| 65 people marked this as a favorite. |
English is a very fluid language.
In some ways that is helpful because it allows us to express a rule in a natural way in one sentence and in another natural way in another sentence. For example, we can say "if the creature fails its save, it gains the blinded condition," or "this spell blinds the target if it fails its save." Even though "blinds" isn't a condition, you know what that second statement means because you understand that "blindness" and "blind" mean the same thing in the real world and you know that "blindness" and "blind" aren't two different game terms.
However, not all game terms have equivalents in the real world, and it leads people to try to parse specific meaning out of game terms that are used one way in one sentence and another way in another sentence. Furthermore, given that we inherited the 3.5 game rules, have added or subtracted terminology from those rules, and have writers and editors who have worked on 3.5 and the Pathfinder RPG, sometimes natural writing means we end up with two phrases that seem very similar but could be interpreted as meaning the same thing or different things.
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, in the interest of having the rules be less confusing, we're going to make some changes to recent rulings and see how it plays out.
The general intent is: This has three specific consequences we'd like to call out:
One, spell combat does get the extra attack from haste (because spell combat is basically a full attack plus casting a standard action spell).
Two, charge does not get the extra attack from haste (because charge only allows you to make a single melee attack). Even if a full attack for you is just a single melee attack, charging doesn't get the extra attack from haste.
Three, pounce does get the extra attack from haste (because pounce allows you to make a full attack when you charge).
If there are any unexpected game-breaking combinations as a consequence of this ruling, we'll address them when they occur (which may require reversing this decision).
We'll be updating the relevant FAQ answers to reflect this change.
(FYI, I posted this with my own name rather than from the Pathfinder Design Team account because we prefer to use the PDT account just for making FAQs.)
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, sometimes a Full Attack is not a Full Attack Action?
My original post in this thread is saying exactly the opposite of the above quote.
|
So, sometimes a Full Attack is not a Full Attack Action?My original post in this thread is saying exactly the opposite of the above quote.
It never hurts to double check these things.
It is not imply deceit, but solidify the above statement.
Sometimes, even the most altruistic can say one thing, and mean another.
Bravo!
I would not have expected all the pages of discussion to actually lead to such a productive change. Kudos for listening to the forums and deciding to change the opinion expressed before.
I would like, however, to second the question of Kazaan about the interaction between Spell Combat and other stuff that change Full Attack Actions (Fight Defensively. Flurry of Blows. Flurry of Maneuvers. Rapid Attack. Additional attcks from secondary natural weapons. Etc.). Ideally not a case by case answer, that would only clutter and not help once a new ability modifying Full Attacks comes out. Ideally a clear "Spell Combat counts as a Full Attack for effects" or "Spell Combat does not count as Full Attack, Haste is special".
Thanks!
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I believe that would mean that you could Vital Strike on every attack in a full-attack action. And many more consequences!
So I'm guessing not?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I would like, however, to second the question of Kazaan about the interaction between Spell Combat and other stuff that change Full Attack Actions (Fight Defensively. Flurry of Blows. Flurry of Maneuvers. Rapid Attack. Etc.). Ideally not a case by case answer, that would only clutter and not help once a new ability modifying Full Attacks comes out. Ideally a clear "Spell Combat counts as a Full Attack for effects" or "Spell Combat does not count as Full Attack, Haste is special".
If you read SKR's post in full, I think the answer's pretty clear.
If the point was to destroy the difference between an attack and an attack action, then it would follow that the full-attack action is made up of attack actions. Because they are the same as attacks...
I know the distinction you are making.
But it seemed the Rory was asking for them to consider making Attack == attack, again using the distinction you were using.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What, exactly, would you say that answer is? Or were you waiting for SKR's comment on the matter before saying that whatever he says is the right answer? And wouldn't it be hilarious if you commit to an answer before he responds... and then he states the opposite. Or have you changed your mind as to how clear it is? THE PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW!I would like, however, to second the question of Kazaan about the interaction between Spell Combat and other stuff that change Full Attack Actions (Fight Defensively. Flurry of Blows. Flurry of Maneuvers. Rapid Attack. Etc.). Ideally not a case by case answer, that would only clutter and not help once a new ability modifying Full Attacks comes out. Ideally a clear "Spell Combat counts as a Full Attack for effects" or "Spell Combat does not count as Full Attack, Haste is special".If you read SKR's post in full, I think the answer's pretty clear.
I find it pretty ironic that folks are asking to be spoon-fed a piece of information that's clear from a plain/common-sense reading of his post, when the answer is intrinsically tied to SKR's discussion of the importance of having things mean what's clear from a plain/common-sense reading.
Design Manager
|
I believe that would mean that you could Vital Strike on every attack in a full-attack action.I don't see how.
Vital Strike: "You make a single attack that deals significantly more damage than normal."
It would take it back to how most people read the feat to work in the first place. How that impacts game balance is a little different though..... That would change the way a lot of things work. That's one that I think doesn't need to be changed. Attack and Attack Action may be confusing until it's explained, but I think it draws a fairly important distinction for how the game currently works.
I didn't really find the previous roster of FAQs that confusing, but my Magus became a bit more powerful.
I would greatly hesitate to believe this implies that you could use Vital Strike on every attack in a full attack action, however. That would be... wow.
I find it pretty ironic that folks are asking to be spoon-fed a piece of information that's clear from a plain/common-sense reading of his post, when the answer is intrinsically tied to SKR's discussion of the importance of having things mean what's clear from a plain/common-sense reading.
If you know the answer, feel free to tell us.
From how I read SKRs post, he begins by telling us that the aim is to make the rules simpler and clearer by treating the three full-attack wording as one. However, when it comes to actual rules, he only defines how Haste interacts differently than before.
I am not one to jump to conclusions, so I ask for clarification. It is entirely possible that the aim is to make rules simpler, but that a full equivalent of full-attack and spell combat is considered too dangerous.
My interpretation is that the aim is simplification, and they started towards that goal by changing the haste interaction and now check for additonal consequences of a full equivalency. That may take time, which I understand. I am not one to go rushing off to my DM with what is basically only a declaration of intent, however.
I believe that would mean that you could Vital Strike on every attack in a full-attack action.I don't see how.
Vital Strike: "You make a single attack that deals significantly more damage than normal."
That's the flavor you're quoting. And technically, each attack in a full-attack is a 'single attack', but that's just getting silly pedantic :)
Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. ....
If attack == attack action and vice versa, then each attack you make as part of a full-attack action would also be an Attack action, meaning ... VS on all attacks! Or at the very least, silly arguments like these!
Flurry of Blows is its own action. Just like you cannot combine FoB with TWF.
Nothing has happened that would change that.
Not quite true: Flurry of Blows IS a full-attack action. You cannot combine it with TWF because it counts "as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat". And you cannot use the same feat twice at the same time, like you cannot say you TWF twice for two additional attacks at -4.
But Flurry is a full-attack action and thus can be combined with other effects that change full-attack actions, like haste, fighting defensively etc, as far as I can tell.So the question about the combination of Spell Combat and FoB is valid, as Spell Combat needs one hand wielding a weapon or being one, and FoB allows that, unlike Two-weapon fighting. Spell Combat "functions much like two-weapon fighting", but it isn't TWF, so the combination isn't automatically out, like would be Flurry and TWF.
Again, what, exactly, is that plain/common-sense reading? Does Spell Combat allow for Iterative Attacks even without utilizing full-attack as a sub-component of the Spell Combat full-round action and Haste is being changed to work with Iterative Attacks rather than Full-Attack? Or is Spell Combat being changed to allow for Full-Attack as a sub-component so that Haste, along with fight defensively, flurry of blows, and any other ability that comes into play when making a Full-Attack, is remaining the same but now works with Spell Combat because Spell Combat is being changed?
The general intent is: if an ability implies that you're making a full attack (whether or not you're specifically using the full attack action), then haste should work with that ability.
This doesn't seem to touch fighting defensively, FoB, Natural Attacks, or anything else you can additionally do when full attacking.
So, in the interest of having the rules be less confusing, we're going to make some changes to recent rulings and see how it plays out.
I can't say how happy this makes me. I'm always for simplicity and consistency unless it absolutely breaks the game and a more complicated solution is necessary. The less I have to flip to the FAQ to explain to a future player why X does not work the way he thinks it does is a good thing.
|
The general intent is: if an ability implies that you're making a full attack (whether or not you're specifically using the full attack action), then haste should work with that ability.
It is a specific change, right?
It applies only to haste and in not other way it change how attack actions, full attack actions and full-round actions like spell combat work?
I've removed a post. Don't attack or ridicule other posters. Observe the most important rule of the Paizo message boards.
Diego, I don't understand your question.
As to the question about fighting defensively and such, we're kicking around that idea before posting an answer.
You absolutely cannot combine Spell Combat with Flurry of Blows, for the same reason that you cannot combine Flurry of Blows with the Two-weapon Fighting feat. By the written rule, you're already (technically) two-weapon fighting when you use Spell Combat, and your "off-hand" is reserved for the act of casting a spell -- thus it cannot also be used for the purpose of an entirely separate mechanic.
Keep in mind that Flurry does not need an off-hand or a hand at all - you explicitely can flurry with both hands full. So the argument that one hand is reserved for spellcasting does not work.
You count as two-weapon fighting when flurrying, but spell combat only sort-of is two-weapon fighting, so again, it is unclear whether you can combine the two.But if you prefer, let me ask whether my maneuver master monk can use Flurry of maneuvers - that neither refers to the use of any hands, nor does it reference two-weapon fighting in any way. You can two-weapon fight and flurry of maneuvers at once, it seems. So can I flurry of maneuvers and spell combat?
Right now, it is unclear.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kazaan, I think you need to calm down a bit.
|
|
Diego, I don't understand your question.
As to the question about fighting defensively and such, we're kicking around that idea before posting an answer.
Essentially, it a change to haste or a change to the attack actions?
If Spell combat become a form of Full attack, it open up the possibility to use several natural attacks plus 1 spell;
to use a boot blade, barbezu beard or countless other items together with a main hand attack and a spell.
For other for of attack it could open up the possibility to use vital strike or other unmeant combination.
My fear is that it will make things more confusing, not less.
Before, spell combat was a specific exception with its limits. Now people will take your statement of intents:
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."
and use it to justify almost anything.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If Spell combat become a form of Full attack, it open up the possibility to use several natural attacks plus 1 spell;
to use a boot blade, barbezu beard or countless other items together with a main hand attack and a spell.
Not when you keep in mind the fact that Spell Combat only works with a single, hand-associated weapon.
Really now? I call BS on that.
Whoa dude. Pump the brakes. I complimented you in the other thread discussing this just a little while ago for being reasonable and calm.
Now you're making me look like a fool. Even more than I already am.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Don't worry; I won't say 'I told you so' ;pAs to the question about fighting defensively and such, we're kicking around that idea before posting an answer.Huh. Guess I was wrong.
Actually, if it would lower your blood pressure enough to make you less likely to have an aneurysm, go right ahead and say it.
;)
Ah.
This ruling about spell combat and what weapons you can use still stands.
|
|
Not when you keep in mind the fact that Spell Combat only works with a single, hand-associated weapon.If Spell combat become a form of Full attack, it open up the possibility to use several natural attacks plus 1 spell;
to use a boot blade, barbezu beard or countless other items together with a main hand attack and a spell.
Before? No doubt.
After the change, it depend on what is changed.If you don't think tat people sill milk this for all it is worth and then a extra 10%, you don't know these forum.
And you know them :)
|
If you read the top post and the FAQs, it's pretty clear that neither haste nor Spell Combat is being changed. They're just now interpreting Spell Combat 100% literally when it says "all of his attacks." Never did Spell Combat use the words "iterative." "All of his attacks" now explicitly includes bonus attacks granted by haste and haste-like sources made with the weapon in question, and that's it. This is a change of interpretation, not a change of text.
Diego, I don't understand your question.
As to the question about fighting defensively and such, we're kicking around that idea before posting an answer.
Cool, thanks you. I'm looking forward to it.
To help a little with that, here are the rules that I know are influenced by how you rule there:
- Fight defensively.
- Combat Expertise.
- Medusa's Wrath.
- Whirlwind Attack.
- Dimensional Dervish.
- Hammer the Gap.
- Mounted Skirmisher.
- Flurry of Blows.
- Flurry of Maneuvers from the monks Maneuver Master archetype.
- Mobile Fighter's Rapid Attack.
- Additional attacks from natural weapons that are not the two main hands, used as secondary attacks. Yes, the FAQ only allows the main hand attacks, so this is probably out.
If other people know other affected rules, feel free to add them. Better to have all in the open when the ruling is made than having to change it afterwards.
If you read the top post and the FAQs, it's pretty clear that neither haste nor Spell Combat is being changed. They're just now interpreting Spell Combat 100% literally when it says "all of his attacks." Never did Spell Combat use the words "iterative." "All of his attacks" now explicitly includes bonus attacks granted by haste and haste-like sources made with the weapon in question, and that's it. This is a change of interpretation, not a change of text.
Well, it's not really all of his attacks. Still can't mix in natural attacks with manufactured ones.