My sister taught me Pathfinder about 3 or 4 years ago. While I have played a few characters, I am new to running a campaign. My sister is letting me use her Rise of the Runelords module. In a recent game night, one of my PC's brought up the subject of multiple attacks. The topic was of having multiple BAB's and full attack actions vs regular attacks. And said PC mentions that you could possibly cast multiple spells in one round, if said spells required "attack" rolls and you used your BAB. I can see the logic of this but it doesn't feel right and want another's opinion.
so i have a three part question.
If a spellcaster has a high enough BAB and can use a full attack action to attack multiple times, can they possibly cast multiple attack-based spells?
If so, would each spell have to be the same kind or can it be differing spells?
and lastly, if multiple spells are allowed, would each spell take up a spell slot or would it count as one spell for the trun?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Important note: Some spells, such as scorching ray, do generate multiple attacks, and you must use all of them a part of resolving the spell.
Other important note: Some spells, such as flame bled create a weapon that can be used to attack multiple times,
understandable with the spell effects generating multiple attacks. but the thing we are stuck on is multiple spells themselves.
"Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks."
because it is worded this way, they feel that this means they can cast multiple attack based spells. for example, lets say i cast a spell that requires a ranged touch attack. i would use my bab in the roll to make the attack. now lets say my character has a +6/ +1 bab. the pc's (who also gm their own games) are saying that i can use a full attack action to cast two attack based spells, one with the +6 bab and the other with the +1 bab.
Well, they can feel all they want, but Kalindlara is right. If the spell says 'one action' to cast, its referring to the default standard action, and you dont get multiple standard actions
edit: spells such as scorching ray would not scale up to allow extra rays if what they are insisting is the case. The fact they they do is in lieu of extra spells and such
I think there is one corollary to this. If you've cast a spell that grants attacks over multiple rounds, such as chill touch, you can make multiple attacks with it in rounds after the first. This might only work for magi using the spellstrike class feature, though; not sure.
Melee casters, other than the magus, tend to use polymorph spells to gain multiple natural attacks.
It is not hard to manage 6+ natural attacks/round with 3rd level spell, each of which is capable of delivering a held charge from a touch spell.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This has been answered correctly several times, but perhaps this will help explain. Although making an attack and casting most spells are both standard actions, they are not the same action.
You only get multiple attacks from a high BAB when taking the full attack action. You don't get multiple standard actions when taking the full attack action, only multiple attacks. So the fighter can't swing his sword twice and drink a potion instead of making a third attack. He can either drink a potion and use his move for something else, but he can't combine drinking a potion with his attack routine.
Casting a spell is just like using a potion as far as that goes. It takes a standard action, of which you only have one in a turn. There is no 'full spell casting action' where you spend a round casting multiple spells, which would be like the full attack action.
At least one of the reason this 'full spell casting action' doesn't exist, is that spell power scales a whole lot faster than an attack does. Getting even a second spell in a round via quicken spell is considered a very powerful option. Allowing a wizard to cast 2 or 3 spells a round, basically without any cost at all, would be extremely unbalancing. Spells are plenty good enough, even at just one a round.
Dave Justus said basically what I was going to say. I think the OP should look up the different Action Types.
There are probably some actions not mentioned here (because the list of everything you can do in Pathfinder is massive), but it's fairly comprehensive.
Of note:
- "Attack (melee/ranged/unarmed)"** and "Cast a spell (1 standard action casting time)" are both listed under "Standard Actions"
- "Full Attack" (meaning more than one attack from having +6BAB etc) is listed as a "Full Round Action".
Every round you get either:
- 1 standard action, 1 move action, 1 swift action & as many free actions as the GM will let you take.
OR
- 1 full round action, 1 swift action & as many free actions as your GM will let you take.
(Immediate actions usually happen on someone else's turn).
So it's possible to cast 2 spells, but you'd have to use Quicken Spell or something similar, & there's a cost associated.
**"Attack (melee/ranged/unarmed)" means "SINGLE attack (melee/ranged/unarmed)"
Basically the multiple attacks are from a single action, not multiple actions that happen rapidly one after the other. You might want to check to see if you are using your additional attacks correctly... in one full round attack action. =)
This has been answered correctly several times, but perhaps this will help explain. Although making an attack and casting most spells are both standard actions, they are not the same action.
You only get multiple attacks from a high BAB when taking the full attack action. You don't get multiple standard actions when taking the full attack action, only multiple attacks. So the fighter can't swing his sword twice and drink a potion instead of making a third attack. He can either drink a potion and use his move for something else, but he can't combine drinking a potion with his attack routine.
Casting a spell is just like using a potion as far as that goes. It takes a standard action, of which you only have one in a turn. There is no 'full spell casting action' where you spend a round casting multiple spells, which would be like the full attack action.
At least one of the reason this 'full spell casting action' doesn't exist, is that spell power scales a whole lot faster than an attack does. Getting even a second spell in a round via quicken spell is considered a very powerful option. Allowing a wizard to cast 2 or 3 spells a round, basically without any cost at all, would be extremely unbalancing. Spells are plenty good enough, even at just one a round.
this is exactly how i interpreted it. but they do not. the part of the rules they use to justify their reasoning is this:
"Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone."
this is the part they are referring to. because of how this is worded, both of my friends are claiming that it means multiple spells, one "spell" per "attack" action you could make in a full attack action. i have already had one of these people quit because of this and the other one, idk exactly where she stands on it.
You are normally limited to one spell per round. You can cast two if one of your spells is cast using a swift action and the other is not. So that's at most two spells in one round.
Casting Time
Most spells have a casting time of 1 standard action. Others take 1 round or more, while a few require only a swift action.
A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.
A spell that takes 1 minute to cast comes into effect just before your turn 1 minute later (and for each of those 10 rounds, you are casting a spell as a full-round action, just as noted above for 1-round casting times). These actions must be consecutive and uninterrupted, or the spell automatically fails.
When you begin a spell that takes 1 round or longer to cast, you must continue the concentration from the current round to just before your turn in the next round (at least). If you lose concentration before the casting is complete, you lose the spell.
A spell with a casting time of 1 swift action doesn't count against your normal limit of one spell per round. However, you may cast such a spell only once per round. Casting a spell with a casting time of 1 swift action doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.
You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect.
Cast a Quickened Spell
You can cast a quickened spell (see the Quicken Spell feat), or any spell whose casting time is designated as a free or swift action, as a swift action. Only one such spell can be cast in any round, and such spells don't count toward your normal limit of one spell per round. Casting a spell as a swift action doesn't incur an attack of opportunity.
Note: Mystic Theurges do have an ability that let's them, occasionally, cast three spells in a round. That is a very special case, though.
Spells are not attacks. Spells are spells. Some spells give you attacks, but you still have to spend the action to cast the spell, whatever type of action it is. Most spells are a standard action. If you perform a standard action during a round, you can't also perform a full attack. If you can't perform a full attack, you don't get additional attacks. QED.
|
Your players have come up with a 'clever' bit of rules lawyering, but the simple fact is that the rules are not written like law books or computer code or any other format subject to strict interpretation.
The use of the word "attack" on one page can be, and often is, referring to something completely different than "attack" in another section 80 pages away... because the rule books are written in English for Humans and words have multiple meanings.
Iterative attacks from a high BAB apply only to melee and ranged weapon attacks. The fact that some spells create melee or ranged weapon attacks means that the attacks from those spells COULD be iterative (it varies by spell), but does not mean that you can cast multiple spells in a round... not even multiple 'attack' spells.
The quoted wording about 'what spells count as attacks' is actually defining the term for purposes of effects like invisibility... which ends when the invisible person makes an 'attack'. This differs from the definition of 'attack' for iterative attacks. For example, a bull rush combat maneuver IS an 'attack' for purposes of breaking invisibility, but is NOT the kind of 'attack' which can be made as part of an iterative attack sequence from a high BAB. The same word has different meanings in different contexts. The interpretation your players are advancing, relying on consistent usage throughout the rules, is simply incorrect.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
this is the part they are referring to. because of how this is worded, both of my friends are claiming that it means multiple spells, one "spell" per "attack" action you could make in a full attack action. i have already had one of these people quit because of this and the other one, idk exactly where she stands on it.
That is there to clarify that channel on someone hurt by it, would break you invisibility because you "attacked".
"Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone."
this is the part they are referring to. because of how this is worded, both of my friends are claiming that it...
The problem here is that they're not differentiating between the word "attack" and the "Attack Action". Channeling or casting spells are attacks, but they do not use an "Attack Action".
Having said that, if they're going to let people abuse this, you might as well make yourself a caster ...