FAQ : Haste and other effects


Rules Questions

Silver Crusade

17 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Hello everybody,

the following issue has been nagging me for quite some time. It resulted from thediscussion. discussion about the PFS legality of the eldritch archer, a ranged archetype for the magus class.

The most powerful class feature gained/altered is :

Eldritch Archer wrote:

Ranged Spell Combat (Ex): Instead of a light or one handed melee weapon, an eldritch archer must use a ranged weapon for spell combat. She doesn’t need a free hand for ranged spell combat. The eldritch archer cannot accept an attack penalty to gain a bonus on concentration checks to cast a spell defensively. This ability modifies spell combat.

.

Since this class feature modifies spell combat, let’s take a look:

Magus wrote:

Spell Combat (Ex)

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.

So far so (relatively) uncomplicated. As written, the spell combat is not a full-attack action, and thus haste and the hasted assault magus arcane do not grant a additional attack.

Other options like two weapon fighting, rapid shot, manyshot , clustered shots..... even combat expertise and fighting defensively are not available.

For the ranged magus, this means, that some of the staple feats that improve ranged combat are off the table, if you want to use spell combat (and you usually want to do so).
Of course the magus (melee or ranged) can somewhat counter this downside, by using spell combat to cast a touch range spell to get another attack with their weapon.

Everything is pretty clear up to this point, until you incorporate this FAQ:

ultimate magic FAQ wrote:


Magus, Spell Combat: Does spell combat count as making a full-attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects?
Yes.
Edit 9/9/13: This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with effects that are essentially a full-attack, even though the creature isn't specifically using the full-attack action (as required by haste). The earlier ruling did not allow the extra attack from haste when using spell combat.
posted April 2013

Now plenty of players and GMs, have essentially two points of view when it comes to the “hast and other effects" bit.

1. Haste and other effects, really only applies to something that gives you an additional attack, like haste, blessing of fervor and the speed weapon enhancement, and other effects that grant an additional attack. NOTHING else.

2. Spell combat is a full-attack action in every aspect other than the fact, that is is not called out as such in the original text (UM didn’t have a reprinting since the FAQ was made though) Thus all the options I mentioned above (rapid shot and fighting defensively among others) work in combination with spell combat.

Obviously the second interpretation makes the magus class significantly better, but I feel that this was not the intention of the FAQ.

Further considerations based on “haste and other effects” in the unchained monk class description:

It is also worth noting, that the unchained monk’s flurry includes a similar bit of text:

unchained monk wrote:

Flurry of Blows
At 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When making a flurry of blows, the monk can make one additional attack at his highest base attack bonus. This additional attack stacks with the bonus attacks from haste and other similar effects. When using this ability, the monk can make these attacks with any combination of his unarmed strikes and weapons that have the monk special weapon quality. He takes no penalty for using multiple weapons when making a flurry of blows, but he does not gain any additional attacks beyond what's already granted by the flurry for doing so. (He can still gain additional attacks from a high base attack bonus, from this ability, and from haste and similar effects).

Since the flurry of blows class feature is already considered a full-attack action, I would argue that the “haste in similar effects” text does not turn an ability into a full-attack action.

The ki pool class feature also includes the same text, but only works with flurry of blows, which is as mentioned above, already a full-attack action.

Unchained Monk wrote:

Ki Pool (Su)

At 3rd level, a monk gains a pool of ki points, supernatural energy he can use to accomplish amazing feats. The number of points in a monk's ki pool is equal to 1/2 his monk level + his Wisdom modifier. As long as he has at least 1 point in his ki pool, he can make a ki strike.
At 3rd level, ki strike allows his unarmed attacks to be treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.
At 7th level, his unarmed attacks are also treated as cold iron and silver for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.
At 10th level, his unarmed attacks are also treated as lawful weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.
At 16th level, his unarmed attacks are treated as adamantine weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction and bypassing hardness.
By spending 1 point from his ki pool as a swift action, a monk can make one additional unarmed strike at his highest attack bonus when making a flurry of blows attack. This bonus attack stacks with all bonus attacks gained from flurry of blows, as well as those from haste and similar effects. A monk gains additional powers that consume points from his ki pool as he gains levels.
The ki pool is replenished each morning after 8 hours of rest or meditation; these hours do not need to be consecutive.

A clarification would very welcome, since this does significantly affect any magus characters that uses ranged weapons, and the magus class already has three archetypes that work with spell combat and thrown weapons ( eldritch archer, card caster and myrmidarch) as well as the throwing magus arcana - and there is really nothing stopping you from using spell combat to cast on of your spells and throw daggers.

Thanks in advance for your contributions to this discussion.


Would you really want to disallow fighting defensively while using spell combat? I don't think so. So, I'd go with the meaning of:

Ultimate Magic FAQ wrote:

Does spell combat count as making a full-attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects?

Yes.

being that 'other effects' can include the like of fighting defensively. If you accept that there's no good reason to say that 'haste and other effects' can't include rapid shot.


There are no qualifiers on "and other effects" in that question, which means it was either poorly written or it's literally a full attack for all intents and purposes. With that in mind, if it's meant to only be for effects that increase the number of attacks, then they need to re-write that FAQ with that in mind. I'm personally throwing out a FAQ click.

Quote:
and there is really nothing stopping you from using spell combat to cast on of your spells and throw daggers.

As an aside, this is actually incorrect. When used as a thrown weapon, a dagger does not count as a melee weapon for the ability, thus it doesn't work with spell combat. objects can count as both one thing or the other, but only that function of that object works with abilities that require a specific form of that function. Otherwise, you would get any magus at all who could use spell combat with the pistol part of a sword cane pistol.


Given that spell combat is a full attack, what would and wouldn't work with it?
I would say FoB and TWF are out, because spell combat is already a form of TWF, and so is FoB. Similarly, natural attacks that aren't associated with the fighting hand are already explicitly out.
But rapid shot would work, as would Flurry of Maneuvers and the Order of the Seal ability.

Silver Crusade

avr wrote:

Would you really want to disallow fighting defensively while using spell combat? I don't think so. So, I'd go with the meaning of:

Ultimate Magic FAQ wrote:

Does spell combat count as making a full-attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects?

Yes.
being that 'other effects' can include the like of fighting defensively. If you accept that there's no good reason to say that 'haste and other effects' can't include rapid shot.

Want is a pretty strong word, but yeah that might be the conclusion, the way the FAQ is writte it is pretty much all or nothing here, And it could seriously affect quite a number of magus characters who use combat expertise.

To be honest I only found out during my reasarch for this, that combat expertise and fight defensively actually require a certain kind of action.

If a wizard casts a touch spell and uses his free attack to deliver it, he can't use combat expertise of fight defensively since he isn't using either the attack or full attack action.
On the next round he might be able to use the attack action to deliver the spell (while fighting defensively) though.

EDIT: Unfortunately I don't have a copy of the original FAQ, but only haste was the issue. Maybe this is actually an intentional change and magus characters are supposed to gain all the full attack benefits. At this point, only the developers can tell us - and yeah I am still hoping that the eldritch archer will somehow become PFS legal, but since I have a couple of magus characters, if would be nice to now whether or not fighting defensively is an option.

Silver Crusade

Johnny_Devo wrote:

There are no qualifiers on "and other effects" in that question, which means it was either poorly written or it's literally a full attack for all intents and purposes. With that in mind, if it's meant to only be for effects that increase the number of attacks, then they need to re-write that FAQ with that in mind. I'm personally throwing out a FAQ click.

Quote:
and there is really nothing stopping you from using spell combat to cast on of your spells and throw daggers.
As an aside, this is actually incorrect. When used as a thrown weapon, a dagger does not count as a melee weapon for the ability, thus it doesn't work with spell combat. objects can count as both one thing or the other, but only that function of that object works with abilities that require a specific form of that function. Otherwise, you would get any magus at all who could use spell combat with the pistol part of a sword cane pistol.

Do you have a source for that? The sword cane is in a very special situation here, since it effectively seems to be a double weapon. You would need to use the sword bit for spell combat, and attack with the sword (or throw it) the gun part seems to be a pure ranged weapon and thus it would not be an option.

At least that would be my knee jerk reaction to this corner case.

And spell combat never actually says that you have to make melee attacks, just that you have to make the attack with a melee weapon.

-

The wording is a quite confusing here, and I really can't say with 100% certainty what RAI was here. I assume that the magus was designed as a melee class, but in that case the arcana i mentioned above, that lets you throw weapons, would not work with the core ability of the class.

EDIT: Any though what the same text is supposed to do in the unchained monk class description (a much more recent source)?

Silver Crusade

Casual Viking wrote:

Given that spell combat is a full attack, what would and wouldn't work with it?

I would say FoB and TWF are out, because spell combat is already a form of TWF, and so is FoB. Similarly, natural attacks that aren't associated with the fighting hand are already explicitly out.
But rapid shot would work, as would Flurry of Maneuvers and the Order of the Seal ability.

Not unlike flurry of blows, spell combat (which might or might not count as a full attack) is a specific full round action. Thus combining it with flurry of blows, and flurry of maneuvers which isn't an option since both of those are separate specific full round actions. Staggering assault (the order of the seal ability) is also listed as a separate full round action, and thus can't be combined either.

Rapid shot on the other hand is the big question. It could be relevant for the card caster, but he has the additional problem that he can't use spell combat with his cards/darts either.


Sebastian Hirsch wrote:


Not unlike flurry of blows, spell combat (which might or might not count as a full attack) is a specific full round action. Thus combining it with flurry of blows, and flurry of maneuvers which isn't an option since both of those are separate specific full round actions. Staggering assault (the order of the seal ability) is also listed as a separate full round action, and thus can't be combined either.

For Order of the Seal, I was referring to the challenge ability: "An order of the seal cavalier can make a free bull rush or trip combat maneuver anytime he takes the full-attack action". Not a separate full-round action. Similarly, "as part of a full-attack action, a maneuver master can make one additional combat maneuver" is an add-on to a full attack, not a separate action. Rapid Shot, "When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon, you can fire one additional time", is not substantially different from those.

Silver Crusade

Casual Viking wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:


Not unlike flurry of blows, spell combat (which might or might not count as a full attack) is a specific full round action. Thus combining it with flurry of blows, and flurry of maneuvers which isn't an option since both of those are separate specific full round actions. Staggering assault (the order of the seal ability) is also listed as a separate full round action, and thus can't be combined either.
For Order of the Seal, I was referring to the challenge ability: "An order of the seal cavalier can make a free bull rush or trip combat maneuver anytime he takes the full-attack action". Not a separate full-round action. Similarly, "as part of a full-attack action, a maneuver master can make one additional combat maneuver" is an add-on to a full attack, not a separate action. Rapid Shot, "When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon, you can fire one additional time", is not substantially different from those.

Sorry about that, but you are entirely correct, missed the order ability. And misread maneuver master, if spell combat counts as a proper full attack, both those options apply.

Silver Crusade

One point I forgot to mention, aside from the same text appearing in the unchained monk's entry which is already a full-attack action, is that they wrote "for haste and other effects" instead of "spell combat is a full attack action".

If the second interpretation is correct, there is no functional difference between those two sentences.


I had brought up in one of the original threads discussing the Haste issue regarding Spell Combat, after the FAQ was revised to allow Haste to work with Spell Combat, whether that was changing the rules on Haste and similar effects, or if it was changing the rules on Spell Combat, making it either "count as" a full-attack or, at least, contain a full-attack component. The reply I got from the devs basically boiled down to, "We're not sure, we'll get back to you on that" but they never have, to my knowledge, addressed the disparity.

Basically, it comes down to this: Haste (and other similar effects) state that they grant a bonus attack on a full-attack action (a distinct kind of Full-Round action; for the sake of clarity, Full-Round action will be in bold while full attack and other specific actions are in ooc). The original version of the FAQ stated that, since Spell Combat is a Full-Round Use Special Ability action and not a Full-Round Full Attack action, Haste (and, consequently, other rules elements that apply to full attacks) do not apply. But they reversed that decision because they felt it was overly pedantic and that, basically, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a full attack action for all practical purposes so Haste "should" work on such a situation where you're getting "all your iterative attacks". So, does Haste et. al. now grant an extra attack "in all cases where you may make all your iterative attacks", which would mean that Spell Combat still isn't a full-attack? Or, is Spell Combat now entirely equivalent to a full-attack and can be used, say, with Pounce as part of a charge? Or is Spell Combat still a Full-Round Use Special Ability action which "contains" a full attack which means, while it isn't eligible to be part of a Pounce Charge, it is eligible for other rules elements such as fighting defensively? I never got a clear answer to this question.


Kazaan wrote:

I had brought up in one of the original threads discussing the Haste issue regarding Spell Combat, after the FAQ was revised to allow Haste to work with Spell Combat, whether that was changing the rules on Haste and similar effects, or if it was changing the rules on Spell Combat, making it either "count as" a full-attack or, at least, contain a full-attack component. The reply I got from the devs basically boiled down to, "We're not sure, we'll get back to you on that" but they never have, to my knowledge, addressed the disparity.

Basically, it comes down to this: Haste (and other similar effects) state that they grant a bonus attack on a full-attack action (a distinct kind of Full-Round action; for the sake of clarity, Full-Round action will be in bold while full attack and other specific actions are in ooc). The original version of the FAQ stated that, since Spell Combat is a Full-Round Use Special Ability action and not a Full-Round Full Attack action, Haste (and, consequently, other rules elements that apply to full attacks) do not apply. But they reversed that decision because they felt it was overly pedantic and that, basically, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a full attack action for all practical purposes so Haste "should" work on such a situation where you're getting "all your iterative attacks". So, does Haste et. al. now grant an extra attack "in all cases where you may make all your iterative attacks", which would mean that Spell Combat still isn't a full-attack? Or, is Spell Combat now entirely equivalent to a full-attack and can be used, say, with Pounce as part of a charge? Or is Spell Combat still a Full-Round Use Special Ability action which "contains" a full attack which means, while it isn't eligible to be part of a Pounce Charge, it is eligible for other...

You forget that the primary reason they revoked the ruling was because Spell Combat was referenced to function as TWF (which is a Full Attack Action), except the off-hand weapon is a spell being cast. Similarly, Pounce contains a Full Attack routine, but required the Charge Action (a special Full-Round Action), and they revoked the FAQ to function as if it were a Full Attack Action for effects dependant upon it (i.e. Haste).

With that being said, the former interpretation is correct, in that Haste and similar abilities grant attacks in cases where actions or abilities provide (or include) Full Attack elements, but don't necessarily require performing the Full Attack Action to do so.

It's the inverse of the Vital Strike rules, more-or-less; instead of requiring a specific action (and only that action) to perform it, actions that are similar to it in terms of fundamental mechanics, but don't require the same action type to perform it, still count as it.


Spell Combat is a "packaged action" (let's call them "complex action") that lets you take both a "full attack" action and a "spellcast" action for the cost of a "fullround action". All rules element that apply to "full attack" apply to the weapon part of Spell Combat.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Dekalinder wrote:
Spell Combat is a "packaged action" (let's call them "complex action") that lets you take both a "full attack" action and a "spellcast" action for the cost of a "fullround action". All rules element that apply to "full attack" apply to the weapon part of Spell Combat.

I think that is a good way to explain it.

Silver Crusade

Dekalinder wrote:
Spell Combat is a "packaged action" (let's call them "complex action") that lets you take both a "full attack" action and a "spellcast" action for the cost of a "fullround action". All rules element that apply to "full attack" apply to the weapon part of Spell Combat.

You packaged action sounds quite a bit like the unchained monks flurry of blows, but that one actually lists it as a full-attack action, and has the "haste and other effects" bit.

In this case they could have written "Spell combat counts as a full-attack action. This change will be reflected in a future printing." I always came to the conclusion, that the fact that they mention haste that often on the FAQ is intended to limit it to hastelike effects.

FAQ wrote:

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

Yes.

Edit 9/9/13: This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with effects that are essentially a full attack, even though the creature isn't specifically using the full attack action (as required by haste). The earlier ruling did not allow the extra attack from haste when using spell combat.

posted April 2013 | back to top


An FAQ only covers exactly what it covers. Granting an exception to the Magus does not grant an exception to similar situations. If we want a more general ruling we can ask about asking for one, but they might avoid allowing it in case they have some strange ability that is similar to a full attack, but they still do not want haste applied to.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
An FAQ only covers exactly what it covers. Granting an exception to the Magus does not grant an exception to similar situations. If we want a more general ruling we can ask about asking for one, but they might avoid allowing it in case they have some strange ability that is similar to a full attack, but they still do not want haste applied to.

I honestly have no idea, which interpretation you assume/favor could you maybe clarify?

--

I found a thread where SKR
Design team comment about haste and full attacks

From the first post wrote:

The general intent is: if an ability implies that you're making a full attack (whether or not you're specifically using the full attack action), then haste should work with that ability. This has three specific consequences we'd like to call out:

One, spell combat does get the extra attack from haste (because spell combat is basically a full attack plus casting a standard action spell).
Two, charge does not get the extra attack from haste (because charge only allows you to make a single melee attack). Even if a full attack for you is just a single melee attack, charging doesn't get the extra attack from haste.
Three, pounce does get the extra attack from haste (because pounce allows you to make a full attack when you charge).

And as a response to a question:

SKR wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:
So, sometimes a Full Attack is not a Full Attack Action?
My original post in this thread is saying exactly the opposite of the above quote.

This seems to indicate that only in specific circumstances a something that includes as a full attack counts as a Full-Attack Action (haste).

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / FAQ : Haste and other effects All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.