Is there a technical difference between a full-attack action and a full-round action?
One includes attacks, the other may not.
Or to use an analogy: Is there a technical difference between a jeep and a vehicle? ;P
A jeep is a vehicle, but a vehicle may not be a jeep.
Thanks, ThaX and Ravingdork.
Much appreciated.
So, Spell Combat is a full-round action that includes a full-attack action and a magus spell with a casting time of one standard action (¿or less?).
And, when whirlwind attack is applied, any bonus or extra attacks from feats, spells, or abilities are given up.
So, at best, no extra attack from spell combat on top of whirlwind attack. At worst, no spell combat with whirlwind attack.
Conservatively, I'd lean toward no spell combat with whirlwind attack (reading "bonus" as not necessarily requiring an attack, rather than as "bonus attack or extra attacks"). But, I'm not a rules expert.
Darksol, your talking about phrasing and parsed snippets again. The act of casting the spell takes the place of the off hand weapon in Spell Combat. Period. Whatever you see in the FAQ or elsewhere that seems to change this simply is not there.
Now, if a spell is being held, one can use the effects of that spell (to attack) as one of the attacks used while doing the Whirlwind attacks, but it would not allow the casting of the spell, as that ability (Spell Casting) can not be used with the other (Whirlwind Attack). They both use the same action. (full round attack)
The Magus can, however, use Spell Strike with a held spell during either action.
But they aren't mutually exclusive in terms of action economy.
Spell Combat is a Full Round Action clarified to be a Full Attack Action for effects reliant upon Full Attack Actions per a relevant FAQ.
Whirlwind Attack has the text "When you are making a full attack action," in the very first sentence of the feat description.
Therefore, the issue is not with action economy, because one is the action (Spell Combat), whereas the other modifies that very same action (Whirlwind Attack).
I mean, by that logic, you can't Fight Defensively and Full Attack in the same round, because both take a Full Round Action to do, since according to the rules (and your interpretation of said rules), they're mutually exclusive because both require Full Round Actions to do. Right?
Except, if I know you well enough, you'd say "Actually, they can be used together, because Fighting Defensively only applies modifiers to your attacks and AC," to which point, you're argument is hypocritical and thus fruitless, since that's basically all Whirlwind Attack is doing in relation to Spell Combat.
Interesting discussion.
I can see both sides, as well.
Is there a technical difference between a full-attack action and a full-round action?
Full-Attack actions are a subset of full-round actions. What they have in common is that the only other action that can be taken in a round is either a swift action, a 5 foot step, or a free action which may depend on GM moderation.
Besides full-attack, other full round actions include the typical casting of a Summon Monster/Nature's Ally spell.
|
Well, Summon spells (and others) have a casting time of 1 round, which is not the same as a full round action, which takes place during the characters turn. A 1 round casting time is the full round, from the casters' full round action to the beginning of his next turn in the next round.
Just to clarify.
Edited for better phrasing.
I would say they couldn't be combined. Whirlwind Attack is an action, not an effect.
I would say they couldn't be combined. Whirlwind Attack is an action, not an effect.
Actually, just the opposite. It is an effect applied to an action, not an action. See:
Benefit: When you use the full-attack action
Nothing about spell combat provides an extra attack. All spell combat does is allow you to cast any spell on the magus list with a standard casting time alongside all of the attacks they can make with a melee weapon. It's just that some of those spells create attacks (e.g. touch attack spells).
But you can use spell combat with shield or blade tutor's spirit and those in no way generate attacks.
So I think we're all agreed that you shouldn't get attacks on "everyone in reach plus one" if you use spell combat with shocking grasp and whirlwind attack, the question is ultimately "can you cast shield via spell combat and then use whirlwind attack."
Per the Invisibility spell,
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.
a spell is not necessarily an attack, to be forfeited by
When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks
While Spell Combat functions LIKE Two-Weapon Fighting, that it doesn't actually have an off-hand attack means it's mainly for comparison and not cheesing out extra weapons and the like.
(Which is my main RAW argument - that Spell Combat's spell isn't necessarily an attack)
Also from Whirlwind:
you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach.
Indicating that the RAI is that you attack everyone in reach once, and don't get to cheese out another attack from haste or the like, which would work with the Magus RAI I posit of spell + full attack.
(Note: I'm not suggesting that Fireball or Shocking Grasp would be legal with this combo, though I wouldn't mind either.)
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
This whole thread is a he said/she(or he) said.
Each side is just saying "No you have to X" and "No it's Y" at this point.
Someone should craft a good question, include the various times this has came up (honestly I can think of once in the last 9 years) and start a FAQ campaign. Because, neither side is going to convince the other side with any published rule, "degree of certainly in an answer", or anything else for that matter.
|
|
In spell combat, the spell is being used in place of the off hand weapon normally used in TWF, that is how the Magus is using two Standard actions (Attack and cast) at the same time, though the use of Spell Combat. The spell is the off hand attack, whether or not the spell actually has an attack of it's own or not.
This is the place where the confusion lays. The spell being cast is the replacement, not the free action to make the attack as the spell is cast. Take a look at the excellent guide referenced earlier in the thread regarding Magus Spell Combat and Spell Strike.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
No, the confusion is because people keep saying that the 'spell is the offhand attack' when the rules say that the 'spell is the offhand weapon'.
If people stopped incorrectly quoting the rules, I think there would be a lot less confusion.
Actually, I think we all agree that you can't do Spell Combat because it isn't a full attack action. The FAQ doesn't equate it to one, it's a specific permission to allow things like Haste to add additionally attacks, not to allow you to use Spell Combat as the full attack action inside Whirlwind. But arguing against that met resistance, and there were other arguments.
I fear if this gets FAQ answered, there will be a change to the Spell Combat FAQ to tighten up the language and limit to specific things and nothing else.
Attack/weapon?
The statement "I club that person" makes very little sense in regards to the intended action, whereas "I attack that person" makes much more sense.
Just because they're synonymous with their usage doesn't make them the same thing. It is by that logic where people stated that they can use Vital Strike with a Charge or Spring Attack, just because they both refer to making a single attack. To reiterate my statement before:
Off-hand Attacks are the extra attacks you get from performing the TWF action. Off-hand Weapons are the means of carrying out those very same extra attacks. They are different.
It is using the off hand attack with the free hand to effect the casting of the spell, the different wording does not change this.
Actually, the spell you are casting becomes the off-hand weapon per RAW, and the FAQ regarding TWF, which requires that your weapons are drawn and ready to attack with before performing the action, means that this is a case of Specific Trumps General.
The thing is, because your spell isn't "drawn and ready to attack with" before you perform the action, you don't get an attack with that "off-hand weapon." That is, the attack is already forfeited even before you commit to performing the required action.
No, the confusion is because people keep saying that the 'spell is the offhand attack' when the rules say that the 'spell is the offhand weapon'.
If people stopped incorrectly quoting the rules, I think there would be a lot less confusion.
Actually, I think we all agree that you can't do Spell Combat because it isn't a full attack action. The FAQ doesn't equate it to one, it's a specific permission to allow things like Haste to add additionally attacks, not to allow you to use Spell Combat as the full attack action inside Whirlwind. But arguing against that met resistance, and there were other arguments.
I fear if this gets FAQ answered, there will be a change to the Spell Combat FAQ to tighten up the language and limit to specific things and nothing else.
So then what does the phrase "and other effects" refer to? The Speed weapon? That already has the Haste clause in there, so that can't be it. Blessing of Fervor? Again, has the same clause, therefore irrelevant.
What about things like Hammer the Gap, which adds damage based on how many successful hits you make with a Full Attack? Are you saying that wouldn't count for the attacks you make with Spell Combat, despite the ability text specifically stating you're making a full attack with the one-handed weapon? Not to mention, this FAQ, which states you're making a full attack with the one-handed weapon.
Also, if there will be another FAQ which limits it, then fine; after all, the reference to TWF is largely pointless since Spell Combat has its own special mechanics that TWF doesn't even properly emulate.
You're talking like Spell Combat would get nerfed, even though according to you, it would simply just reiterate what it already was originally designed to do anyway. So what are you afraid of, exactly?
Spell Combat is not now and never was a Full Attack. The FAQ gives you additional attacks that previously was disallowed due to Spell Combat not being a FullAttack.
The FAQ says it counts as a Full Attack for things because it's *essentially* a Full Attack action. Specifically:
Magus, Spell Combat: Does spell combat count as making a full attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects?
Yes.
"and other effects"
"Not a full attack" is only true in the most technical of concerns and does not matter in this context, given that FAQ and how Whirlwind Attack is basically an effect placed on a full attack.
I don't think that's being argued. What is being argued is HOW it modifies it.Huh... read what you wrote again. Based on this I can walk up to a foe, and simultaneously smack someone with my right handed sword and drink a potion with the left hand, right? (both are standard actions!)This "silly" rule is the reason why one can not use these two abilities (Wirlwind Attack and Spell Combat) together, combined with the fact that both are using (basically) the same action to enact.
Whirlwind is not an action, it modifies a full attack action.
Spell Combat counts as a full attack action.
You make one attack against each creature in reach.
You may not gain extra attacks from feats, spells, special abilities, etc.The crux of the argument is, while spell combat may consider the spell being cast a weapon, whirlwind does not prohibit a weapon in the off hand. Only attacks are prohibited; the act of casting a spell is not an attack- this is well demonstrated by the invisibility rules.
Correct. Whirlwind disallows USING a weapon in the off hand. Spell Combat acts as two weapon fighting with spell acting as the off hand weapon. So no spell.
It does not. It prohibits extra attacks. Even if you have two weapons, it's only Two-Weapon Fighting if you use it to get extra attacks. Otherwise, it's an iterative or just something you can AOO with.
EDIT: Example: BAB +6 can attack twice. Wield cold iron in one hand, silver in another. Use cold iron to hit the demon to your right, then silver on the iterative to hit the low-level lycanthrope to your left. Uses two weapons, is not TWF. (And I'd rather use Whirlwind in that case for full BAB to both attacks...)
Correct. Whirlwind disallows USING a weapon in the off hand. Spell Combat acts as two weapon fighting with spell acting as the off hand weapon. So no spell.
No. Whirlwind attack lets you make a melee attack against everybody within reach, but just like the situation where you're holding two weapons and not making a melee attack, for each attack you are entitled to make you can choose which of the two weapons you're swinging with.
Just like if I'm full attacking and not using TWF and entitled to three attacks (say, BAB +15 or BAB +10 and haste) while holding a rapier and a dagger I could go rapier, rapier, rapier; rapier, rapier, dagger; rapier, dagger, rapier, etc.
If I'm holding a mace and a sword and use whirlwind attack and there are 4 people in reach, I may attack any of them with the mace *or* the sword but none with both since you only get one attack against each person in reach.
Correct. Whirlwind disallows USING a weapon in the off hand. Spell Combat acts as two weapon fighting with spell acting as the off hand weapon. So no spell.
Incorrect.
There is no prohibition on using the off-hand weapon. The prohibition is, "no extra attacks."
A character with a weapon in each hand may chose to use both during the course of a whirlwind attack. What the character cannot do is gain an extra attack.
Some people are wasting their energy the wrong way. Why not petition Paizo for a 'whirlwind magus' archetype instead and in the process gain other cool abilities that you can do as part of a ww attack?
There's no point, since nobody would actually want to do this since the feat investment is absurd and the return is minimal. We're arguing about this since it's an odd corner case in the rules that will never come up in a game, but most of us would allow it in actual play in the odd chance because it's at least more interesting than the standard scimitar/shocking grasp magus and not remotely game warping.
I mean, whirlwind attack isn't even that impressive on the aberrant bloodrager with a polearm under the effect of enlarge person and longarm.
Attack/weapon? Why get stuck on a particular turn of phrase when it means the same thing? It is using the off hand attack with the free hand to effect the casting of the spell, the different wording does not change this.
Attack and weapon are not the same thing.
A weapon is a physical object designed to inflict bodily harm or, in this case, a spell.
An attack is an attempt to strike an opponent in combat. An attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.
|
|
My point is...
The spell is taking the place of a weapon/attack in a TWF situation, renamed "Spell Combat." The casting of that spell is the attack, no matter what is cast from that hand. Until the spell is actually cast/held, that "free hand" is not wielding anything, so one does not have it available to use during a Whirlwind Attack.
The two abilities can not be used at the same time. The letter of the law will not help you here.
My point is...
The spell is taking the place of a weapon/attack in a TWF situation, renamed "Spell Combat." The casting of that spell is the attack, no matter what is cast from that hand. Until the spell is actually cast/held, that "free hand" is not wielding anything, so one does not have it available to use during a Whirlwind Attack.
The two abilities can not be used at the same time. The letter of the law will not help you here.
1. Spell combat is taking the place of the weapon. Weapon is not equal to attack.
2. Casting a spell is not an attack. Certain spells may or may not result in attacks. Whirlwind only prevents additional attacks, not non-attack abilities.
Example: Whirlwind does not prevent the additional action granted by Cornugon Smash. It is not an attack. Whirlwind does prevent the additional action granted by Hurtful, since this is an attack.
In the same manner, Whirlwind prevents that extra action granted by TWF, an attack, it does not prevent the extra action granted by Spell Combat, casting a spell.
While Spell Combat may be based on TWF, Spell Combat is not TWF. The ability does not grant an attack, it grants a completely different action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am now more convinced than ever that the combo works.
*Munches on popcorn*
|
There's already a way to do Spell Combat with Whirlwind Attack, but you'll also need to take the Combat Stamina feat. When you do, you'll then be able to do this:
Whirlwind Attack (Combat): When using this feat, you can spend stamina points to still take bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities. You must spend 5 stamina points per extra attack you take in this way. This combat trick allows you to make extra attacks to which you have access—it doesn't by itself grant extra attacks.
There, problem solved. Spend the feats, Magus!!!! SPEND THE FEATS!! MUHAHAHAHAHA!
*slaps the popcorn out of Ravingdork's hand*
There's already a way to do Spell Combat with Whirlwind Attack, but you'll also need to take the Combat Stamina feat. When you do, you'll then be able to do this:
Whirlwind Attack (Combat): When using this feat, you can spend stamina points to still take bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities. You must spend 5 stamina points per extra attack you take in this way. This combat trick allows you to make extra attacks to which you have access—it doesn't by itself grant extra attacks.There, problem solved. Spend the feats, Magus!!!! SPEND THE FEATS!! MUHAHAHAHAHA!
*slaps the popcorn out of Ravingdork's hand*
If available and the magus wanted his full iterative attacks plus any attacks granted by other sources, e.g. hastes, casting a touch spell, hurtful, then yes.
It is not required to combine Whirlwind with Spell Combat for a spell plus 1 attack/opponent within reach.
Spells aren't (necessarily) an attack, so we already have the cake and don't need that feat.
(Unless we want to use Fireball or something for our spell, maybe.)
I think I'm going to run whirlwind attack with the stamina option enabled by default, without having to spend stamina, from now on.
Whirlwind Attack is not a very good use of five feats, y'all.
There's already a way to do Spell Combat with Whirlwind Attack, but you'll also need to take the Combat Stamina feat. When you do, you'll then be able to do this:
Whirlwind Attack (Combat): When using this feat, you can spend stamina points to still take bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities. You must spend 5 stamina points per extra attack you take in this way. This combat trick allows you to make extra attacks to which you have access—it doesn't by itself grant extra attacks.There, problem solved. Spend the feats, Magus!!!! SPEND THE FEATS!! MUHAHAHAHAHA!
*slaps the popcorn out of Ravingdork's hand*
Optional Rule is Optional. In fact, it's practically a non-existent system. It is actually as much of a solution as Automatic Bonus Progression is to the Big 6. So, I don't see how that solution is relevant to the discussion we're having.
|
|
My point is...
The spell is taking the place of a weapon/attack in a TWF situation, renamed "Spell Combat." The casting of that spell is the attack, no matter what is cast from that hand. Until the spell is actually cast/held, that "free hand" is not wielding anything, so one does not have it available to use during a Whirlwind Attack.
The two abilities can not be used at the same time. The letter of the law will not help you here.
1. Spell combat is taking the place of the weapon. Weapon is not equal to attack.
2. Casting a spell is not an attack. Certain spells may or may not result in attacks. Whirlwind only prevents additional attacks, not non-attack abilities.
Example: Whirlwind does not prevent the additional action granted by Cornugon Smash. It is not an attack. Whirlwind does prevent the additional action granted by Hurtful, since this is an attack.
In the same manner, Whirlwind prevents that extra action granted by TWF, an attack, it does not prevent the extra action granted by Spell Combat, casting a spell.
While Spell Combat may be based on TWF, Spell Combat is not TWF. The ability does not grant an attack, it grants a completely different action.
That "Completely different action" takes the place of an Off Hand attack of TWF that the ability emulates. It doesn't matter if the spell gives an attack itself, it is the action of casting that spell that Spell Combat enables and it is an action that Whirlwind Attack will prevent. Both uses the Full Round action to enact. (second "standard" action vs. attacking each target once.)
Purple dragon knight, good catch on the optional rules. Roll that rule back and one can glean that without it, one could not do the extra action.
Folks, it is simple. Whirlwind Attack is used to effect an attack that hits each creature with reach once. I did it with a character that wielded a Scythe, using Lunge and Power Attack. I got to use it four times before my character (PFS Grog) became a seeker. I would not be able to use this and TWF at the same time and I wonder why this situation is somehow different from that. It is the same thing with a spell, it even says so in the ability.
To cry to the devs, "Fix our problem!" and then call irrelevant a book that fixes that problem is really gonna help you put this on their priority list! Well done! :)
Why would we need to fix a problem that doesn't exist? :)
That "Completely different action" takes the place of an Off Hand attack...
Why do people continue to say this like this is actually what the rules say. I mean if you want to argue RAI, feel free, but this isn't the forum for it. When spell combat says "replaces the off hand weapon" it means just that. The words don't mean something else. A weapon is a weapon. An attack is an attack. A weapon is not an attack. Maybe they meant off hand attack, but that is not what is written. If they don't want the two to work together then need to errata it, or further clarify the FAQ and state the specific list of abilities that spell combat counts as a full attack action for, and not leave an open ended "other effects" dangling at the end of the answer there.
Likewise when WW attack says "no extra attacks", it means no extra attacks. It does not mean no extra weapons, no extra things that you might do during a full attack that are not attacks. If they mean WW attack to be a full-attack action that doesn't allow extra attacks or anything else at all during it, then it too needs an errata. Until then the only prohibition is extra attacks. Casting a spell, in and of itself, is not an attack.
To cry to the devs, "Fix our problem!" and then call irrelevant a book that fixes that problem is really gonna help you put this on their priority list! Well done! :)
Calling a rule irrelevant does not equate to calling a rulebook irrelevant.
Way to try and shoehorn my argument.
Your argument was "optional rule is optional".
Which...uh.. yeah that's the whole book.
I could have made the same response in relation to things like Called Shots or Piecemeal Armor, or even Armor as DR, and it still doesn't change the fact that we're talking about an optional rule, not an optional rulebook.
It's like attacks and weapons all over again. They're not the same. Just like how an optional rule and an optional rulebook aren't the same.