Darksol the Painbringer |
How about we cite the full Whirlwind Attack feat before we jump to conclusions here:
When you use the full-attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach. You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent.
When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.
So, from the description, we gather that:
1. Whirlwind Attack is a Full Attack Action, and not a special Full Round Action like everyone is saying it is.
2. You forfeit any standard attacks you would normally get to make one attack against all enemies within reach.
3. Whirlwind Attack forfeits bonus/extra attacks granted by feats, spells, or abilities.
Now, what about Spell Combat?
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.
From this, we gather that:
1. Spell Combat is normally a special Full Round Action, but because of the FAQ and general description, it counts as a Full Attack Action for the purposes of Haste and other effects.
2. The off-hand weapon is a spell with a casting of one standard action, which may or may not include a free attack or touch attack to deliver the spell, depending on what is cast.
3. He is permitted to make all of his attacks.
It's quite clear that Spell Combat can work with Whirlwind Attack. However, Whirlwind Attack forfeits any attacks from spells (such as Haste, or even the free Touch Attack to deliver a spell), feats, class features, and so on. There's also the matter of there being very few multi-touch spells, and the ones that do exist, suck nuts by the time a Magus can make use of this tactic.
Cyrad RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16 |
Darksol the Painbringer |
Whirlwind Attack replaces attacks, not spells. Spell Combat substitutes the off-hand weapon (and the attacks associated with it) with a spell. Therefore, Whirlwind Attack doesn't replace the spell, because the attacks that the off-hand would normally grant, are already forfeited.
If the spell itself granted something like a Ranged Touch Attack, in the case of Scorching Ray, those attacks would be forfeited, since those are extra attacks outside of what you're accomplishing with the Whirlwind Attack, but if you have an Arcana or what have you that lets you apply them to your attacks, the spell effect would still trigger on attacks made via Whirlwind Attack.
_Ozy_ |
I agree with darksol except that Whirlwind Attack would also replace the spell since that spell is being cast in lieu of a bonus attack from two-weapon fighting. Since Whirlwind Attack replaces all attacks you get from full-attacking, you never get that spell.
Casting a spell is not an 'attack' unless the spell itself is an 'attack'. Casting shield on yourself as part of spell combat would not cancel your invisibility, for example. So clearly it is not an attack.
Ravingdork |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
james014Aura wrote:They require you to two weapon fight, which you can't do while using whirlwind.
So, that's stuff like shield or dimension door right there, since they aren't attacks to be given up.
Didn't somebody already show that you could two-weapon fight while using whirlwind attack, just that there was no benefit to doing so?
BigNorseWolf |
BigNorseWolf wrote:Didn't somebody already show that you could two-weapon fight while using whirlwind attack, just that there was no benefit to doing so?james014Aura wrote:They require you to two weapon fight, which you can't do while using whirlwind.
So, that's stuff like shield or dimension door right there, since they aren't attacks to be given up.
no, someone made a really lame absolute 100% twisting of the raw argument that there was a difference between the two. I do not hold such twisting to have any value given it's frequency in being used to over power options vs its poor track record in making sense and the rarity with which the rules are clarified to use it.
Darksol the Painbringer |
Whirlwind Attack may apply when you take a Full Attack Action.
TWF is a Full Attack Action.
Therefore, you can apply Whirlwind Attack when you perform TWF.
Spell Combat functions much like TWF, and counts as a Full Attack Action for effects that rely on it.
Therefore, you can apply Whirlwind Attack when you perform Spell Combat.
Whirlwind Attack replaces whatever attacks you'd normally get, whether through TWF, applying Haste, casting Touch spells, and so on.
It's not difficult. It's not a "twisting of the RAW argument." It's absolutely legal to do, and the ramifications for doing so are completely quantified.
It's also one of the most feat-intensive and stupid things I've ever seen; a Magi's feats are much better spent on things like Extra Arcana/Arcane Pool, Metamagic feats, Power Attack...the list goes on. Quite frankly, if somebody can pull this off and actually be effective, I'd actually praise them for not being Dervish Dance Magi #985547387892364x10^34th like everybody expects them to be.
CBDunkerson |
It's also one of the most feat-intensive and stupid things I've ever seen; a Magi's feats are much better spent on things like Extra Arcana/Arcane Pool, Metamagic feats, Power Attack...the list goes on. Quite frankly, if somebody can pull this off and actually be effective, I'd actually praise them for not being Dervish Dance Magi #985547387892364x10^34th like everybody expects them to be.
You could get a Qinggong Sensei monk to share Whirlwind Attack with a standard Magus build via Mythic Wisdom.
That said, I still don't believe it would do anything. Whirlwind Attack cancels all other attacks. The spell part of spell combat is stated to be an attack. Ergo, it is cancelled.
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
Darksol the Painbringer |
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:It's also one of the most feat-intensive and stupid things I've ever seen; a Magi's feats are much better spent on things like Extra Arcana/Arcane Pool, Metamagic feats, Power Attack...the list goes on. Quite frankly, if somebody can pull this off and actually be effective, I'd actually praise them for not being Dervish Dance Magi #985547387892364x10^34th like everybody expects them to be.You could get a Qinggong Sensei monk to share Whirlwind Attack with a standard Magus build via Mythic Wisdom.
That said, I still don't believe it would do anything. Whirlwind Attack cancels all other attacks. The spell part of spell combat is stated to be an attack. Ergo, it is cancelled.
No, it's not an attack, which Whirlwind Attack nullifies. It's a spell, which Whirlwind Attack doesn't care about.
The attack you make for casting a spell for free comes after you spend the standard action (and succeed at any relevant concentration checks) to cast the spell. In fact, you must spend separate actions in conjunction to do so; Standard Action to cast the spell, then Free Action to deliver it within the round (or is otherwise a Standard Action or part of an attack to do so).
Whirlwind Attack would cancel any Free Touch Attacks made for casting the spell, or Touch Attacks generated by casting the spell, such as Acid Arrow, Scorching Ray, and so on. But it does not cancel spells, because the feat doesn't say anything about spells, only attacks.
@ James Risner: I hope that clarifies my stance.
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
I hope that clarifies my stance.
It does. So I disagree with your reading of the rules. Specifically because the Spell Combat spell is using your off-hand action economy and you forfeit that with Whirlwind Attack. Short of a FAQ, it's unlikely we will get on the same interpretation.
Darksol the Painbringer |
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:I hope that clarifies my stance.It does. So I disagree with your reading of the rules. Specifically because the Spell Combat spell is using your off-hand action economy and you forfeit that with Whirlwind Attack. Short of a FAQ, it's unlikely we will get on the same interpretation.
If spells are attacks, like you're positing they are, then quite frankly I should be able to cast two spells as a Full Attack Action. Heck, as a Cleric, I could cast over 4 spells, as both a Full Attack Action and a Swift Action.
But they're spells. Not attacks.
Whirlwind Attack only removes extra attacks. Not spells.
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you follow what it's trying to say, your success rate at predicting the final result of a FAQ is greatly improved.
D&D is the opposite of Magic the Gathering. In magic there are combos. Using Sprll Combat with Whirlwind would work fine with MTG. It's not an "attack" so it works (in MTG terms.) In D&D/Pathfinder, it uses you offhand attack economy. You forgo that action economy inside the Full Action
Ravingdork |
Off-hand attack economy, James? Seriously?
You mean that old unwritten rule about only having a certain number of hands of effort available? That's really what you're going with, here, in the Rules forum? Okay...
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
Off-hand attack economy, James? Seriously?
You mean that old unwritten rule about only having a certain number of hands of effort available? That's really what you're going with, here, in the Rules forum? Okay...
Yep since a rules forum, we care about the rules:
This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast.
Spell Combat requires using your "off-hand weapon" to cast.
Tarantula |
I understand James' point, and I agree that he has one.
Spell combat is TWF where the primary weapon is your weapon, and the off-hand attack is casting the spell. That is why you get the -2 penalty to all attacks made during it, the same as when TWF with the feat and a light off-hand weapon.
Whirlwind attack negates all attacks that are not from whirlwind attack. If the casting of the spell takes the place of the off-hand attack in spell combat, it makes sense that when whirlwind attacking you would not be able to cast the spell, because you are giving up your off-hand attack (casting the spell) in order to whirlwind.
Darksol the Painbringer |
If you follow what it's trying to say, your success rate at predicting the final result of a FAQ is greatly improved.
D&D is the opposite of Magic the Gathering. In magic there are combos. Using Sprll Combat with Whirlwind would work fine with MTG. It's not an "attack" so it works (in MTG terms.) In D&D/Pathfinder, it uses you offhand attack economy. You forgo that action economy inside the Full Action
I am following what it's trying to say. There is no such thing as "offhand attack economy," it's not a game term, it's not a written rule, it's not an unwritten rule, and it's not brought up in the feat text, meaning that it's basically made-up (and therefore irrelevant to your case). Using that as a rules argument is not only silly, but also just as fallacious as saying all spells are attacks. I should be able to take a Full Attack Action and cast 2 or 3 spells (depending on BAB), since I can apparently substitute spells for attacks for all intents and purposes, like you're claiming.
@ Tarantula: Except the rules for TWF are altered drastically in the case of Spell Combat, so translating altering an off-hand weapon to mean it's still an off-hand weapon is impossible. The only reason it's a -2 penalty across the board is because the feature says so; it's actually not mentioned that it replaces the original TWF penalties, so you should actually be incurring penalties as if you don't have the TWF feat, and don't have a light weapon (so, -8/-12, not including the concentration sacrifices if taken).
Even if the assumption that the -2 penalty replaces the typical TWF penalties, you can't say that for sure, since the only thing that changes via Spell Combat is that the off-hand is casting a spell, not making an attack.
Hell, we could even take this a step further, and state that if I take Improved and Greater TWF feats, that I can cast a 2nd and 3rd spell if I so chose, since spells are attacks for Spell Combat, right? And Improved/Greater TWF gives me extra off-hand attacks, right? And if I had extra limbs, I could MWF and cast spells from those extra hands, right?
Except they're not attacks. They're spells. Just like how spells aren't weapons, they're spells. At best, they're weapon-like spells, but they're still not weapons, they're spells.
@ Cavall: Just because it counts as a weapon doesn't mean it no longer can be used with Whirlwind Attack. What matters is attacks. That's what the feat says: attacks. Not weapons; attacks.
The Magus could be wearing full plate, breastplate, or even nothing at all, and it still wouldn't matter in the case of Whirlwind Attack because there is no text that says Whirlwind Attack can only be performed in light/medium/heavy/no armor. That's exactly what the relevance of weapons are here.
Even if I did have two weapons to attack with (say, an unarmed strike and a whip, just for fun), and performed a Whirlwind Attack, I could make some attacks with one weapon (unarmed strike), and other attacks with another (whip); the only rule is that I do not exceed the rule of "one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach." So I could attack all enemies within 15 feet of me with the whip, but I could only ever attack enemies adjacent to me with the unarmed strike, since the unarmed strike does not have a reach of 15 feet.
It doesn't matter how the attacks from Whirlwind Attack are carried out, as long as the rule regarding one attack per enemy within reach is followed.
Tarantula |
@ Tarantula: Except the rules for TWF are altered drastically in the case of Spell Combat, so translating altering an off-hand weapon to mean it's still an off-hand weapon is impossible. The only reason it's a -2 penalty across the board is because the feature says so; it's actually not mentioned that it replaces the original TWF penalties, so you should actually be incurring penalties as if you don't have the TWF feat, and don't have a light weapon (so, -8/-12, not including the concentration sacrifices if taken).
Even if the assumption that the -2 penalty replaces the typical TWF penalties, you can't say that for sure, since the only thing that changes via Spell Combat is that the off-hand is casting a spell, not making an attack.
Hell, we could even take this a step further, and state that if I take Improved and Greater TWF feats, that I can cast a 2nd and 3rd spell if I so chose, since spells are attacks for Spell Combat, right? And Improved/Greater TWF gives me extra off-hand attacks, right? And if I had extra limbs, I could MWF and cast spells from those extra hands, right?
Except they're not attacks. They're spells. Just like how spells aren't weapons, they're spells. At best, they're weapon-like spells, but they're still not weapons, they're spells.
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.
The off-hand weapon is the spell being cast. That is clear. No, Improved and Greater TWF don't increase your spell combat, they increase your TWF abilities. Spell combat is like the TWF feat, but instead allows a spell to be cast instead of an off-hand attack. If there was an Improved and Greater Spell Combat feat, it might do what you suggest.
They are spells, which are taking place of the off-hand attack as if TWF.
james014Aura |
Spell combat says it's like TWF, *but* aside from Invisibility demonstrating that not all spells are attacks (and Whirlwind strike only specifying attacks), the whole schtick of the Magus class is that it gets to cast a spell AND make a full attack, and a whirlwind strike is the latter.
If there was an Improved and Greater Spell Combat feat,
Actually, those are the names of two Magus class abilities
Tarantula |
Spell combat says it's like TWF, *but* aside from Invisibility demonstrating that not all spells are attacks (and Whirlwind strike only specifying attacks), the whole schtick of the Magus class is that it gets to cast a spell AND make a full attack, and a whirlwind strike is the latter.
Tarantula wrote:If there was an Improved and Greater Spell Combat feat,Actually, those are the names of two Magus class abilities
And they don't give you additional spells. Perhaps it is the intention that you only ever can get 1 spell out of spell combat.
Darksol the Painbringer |
@ Tarantula: You're only enforcing my point. If ITWF and GTWF give off-hand attacks, and you're saying that the spell being cast only removes an off-hand attack, and I have 3, then that means I can cast still cast 2 more spells, since I have 2 more off-hand attacks that can be used to cast spells.
I can play this silly game all day, at the end of it, you're ignoring that it changes the weapon aspect of TWF, not the attack(s) associated with it, if any.
I already demonstrated the difference that makes in relevance to the explanation I gave to Cavall. You can simply substitute Unarmed Strike with Touch Spell, and it'd still get the same effect across.
Darksol the Painbringer |
I agree with the people saying you won't be able to cast the spell, as you've forfeited your offhand attacks by using Whirlwind Attack.
(even if the spell isn't an attack spell, it still requires the equivalent of 2-weapon fighting... which W.A. forbids)
I never said you didn't lose the off-hand attacks. Nobody is saying that. If anything, everybody is in agreement, that you lose attacks associated with your off-hand.
But you don't lose your off-hand weapon, which is what the spell is replacing; the weapon. Not the attack, but the weapon. There's a big difference there.
Tarantula |
Byakko wrote:I agree with the people saying you won't be able to cast the spell, as you've forfeited your offhand attacks by using Whirlwind Attack.
(even if the spell isn't an attack spell, it still requires the equivalent of 2-weapon fighting... which W.A. forbids)
I never said you didn't lose the off-hand attacks. Nobody is saying that. If anything, everybody is in agreement, that you lose attacks associated with your off-hand.
But you don't lose your off-hand weapon, which is what the spell is replacing; the weapon. Not the attack, but the weapon. There's a big difference there.
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
You use spell combat, your off-hand weapon is a spell being cast. Spell combat functions like two-weapon fighting. In order to get the benefit of having an off-hand, you must make a full-attack.
Spell combat is a full-round action, but has been clarified to count as a full-attack action.
Whirlwind attack is a full-attack action, but you give up any bonus or extra attacks.
The casting of a spell replaces the extra attack you would get by TWF, and is given up when you choose to instead whirlwind attack.
MrCharisma |
Alright let's get some quotes in here so people can see what they're actually arguing about:
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.
Whirlwind Attack (Combat)
You can strike out at every foe within reach.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Int 13, Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: When you use the full-attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach. You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent.
When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.
Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)
You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.
I'll post my thoughts in a separate post, so we can keep this one as a reference.
EDIT: Here's the text from the Combat Section about Two-Weapon-Fighting too:
Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
Snowlilly |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't get extra weapon attacks and the spell combat is clear
"off-hand weapon is a spell"
Not some spells. All spells are considered weapons with spell combat. Therefore you don't get it.
Whirlwind does not negate or prohibit your off-hand weapon.
Example: A character holding two weapons while making a Whirlwind attack continues to benefit from the Two Weapon Defense feat.
Cavall |
Cavall wrote:You don't get extra weapon attacks and the spell combat is clear
"off-hand weapon is a spell"
Not some spells. All spells are considered weapons with spell combat. Therefore you don't get it.
Whirlwind does not negate or prohibit your off-hand weapon.
Example: A character holding two weapons while making a Whirlwind attack continues to benefit from the Two Weapon Defense feat.
Two weapon defense does not say it acts like two weapon fighting. Spell Combat does. Therefore that point is moot.
TrinitysEnd |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe I understand the argument that is being presented, which is that since it isn't an attack (Let's say Shield), it isn't restricted by Whirlwind Attack. Under the assumption of that, yes it makes sense.
However, the complication comes from this, if something is in place of an attack, similar to like Disarm/trip/etc are, can you still make it in a situation where you can't make that attack? My answer would be no. So Spell Combat, which functions like TWFing -- which states that you get an offhand attack, replaces the attack from TWFing. But because the attack that is being replaced cannot be taken, you cannot get the spell cast. Or in other words, you need to meet the requirements of what is being replaced to use the replaced thing, similar to dex to dmg. That is my reading on the ability.
Darksol the Painbringer |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:Byakko wrote:I agree with the people saying you won't be able to cast the spell, as you've forfeited your offhand attacks by using Whirlwind Attack.
(even if the spell isn't an attack spell, it still requires the equivalent of 2-weapon fighting... which W.A. forbids)
I never said you didn't lose the off-hand attacks. Nobody is saying that. If anything, everybody is in agreement, that you lose attacks associated with your off-hand.
But you don't lose your off-hand weapon, which is what the spell is replacing; the weapon. Not the attack, but the weapon. There's a big difference there.
Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.You use spell combat, your off-hand weapon is a spell being cast. Spell combat functions like two-weapon fighting. In order to get the benefit of having an off-hand, you must make a full-attack.
Spell combat is a full-round action, but has been clarified to count as a full-attack action.
Whirlwind attack is a full-attack action, but you give up any bonus or extra attacks.
The casting of a spell replaces the extra attack you would get by TWF, and is given up when you choose to instead whirlwind attack.
Look at the bolded parts. They are in no way relevant of each other. You can attack without weapons, and you can wield weapons and not attack (except Defending weapons, but that's a special case). In fact, Spell Combat, when casting, a spell doesn't attack at all.
Let's look at two examples.
-Magus uses Spell Combat. He uses his "off-hand weapon" to cast Shield. He automatically touches himself, no action or attack roll required. His "off-hand weapon" is utilized (assuming concentration checks are met and such), and no attack is done, either to himself or another creature. Any other attacks he makes will always be with his Main Hand, as he has no off-hand to attack with.
-Magus uses Spell Combat. He uses his "off-hand weapon" to cast Shocking Grasp. Assuming concentration checks are completed, he then must spend a free action to deliver the Touch Attack, either through the hand, or via Spellstrike. This is a COMPLETELY SEPARATE action from casting a spell, or simply attacking with an off-hand weapon. He can choose to not take the free attack, and simply carry on with his Main Hand attacks if he so wishes (though 9 times out of 10, people will always take the free attack). If he does so, then once again, no off-hand is being attacked with.
In the first example, there is no attack to be made from casting a spell. Why? Because Shield is a personal spell, and once it's cast properly, there remains no off-hand weapon to attack with. The idea that a spell is an attack in this instance is silly.
In the second example, there is still no attack with your off-hand to be made. Why? Because Shocking Grasp simply lets you make a one-time touch attack that deals XD6 points of damage. You don't have to if you don't want to, and can either dismiss the spell, discharge it harmlessly into the ground or wall, and so on. The ability to deliver it requires spending a Free Action, separate from whatever other actions you've done during the round, to do so, via the standard method (Touch Attack) or the Spellstrike method. This is something that happens regardless of whether Spell Combat is done or not.
So really, proposing that your "off-hand weapon" gives you a free attack, is a major misnomer in relation to Spell Combat, because the "free attack" is NOT from the "off-hand weapon" granted to you, but from the general spellcasting rules regarding Touch Spells.
If you were given an attack outside of what the off-hand weapon already is, then I'd get two extra attacks, one from the generic TWF assumption of your off-hand, and one from the ability to deliver a Touch Spell. Surely, you're not suggesting that Magi have been shorting themselves an entire full BAB attack this whole time, have you?
**EDIT**
It's time I brought out the big guns. Read this, and it will only reinforce my points.
Tarantula |
No. TWF uses your off-hand weapon to give you an extra attack.
Spell combat changes that extra attack into casting a spell.
Whirlwind attack requires you give up any extra attacks.
Therefore, you give up casting a spell when using whirlwind attack because it replaces the attack given by TWF.
Casting the spell IS the extra attack. You give it up to whirlwind.
MrCharisma |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the Two-Weapon-Fighting rules let you make one extra attack as part of your normal attack routine. You don't need any special feats for this, but it comes with pretty steep penalties.
The Two-Weapon-Fighting Feat reduces the penalties for fighting with two weapons (that's literally all it does).
Spell-Combat functions as Two-Weapon-Fighting (I'm assuming the normal combat rules, not the feat) except that it lets you wield a spell in your offhand instead of a weapon. It also comes with it's own specific penalties that supersede the general penalties for fighting with two weapons.
Whirlwind-Attack lets you attack each enemy within reach once (at your full BAB) by sacrificing your normal attack routine. You also lose any extra attacks gained from Feats, Spells or Abilities.
To be clear here, the extra attack from two-weapon-fighting doesn't come from a feat or ability or anything, it simply comes from holding an offhand weapon.
That means that Spell-Combat is giving you an extra "action" simply by virtue of holding the spell in your offhand. It is stated that it is similar to Two-Weapon-Fighting, and Two-Weapon-Fighting states that holding an extra weapon grants you an extra attack.
Whirlwind-Attack says: "[you] give up your regular attacks". This would include the extra attack you get from wielding a weapon in your off-hand.
The question here is HOW similar Spell-Combat is to Two-Weapon-Fighting?
The problem here is really vague wording. It's perfectly reasonable to read this text as "The spell is an attack since that's what Two-Weapon-Fighting does" or as "Instead of an attack you cast a spell, it's not (necessarily) an attack anymore". I think this is a good candidate for an FAQ.
Darksol the Painbringer |
No. TWF uses your off-hand weapon to give you an extra attack.
Spell combat changes that extra attack into casting a spell.
Whirlwind attack requires you give up any extra attacks.
Therefore, you give up casting a spell when using whirlwind attack because it replaces the attack given by TWF.
Casting the spell IS the extra attack. You give it up to whirlwind.
For starters, nice TL;DR.
Secondly, if the attack is already replaced, then Whirlwind Attack doesn't all-of-a-sudden replace what the attack was replaced with, especially when what the attack was replaced with, isn't an attack, which is what Whirlwind Attack replaces.
At best, you can argue that this is like archetypes, in that you can't do both because both replace the same thing, and as such, you can only ever do one. Too bad this isn't about archetypes, and as such, the logic does not apply here, even if it could make sense. (It's like arguing being able to Aid Another with Saving Throws all over again.)
At worst, you can mix and match game terms (attacks, weapons, spells, and so on), and come to the conclusion that they're all the same, since they're apparently interchangable, in which case you're resulting in wizards and clerics casting 2 or 3 spells in the same round, not including Quickened spells, or Spellstoring weapons/armor, which is utter madness, because spells = weapons = attacks (and therefore, spells = attacks, which means you can substitute spells in place of attacks).
Tarantula |
Spell combat allows you to cast a spell instead of take an extra attack.
While casting a spell is not an extra attack, it takes the place of it with spell combat.
Whirlwind attack requires you to give up any extra attacks.
Because the extra attack is given up by choosing to whirlwind, you no longer have an extra attack to give to spell combat.
MrCharisma |
At best, you can argue that this is like archetypes, in that you can't do both because both replace the same thing, and as such, you can only ever do one. Too bad this isn't about archetypes, and as such, the logic does not apply here, even if it could make sense. (It's like arguing being able to Aid Another with Saving Throws all over again.)
No one said anything about this. This sentence is completely irrelevant. Why bring this up?
At worst, you can mix and match game terms (attacks, weapons, spells, and so on), and come to the conclusion that they're all the same, since they're apparently interchangable, in which case you're resulting in wizards and clerics casting 2 or 3 spells in the same round, not including Quickened spells, or Spellstoring weapons/armor, which is utter madness, because spells = weapons = attacks (and therefore, spells = attacks, which means you can substitute spells in place of attacks).
You can only cast one spell per turn unless you have a feat/ability/etc that specifically says otherwise.
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.
This isn't really a part of the debate as there are fairly clear rules about this.
Spell combat allows you to cast a spell instead of take an extra attack.
While casting a spell is not an extra attack, it takes the place of it with spell combat.
Spell-Combat lets you wield a spell in place of your offhand weapon. It doesn't specifically use the word attack.
Again I would like to reiterate that this wording IS vague.
One thing Paizo does say is that if there's a rules discrepancy it's a good idea to look up something similar and see if a ruling has been made that might apply here. I'm open to suggestions?
Cavall |
Secondly, if the attack is already replaced, then Whirlwind Attack doesn't all-of-a-sudden replace what the attack was replaced with, especially when what the attack was replaced with, isn't an attack, which is what Whirlwind Attack replaces.
This is exactly what whirlwind attack does. A person with two weapon fighting instead of single hand fighting doesn't get two weapon fighting during a whirlwind attack. It is replaced when the choice of whirlwind attack is used. Nor can you cleave or a host of other things you have feats or abilities for because you gives them up to do a whirlwind attack.
You're saying the feat doesn't do what it actually does, replace all attacks with a single attack against everyone in an area.
james014Aura |
I see it from another angle:
-> What Whirlwind Attack does is let you attack everyone near you, once, as a full attack. In this light, the meaning of forfeiting extra attacks is more precise - it means you don't get to target anyone twice with the full attack; instead you replace your iteratives and natural attacks with hitting everyone else that one time.
-> What Spell Combat does is let you lump a spell in with a full attack, either at the beginning or the end. While it functions LIKE two-weapon fighting, it's not an attack (unless you use an attack spell).
While this could still be ambiguous for attack spells like Fireball, Chill Touch, and Shocking Grasp (among other effects), it means self-targeted spells should be fine regardless.
(Can anyone really say that a spell is a *regular* attack, since it exists like that for one class only?)
(I suppose that if I were feeling stingy, I might rule it as spell combat replaces one of the attacks with a spell...)
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
Another example of the "works like" that I'd wager everyone on the spell Combat works with Whirlwind is the ring of invisibility. It only said "as the spell". Some said you are limited to 3 minutes. Others said there is no limit. Turns out it's limited to 3 minutes.
Translating that to here: Whirlwind limits you from using you off hand attack to cast shield.
Grick's awesome Spell Combat guide doesn't change the rules or even hint to answer this question.
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
Snowlilly |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Offhand Weapon or attack, neither are allowed with Whirlwind. At least by my reading of the RAW.
False: Offhand weapons are allowed with Whirlwind. The restriction is you do not get additional attacks.
Other benefits of holding a second weapon continue to apply, e.g. Two Weapon Defense.
Tarantula |
James Risner wrote:Offhand Weapon or attack, neither are allowed with Whirlwind. At least by my reading of the RAW.False: Offhand weapons are allowed with Whirlwind. The restriction is you do not get additional attacks.
Other benefits of holding a second weapon continue to apply, e.g. Two Weapon Defense.
Does a magus with Two weapon defense get the benefit when using spell combat?
Does it stop working after they cast the spell because they no longer have a second weapon?
The normal benefit of a second weapon is an extra attack when making a full-attack action.
Spell combat changes the benefit from an extra attack to casting a spell.
Whirlwind attack removes all extra attacks.
If there is no extra attack (because of whirlwind) then spell combat can't change it to casting a spell.
Snowlilly |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Snowlilly wrote:Does a magus with Two weapon defense get the benefit when using spell combat?James Risner wrote:Offhand Weapon or attack, neither are allowed with Whirlwind. At least by my reading of the RAW.False: Offhand weapons are allowed with Whirlwind. The restriction is you do not get additional attacks.
Other benefits of holding a second weapon continue to apply, e.g. Two Weapon Defense.
Only if you are pedantic about insisting the spell is a weapon, which seems to be the case with this thread.
Does it stop working after they cast the spell because they no longer have a second weapon?
Are we being pedantic and is the spell instantaneous?
The normal benefit of a second weapon is an extra attack when making a full-attack action.
Any character can wield two weapons, at any point is time. It is not restricted to TWF and does not require a feat.
It may not be optimal, but RAW, a character can make iterative attacks using multiple weapons or simply carry a second weapon.
Spell combat changes the benefit from an extra attack to casting a spell.
True: Whirlwind does not prohibits spells.
Whirlwind attack removes all extra attacks.
True: a character using Whirlwind would be unable to take extra attacks granted by spells.
If there is no extra attack (because of whirlwind) then spell combat can't change it to casting a spell.
False: spell casting ≠ attacking.