Ah, I see what you are saying.
"...when using a full-attack action,..." implies he has to use the full-attack action to do this (as opposed to the cast a spell action). But of course if he is using a full-attack action how does he cast...
Intent seems plain to me - it takes his move and standard for the turn, but wow, the wording...
In the latest FAQ, the devs made it clear that haste is meant to be applicable across the board, even when the wording of the monk's unarmed strike ability muddied the issue. In fact, the devs thought it was obvious that haste applies, and never even considered the interpretation that it wouldn't work with UAS!
I'm not seeing it, which FAQ is this? Can you provide a link?
The extra attack provided by Haste isn't a normal attack; it's an exceptional attack and the nature of the exception is explicitly laid out. It must be taken as part of a full-attack action or a full-round that explicitly calls out that it functions "just like" the full-attack action, not just any full-round action that happens to involve attacks (ie. Tiger Claws).
Has it been explicitly said RAW, in an FAQ or by a developer, that Haste doesn't work with Tiger Claws or is this just someone's assumption?
So the reason that you think Spell combat doesn't get an extra action from Haste is the same primary reason that you think Haste doesn't grant Tiger Claws an extra action. And you are using Tiger Claws an example as to support why spell combat doesn't get an action from Haste. Isn't that is circular logic?
|
And yet, the devs themselves always considered sunder to work as replacing any attack.
They will also confirm, as soon as they speak on the subject, that Spell Combat works with haste. this is because the devs like to make sense.
Although your logic may be internally consistent, what you're looking for is applying the logic to something outside a circle of logic eating it's own tail.
At no point in your logic did you even attempt to reason why haste would not work (conceptually) with Spell Combat. You are allowed, even expected, to actually use your mind, not just read the RAW without making sure it makes sense as applied to the situation in question.
Even being a rules lawyer, which is a big part of this all, this is far from conclusive. Yes Kazaan, you reminded us that Spell Combat is Special Ability under Full Round Action. You pointed out an example of where the developers stated that the different types of actions are distinct and matter. I’m not disagreeing. In general I would agree that an action can’t be two different types at once.
But the example of Flurry of Blows shows that an action that starts out as an Special Ability action type under Full Round Action can end up being or acting as a Full Attack (although it says “as a” not “like a”). However it gets there is not clear. But whether it changes type, is two at once, the special ability is just “passively’ changing stuff or allowing it the it to “act like” a full attack, whatever that mechanism that caused that is, could allow Spell Combat to be or act like a full attack. And yes I’m fully aware that Spell Combat doesn’t state “as a full attack” it states “full round action”. As you are fully aware a full attack is a kind of full round action, so if the Special Ability description states that, it isn’t definitive one way or the other that it should or shouldn’t be a full attack. You don’t know the developer’s intent on a given ability, and neither to I unless they state it. I will agree with you the in general unless a full round special ability states that it is or acts like full attack we should not assume it is. But this is not an absolute. It may be your opinion that it is, but until you can back it up with RAW, FAQ or similar it’s just opinion. Like anything in Pathfinder there are exceptions. There are multiple things suggesting RAW or RAI that we should be considering Spell Combat as a Full Attack
1) The language defining a full attack could be taken to mean anytime there are multiple attacks due to reasons given, a full attack is needed, it could also just be taken to mean a full round action is needed, that’s unclear. So this MAY be an RAW argument.
2) There is James Jacobs statement of RAI (yeah you many discount him, but many of us still think it’s relevant).
3) There is the language saying it works like TWF which is a full attack and works with Haste. Without knowing how much like TWF SC is this MAY BE a strong argument.
4) The Hasted Assault Arcana being fairly nerfed if Haste doesn’t allow an attack. Admittedly this is a weak one, and by itself, wouldn’t mean anything RAW.
I’m not saying your opinion couldn’t be right. I am saying that based on what’s been presented so far your opinion hasn’t been shown to be any more superior. There is still too much unknown about RAI on these and other points. We need developer input or more discoveries in RAW, FAQ or developer comments from the Messageboards to give us a better idea of what RAI is.
Also Kazaan you're a smart person. But so are a lot of the people on these forums. You've made several statements that come across as "My logic is better than yours". Maybe that is not your intent. But if that is what you are thinking, then I hope you realize that no one on here is going to take your arguments more seriously because YOU say they are more logical.
Kazaan has the right of this from the logical RAW view point.
Although dead shot and deadly shuriken could be argued against due to this wording in each of them. "She makes the attack rolls in order from highest bonus to lowest, as if she were making a full attack."
Which rule supersedes which? Is haste "when making a full attack action" the most important? Or does anything that is "as if making a full attack" fold the haste bonus attack into it? That is does "as if making a full attack" fulfill the purposes of hastes prerequisite?
RAI - I don't know where Kazaan stands, but I'd venture
Spell Combat works with haste.
Dead shot and deadly shuriken probably works with haste.
Tiger claw does not work with haste.
Nothing is better than universal peace.
A ham sandwich is better than nothing.
A ham sandwich is better than universal peace.
This example is particularly interesting to me.
If this were converted to mathematics it would read
B (nothing) is greater (better) than A (universal peace).
C (ham sandwich) is greater than B.
C is greater than A.
And it would be true. But context of words is important in language. The contextual meaning of nothing changes in the first two sentences. And there is a assumption that 'greater' in math is equivalent to 'better' in English. It's that sort of nuance though that should lead one to correct RAI - but that gets tricky because not everyone understands the nuances in the same way, or agrees those nuances are the same.
"Full-Attack allows you to TWF.
Spell-Combat allows you to TWF with spell as off-hand.
Spell-Combat is Full-Attack.
That's the basic line of your reasoning."
Did I say that was my primary point?
|
Question 2) All of those attacks are made "with his melee weapon", does this specifically mean the light or one-handed melee weapon in his other hand, or can they be made with any mixture of weapons he is wielding so long as his other hand remains free?Question 3) Can an unarmed strike be considered "in his other hand" or does Spell Combat require a manufactured weapon? Can he use a manufactured weapon which does not use a hand, for instance a boulder helmet, barbazu beard, or armor spikes?
Question 4) If the attack portion of Spell Combat is intended to work like a full-attack, does this only include attacks made with that specific melee weapon, or could he also make attacks with secondary natural weapons, so long as they don't share a limb with either of his hands?
Feel free to discuss, however clicking the FAQ request flag would be greatly appreciated.
Full disclosure: There were previous FAQ requests...
while wielding a manufactured light or one-handed melee weapon - seems pretty clear to me that this means it does not apply to natural and unarmed strikes. They get their full attacks with that weapon, and if hasted, get one more attack with IT (not with some third arm weapon or some such thing...).
I consider everyone the winners when we come to the correct conclusion.
Agreed,
You wanna refute the logic I've presented? Actually refute it.
What specific point do you want me to refute?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SKR wielding = using.
Wielding means "actively trying to use the item," and is normally only used in the context of weapons or weapon-like objects such as rods, wands, and so on.
Otherwise, it's just an item you're holding/carrying.
And if you're not holding/carrying/bearing it, you're probably wearing it, or it's stowed in a sheath or backpack.
And if you're not wielding, holding/carrying/bearing, or wearing the item, it's probably unattended.
If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it.
If you're holding or carrying a sword, you just have it on your person, perhaps because your fighter buddy dropped it and you didn't want him to lose it.
You probably can't wear a sword.
If you're not wielding the sword, holding/carrying/bearing the sword, or wearing the sword, it's on the ground.
Spell Combat doesn't call out requiring a manufactured weapon. Both Unarmed Strikes and Natural Attacks are light weapons.
"Are treated as" [for two weapon combat] isn't the same thing of "are".
Maybe it is meant to work with unarmed combat, surely not with natural attacks.
BTW, if natural attacks are light weapons, this piece of the rules is meaningless:
Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack's original type.
Replace "natural" with "light weapon" and see what you get:
Creatures with light weapons attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one light weapons attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available light weapon attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack's original type.
|
|
Fallacy of generalization. Just because natural attacks are light weapons doesn't mean that light weapons are natural attacks. Natural Attacks are a subset of light weapons. Your argument is invalid.
All dogs are mammals. All cats are mammals. Therefore, all dogs are cats. Fallacy of the misplaced middle term.
Kazaan you are the one saying that natural attack are light weapon. so the fallacy is all yours.
The rules about natural weapons clearly set them in a different category from weapon. Explain this text it natural weapons are a subset of light weapons.
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack.
Your version:
You can make attacks with a subset of light weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack.
What is the need of this rule if the natural weapons are a subset of light weapons?
Or why a subset of the light weapon should become a secondary attack when used in conjunction with weapons?
And if natural weapons are a subset of light weapons and so follow the rules of weapons, we should assume that ass soon as you have 2 natural attacks you should treat them both as secondary.
Your "logic" is full of holes.
- * -
Just for the record, they are treated as light weapon for Weapon Finesse, not Two weapon combat. My fault.
Weapon Finesse (Combat)
You are trained in using your agility in melee combat, as opposed to brute strength.
Benefit: With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.
Special: Natural weapons are considered light weapons.
and
Feat Descriptions
....
Special: Additional unusual facts about the feat.
It say about the feat, a specific modifier that applies only to that feat, not a general rule.
|
|
Kazaan, I loved your earlier arguments, but you cannot use natural weapons with Spell Combat. Sorry.
OK. You are weilding (using) a light weapon in your offhand? Yes, Unarmed. Questionable with and Nat Wpns; if you have another feat they may be. If they are light weapons, and if that is what the other hand is using to attack, then there is no other restriction, is there? It doesn't say "all light weapons except natural attacks and unarmed strikes" does it?
page 141 under light weapons:
"An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon."
page 149, the same:
"An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon."
I will grant that the classification of a natural attack is seperated from being a light weapon. But with the feat that treats them as such, they fall into "usable" by spell combat if they have the weapon finesse feat.
ps. page 182
"Your natural attacks are treated as light, off-hand weapons for determining the penalty to your other attacks." (when using them in conjunction with another weapon in your hand, so tail strikes and spell combat would still be viable, as the light weapon (tail) is still a light weapon, even in this instance)
|
SKR wielding = using.
Wielding means "actively trying to use the item," and is normally only used in the context of weapons or weapon-like objects such as rods, wands, and so on.
Otherwise, it's just an item you're holding/carrying.
And if you're not holding/carrying/bearing it, you're probably wearing it, or it's stowed in a sheath or backpack.
And if you're not wielding, holding/carrying/bearing, or wearing the item, it's probably unattended.
If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it.
If you're holding or carrying a sword, you just have it on your person, perhaps because your fighter buddy dropped it and you didn't want him to lose it.
You probably can't wear a sword.
If you're not wielding the sword, holding/carrying/bearing the sword, or wearing the sword, it's on the ground.
Spell Combat doesn't call out requiring a manufactured weapon. Both Unarmed Strikes and Natural Attacks are light weapons."Are treated as" [for two weapon combat] isn't the same thing of "are".
Maybe it is meant to work with unarmed combat, surely not with natural attacks.
BTW, if natural attacks are light weapons, this piece of the rules is meaningless:
Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack's original type.Replace "natural" with "light weapon" and see what you get:
Creatures with light weapons attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one light weapons attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such...
Nope. Going to have to disagree with you here and the Dev's have backed it up.
First all natural weapons ARE melee weapons as quoted HERE by SKR in the Superstar thread.
Thorns: You should say "creatures striking with manufactured weapons" rather than "creatures striking with melee weapons," because natural attacks and unarmed strikes are melee weapons, and you're actually wanting to exclude manufactured weapon attacks from being affected by this ability.
As for the weapon finesse it doesn't state that natural attacks are considered light weapons for that feat it issues a blanket statement separate from the feat description. It could be better formatted but it specifically calls all natural attacks as light weapons. ALWAYS.
And before you bring up the wielding line. All weapons have to be wielded to be used in an attack and since all natural attacks are officially melee weapons they also have to be wielded to be used to attack. You CAN spellstrike/spell combat with natural attacks.
Edit: Just because something "works like TWF" doesn't mean it also counts as a full-attack. Two-Weapon Warrior's Doubleslice (Ex) also "works like TWF" even moreso than Spell Combat. It lets you attack with your main-hand and off-hand weapon as a standard action. Does it also get the bonus attack from Haste? Just because it "works like TWF" doesn't logically extend to "it counts as full-attack". That's a leap of faith, not logical analysis.
Full-Attack allows you to TWF.
Spell-Combat allows you to TWF with spell as off-hand.
Spell-Combat is Full-Attack.
You got your syllogism wrong, and it's a significant mistake. Here's the argument:
1) Two-weapon fighting is a full attack.2) Spell-Combat allows you to TWF with spell as off-hand.
3) Spell-Combat is Full-Attack.
Anybody can hold 2 weapons at any time, but two-weapon fighting only ever exists as a meaningful concept within the context of the full attack action.
Double strike is hardly meaningful in this context. It doesn't reference TWF to set the parameters for what you can do, it describes a new standard action that you're allowed to take. It then imports penalties from TWF. As such, it does nothing to invalidate the above point.
|
|
Sorry, but the two different quotes being used here do not apply. They are stating different things for different circumstances.
Yes, of course natural weapons and unarmed strikes are melee weapons. They certainly aren't ranged weapons, now are they?
Natural weapons are not manufactured weapons. They are, by definition, the opposite. You wield manufactured weapons. You do not wield natural weapons.
Natural weapons are treated as light weapons for purposes of how damage bonuses are applied when using them (and for the Weapon Finesse feat). This does not make them manufactured weapons.
You cannot use natural weapons during Spell Combat.
|
|
Sorry, but the two different quotes being used here do not apply. They are stating different things for different circumstances.
Yes, of course natural weapons and unarmed strikes are melee weapons. They certainly aren't ranged weapons, now are they?
Natural weapons are not manufactured weapons. They are, by definition, the opposite. You wield manufactured weapons. You do not wield natural weapons.
Natural weapons are treated as light weapons for purposes of how damage bonuses are applied when using them (and for the Weapon Finesse feat). This does not make them manufactured weapons.
You cannot use natural weapons during Spell Combat.
I agree in part. NORMALLY you cannot use natural weapons during spell combat. If you have the weapon finesse feat, you can.
That is why it says "SPECIAL". The term "wield" simply means "use", it does not mean hold onto.
(I thought someone already corrected us all on the fact that the spell combat does not say "manufactered" anywhere)
|
|
The term "wield" simply means "use"
Not in Pathfinder. You only "wield" manufactured weapons, of which natural attacks are not.
spell combat does not say "manufactured" anywhere
Except it does: "while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand."
I understand it can be confusing. You're not the first person to get these mixed up.
|
|
The term "wield" simply means "use"Not in Pathfinder. You only "wield" manufactured weapons, of which natural attacks are not.
spell combat does not say "manufactured" anywhereExcept it does: "while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand."
I understand it can be confusing. You're not the first person to get these mixed up.
Completely not RAW.
p. 136 Defensive fighting:
"When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC."
Implies that NORMALLY you can WIELD Nat Weapons and Unarmed Strikes - this feat specifically excludes them, which is "not normally the case with wielding."
And again, we are talking about a MONK, right?
"A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."
Though the word Manufactured only appears 5 or 6 times in the RAW Core RuleBook and essentially means NOTHING. RAW. Unless you'd like to quote me your source for what you say.
|
|
The term "wield" simply means "use"Not in Pathfinder. You only "wield" manufactured weapons, of which natural attacks are not.
spell combat does not say "manufactured" anywhereExcept it does: "while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand."
I understand it can be confusing. You're not the first person to get these mixed up.
You can add:
Arcane Pool (Su):
...
At 1st level, a magus can expend 1 point from his arcane pool as a swift action to grant any weapon he is holding a +1 enhancement bonus for 1 minute.
As you aren't holding a unarmed strike or a natural attack, we have a key ability that don't work with them and speak about having a weapon in your hand and not your hand being the weapon.
|
|
As you aren't holding a unarmed strike or a natural attack, we have a key ability that don't work with them and speak about having a weapon in your hand and not your hand being the weapon.
And it says "holding" not "wielding." And I have NO PROBLEM with that NOT working with a monk's manufacturered (or not, doesn't really matter one wit at all) unarmed strikes. Though that might be interpreted as a semantic argument.
He can hold it, enchant it, and perhaps give it to another person to wield?
I'm going to try to unpick what Kazaan means, because I think he is making two different (but related) arguments, and making that clear would benefit us all.
Kazaan, if I misinterpret please correct me :)
Kazaan seems to be making the following two arguments:
1.
Premise: the text of "Spell Combat" does not explicitly state that it is (or acts like) a "Full Attack Action".
Conclusion: therefore, "Spell Combat" is not a "Full Attack Action" as is never treated as such.
This is where some others disagree, I think.
2.
Premise: "Spell Combat" is not a "Full Attack Action" and is never treated as such.
Premise: When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack. (The rules text of the Haste spell)
Conclusion: When making a "Spell Combat" action, there is no reason the "Haste" spell would allow an extra attack.
------------------------
Now I'll give my comments on the matter.
While I agree with the first argument, I can see why some people may not agree with it.
It is clear that the second argument is valid. That is, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. Put more simply, if Spell Combat is indeed not a Full Attack Action, then Haste will not grant another attack.
While I think the rules indicate that Haste does not grant an extra attack during spell combat, I do think that Haste ought to work with Spell Combat. A small errata noting that Spell Combat is a type of full attack action would be ideal, in my opinion.
EDIT: minor clarifications
|
|
And again, we are talking about a MONK, right?No. This thread is discussing the Magus ability Spell Combat.
I give you an "A" for effort for defending your position, but natural weapons cannot be used with Spell Combat.
I'm sure you'll learn to cope.
..again, unless you have the Weapon Finesse Feat which then treats them as LIGHT MELEE WEAPONS under it's SPECIAL note. (and not just for attacks, whatever... there is no limit placed on it... just that they are treated as LIGHT weapons now).
(ps. sorry, got this thread and the magic fang one mixed up a little)
Now we are getting some where.
Kazaan seems to be making the following two arguments:
1.
Premise: the text of "Spell Combat" does not explicitly state that it is (or acts like) a "Full Attack Action".
Conclusion: therefore, "Spell Combat" is not a "Full Attack Action" as is never treated as such.
This is where some others disagree, I think.2.
Premise: "Spell Combat" is not a "Full Attack Action" and is never treated as such.
Premise: When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack. (The rules text of the Haste spell)
Conclusion: When making a "Spell Combat" action, there is no reason the "Haste" spell would allow an extra attack.
I would be one of those to disagree with #1. Where is this stated that the ability itself must explicitly state that it is a Full Attack Action to be one? At this point this seems to be an assumption. If something else indicates that it should be a Full Attack Action, then I don't see that it can't be. That it is similar to TWF isn't the only thing pointed to. I brought up before the description given for Full Attack Action.
There are actually two.Under Standard Actions.
Multiple Attacks: A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full-attack action (see Full-Round Actions) in order to get more than one attack.
Under Full Round Actions
Full Attack
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.
The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
Yes I know, in general, actions can't be two different types at once. This also is not a stated absolute, in fact I would say all the Special Abilities that are also Full Attack Actions (like Flurry of Blows) show that it can't be an absolute.
|
|
Actually, Weapon Finesse states that natural weapons are considered light weapons for the purpose of the feat. You're reading too much into it.
...and if my normal melee attacks include using this feat then they are considered light weapons, right? Or are we now saying we cannot use two feats at the same time?
|
|
Maose, you're not contributing anything to the discussion at this point. You cannot use natural weapons with Spell Combat. In your home games you may feel free to rule however you wish, but in this forum, since ppl come here for legitimate answers to legitimate questions, I must ask you to move on.
I'm failing to see how what I have said is not a legitimate answer to the question, thus the whole "can't move on" part I guess. Nefreet, are you a Paizo dev? Just curious. Is anything quoted as being "RAW" by me incorrect? Is anything quoted as being RAW by others (such as "manufactured") actually in any books anywhere (it is not in the core rulebook)? I legitimately throw out page numbers and books and get this? Thanks for the honest discussion. I guess I will just move on because nobody actually wants one here.
|
|
Actually, Weapon Finesse states that natural weapons are considered light weapons for the purpose of the feat. You're reading too much into it.
No, it does NOT say that.
It just states natural attacks are considered light weapons. PERIOD.There is nothing in that description that even remotely states that it only counts for this feat.
Nefreet, I think you are being needlessly dismissive of masouse.
The question he is addressing is explicitly asked in the first post.
Even if you are right and he is wrong (I've been focusing on the Haste question, so I have no idea), he is still allowed to put his case forward.
---------------
GreenMandar, I'll examine a particular section of the rules you quoted.
"Full Attack
If you get more than one attack per round ... you must use a full-round action..."
I can certainly see your point here. A magus using spell combat might make more than one attack per round, so he better use the full round action described under Full Attack.
Two odd things to note though:
1. Spell Combat is a full-round action, so, oddly, it doesn't break this rule, yet nothing actually necessitates it being a Full Attack action.
2. Spell Combat might not have more than 1 attack in it. (Casting Vanish and making one attack, for example).
I really think the rules here are quite ambiguous, which is a clear mistake in writing.
The fact that Spell Combat sometimes meets the definition for Full Attack and sometimes doesn't would be a reason to not pigeon hole it. Leaving it as a Full Round Action action allows it to be either.
Kazaan, I understand the the point behind the Vital Strike FAQ and I see the similarites to this situation. However there are differences too. The wording for Full Attack is much stronger and definitive. This seems to be a question of whether the general guidance implied by the FAQ, overrules the specific wording of Full Attack (without revisiting TWF debate).
Use Special Ability actions are not Full-Attack actions regardless of how Full-Attack is phrased.
So I guess Flurry of Blows is not a Full Attack, because you say it can't be.