full attack.
We are saying certain things require certain actions(move, standard, swift, full round, etc) to be availible, and certain acts use up certain actions, so that restricts other things from taking place.
I'm just posting the rule for clarification.
Ranged Touch spells in combat: Some spells allow you to use ranged touch attacks as part of casting the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a seperate action.I already said the attack is part of the spell. There was never any disagreement on that from any of us. I think you may be misreading what we are saying if you think we disagreed especially since you thought we said ranged attacks are not allowed as a full attack.
We are saying certain things require certain actions(move, standard, swift, full round, etc) to be availible, and certain acts use up certain actions, so that restricts other things from taking place.
Wraithstrike, he's interpreting the bolded part as meaning that you could cast the spell in the same "action" that it would take to make an attack with a weapon.
The problem with that is you don't have a weapon to make the attacks with until after the spell is done, so you can't "make an attack with a spell weapon" and then "cast the spell to provide the weapon" since you can't declare attacks with weapons you don't have at the time.
I'm just posting the rule for clarification.
Ranged Touch spells in combat: Some spells allow you to use ranged touch attacks as part of casting the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a seperate action.I already said the attack is part of the spell. There was never any disagreement on that from any of us. I think you may be misreading what we are saying if you think we disagreed especially since you thought we said ranged attacks are not allowed as a full attack.
We are saying certain things require certain actions(move, standard, swift, full round, etc) to be availible, and certain acts use up certain actions, so that restricts other things from taking place.
Wraithstrike, he's interpreting the bolded part as meaning that you could cast the spell in the same "action" that it would take to make an attack with a weapon.
The problem with that is you don't have a weapon to make the attacks with until after the spell is done, so you can't "make an attack with a spell weapon" and then "cast the spell to provide the weapon" since you can't declare attacks with weapons you don't have at the time.
You could be right, but another possible source of confusion has occurred to me.
I went from 2nd edition to Pathfinder, skipping editions 3 and 3.5, so I found the action economy system pretty confusing at first. I remember that one problem I had was with the difference between a single attack and a full attack. Since a single attack takes a standard action, I assumed that each attack in a full attack also took a standard action. I thought that if a character with three iterative attacks used a full attack action then that full round action consisted of three standard actions. In my view, increasing the number of iterative attacks just let a character shove more standard attacks into a full attack action.
Clockwork Kobold's example makes perfect sense under that interpretation. His example character could make three iterative attacks in a full attack action. If he believes that each of those attacks already takes up a standard action, then replacing each with a standard action spell is perfectly reasonable as far as action economy is concerned. This would explain why we are talking in circles. He keeps quoting the "does not require a separate action" portion to us because he thinks we are concerned with extra time needed for the ranged touch attacks, when what we are really concerned about is the extra time needed to cast the spells.
Clockwork Kobold, if you are still there, could you let me know whether I got this right? Are you under the impression that each iterative attack in a full attack action is a standard action?
Yes that is more or less how I am interpreting how that would work. Don't get me wrong, I understand and can see how casting the spell makes it not an attack but at the same time, a full attack, the way I see, it as an amalgamation of viable standard actions: melee attacks, ranged attacks, and combat maneuvers.
Ok, we have a breakthrough. :)
I had the same interpretation myself when I first started playing the game. The problem is that this interpretation of a full attack action is wrong.
A full attack action is not made up of standard actions, can not contain standard actions, and can not take place in the same round as a standard action. The two types of action are completely different (and incompatible) things. All of your iterative attacks together count as one single full round action. A full attack action can't be split up into separate action types. It doesn't matter whether they are melee attacks, ranged attacks, combat maneuvers, or some combination, the iterative attacks are not standard actions; each attack is part of a single, indivisible full-round action. Since the individual attacks aren't standard actions, you can't substitute a standard action casting.
The point I was trying to get across is since rays should be treated exactly as ranged attacks for feats like precise shot then what is really separating the casting of ranged touch attacks from being just like a normal ranged attack?
The action economy rules mentioned above are what prevent this. The ranged touch attack is part of the standard action used to cast the spell and so it can't be part of a full attack action.
The reason I've been making this argument is because I think needing to apply precise shot to rays is silly and if you really want to nitpick the rules I see this as a viable interpretion that needs to be brought up.
Making any ranged attack into melee (arrows, thrown daggers, rays, etc.) incurs a -4 penalty. It is the same for everyone, no matter what weapon they are using. That is what the rules clearly say to do. The term "nitpick" seems out of place.
Yes that is more or less how I am interpreting how that would work. Don't get me wrong, I understand and can see how casting the spell makes it not an attack but at the same time, a full attack, the way I see, it as an amalgamation of viable standard actions: melee attacks, ranged attacks, and combat maneuvers. The point I was trying to get across is since rays should be treated exactly as ranged attacks for feats like precise shot then what is really separating the casting of ranged touch attacks from being just like a normal ranged attack?
The reason I've been making this argument is because I think needing to apply precise shot to rays is silly and if you really want to nitpick the rules I see this as a viable interpretion that needs to be brought up.
A full attack isn't a bunch of standard. You cannot full attack with a heavy crossbow as it takes to long to reload. You cannot make grapple or dirty trip attempts in a full attack as they are standard actions. You can make trip or sunder attempts as those just need attacks, not the Attack action, but vital strike needs the Attack standard action and can't be done in a full attack.
Also you can full attacks with weapons you don't have ready. You cannot draw a greatsword or bow as part of a full attack, same with casting a spell. You cannot cast the spell to get the weapon to make a full attack with. You need the weapon available at the start of the full attack.
Rules:
A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action.
In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, you can perform a full-round action.
That means no standard and full round actions in the same round.