Humphry B ManWitch wrote: Komoda wrote: It is "much like two weapon fighting" as in you get to do something with your off hand. That something, in this case, is cast a spell. It is "much like two weapon fighting" as you take a -2 to your attacks. These are two ways in which it is "much like two weapon fighting".
You are trying to change it from "much like two weapon fighting" into "exactly like two weapon fighting with the bonus of casting spells too."
That is not how it is written.
No This is how its written..
** spoiler omitted **... Flurry uses your 'offhand' but doesn't need to use your actual physical offhand. You have to stay current on those unwritten rules. ;)
graystone wrote: Flurry uses your 'offhand' but doesn't need to use your actual physical offhand. You have to stay current on those unwritten rules. ;) +1
It is amazing how this seems so hard to comprehend for some. It is so simple. ;-)
NikolaiJuno, when you substitute a spell for an off-hand weapon attack, you must logically also assume that any TWF abilities that assume you are making extra weapon attacks with your off hand won't function normally.
The fact that some things that work with TWF don't work with spell combat doesn't mean that "the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast" is just a metaphor. It is much more reasonable to read that the off-hand is indeed occupied (in the physical and abstract game mechanical sense).
graystone wrote: Humphry B ManWitch wrote: Komoda wrote: It is "much like two weapon fighting" as in you get to do something with your off hand. That something, in this case, is cast a spell. It is "much like two weapon fighting" as you take a -2 to your attacks. These are two ways in which it is "much like two weapon fighting".
You are trying to change it from "much like two weapon fighting" into "exactly like two weapon fighting with the bonus of casting spells too."
That is not how it is written.
No This is how its written..
** spoiler omitted **... Flurry uses your 'offhand' but doesn't need to use your actual physical offhand. You have to stay current on those unwritten rules. ;) Monk Unarmed strikes are never off-Hand.... as per Unarmed Strikes rule.
Humphry B ManWitch wrote: graystone wrote: Humphry B ManWitch wrote: Komoda wrote: It is "much like two weapon fighting" as in you get to do something with your off hand. That something, in this case, is cast a spell. It is "much like two weapon fighting" as you take a -2 to your attacks. These are two ways in which it is "much like two weapon fighting".
You are trying to change it from "much like two weapon fighting" into "exactly like two weapon fighting with the bonus of casting spells too."
That is not how it is written.
No This is how its written..
** spoiler omitted **... Flurry uses your 'offhand' but doesn't need to use your actual physical offhand. You have to stay current on those unwritten rules. ;) Monk Unarmed strikes are never off-Hand.... as per Unarmed Strikes rule. Wrong off hand. The metaphorical off hand.
You know what did you even read the thread?
Because if you did you would know this has been explained at least 3 times already.
Humphry B ManWitch wrote: graystone wrote: Humphry B ManWitch wrote: Komoda wrote: It is "much like two weapon fighting" as in you get to do something with your off hand. That something, in this case, is cast a spell. It is "much like two weapon fighting" as you take a -2 to your attacks. These are two ways in which it is "much like two weapon fighting".
You are trying to change it from "much like two weapon fighting" into "exactly like two weapon fighting with the bonus of casting spells too."
That is not how it is written.
No This is how its written..
** spoiler omitted **... Flurry uses your 'offhand' but doesn't need to use your actual physical offhand. You have to stay current on those unwritten rules. ;) Monk Unarmed strikes are never off-Hand.... as per Unarmed Strikes rule. Dude, that has nothing to do with your 'hands' but only matters to your hands. Or do you think you can make a full flurry with your fist and then offhand attack someone with the club in your second hand?
Humphry, go to the top of this page and hit the link in the top post.
Then come back and post, "Ohhhhhh".
If you do not agree, keep reading the target of the link until you do.
Quote: There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
Komoda wrote: Humphry, go to the top of this page and hit the link in the top post. You misunderstand. Humphry's stance is "there isn't a rule saying you can't TWF while Flurry of Blows while also Spell Combat, so you can take -6 to cast a spell, and make two additional offhand attacks."
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
James Risner wrote: Komoda wrote: Humphry, go to the top of this page and hit the link in the top post. You misunderstand. Humphry's stance is "there isn't a rule saying you can't TWF while Flurry of Blows while also Spell Combat, so you can take -6 to cast a spell, and make two additional offhand attacks."
Which is wrong as stated. There are rules saying you can't.
Kazaan wrote: Calth wrote: Kazaan wrote: @Calth:
You are splitting hairs over phrasing. You even copied the exact line from FoB stating it is a Full-Attack. What you said it "should" say, and what it actually states, both amount to exactly the same thing; six of one vs a half dozen of the other. A FoB is a special kind of Full-Attack. Full-Attack is a specific action, not a "kind" of action like Standard or Full-Round. You could, for instance, make the Full-Attack at the end of a Pounce using the benefits and restrictions of FoB. If a feat or class ability says "when making a Full-Attack, do 'whatever'", you can do that on a normal Full-Attack, a FoB, the Full-Attack at the end of a pounce, etc.
The real question at hand is not about getting extra attacks using FoB; you can't get that in any case. But you MIGHT be able to use full Flurry BaB for your attacks IF spell combat actually "contains" a subordinated Full-Attack AND your "off-hand spell" doesn't violate the restriction on using only Monk weapons.
There is a difference between a Full-Attack Action and a full-attack just as there is a difference between an attack and an Attack action. The formatting in the combat section for the rules is literally the same.
No, you cannot Flurry after a pounce, just like you can't Vital Strike or Cleave after a charge.
Wrong.
PRD wrote: Pounce (Ex) When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).
...
Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so, he may make on additional attack, taking a -2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. These attacks can be any combination of unarmed strikes and attacks with a monk special weapon (he does not need to use two weapons to use this ability). For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus from his
... So the answer to the question was nothing, and you take it to believe that means you are right? You asked if other rules elements that interact with full-attacks apply, and the response wasnt yes, it was "we need to think about it." So in fact it is not a normal Full-Attack.
And Paizo has made distinction between a standard full-attack and flurry. One is example is the rules text for Pummeling Style, which references "full-attack or flurry of blows" indicating that the two are not the same. The Medusa's Wrath feat references the full-attack action, and again would not apply to flurry of blows. I can look up other examples as well. Like it or not, there is a distinction between the general class of full-attack actions, and the specific Full-Attack Action just like there is a difference between attack actions and the Attack action. You cannout pounce and flurry just like you cannot cleave and vital strike, or charge and vital strike, or charge and cleave, and a host of other specific standard action attacks.
The rules also list feats that are available to "Orcs and Half-Orcs", even though just being available to Orcs already makes them available to Half-Orcs. Redundancy is one thing. Exclusion is a totally different thing. If you actually read the posts I provided, you'll see that what they need to "think about" is whether Spell Combat contains a full-attack, or if Haste was changed to work on certain non-full-attack circumstances. The entire point is that a lot of people are making the argument that, "Spell Combat isn't a full-attack nor does it contain a full-attack" as if it were conclusive when the devs themselves have stated that they aren't sure which they'd prefer it to be considered as. And you claim that Medusa's Wrath can't be used on a FoB? With a straight face? If you're not going to discuss seriously, then don't garbage up the thread. We all want answers to these questions and spreading disinformation is absolutely counter-productive and, I might say, a violation of the rules of the forum, so stop it.
While I don't agree with the delivery, Kazaan appears to be correct about Medusa's Wrath.
CRB p57 wrote: Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. How is that not a full attack action?
Komoda wrote: While I don't agree with the delivery, Kazaan appears to be correct about Medusa's Wrath.
CRB p57 wrote: Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. How is that not a full attack action?
Because it a full-attack action, not "The Full-Attack Action" described in the combat rules. Just like Vital Strike only applies on "The Attack Action" from combat rules and not any attack action.
I'd argue that Spell Combat is not a full attack action and Haste got eratta'd to include pseudo-full attacks due to how that FAQ is worded, but I'm pretty sure Flurry is a full attack action making Medusa's Wrath work with it. Vital strike restricts things because of the difference between attacks and the attack action not the difference between a standard action and the attack action.
One thing I'd like to see in Pathfinder Unchained is whether or not the new action resolution system eliminates corner cases from arguments as to what actions equate to which and what doesn't work at the same time. Vital Strike would wind up reading "as a standard action you may make one attack..." clearing up situations like charging and Spring Attack which eats up full round actions. Years of Magic: the Gathering have taught me the benefits of keywording over generic terms.
Malwing wrote: I'd argue that Spell Combat is not a full attack action and Haste got eratta'd to include pseudo-full attacks due to how that FAQ is worded, but I'm pretty sure Flurry is a full attack action making Medusa's Wrath work with it. Vital strike restricts things because of the difference between attacks and the attack action not the difference between a standard action and the attack action.
One thing I'd like to see in Pathfinder Unchained is whether or not the new action resolution system eliminates corner cases from arguments as to what actions equate to which and what doesn't work at the same time. Vital Strike would wind up reading "as a standard action you may make one attack..." clearing up situations like charging and Spring Attack which eats up full round actions. Years of Magic: the Gathering have taught me the benefits of keywording over generic terms.
Except there are other standard action attacks, like Cleave, which again does not combine with Vital Strike. Vital Strike isn't about comparing what type of action you are taking, it is about whether or not you are taking one specific action, the attack action. The same with Medusa's Wrath, are you taking "the full-attack action" from the combat rules, if yes it applies, otherwise it does not.
Cleave is a standard action, not an attack action. So yes, you could not Vital Strike with it. That is because even though an attack is also a standard action, attacking with cleave is not.
FOB is not a full round action, it is a full attack action. When making a FOB, you are clearly using the Full Attack Action. You must be, as it says that you are. It is not that you are making multiple attacks as a full round action, but specifically as a full attack action. I am pretty sure Kazaan is correct in that Medusa's Wrath works with FOB.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
For clarity, you have specific actions and you have action types.
Action types are as follows:
Standard
Move
Full-Round
Swift
Immediate
Free
No-Action
This is an exhaustive list. Your action economy determines what action types you may take and when.
By contrast, you have specific actions:
Standard
- Attack
- Aid Another
- Channel Energy
Move
- Move
- Draw a Weapon
- Stand Up from Prone
Full-Round
- Full-Attack
- Charge
- Light a Torch
So on and so forth. There are many, many specific actions. Some actions have variable types. Cast a Spell may be Standard, Full-Round, Immediate, etc. Same goes for Use Feat and Use Special Ability. When we say you use the "Cleave" action, what is really happening, in the mechanics of the game, is that you are using the standard(type) Use Feat(action name) action for the purpose of using the benefit of the Cleave feat. There is no "Cleave" action, per-say, but it's more like "Cleave" is a parameter in the Use Feat[Cleave] function. Standard:Use Feat[Cleave] is a completely different animal compared to Standard:Attack and Standard:Attack is different from Full-Round:Full-Attack. Vital Strike, Medusa's Wrath, et al. aren't triggered by Use Feat; they activate passively when you make the appropriate action (Attack for Vital Strike, Full-Attack for Medusa's Wrath). They also don't care if you change the action type. A level 20 Mobile Fighter can turn Full-Round:Full-Attack into Standard:Full-Attack, but he can still use abilities contingent on making a Full-Attack even though he changed the action type. Flurry of Blows is not a Use Special Ability action; it is a passive effect (like Medusa's Wrath, Rapid Shot, Multishot, etc) that can be used whenever you make a Full-Attack. This Full-Attack can even be subordinated into a larger action as with a Pounce-modified Charge; in essence, you are changing Full-Round:Full-Attack to No-Action:Full-Attack and performing it at the end of your Charge; it takes no additional action economy beyond the Full-Round:Charge to trigger Full-Attack if you use Pounce. FoB is absolutely, positively not a "type" of Full-Attack; there is no such animal.
So, does spell combat have the attribute, full round: full attack, such that it could trigger FoB? (Forgetting about the off hand stuff for the moment)
No, because:
PRD wrote: As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon... It is "as a full-round action" not "during a full attack action" or "as a full attack action."
Give that, you may not even be able to 5' step in the middle of the attack.
_Ozy_ wrote: So, does spell combat have the attribute, full round: full attack, such that it could trigger FoB? (Forgetting about the off hand stuff for the moment) That's, more or less, the question I posed to the devs a year and a half ago. To be more specific, I questioned whether it's a Full-Round:Use Special Ability that involved subsuming a no-action:Full-Attack as well as a no-action:Cast Spell, which is why Haste was allowed to work on it (since Haste is limited to full-attack); or if, instead, it's just a Full-Round:Use Special Ability that allows you to use all your normal iterative attacks (not a full-attack) and Haste was what was changed, no longer relying on full-attack but, rather, any situation in which you are making your iterative attacks. As I said, SKR said they were kicking the idea around, but they never got back to us.
Kazaan wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: So, does spell combat have the attribute, full round: full attack, such that it could trigger FoB? (Forgetting about the off hand stuff for the moment) That's, more or less, the question I posed to the devs a year and a half ago. To be more specific, I questioned whether it's a Full-Round:Use Special Ability that involved subsuming a no-action:Full-Attack as well as a no-action:Cast Spell, which is why Haste was allowed to work on it (since Haste is limited to full-attack); or if, instead, it's just a Full-Round:Use Special Ability that allows you to use all your normal iterative attacks (not a full-attack) and Haste was what was changed, no longer relying on full-attack but, rather, any situation in which you are making your iterative attacks. As I said, SKR said they were kicking the idea around, but they never got back to us. If that thread has a number of FAQ's on it can you link it and maybe we can boost it's faqs to get it noticed and responded to.
This was my original posing of the question.
Kazaan wrote: For clarity, you have specific actions and you have action types.
Action types are as follows:
Standard
Move
Full-Round
Swift
Immediate
Free
No-Action
This is an exhaustive list. Your action economy determines what action types you may take and when.
By contrast, you have specific actions:
Standard
- Attack
- Aid Another
- Channel Energy
Move
- Move
- Draw a Weapon
- Stand Up from Prone
Full-Round
- Full-Attack
- Charge
- Light a Torch
So on and so forth. There are many, many specific actions. Some actions have variable types. Cast a Spell may be Standard, Full-Round, Immediate, etc. Same goes for Use Feat and Use Special Ability. When we say you use the "Cleave" action, what is really happening, in the mechanics of the game, is that you are using the standard(type) Use Feat(action name) action for the purpose of using the benefit of the Cleave feat. There is no "Cleave" action, per-say, but it's more like "Cleave" is a parameter in the Use Feat[Cleave] function. Standard:Use Feat[Cleave] is a completely different animal compared to Standard:Attack and Standard:Attack is different from Full-Round:Full-Attack. Vital Strike, Medusa's Wrath, et al. aren't triggered by Use Feat; they activate passively when you make the appropriate action (Attack for Vital Strike, Full-Attack for Medusa's Wrath). They also don't care if you change the action type. A level 20 Mobile Fighter can turn Full-Round:Full-Attack into Standard:Full-Attack, but he can still use abilities contingent on making a Full-Attack even though he changed the action type. Flurry of Blows is not a Use Special Ability action; it is a passive effect (like Medusa's Wrath, Rapid Shot, Multishot, etc) that can be used whenever you make a Full-Attack. This Full-Attack can even be subordinated into a larger action as with a Pounce-modified Charge; in essence, you are changing Full-Round:Full-Attack to No-Action:Full-Attack and performing it at the end of your Charge; it takes no additional action economy beyond the...
So you are saying you can combine, say, Pinpoint Poisoner and Flurry of Blows?
For reference: Benefit: When you use Adder Strike, you can instead poison up to two blowgun darts that you can then use to strike your opponent in melee. (Drawing such darts is a free action.) While holding these darts, you can spend a standard action to attack with one or a full-attack action to attack with both.
By my reading, Paizo is using here, and many other-places, full-attack action as an action type, not a specific action. Basically, there are many full-attack actions beyond the base Full-Attack Action. Flurry of Blows is one of those, and they are all incompatible with each other, but work with anything, such as haste, that modifies full-attacks(i.e. worded similarly to "when you make a full-attack"). Do I wish Paizo had not done this, and had clearer terminology, of course. But they extensively use full-attack action as an action type in many abilities and feats, and pretending they are all compatible simply doesn't work.
Also, why do you keep insisting flurry is a passive effect. The flurry rules out-right say it is its own action type. There is a huge difference in pathfinder between "You can perform X as a Y action" and "When you make a Y action X happens." Flurry is the first case, and haste is the second.
with > 6 months and no definitive answer I guess we have to wait and see.
Well to get an official answer we'll need a thread that has enough FAQ requests.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Calth wrote: So you are saying you can combine, say, Pinpoint Poisoner and Flurry of Blows?
For reference: Benefit: When you use Adder Strike, you can instead poison up to two blowgun darts that you can then use to strike your opponent in melee. (Drawing such darts is a free action.) While holding these darts, you can spend a standard action to attack with one or a full-attack action to attack with both.
Are blowgun darts errated somewhere as a monk weapon? Cause otherwise you can't flurry of blows with them.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Calth wrote: So you are saying you can combine, say, Pinpoint Poisoner and Flurry of Blows?
For reference: Benefit: When you use Adder Strike, you can instead poison up to two blowgun darts that you can then use to strike your opponent in melee. (Drawing such darts is a free action.) While holding these darts, you can spend a standard action to attack with one or a full-attack action to attack with both.
By my reading, Paizo is using here, and many other-places, full-attack action as an action type, not a specific action. Basically, there are many full-attack actions beyond the base Full-Attack Action. Flurry of Blows is one of those, and they are all incompatible with each other, but work with anything, such as haste, that modifies full-attacks(i.e. worded similarly to "when you make a full-attack"). Do I wish Paizo had not done this, and had clearer terminology, of course. But they extensively use full-attack action as an action type in many abilities and feats, and pretending they are all compatible simply doesn't work.
Also, why do you keep insisting flurry is a passive effect. The flurry rules out-right say it is its own action type. There is a huge difference in pathfinder between "You can perform X as a Y action" and "When you make a Y action X happens." Flurry is the first case, and haste is the second.
Your reading is wrong. Full-Attack isn't an action type; it is a specific action. Full-Round is an action type.
Additionally, to fully understand Pinpoint Poisoner, you must refer back to Adder Strike, since it explicitly states, "When using Adder Striker, you may instead..." So what does Adder Strike say?
PRD wrote: Benefit: As a swift action, you can apply one dose of contact or injury poison to two body parts that you use for unarmed strikes. You must still protect yourself against exposure to contact poisons you apply in this way. Adder Strike allows you to poison your Unarmed Strikes as a swift action. Pinpoint Poisoner builds upon this: Instaed of just poisoning your Unarmed Strikes, you can make them Poison Dart attacks that resolve as melee Touch. You treat them as if they were Unarmed Strikes. Hell, the feat even says in Prereqs: TWF or Flurry of Blows. Of course it's meant to work with FoB.
So, in summary, yes, Pinpoint Poisoner can be used with FoB. Full-Attack is a specific action, not an action type. And FoB allows you to make a Flurry of Blows as a full-attack action (which, as stated earlier, is a specific action). It's like saying, "I make a Vital Strike as an Attack action". Vital Strike passively modifies the Attack action and you can use other rules elements that also modify the Attack action (ie. Overhand Chop). By the same token, FoB, Pinpoint Poisoner, and certain other effects modify the Full-Attack Action. it is not an action type; that is an exhaustive list that only contains Standard, Move, Full-Round, Swift, Immediate, Free, and Not-An-Action. Look in the Combat rules and you will find Full-Attack listed under the heading of Full-Round Actions. I shouldn't have to explain this again.
Kazaan wrote: Calth wrote: So you are saying you can combine, say, Pinpoint Poisoner and Flurry of Blows?
For reference: Benefit: When you use Adder Strike, you can instead poison up to two blowgun darts that you can then use to strike your opponent in melee. (Drawing such darts is a free action.) While holding these darts, you can spend a standard action to attack with one or a full-attack action to attack with both.
By my reading, Paizo is using here, and many other-places, full-attack action as an action type, not a specific action. Basically, there are many full-attack actions beyond the base Full-Attack Action. Flurry of Blows is one of those, and they are all incompatible with each other, but work with anything, such as haste, that modifies full-attacks(i.e. worded similarly to "when you make a full-attack"). Do I wish Paizo had not done this, and had clearer terminology, of course. But they extensively use full-attack action as an action type in many abilities and feats, and pretending they are all compatible simply doesn't work.
Also, why do you keep insisting flurry is a passive effect. The flurry rules out-right say it is its own action type. There is a huge difference in pathfinder between "You can perform X as a Y action" and "When you make a Y action X happens." Flurry is the first case, and haste is the second.
Your reading is wrong. Full-Attack isn't an action type; it is a specific action. Full-Round is an action type.
Additionally, to fully understand Pinpoint Poisoner, you must refer back to Adder Strike, since it explicitly states, "When using Adder Striker, you may instead..." So what does Adder Strike say?
PRD wrote: Benefit: As a swift action, you can apply one dose of contact or injury poison to two body parts that you use for unarmed strikes. You must still protect yourself against exposure to contact poisons you apply in this way. Adder Strike allows you to poison your Unarmed Strikes as a swift action. Pinpoint Poisoner builds upon this: Instaed of... As I think you pointed out before, this, "Full-Attack isn't an action type; it is a specific action." is a major part of the problem. Paizo goes on to describe so many parts of the rules both ways. Sometimes you can add things to the Full-Attack action and other times it is a type of action that you can't add anything to. Or at the very least, that is how it appears to many people.
That is why I focused on the Off Hand component of Spell Combat when trying to decide if it worked with FOB. I felt there was a lot less ambiguity. But then we had to hash out Physical vs. Metaphysical so it wasn't that much easier.
Seriously though, are blowgun darts used for melee attacks considered Monk weapons and valid for FoB? They don't show up as monk weapons when I look through the rules.
I'm going to need an example of a time when you can't add something to full-attack. I'm quite certain it's just a matter of people mis-reading or being mislead by presumptions. In regards to the interaction of off-hands, that's off the table from the get-go. Casting the spell is subsuming your off-hand effort. The only benefit to theoretically be had from combining FoB and Spell Combat is that you get full-BAB from Monk levels.
Can a Brawler (Shield Champion)/Wild Rager/Monk use Rapid Shot, Medusa's Wrath, Combat Expertise, Ki Point Extra Attack and Wild Fighting all at the same time with FOB?
Each of them says, "while using the full attack action..." not "as a..."
A lot of people seem to think that there are limits as to the stacking. I kind of agree, that is 5 extra attack, but do not see rules against it for any of the above.
But this was a very quick look and I might be missing something.
How does the shield champion add to the number of attacks?
It allows for Rapid Shot via shields without Quickdraw and the like.
When I wrote it, it was also to show FOB, but then I added the Monk for the Ki attack. So yeah, it is probably redundant.
"While using the full attack action" and "as a full attack action" are the same thing, mechanically speaking. Full-Attack is a specific action, not a "kind" of action. There is only one Full-Attack action just like there is only one Attack action. There is no hard limit to stacking rules elements onto these actions. The confusion comes in because 'attack' as a general term is also used.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Kazaan wrote: "While using the full attack action" and "as a full attack action" are the same thing, mechanically speaking. Full-Attack is a specific action, not a "kind" of action. There is only one Full-Attack action just like there is only one Attack action. There is no hard limit to stacking rules elements onto these actions. The confusion comes in because 'attack' as a general term is also used. Ok, finally found the relevant design post here.
The relevant portion:
"Specifically for this conversation, we're talking about the term "full attack." Some rule elements such as haste say "when making a full attack action." Other rule elements such as pounce say "it can make a full attack." And in some cases it's even less specific, such as the magus spell combat ability which says "he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon," which was later clarified in an FAQ to mean "as many weapon attacks as you would normally be able to make with a full attack."
We on the design team aren't sure that treating those three terms differently helps the game or makes it easier to learn or play. We also think that allowing martial characters to benefit more often from haste is a good thing."
So yes, the PDT recognizes they use confusing terminology, and that they can be taken to be different things. Basically, haste gets a special fix because the RAW and RAI on full-attack vs full-attack action is completely up in the air.
That is an interesting find.
If you want to be technical, the wording on the monk Unarmed Strike states as follows:
"There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."
So technically FoB does not take up an off-hand slot. (For any arguments related to offhandedness, Monk Unarmed Strikes makes it irrelevant)
Also, as Calth stated, the wording on Spell Combat states as follows:
"he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty"
With all of this being said, it obviously depends on GM discretion in this instance.
The default would be that you can opt to either do a FoB & gain the additional attacks, or forgo the additional attacks to cast a spell per Spell Combat.
GMs could allow them to both stack stating that you take the penalties for both (-4 to attacks) to gain both the additional attacks & the ability to cast a spell.
Yrrej86 wrote: If you want to be technical, the wording on the monk Unarmed Strike states as follows:
"There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."
So technically FoB does not take up an off-hand slot. (For any arguments related to offhandedness, Monk Unarmed Strikes makes it irrelevant)
Also, as Calth stated, the wording on Spell Combat states as follows:
"he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty"
With all of this being said, it obviously depends on GM discretion in this instance.
The default would be that you can opt to either do a FoB & gain the additional attacks, or forgo the additional attacks to cast a spell per Spell Combat.
GMs could allow them to both stack stating that you take the penalties for both (-4 to attacks) to gain both the additional attacks & the ability to cast a spell.
Not precisely. Monk Unarmed Strike specifies, "...for a monk striking unarmed." FoB attacks can be made either with Unarmed Strikes or with weapons that have the Monk special property. It also explicitly calls out that it's based on using TWF. What the line for unarmed is referring to doesn't mean that Monks can't make unarmed strikes as an off-hand attack; just that they aren't adjudicated like off-hand attacks. They're adjudicated as if they were main-hand attacks, meaning they get full Str and Power Attack and other benefits that would ordinarily be restricted to your main-hand attacks. If you really want to take it far, a Monk making a non-FoB full-attack using TWF with unarmed strikes wouldn't take -4/-8 penalties since the off-hand unarmed strike is treated as if it were main-hand so it would take the -4 main-hand penalty and you'd functionally end up with -4/-4 unarmed strikes even without TWF, both of which getting full Str and Power Attack bonuses.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
When you flurry you're two weapon fighting
When you magus flurry you're two weapon fighting.
You can't two weapon fight twice.
If Spell Combat is part of a full attack action (as possibly implied by this and this) then you can combine Spell Combat and Flurry of Blows on a full attack action the same way that you can combine Vital Strike and Startoss Comet on an attack action.
If Spell Combat is instead only 'treated like' a full attack action for Haste and/or some other unspecified circumstances, and as a different full round action for other unspecified circumstances then it is up to the GM to determine which set of circumstances combining with Flurry of Blows falls under.
Even if you could combine, both TWF and Spell Combat consume your offhand action economy and are therefore incompatible with each other.
Kaouse wrote: Quote: Flurry of Blows
Haste specifies using a Full-Attack. Flurry of Blows specifies using a Full Attack. Haste is allowed to work with Spell Combat. I would allow Flurry of Blows to work as well.
Of course, at a culmanative -4 penalty. Considering the Magus lacks ways to increase his to-hit bonus and would require multiclassing (which puts off his class features). Then again, there is the whole "metaphorical hands" issue...
With haste you are adding an extra standard action to a full round action (full attack is described as a full round action). Combining spell combat with flurry of blows would be embedding one full round action in another. The two are not equivalent.
A 1.5-year necro of a 2-year necro of a 2-post thread that was answered and buried on the 2nd post. Impressive. :)
Wow missed all the necro action. That explains how come this thread exists, I thought it was pretty well understood that you couldn't combine now but in 2013 it might have been more murky.
RaizielDragon wrote: A 1.5-year necro of a 2-year necro of a 2-post thread that was answered and buried on the 2nd post. Impressive. :) New class of monster: Unundead, or I would suggest, unliving.
James Risner wrote: Even if you could combine, both TWF and Spell Combat consume your offhand action economy and are therefore incompatible with each other. Ah, I see.
I assumed 'Spell Combat + Flurry of Blows' was being envisioned with the off-hand casting the spell and the other hand making a normal series of unarmed or 'weapon usable with flurry' attacks based on iterative BAB.
Obviously, Spell Combat must always take up 'one hand worth' of attack activities... I'm just saying it could as easily take those activities out of a FoB as any other full attack action... IF that was the intent of the 'Spell Combat = Full Attack Action' FAQ.
CBDunkerson wrote: James Risner wrote: Even if you could combine, both TWF and Spell Combat consume your offhand action economy and are therefore incompatible with each other. Ah, I see.
I assumed 'Spell Combat + Flurry of Blows' was being envisioned with the off-hand casting the spell and the other hand making a normal series of unarmed or 'weapon usable with flurry' attacks based on iterative BAB.
Obviously, Spell Combat must always take up 'one hand worth' of attack activities... I'm just saying it could as easily take those activities out of a FoB as any other full attack action... IF that was the intent of the 'Spell Combat = Full Attack Action' FAQ. Even if you were going to try something like, "I get my full BAB from flurry, but forego the extra attacks because I'm using Spell Combat to cast a spell too," it wouldn't work because Flurry requires all attacks be made with either Unarmed Strike or a weapon with the Monk special property and "casting a spell" is neither.
|
