Ok, while "base speed" may not be specifically defined anywhere in the rules as "land speed", there's an AWFUL LARGE amount of evidence that is the case...
Could you please tell me what base speed is referring to there? I mean, if base speed does not mean land speed, that could be potentially any kind of movement mode, couldn't it? Where does it even SAY any playable race has a "land speed"?
Looks to me like "base speed" is indeed being used as a synonym for "land speed," unless you'd like to prove otherwise.
It's been awhile since I looked at the movement rates, but isn't ALL movement rates determined FROM that base rate? isn't climb 1/4 your base rate, and swim the same...
Lands speed = Base rate, but everything else is a fraction OF that speed...
soooo if a monk gets bonuses to his base speed... he gets a bonus to ALL his movements that factor Base speed.
Same way a Dwarf doesn't climb as fast as humans without armor...
|
Except spell combat is a full-round action. Haste only works with the full-attack action. Also, there no other action you can take after spell combat such as the monk can will full-attack and swift actions.
What type of action is a full attack action?
Full Round Action is a generic classification encompassing any number of specific actions, one of which is full attack.
The inconsistency comes from spell combat, an ability derived from twf fighting, being labeled its own unique action while all other abilities allowing iterative attacks or deriving from twf are still classified as full-round attacks.
And yes, magus can use swift actions in conjunction with spell combat. If full round actions precluded swift actions, the monk would not be able to combine ki expenditures with FoB.
|
|
Lands speed = Base rate, but everything else is a fraction OF that speed...
Land speed serves as a base, if no special movement abilities are present.
If a specific movement type is listed, there is no requirement it be based in any way off of land speed.
Look at creatures that actually have fly, climb and swim speeds listed.
The monk is using a no action (spending a Ki point) to make a extra attack that is still a no action but is part of his flurry of blow.
He don't get any action from that expenditure of a ki point.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but a monk spending a ki point for an extra attack needs to use a swift action, not "no action".
Except spell combat is a full-round action. Haste only works with the full-attack action. Also, there no other action you can take after spell combat such as the monk can will full-attack and swift actions.Excuse me, where do you get the curious idea that a magus can't use a swift action after using spell combat?
The monk is using a no action (spending a Ki point) to make a extra attack that is still a no action but is part of his flurry of blow.
He don't get any action from that expenditure of a ki point.
Spending a ki point is a swift action. You're excused.
Except spell combat is a full-round action. Haste only works with the full-attack action. Also, there no other action you can take after spell combat such as the monk can will full-attack and swift actions.What type of action is a full attack action?
Full Round Action is a generic classification encompassing any number of specific actions, one of which is full attack.
The inconsistency comes from spell combat, an ability derived from twf fighting, being labeled its own unique action while all other abilities allowing iterative attacks or deriving from twf are still classified as full-round attacks.
And yes, magus can use swift actions in conjunction with spell combat. If full round actions precluded swift actions, the monk would not be able to combine ki expenditures with FoB.
In various places in the rules do I see various abilities being used as swift actions in conjunction with full attack actions but never with full round actions.
|
Spending a ki point is a swift action. You're excused.Except spell combat is a full-round action. Haste only works with the full-attack action. Also, there no other action you can take after spell combat such as the monk can will full-attack and swift actions.Excuse me, where do you get the curious idea that a magus can't use a swift action after using spell combat?
The monk is using a no action (spending a Ki point) to make a extra attack that is still a no action but is part of his flurry of blow.
He don't get any action from that expenditure of a ki point.
You still haven't replied to the question. what make you think that the magus can't use a swift action in conjunction with spell combat?
In various places in the rules do I see various abilities being used as swift actions in conjunction with full attack actions but never with full round actions.
You are joking, right? Or you really invent this kind of rulings?
Swift Action: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform only a single swift action per turn.
Swift ActionsA swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Swift actions usually involve spellcasting, activating a feat, or the activation of magic items.
Nothing there about "you can't combine a swift action with a full round action. You can even combine it with a 1 round action, generally doing it before you start the 1 round action.
And to reiterate it:
Full-Round Actions
A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step.
The rules explicitly state what you can't combine with a full round action, and a swift action isn't on the list.
Monk: Does the extra attack from spending ki as part of a flurry of blows stack with the extra attack from haste?Yes. The extra attack described in the ki pool ability doesn't say it works like haste, nor does it say that it doesn't stack with haste, so the monk would get two additional attacks (one from spending a ki point as part of a flurry, one from haste).
—Pathfinder Design Team, yesterday
Wow. The extra attack from spending ki stacks with haste. Some will hate this ruling, others will look for way to exploit it, but I am glad that some issues are being addressed.
MA
Actually when extra attack don't stack with haste is written. In the monk's description was not written. Quite simple :)
Buri, are you really trying to say that you can't take a swift actions with full-round actions? Because if so, note:
Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions and swift actions (see below). See Table: Actions in Combat for a list of full-round actions.If not, carry on!
My bad!
You still haven't replied to the question. what make you think that the magus can't use a swift action in conjunction with spell combat?Spending a ki point is a swift action. You're excused.Except spell combat is a full-round action. Haste only works with the full-attack action. Also, there no other action you can take after spell combat such as the monk can will full-attack and swift actions.Excuse me, where do you get the curious idea that a magus can't use a swift action after using spell combat?
The monk is using a no action (spending a Ki point) to make a extra attack that is still a no action but is part of his flurry of blow.
He don't get any action from that expenditure of a ki point.
So he can. It still doesn't mean haste applies to spell combat. Full attack actions may be full round actions but full round actions are not necessarily full attack actions. It's a common inheritance problem I deal with in programming all the time so it makes perfect sense to me. It's the same as all caucasians are human but not all humans are caucasian. Since haste specifies full attack actions that means it needs to be that kind of actions. Full round actions do not automatically apply.
Link?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a FAQ on that as well, actually.
Yes there is. FAQ
Thus my grumbling about inconsistent rulings. Two special attack forms, both derived from TWF. One benefits from haste, the other does not.
|
|
The adjustment of Haste from 3.0 to 3.5 (and Pathfinder has inherited the 3.5 version with almost no change) was designed to stop spellcasters from really benefitting from the spell. In its 3.0 implementation, it was letting spellcasters get off more than one spell a round without benefit of using the Quicken Spell feat or some other similar arrangement (it allowed an extra "partial action", which amounted to a standard action or a move action, but not both). It thus didn't take much for Wizards to start chaining together terrifying combinations like quickened Haste (free action), hastened spell ("partial action"), regular spell (standard action), second quickened Haste (free action), and a final spell from the second Haste's effect ("partial action"). If they were creative, they could find ways to start chaining together Hasted effects and pull off spectacular chains that had a GM holding their head as they watched their carefully-constructed encounter be wiped out in two rounds (or less!).
Well that was violating several rules even then:
- you could cast only 1 quickened spell each round (unless you had a epic feat from the epic handbook);- you couldn't stack effect from the same source, so you couldn't be hasted twice.
There's a FAQ on that as well, actually.Yes there is. FAQ
Thus my grumbling about inconsistent rulings. Two special attack forms, both derived from TWF. One benefits from haste, the other does not.
I don't see it as inconsistent. It's specified as a full round action in the description. This is what I was talking about a = b but b =/= a logic. Even though full attack actions are full round actions the reverse is not necessarily true.
I personally disagree that casters just need to spontaneously be able to sprout more spells in a round just due to being higher level.
Casters are already the default most powerful thing in the game and you are essentially talking about making them even better. For free.
Spells are inherently more powerful than melee attacks, except at the very lowest of levels. They are designed this way because casters get relatively few of them per day- especially at their best power level (i.e. highest caster level and DC).
I mean really- its kind of neat that a 9th level barbarian gets 2 attacks a round for free.. until the wizard turns the badguy into a bunny rabbit from 30 feet away or so with a DC of 10+5+int mod.
(or 16 base +2 race +2 item minimum or DC20 at 9th level, if you low ball it)
So yeah. The barbarian's extra attack looks nice until you take the power of the wizard into consideration. And thats just neutralizing one enemy. It says nothing of the Wizard's ability to neuter multiple opponents in 6 seconds flat while the barbarian is still swinging twice a round hoping the 2nd one hits.
And.. All the barbarian can do is swing his sword more times.
Spells aren't just damage dealers. They are healing, they are buffing, they are crowd controlling, doing damage, one-shotting bad guys, etc..
A wizard gets 9th level spells a level after a fighter gets his 4th attack in the round.
Which of them is really getting screwed here?
I don't think they need more spells in a round to keep up with the martials.
I really don't.
-S
|
|
I think something needs to be put in place that approximates a "Spell Attack Bonus" wherein high-level casters can cast more than once in a round without using a metamagic feat. If a Fighter or Ranger can become so well-trained in their fundamental abilities that their efficiency increases, I see no reason why the same can't happen for spellcasters.
How is different "I am a 9th level wizard, I cast 5 magic missiles in a round with a spell" from "I am a fighter 9th level fighter, I swing 2 times my sword in a round"?
Plenty of spell get that multiplier effect when rising in level, to make a few examples:- magic missile and scorching ray add extra attacks that you can use against several targets;
- haste affects a larger number of targets
and so on.
The extra BAB allow you to attack up to 3 extra creatures within 5'+reach of you (you can take a 5' step between attacks). It don't allow you to make different actions instead of the extra attacks. So to use your words, it is a increase in power but not in efficiency.
The wizard get to do more damage, affect more targets and so on, but he don't get multiple spells, so he get a increase in power but not in efficiency.
Getting the ability to cast two unrelated spells instead of increasing the power of the spell would increase efficiency exponentially.
I disagree Silentman. Spells as is are fine. My Master Summoner already feels broken. At level 17 when I take Quickened Spell-like Ability I'll feel even more broken.
Spells are a resource issue. You only get so many. Spend them wisely. This is a good thing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see it as inconsistent. It's specified as a full round action in the description. This is what I was talking about a = b but b =/= a logic. Even though full attack actions are full round actions the reverse is not necessarily true.
While not all full round actions are full attack actions, full attack actions are a type of full round actions.
Before the FAQ there was nothing explicitly stating spell combat was a different action type than TWF (which spell-combat is explicitly derived from).
but a 20th level Wizard is only as efficient as a 1st level Wizard without feats;Well, I certainly consider someone routinely casting wish,<snip>
Woah! You routinely cast Wish? What are you, made of money?
*squints at avatar*Oh. You look like you're some kind of golden dragon or goat or something. You are made of money. Nevermind! Carry on!
Well, I certainly consider someone routinely casting wish, ... , gate, ...I want to see that wizards bank account. 10k-25k a shot adds up fast.
(I'm not arguing your point, just saying....)
Heh, you ninja! (By, um, days, look, I just got here... stop judging meeeeeeeeeeeeeee...!)
EDIT: for a quote box mistake
EDIT 2: to be clear, I don't disagree with Are's point either. That's just a huge bankroll. :)
I don't see it as inconsistent. It's specified as a full round action in the description. This is what I was talking about a = b but b =/= a logic. Even though full attack actions are full round actions the reverse is not necessarily true.While not all full round actions are full attack actions, full attack actions are a type of full round actions.
Before the FAQ there was nothing explicitly stating spell combat was a different action type than TWF (which spell-combat is explicitly derived from).
Spell combat is not TWF and never has been. If it were then those feats would apply as would those penalties but they do not. You just get to make two attacks at a certain, static penalty. It's TWF-like in a comparative sense but has never been a child of that mechanic.
|
|
Spell combat is not TWF and never has been. If it were then those feats would apply as would those penalties but they do not. You just get to make two attacks at a certain, static penalty. It's TWF-like in a comparative sense but has never been a child of that mechanic.
Yes. Just like Flurry of Blows.
Yes. Just like Flurry of Blows.
Spell combat is not TWF and never has been. If it were then those feats would apply as would those penalties but they do not. You just get to make two attacks at a certain, static penalty. It's TWF-like in a comparative sense but has never been a child of that mechanic.
No. TWF is a full attack action. Not full round. Spell combat is full round. Thus, it can not be TWF. FoB is a full attack.
A player could also make a case for stating that they weren't "stacking" hasted effects by mere dint of order of operations: quickened [i}Haste[/i], hasted spell (ending the "effect" of Haste), regular spell ([i}Haste[/i] again, starting a new Haste effect), and the final...
Just for the 3.0 record, no. Casting a spell with your partial action from haste did not end the spell (it gave you that extra action, and +4 to AC, for the full duration). Even if it did, there's not really an advantage to using your regular spell to cast haste, just to cast another spell.
In 3.0, for any tough fight it was almost non-sensical for a certain level of wizard or sorcerer not to start the fight with haste, since they got a +4 bonus to AC (stacking), and could immediately continue with another standard action spell. Even for fighters, quaffing a potion of Haste was an *awesome* use of actions. In some ways it was awesome. In most ways it was ridiculous. If you had haste and your opponent didn't, you virtually couldn't lose.
For the original question, I never doubted that they were intended to stack - glad for the clarification.
This new FAQ is totally stupid, it's compeltely inconsistant with the concept of the magus as a whole. Pathfinder is constantly dowgrading day by day. I feel it's 3.5 all over again, with classes being broken for no apparent reason while the big elephants in the room (like summoners in every form and shapes, vivisectionist ecc..) still stands untouched for munckins sakes.
I'm really feeeling that paizo is loosing that understanding of the real gameplay application that where able to improve so much of the old edition. So many faq and rulebook feels pushed out without ever being actually played. It makes me sad.
The core of Pathfinder is intact. The other options are meant to address play concepts outside of core. If you don't like them then don't use them. Nothing compels you to.
but a 20th level Wizard is only as efficient as a 1st level Wizard without feats;
You seem to be ignoring that the spell damage increases drastically with casterlevel in most spells.
Sure many are capped but still a level 1 caster deals much less damage than the level 20 caster when using the same spell. And they get better spells without spending feats. The fighter doesn't get better attack forms without feats.|
|
No. TWF is a full attack action. Not full round. Spell combat is full round. Thus, it can not be TWF. FoB is a full attack.Yes. Just like Flurry of Blows.
Spell combat is not TWF and never has been. If it were then those feats would apply as would those penalties but they do not. You just get to make two attacks at a certain, static penalty. It's TWF-like in a comparative sense but has never been a child of that mechanic.
Full Round is a general classification, Full Attack is a sub-category within that classification.
Spell Combat is derived from TWF, much like FoB, and falls under the general classification of Full Round. The FAQ made it a distinct action type rather than retaining the Full Attack action type shared by both TWF and FoB. This is the inconsistency.
No. TWF is a full attack action. Not full round. Spell combat is full round. Thus, it can not be TWF. FoB is a full attack.Yes. Just like Flurry of Blows.
Spell combat is not TWF and never has been. If it were then those feats would apply as would those penalties but they do not. You just get to make two attacks at a certain, static penalty. It's TWF-like in a comparative sense but has never been a child of that mechanic.Full Round is a general classification, Full Attack is a sub-category within that classification.
Spell Combat is based off TWF, much like FoB, and falls under the general classification of Full Round. The FAQ made it a distinct action type rather than retaining the Full Attack action type shared by both TWF and FoB. This is the inconsistency.
Considering Spell Combat already is inconsistent in that it allows a Magus to do something no other class in the game can (essentially make a full attack while casting a standard action spell), I think the loss of a single attack from Haste is small peanuts, personally.
Full Round is a general classification, Full Attack is a sub-category within that classification.
Spell Combat is derived from TWF, much like FoB, and falls under the general classification of Full Round. The FAQ made it a distinct action type rather than retaining the Full Attack action type shared by both TWF and FoB. This is the inconsistency.
Spell Combat has always been a full round action and not a full attack action. It's no more inconsistent in that under each other action type there are specific actions such the attack action under standard actions. The paradigm has always been there.
|
|
Spell Combat has always been a full round action and not a full attack action. It's no more inconsistent in that under each other action type there are specific actions such the attack action under standard actions. The paradigm has always been there.
ALL FULL ATTACK ACTIONS ARE FULL ROUND ACTIONS
Your argument is the equivalent of saying a sedan is not a car because it is a vehicle.
You are confusing general classification with specific action types. Stating spell combat is a full round action has no meaning. Every full attack, including TWF and FoB, falls under the full round action classification. Spell combat, even though it explicitly uses TWF mechanics, is now a unique action type under the full round action classification.
NOT ALL FULL ROUND ACTIONS ARE FULL ATTACKS
Haste specifically triggers off full attacks. Spell Combat has never and should have never been subject to haste.
Actually my argument, explicitly so as I actually said basically this very same thing just with different terms, is that all sedans are cars but not all cars are sedans.
|
|
NOT ALL FULL ROUND ACTIONS ARE FULL ATTACKS
Haste specifically triggers off full attacks. Spell Combat has never and should have never been subject to haste.
Actually my argument, explicitly so as I actually said basically this very same thing just with different terms, is that all sedans are cars but not all cars are sedans.
I've never stated they were. I stated there was an inconsistency in action type assignment. TWF, FoB and Spell Combat all use roughly the same mechanics. Two of the three are listed as full round attacks. Spell Combat, even though explicitly derived from TWF, had its action type changed by FAQ to an undefined action type within the Full Round category.
Prior to the FAQ, nothing RAW explicitly stated Spell Combat's action type was different than TWF's, which Spell Combats uses as a reference for mechanics.
Spell Combat, even though explicitly derived from TWF, had its action type changed by FAQ to an undefined action type within the Full Round category.
I'm just not seeing where you're getting that. In the ability description it's a full round action. The only FAQ I've seen related was the one about haste and that doesn't mention changing the action type of Spell Combat.
I will maintain that Spell Combat was never TWF either. FoB spells out that it is TWF and may even be used with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and is also a full attack action. Spell Combat does not and is not a full attack action. It simply makes makes mention about TWF in the usual flavor section before it breaks down the mechanics of the ability.
The mention of TWF was simply there to provide a mental scaffold that people can point to and be like "oh it's like this." No matter how similar it may read, though, that doesn't make it TWF. You can't nor never have been able to take the TWF feats to affect it. It provides no other hooks by which TWF or its related mechanics can hook on to.
It simply spells out a method by which you can attack with a one-handed blade and cast a spell in the same round. As was mentioned earlier this is something no other class can do and distinctly makes it un-TWF like as that capacity is no wear in the description for Two-Weapon Fighting.
Prior to the FAQ, nothing RAW explicitly stated Spell Combat's action type was different than TWF's, which Spell Combats uses as a reference for mechanics.
It most certainly does not. If that were true where it mentioned the off-hand weapon being a spell you can cast would be been the end of the ability description with maybe one more sentence spelling out you can cast it in the same round a spell with 1 standard action or less. Instead it goes on in a fairly meaty paragraph spelling out exactly what you can do with that full round action. If it were just TWF that would have been wholly unnecessary. As we've seen on this boards several times Paizo fights for more space in their books. They could have easily chopped that off to expound more on something else yet it's there as is.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never stated they were. I stated there was an inconsistency in action type assignment. TWF, FoB and Spell Combat all use roughly the same mechanics. Two of the three are listed as full round attacks. Spell Combat, even though explicitly derived from TWF, had its action type changed by FAQ to an undefined action type within the Full Round category.
"Roughly" being the important word.
The spell combat action type was not "changed by FAQ" to an undefined action type.
UM 1st printing, magus, spell combat:
Core Rulebook:
A full attack is a type of full-round action.
Spell combat is a type of full-round action.
That doesn't mean that spell combat is a full attack.
A camaro is a type of vehicle.
A jeep is a type of vehicle.
That doesn't mean that a jeep is a camaro.
Prior to the FAQ, nothing RAW explicitly stated Spell Combat's action type was different than TWF's, which Spell Combats uses as a reference for mechanics.
False, as you can see above.
Spell combat explicitly said (and says) It never said "As a full attack action."Nothing was changed in the FAQ ruling.
By comparison, flurry of blows says,
Haste says,
The FAQ ruling on spell combat and haste is a perfectly logical conclusion of the RAW: haste triggers when you use a full attack action; spell combat isn't a full attack action, therefore haste does not trigger when you use spell combat.
|
|
I'm just not seeing where you're getting that. In the ability description it's a full round action.
True Statement: TWF is a full round action
False Statement: Full Round Actions are not full attacks.As for where I get the idea that Spell Combat uses TWF mechanics:
This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast.
As stated: the inconsistency is that two actions using similar mechanics are typed as full attacks while a third using the same mechanics is not.
Full Round does not exclude full attack. Full Round is a broad categorization.
|
|
I've never stated they were. I stated there was an inconsistency in action type assignment. TWF, FoB and Spell Combat all use roughly the same mechanics. Two of the three are listed as full round attacks. Spell Combat, even though explicitly derived from TWF, had its action type changed by FAQ to an undefined action type within the Full Round category."Roughly" being the important word.
The spell combat action type was not "changed by FAQ" to an undefined action type.
UM 1st printing, magus, spell combat:
Core Rulebook:
A full attack is a type of full-round action.
Spell combat is a type of full-round action.
That doesn't mean that spell combat is a full attack.A camaro is a type of vehicle.
A jeep is a type of vehicle.
That doesn't mean that a jeep is a camaro.Prior to the FAQ, nothing RAW explicitly stated Spell Combat's action type was different than TWF's, which Spell Combats uses as a reference for mechanics.False, as you can see above.
Spell combat explicitly said (and says) It never said "As a full attack action."Nothing was changed in the FAQ ruling.
By comparison, flurry of blows says,
Haste says,
The FAQ ruling on spell combat and haste is a perfectly logical conclusion of...
Most of us playing a magus have accepted that FAQ and adapted. It is consistent with the ability text.
I have only a question: whoever made Hasted Assault kept that consideration in mind when creating the Arcana?
I have only a question: whoever made Hasted Assault kept that consideration in mind when creating the Arcana?
I'm pretty sure that was Jason, so I assume yes. It's not like a magus doesn't gain any offensive benefit from haste... if he uses hasted assault, he'll probably stick to full attacks for its duration rather than use spell combat... but still has the option of using spell combat if it's better under the circumstances than gaining that extra weapon attack.
|
|
I have only a question: whoever made Hasted Assault kept that consideration in mind when creating the Arcana?I'm pretty sure that was Jason, so I assume yes. It's not like a magus doesn't gain any offensive benefit from haste... if he uses hasted assault, he'll probably stick to full attacks for its duration rather than use spell combat... but still has the option of using spell combat if it's better under the circumstances than gaining that extra weapon attack.
No problem with that. I wouldn't take it as I am already starved for arcana and our GM limit the number of extra arcana you can take (not that feats are abundant, either). But some people could like it and consider subpar the choices I prefer.
More option is always good.|
|
Prior to the FAQ, nothing RAW explicitly stated Spell Combat's action type was different than TWF's, which Spell Combats uses as a reference for mechanics.False, as you can see above.
Spell combat explicitly said (and says) It never said "As a full attack action."
It never said otherwise and Full Round does not exclude Full Attack. TWF, the action Spell Combat is derived from, is also a full round action.
Chanting Full Round Action as a mantra is meaningless. Every single attack form granted an extra attack by haste is a Full Round Action.
The FAQ made the determination that Spell Combat was a different action type than TWF.
Most of us playing a magus have accepted that FAQ and adapted. It is consistent with the ability text.
I personally cannot stand inconsistent rulings.
Do you really think you can make the statement, with a straight face, that TWF, FoB and Spell Combat are not all derived from the same mechanics. (You cannot: both FoB and Spell Combat reference TWF. One set of underlying mechanics, two rulings on action type.)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It never said otherwise and Full Round does not exclude Full Attack. TWF, the action Spell Combat is derived from, is also a full round action.
Oh, stop it. TWF is explicitly called out in the rules as a full attack action, not a general full round action. If we wanted spell combat to be a FAA, the text would have said so.
Chanting Full Round Action as a mantra is meaningless. Every single attack form granted an extra attack by haste is a Full Round Action.
Chanting "it's a full round action" as a mantra is meaningless. Every single attack form granted an extra attack by haste is a full attack action.
The FAQ made the determination that Spell Combat was a different action type than TWF.
No, the FAQ pointed out the text as written clearly states that spell combat (a FRA) is a different action type than TWF (a FAA).
Stop arguing this. No matter how many times you say "TWF is a full round action" doesn't change that TWF specifically is a full attack action, which is a subset of full round actions. Haste only gives you an extra attack if you specifically use a FAA, it doesn't give you the extra attack if you're using any action that is a FRA.
To put it another way: Unless you think haste gives you an extra attack when you
charge,
deliver a coup de grace,
escape from a net,
extinguish flames,
light a torch,
load a heavy or repeating crossbow,
lock or unlock a weapon in a locked gauntlet,
run,
use a skill that takes 1 round,
cast a touch spell on up to six friends, or
withdraw
(all of which are full-round actions but are not full attack actions),
then you have to agree that RAW is clear that spell combat doesn't get an extra attack from haste because spell combat is not a FAA and haste triggers on a FAA, not a FRA.
So stop arguing that it should.
where i would like further explenation is:
Base Attack Bonus
Source: d20srd.org
A base attack bonus is an attack roll bonus derived from character class and level or creature type and Hit Dice (or combination's thereof). Base attack bonuses increase at different rates for different character classes and creature types. A second attack is gained when a base attack bonus reaches +6, a third with a base attack bonus of +11 or higher, and a fourth with a base attack bonus of +16 or higher. Base attack bonuses gained from different sources, such as when a character is a multiclass character, stack.
Full attack
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.
How are the additional attacks from Haste/two weapon fighting/flurry/natural attacks different from the additional attacks gained by high BAB?
This ruling makes it so the magus only gets 1 attack when declaring spell combat ass all attacks besides the first one are additional attacks only gained when doing the full attack action!
If Spell combat is not a full attack action, then you are not allowed to do more than a single attack since iteratives requires a full attack action.
Unless "all of his attacks" means "all the attack he is allowed to do when doing a full attack action", witch actually include the bonus attack for being hasted.
It's either all, or none.
|
If Spell combat is not a full attack action, then you are not allowed to do more than a single attack since iteratives requires a full attack action.
Unless "all of his attacks" means "all the attack he is allowed to do when doing a full attack action", witch actually include the bonus attack for being hasted.
It's either all, or none.
It doesn't say that a full attack action is required to get iteratives. It says a full round action is required. As has been repeatedly stated, a full-attack action is one kind of full round action. Spell combat is another kind of full-round action, and one that allows the iterative attacks.
Text of full attack.
Full Attack
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action: You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full-attack action. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for until the start your next turn.
Now, it IS listed in the section for full-attack actions in the rules. Why? Because, in the CRB, a full-attack action is the only kind of action that gets you all of your attacks. Other full round actions that get you your attacks show up only in later sources.
Spell combat is a full-round action from a later source that gets you your attacks. It precludes two weapon fighting, because one hand has to be available for casting. It doesn't allow Haste because it is Not a full-attack action; it is a different kind of full-round action.
what if i got a third arm and want to use two weapon fighting? with spell comabt?