Yes. The unused portion would dissipate after your turn was over, though.
I don't think that Rapid Shot, Haste, and Manyshot can be used with this ability. None of the three let you shoot extra arrows unless you are making a full attack action. The attacks allowed during the full-round version of Ranged Spellstrike do follow some of the rules for full attack actions, but you aren't actually performing a full attack action.
To me this is how the sequencing goes.
Without using Ranged Spellstrike
(1) I declare that I am going to make a full attack.
(2) I can now make two iterative attacks with my bow and arrows. They will have BAB +8/+3.
(3) Now that I am making a full attack action, I can apply Rapid Shot, Haste, and Manyshot to launch additional arrows.
Using Ranged Spellstrike
(1) I declare that I am going to spend a full round action to use Ranged Spellstrike.
(2) During that full round action I will cast Reach Frostbite and also deliver it through multiple ranged attacks. I get two such attacks because that's what I would have gotten if I had declared a full attack action. Those attacks will be at BAB +8/+3 because the ability says all but the first attack take penalties as if I were performing a full attack action.
(3) I would like to apply Rapid Shot, Haste, and Manyshot to launch additional arrows, but I can't since they all require a full attack action.
The revised errata for regular spell combat says that haste interacts with abilities that are 'essentially a full attack' even though the creature isn't 'specifically using the full attack action'.
Pretty sure that'd apply to ranged spellstrike too. I realize that ranged spellstrike isn't spell combat, but the ruling is pretty general in its wording and not spell combat specific.
Do you mean this FAQ?
If so, then I think that is a reasonable argument, but I don't find it entirely convincing. To me the mechanics behind Ranged Spellstrike and Spell Combat are too different for me to apply that FAQ to Ranged Spellstrike.
Spell Combat specifically compares itself to Two-Weapon Fighting which is a full attack action. They are essentially just replacing the off-hand weapon with a spell. Even though you aren't explicitly performing a full attack action as part of Spell Combat, I can see why the FAQ treats it as a psuedo-full attack action.
Ranged Spellstrike doesn't have any such full attack action antecedents. The attacks being granted here are just the ones that the spell would grant even if you weren't using Ranged Spellstrike. They applied the rules for iteratives to limit the ability (because 11 arrows+11 uses of Frostbite all at full BAB would be crazy), but these attacks aren't really iteratives.
You are right that the FAQ is broadly worded. I'm just not convinced that Ranged Spellstrike falls into the category covered here.
I could very well be wrong. In which case I will really enjoy getting those extra attacks with my Myrmidarch. :)
Regardless, I still don't think that Rapid Shot and Manyshot can be applied.
That's a reasonable argument, but Ranged Spellstrike says "up to the number of attacks he could make with a full attack". So I'd argue that haste works definitely, because haste modifies the number of attacks you could make.
I think this is the heart of it. What does "could make with a full attack" mean. We are both in agreement that you at least get the iteratives, so we have at least two attacks in this instance.
The problem I have is the nature of the word "could." What are the conditions for this hypothetical full attack action? What are its limits?
So let's consider what I'll call the Rapid Shot Paradox. If I were to perform a full attack action, then Rapid Shot would get me an extra attack. So under this particular hypothetical full attack action, I "could" make three attacks. Now let's say that I use Ranged Spellstrike, but don't even try to use Rapid Shot. Hypothetically I "could" have used R.S. to get three attacks, so by the wording "up to the number of attacks he could make with a full attack" I should still get three attacks anyway (and without the usual -2 penalty, too).
That is obviously crazy. "[T]he number of attacks he could make with a full attack" must mean something other than "the most attacks he could conceivably make with a full attack." The number of attacks must be tied somehow to what you actually do rather than what you potentially do.
That's why I think considering the sequencing is important. It basically limits your "could's" to things that are already in place when you enter Ranged Spellstrike and immediately ask yourself what a full attack action would look like. Rapid Shot would be out because it could only be applied later when you do not have even a hypothetical full attack.
That said, I think I might be wrong about Haste, since it would already be in place before you declared you were using Ranged Spellstrike. So when you asked "how many attacks could I get in a full attack action," the extra-attack clause for the spell (that is already in place) would activate. So, regardless of the Haste FAQ, I think that the extra attack would "sneak in."
By the way, I am really enjoying this exchange. It's making my think about this ability in new ways. :)
At 11th level, a myrmidarch can spend a full-round action
to cast a spell that includes multiple ranged touch attacks
and deliver more than one using ranged attacks.
Ranged spellstrike in this manner is already a full round action. No rapid shot, haste would work though.
At 11th level, a myrmidarch can spend a full-round action
to cast a spell that includes multiple ranged touch attacks
and deliver more than one using ranged attacks.Ranged spellstrike in this manner is already a full round action. No rapid shot, haste would work though.
Yes, it is a full-round action. The issue here is about the attacks made as part of that full round action.
Yes, it is a full-round action. The issue here is about the attacks made as part of that full round action.At 11th level, a myrmidarch can spend a full-round action
to cast a spell that includes multiple ranged touch attacks
and deliver more than one using ranged attacks.Ranged spellstrike in this manner is already a full round action. No rapid shot, haste would work though.
Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a
ranged weapon, you can fire one additional time thisround at your highest bonus. All of your attack rolls take a
–2 penalty when using
Rapid Shot.
You aren't making the full attack action, you're using Ranged Spellstrike. Ranged spellstrike lets you make as many attacks as you could make in a full attack, you still need to take the action to use rapid shot so you can't use it with ranged spellstrike. I actually read haste again too.
When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make
one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon. The
attack is made using the creature’s full base attack bonus, plus any
modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This effect is not cumulative
with similar effects, such as that provided by a speed weapon, nor
does it actually grant an extra action, so you can’t use it to cast a
second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round.)
It also calls out the full attack action, meaning it doesn't even work with Ranged Spellstrike. I thought it did until I just reread it.
Edit : Just read the spell combat FAQ. I guess haste would still work. It's a different ability but because haste was also changed a bit then it works.
Except it uses basically the same language as the original Spell Combat, which was FAQ'd to work with Haste, saying that using all of your attacks counts as a full attack action, even if you don't actually use the full attack action.
So, why would you run Ranged differently?
Edit: replied before your edit. :)
Haha no worries. I made the post before looking around a bit more.
Stop it. Stop trying to make things more complicated than they are.
Yes, it would be crazy to suggest that I "could" make 3 attacks at -2 if I used rapid shot, therefore I can make 3 attacks with no penalty. That's clearly some metagamey rules lawyering, but more importantly, it's clearly wrong.
Article A: The ability says you can make a number of attacks up to the number of attacks you could make with a full attack. That means you can make a number of attack up to the number of attacks you could make with a full attack. Full stop. Haste? Yup. Feats? Sure. Other randomness? Yeppers. There is nothing in the language of the ability that comes anywhere close to suggesting that "oh BTW, some abilities/feats/spells/class features don't work with this, just figure it out."
Article B:The ability says attacks beyond the first take penalties as if the myrmidarch were making a full attack. That means that attacks beyond the first take penalties as if the myrmidarch were making a full attack. So you're choosing to use rapid shot to get an extra attack? Great, they're all at -2. You don't use rapid shot? Fine, no penalty, but no extra attack. I GUESS you could make the argument that the first attack doesn't take Rapid shot-esque penalties, because the wording of the ability explicitly says "attacks beyond the first." I think the intent is pretty clear, though.
This is really one of the more clearly written abilities I've seen on this forum in quite sometime. It does what it says on the tin.
Now Manyshot? I would be inclined to say it works, because this use of spellstrike is essentially a full round attack, but I could certainly understand someone ruling otherwise.
|
Stop it. Stop trying to make things more complicated than they are.
Yes, it would be crazy to suggest that I "could" make 3 attacks at -2 if I used rapid shot, therefore I can make 3 attacks with no penalty. That's clearly some metagamey rules lawyering, but more importantly, it's clearly wrong.
Article A: The ability says you can make a number of attacks up to the number of attacks you could make with a full attack. That means you can make a number of attack up to the number of attacks you could make with a full attack. Full stop. Haste? Yup. Feats? Sure. Other randomness? Yeppers. There is nothing in the language of the ability that comes anywhere close to suggesting that "oh BTW, some abilities/feats/spells/class features don't work with this, just figure it out."
Article B:The ability says attacks beyond the first take penalties as if the myrmidarch were making a full attack. That means that attacks beyond the first take penalties as if the myrmidarch were making a full attack. So you're choosing to use rapid shot to get an extra attack? Great, they're all at -2. You don't use rapid shot? Fine, no penalty, but no extra attack. I GUESS you could make the argument that the first attack doesn't take Rapid shot-esque penalties, because the wording of the ability explicitly says "attacks beyond the first." I think the intent is pretty clear, though.
This is really one of the more clearly written abilities I've seen on this forum in quite sometime. It does what it says on the tin.
Now Manyshot? I would be inclined to say it works, because this use of spellstrike is essentially a full round attack, but I could certainly understand someone ruling otherwise.
Feats that explicitly require you to make a full attack? Not at all.
You aren't making a full attack at all. You are using ranged spellstrike.
Feats that explicitly require you to make a full attack? Not at all.
You aren't making a full attack at all. You are using ranged spellstrike.
Article A: The ability says you can make a number of attacks up to the number of attacks you could make with a full attack. That means you can make a number of attack up to the number of attacks you could make with a full attack. Full stop.
Sorry for the necromancy, but where did we land on this, then? Seems to me like nobody had an effective counterargument to Dallium.