Spell combat + Whirlwind Attack


Rules Questions

501 to 550 of 735 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

Cavall wrote:

So if it's a spell that doesn't do damage and instead grants you an extra attack, how is this allowed by the Whirlwind feat that says bonus and extra attacks from spells aren't allowed?

How can it work both ways?

I've answered which definition I'm using many times in this thread, but I shall do so once more.

My argument was that the last sentence of whirlwind attack is referring to those "bonus attacks" to your full-attack, granted by spells such as haste.

Its language matches other examples of dealing with iteratives perfectly, and when whirlwind attack was written there was no reason to even think of discluding incidental attacks that aren't bonus attacks added to a full-attack action.

But, again, that's another point of contention because we're using fundamentally different definitions of "attack". With those definitions, it has been broken down to work exactly how each side says, so really it's up to the GM of each game to decide if it works at all in the end. It's also why I haven't really been posting since I last declared "but gais, FAQ!" except to point out that a valid definition is being glazed over.

I'm not saying that you guys are any more right or wrong than we are, because we're both using valid definitions that exist in the game already.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It is one of the problems of the rule set in general. The rules are in different sections of the book and say their own particulars about it. In the thread I linked a page ago, the poster made a very good point. The various rules correlate to one another, and each needs to be taken into account when assessing them.

When the Combat Section lists the way melee touch spells are used, it doesn't change anything in the other sections and is only concerned with the combat side of the situation. The rules in later books expand on various aspects of the rules, but they do not (should not) take anything away from the previous sections or discount the Core Rulebook.

To me, it is an obvious thing. TWF would grant an extra attack, Spell Combat changes that attack to a spell. Whether or not the casting of the spell would automatically count as an attack when using Spell Combat becomes a moot point when the spell itself is considered an attack. Something I had to come across during the discussion of this combination.

Thank you, Johny, for the kudos.


Johnny_Devo wrote:
Cavall wrote:

So if it's a spell that doesn't do damage and instead grants you an extra attack, how is this allowed by the Whirlwind feat that says bonus and extra attacks from spells aren't allowed?

How can it work both ways?

I've answered which definition I'm using many times in this thread, but I shall do so once more.

My argument was that the last sentence of whirlwind attack is referring to those "bonus attacks" to your full-attack, granted by spells such as haste.

Its language matches other examples of dealing with iteratives perfectly, and when whirlwind attack was written there was no reason to even think of discluding incidental attacks that aren't bonus attacks added to a full-attack action.

But, again, that's another point of contention because we're using fundamentally different definitions of "attack". With those definitions, it has been broken down to work exactly how each side says, so really it's up to the GM of each game to decide if it works at all in the end. It's also why I haven't really been posting since I last declared "but gais, FAQ!" except to point out that a valid definition is being glazed over.

I'm not saying that you guys are any more right or wrong than we are, because we're both using valid definitions that exist in the game already.

I would think that's why they make a specific difference between bonus and extra. I do see where you're coming from there. Haste, giving an attack at highest attack bonus would be an extra attack. Something like what we are talking about with shocking grasp is a bonus one because it doesn't say "this is an extra attack" but clearly is one so it is therefore a bonus one.

But neither are allowed according to the feat.


Irontruth wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

]Does the free touch attack have some connection to the spell? Sure, you get the free touch attack by casting the spell. Without casting the spell, you wouldn't have a free touch attack. However, this connection currently has no bearing on the particular basic rules scenario under discussion.

Do we at least agree on that? Or, if not, can you indicate what this 'connection' changes with respect to the rules statements that have been made?

This is the claim of yours that I disagree with.

I think you misrepresent the bolded portion.

This is a situation of direct causation, and when direct causation exists things are connected. It's pretty simple logic, when event B can only happen after event A, they are directly linked. There are 3 steps to show a causal link:

1. As one thing varies, so does another.
2. One thing must proceed the other.
3. Other causes must be excluded.

1. The spell has a binary state, either being cast or not being cast (we could use 1 and 0 respectively). When the spell is 0 (not being cast), the free attack is also 0 (no free attack). When the spell is 1 (being cast), the free attack is 1 (you get a free attack).
2. Can the attack happen prior to the spell? No it cannot.
3. We can excluded other causes, some abilities include free attacks as well, but the attack from a specific spell cannot come from another source, it must come from the spell.

Therefore, the free attack is linked and dependent upon the spell. I have shown a link between the spell and the attack using logic and reasoning.

Do you have a rule specifically saying that my logic is wrong?

You logic is both correct and irrelevant with respect to the rules.

In short, so what? I can't attack with a sword unless I draw it first. I must draw the sword before I can attack with it. Attacking with a sword must follow and can not precede drawing the sword.

That doesn't make drawing a sword an attack, now does it? Same logic, same irrelevance with respect to the rules.


Cavall wrote:

So if it's a spell that doesn't do damage and instead grants you an extra attack, how is this allowed by the Whirlwind feat that says bonus and extra attacks from spells aren't allowed?

How can it work both ways?

Because extra attacks and bonus attacks are attacks that are granted as part of your full-attack action.

Attacks that occur outside of the full attack action are not extra or bonus attacks, they are just attacks.

See for example the rather lengthy yet by no means comprehensive list I've already provided which uses the words 'extra' and 'bonus' attacks in the way I described.

Now notice that for things like AoOs, free touch attacks, swift action attacks, and so on, the phrases 'extra attack' or 'bonus attack' are not used.

In short, the rules support the definition of 'extra' and 'bonus' attacks as weapon attacks that are added to your full-attack action. The rules do NOT support 'extra' and 'bonus' attacks as any attack taken by the character.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Drawing a sword is it's own action, usually a move but done as a free action when BAB is at least +1 as a part of a move.

The spell is already considered to be the off hand weapon in Spell Combat, so casting it is the action that is being discussed.

Drawing an arrow from a quiver is a free action that is used when shooting a bow. Would you consider them to be separate? If a GM only gives three free actions in a turn, would that limit a bow to three attacks in a turn?

I would hope that if that limit was imposed, it would be for declared free actions and not arbitrary ones, such as drawing a weapon as a part of a move, drawing an arrow to shoot a bow, or attacking with a spell.


Cavall wrote:
Johnny_Devo wrote:
Cavall wrote:

So if it's a spell that doesn't do damage and instead grants you an extra attack, how is this allowed by the Whirlwind feat that says bonus and extra attacks from spells aren't allowed?

How can it work both ways?

I've answered which definition I'm using many times in this thread, but I shall do so once more.

My argument was that the last sentence of whirlwind attack is referring to those "bonus attacks" to your full-attack, granted by spells such as haste.

Its language matches other examples of dealing with iteratives perfectly, and when whirlwind attack was written there was no reason to even think of discluding incidental attacks that aren't bonus attacks added to a full-attack action.

But, again, that's another point of contention because we're using fundamentally different definitions of "attack". With those definitions, it has been broken down to work exactly how each side says, so really it's up to the GM of each game to decide if it works at all in the end. It's also why I haven't really been posting since I last declared "but gais, FAQ!" except to point out that a valid definition is being glazed over.

I'm not saying that you guys are any more right or wrong than we are, because we're both using valid definitions that exist in the game already.

I would think that's why they make a specific difference between bonus and extra. I do see where you're coming from there. Haste, giving an attack at highest attack bonus would be an extra attack. Something like what we are talking about with shocking grasp is a bonus one because it doesn't say "this is an extra attack" but clearly is one so it is therefore a bonus one.

But neither are allowed according to the feat.

As, I see, trying to argue via assertion?

No, 'clearly' it is not one because it doesn't say it is one. You don't just get to insert words like bonus and extra anywhere you want. A free action is separate from the whirlwind-modified full attack action, and the attack you get with a free action is not affected by the restrictions of what happen during that full attack action anymore than an Attack of Opportunity is.


thaX wrote:

Drawing a sword is it's own action, usually a move but done as a free action when BAB is at least +1 as a part of a move.

The spell is already considered to be the off hand weapon in Spell Combat, so casting it is the action that is being discussed.

Drawing an arrow from a quiver is a free action that is used when shooting a bow. Would you consider them to be separate? If a GM only gives three free actions in a turn, would that limit a bow to three attacks in a turn?

I would hope that if that limit was imposed, it would be for declared free actions and not arbitrary ones, such as drawing a weapon as a part of a move, drawing an arrow to shoot a bow, or attacking with a spell.

Dude, WTF are you even talking about?

Casting a shocking grasp is a standard action, touching someone with the charge is a separate free action (on the same round), or a separate standard action otherwise.

We're still trying to nail down the basics here, so let's wait until we got that before we move on to more advanced topics like Spell Combat.

So, once again, when you cast a shocking grasp spell as a standard action, you have no target, you haven't caused any damage, it is not an attack. The FAQ I already showed should have already laid this to rest.

So why the heck are you still arguing about it?


Johnny_Devo wrote:
Cavall wrote:

So if it's a spell that doesn't do damage and instead grants you an extra attack, how is this allowed by the Whirlwind feat that says bonus and extra attacks from spells aren't allowed?

How can it work both ways?

I've answered which definition I'm using many times in this thread, but I shall do so once more.

My argument was that the last sentence of whirlwind attack is referring to those "bonus attacks" to your full-attack, granted by spells such as haste.

Also, abilities like flurry of blows. Frankly, I don't see how any other definition makes sense.


I read your lengthy post, Ozy. It's wrong. Because your definition of bonus requires adding in extra wording to a feat that don't exist makes the lengthy post irrelevant and moot.

You've convinced yourself that it is allowed (though somehow when you did so you thanks "others" for doing so) but that doesn't mean it's a convincing argument at all and certainly not a correct one.

In short, you needed to redefine and change wording to allow your concept to exist, but the recording doesn't so your definition is both incorrect and misleading.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

]Does the free touch attack have some connection to the spell? Sure, you get the free touch attack by casting the spell. Without casting the spell, you wouldn't have a free touch attack. However, this connection currently has no bearing on the particular basic rules scenario under discussion.

Do we at least agree on that? Or, if not, can you indicate what this 'connection' changes with respect to the rules statements that have been made?

This is the claim of yours that I disagree with.

I think you misrepresent the bolded portion.

This is a situation of direct causation, and when direct causation exists things are connected. It's pretty simple logic, when event B can only happen after event A, they are directly linked. There are 3 steps to show a causal link:

1. As one thing varies, so does another.
2. One thing must proceed the other.
3. Other causes must be excluded.

1. The spell has a binary state, either being cast or not being cast (we could use 1 and 0 respectively). When the spell is 0 (not being cast), the free attack is also 0 (no free attack). When the spell is 1 (being cast), the free attack is 1 (you get a free attack).
2. Can the attack happen prior to the spell? No it cannot.
3. We can excluded other causes, some abilities include free attacks as well, but the attack from a specific spell cannot come from another source, it must come from the spell.

Therefore, the free attack is linked and dependent upon the spell. I have shown a link between the spell and the attack using logic and reasoning.

Do you have a rule specifically saying that my logic is wrong?

You logic is both correct and irrelevant with respect to the rules.

In short, so what? I can't attack with a sword unless I draw it first. I must draw the sword before I can attack with it. Attacking with a sword must follow and can not precede drawing the sword.

That doesn't make drawing a sword an attack, now does it? Same logic, same...

I don't see where you provided rules for why my logic is irrelevant.

I'm ignoring your sword drawing analogy, because I want to avoid tangents, which you seem to keep trying to introduce.


Cavall wrote:

I read your lengthy post. It's wrong. Because your definition of bonus requires adding in extra wording to a feat that don't exist makes the lengthy post irrelevant and moot.

You've convinced yourself that it is allowed (though somehow when you did so you thanks "others" for doing so) but that doesn't mean it's a convincing argument at all and certainly not a correct one.

In short, you needed to redefine and change wording to allow your concept to exist, but the recording doesn't so your definition is both incorrect and misleading.

Bull.

I've listed quite clearly the rules that show how extra and bonus attacks are used to refer to attacks that add to your full-attack.

What you've done is say: "Well, it doesn't say 'bonus', but clearly it should, so let's call it a 'bonus'."

YOU are the one who is adding extra wording, not I.

You know what the rules call the free action touch attack? An attack. An attack you can get without a full attack action. You know what the rules call the attacks you get from things like haste and flurry and TWF? Extra/bonus attacks. Why? Because you ONLY get them added on to your full-attack action.

You pretend this difference doesn't exist, or isn't important.


Irontruth wrote:

I don't see where you provided rules for why my logic is irrelevant.

I'm ignoring your sword drawing analogy, because I want to avoid tangents, which you seem to keep trying to introduce.

The FAQ wasn't enough for you?

WTF do you require then?

Tell me, what are the rules implications of your logic then? What do they matter in the context of our overall discussion. Do you think that makes casting Shocking Grasp an attack, in contravention of the FAQ that was posted?

My sword drawing analogy is SPOT ON with regard to the logic you invoked. It's not a tangent, it's YOUR LOGIC applied identically to a combat mechanism. Avoid discussing it if you like, but you can't avoid the implications.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I don't see where you provided rules for why my logic is irrelevant.

I'm ignoring your sword drawing analogy, because I want to avoid tangents, which you seem to keep trying to introduce.

The FAQ wasn't enough for you?

WTF do you require then?

Tell me, what are the rules implications of your logic then? What do they matter in the context of our overall discussion. Do you think that makes casting Shocking Grasp an attack, in contravention of the FAQ that was posted?

My sword drawing analogy is SPOT ON with regard to the logic you invoked. It's not a tangent, it's YOUR LOGIC applied identically to a combat mechanism. Avoid discussing it if you like, but you can't avoid the implications.

I'm not really not responding to your tangents. The sooner you figure this out, the faster we can move forward.

I'm still waiting to answer a question from several days ago, i'm just waiting for you to be ready to listen. It still seems like you're not though.


Irontruth wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I don't see where you provided rules for why my logic is irrelevant.

I'm ignoring your sword drawing analogy, because I want to avoid tangents, which you seem to keep trying to introduce.

The FAQ wasn't enough for you?

WTF do you require then?

Tell me, what are the rules implications of your logic then? What do they matter in the context of our overall discussion. Do you think that makes casting Shocking Grasp an attack, in contravention of the FAQ that was posted?

My sword drawing analogy is SPOT ON with regard to the logic you invoked. It's not a tangent, it's YOUR LOGIC applied identically to a combat mechanism. Avoid discussing it if you like, but you can't avoid the implications.

I'm not really not responding to your tangents. The sooner you figure this out, the faster we can move forward.

What about "I provided a FAQ that directly speaks to the Shocking Grasp argument" is a tangent?

I already said, ignore the sword drawing analogy if you like. So ignore it if you don't want to address the logical implications.


thaX wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
thaX wrote:

I meant the section you quoted and the three section I quoted. They correlate with one another.

Again, where are you getting Free Action definition entries outside of the two Combat Chapter ones in the Core?

So, how is it that you're saying I can Quicken + Deliver Touch Spell with Spell Combat, but I can't Spell Combat + Deliver Touch Spell, even though, if I can both cast and deliver a spell, simply delivering a spell by itself is illegal?

Where are you getting them?

I never said that a Quickened Spell can be cast as a part of Spell Combat. It is a separate action itself, a swift one, that can be done at anytime in the round. (before or after the Whirlwind Attack)

The casting of the spell is what changes with Quickened, both get the Free Action Attack.

The spell like Shocking Grasp takes a standard action to perform. The character casts the spell. Now, before anything else happens, that spell is considered an attack, as it will do damage with its effects. The spell itself says nothing about a free attack, this is a combat event that comes as a result of a spell being cast, giving the caster an attack to effect the spells damage to the target. (your A -> B)

The rulebook even says that the spell is considered an attack. This is an attack that is subject to being excluded by the Whirlwind Attack action, as it is a second attack done as the Character is using the feat while performing the Spell Combat ability. Whether or not you hold the free action or use it immediately does not matter, it is the casting of the attack spell that is being done, not the results of the spell via Free Action Attack in the combat section, that Whirlwind Attack feat is not allowing.

I already said that I referenced them from the Combat Chapter in the Core. From the Core, there are no other references to definitions of Free Actions, and their relation to Touch Spells, in the Core, so if you're finding other definitions, either give me page numbers, or tell me what printing of the Core you're running, because either way, I'm not finding anything else.

No, according to you, one doesn't get it because [reasons unexplained], even though I explained using the rules, that, I can cast a Quickened Touch Spell any time that I can deliver a Touch Spell, regardless of what happens. The rules say that if I can do X (Quickened Touch Spell) at so-and-so time, then I can do Y (Deliver Cast Touch Spell) at that very same so-and-so time. If you're telling me I can't deliver a spell in one instance, then I can't deliver a spell in all instances that would permit me to deliver a spell, since any time I can do X, I can do Y, and any time I can do Y, I can do X.

Again, that definition of attack is RAI at best. Because if we used that definition for a literal substitution (or application), I can substitute spells for any given attack roll I make, whether it's a Standard Action, or a Full Attack Action. The former is technically already applicable due to how Touch Rules function and their relation to action economy. The latter, on the other hand, means that Spell Combat becomes a useless feature, akin to Prone Shooter and company.

Let's take that definition for a fun little experiment, shall we?

We have our level 8 Magus with Spellstrike; he takes an archetype that replaces Spell Combat because its value is basically equivalent to being the next Prone Shooter.

He takes his highest BAB attack first, and substitutes his lower BAB attack with a spell that he casts, presumably, a Touch Spell. Now, let's assume for a second that, he can deliver this spell after he casts it on that round. The Free Action to deliver that spell is then made at Full BAB.

So, now you're having a character with 6 BAB who can perform 2 attacks, both at their highest BAB, all because they can cast a Touch Spell, whereas you have characters like Barbarians who can't cast spells, and as such their offensive capabilities suffer in comparison to someone who can.

Now, take the above scenario with a Bloodrager who can cast Shocking Grasp, and a Barbarian, and you'll notice a very large disparity in their DPR, one that is clearly not intended by the BAB rules.

All of that made possible, all because we went with the poorly written rule that "spells are attacks," even though that definition would apply only insofar as invisibility rules.


I don't know which FAQ you're referring to, there's a lot of posts in here.


Irontruth wrote:
I don't know which FAQ you're referring to, there's a lot of posts in here.

Come on, dude, it's not really that hard to track them and/or search:

FAQ

Quote:

Familiar and Invisibility: If I use my familiar to deliver a touch spell while I am invisible, does that break my invisibility?

No. The familiar is not you, and the familiar attacking does not count as you attacking, therefore your invisibility is unaffected.

So, clearly an invisible spell caster who casts a touch attack spell stays invisible, and can even remain invisible if he hands off the 'attack' part (delivering the touch attack) to someone else.

Listen, if you are going to come straight out and accuse someone of not providing rules to back up their arguments, it's a pretty weak ass excuse to say you haven't been reading the posts. Don't you think?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Simmer down folks.


Any additional voices confirming some of these basic game mechanics could help a lot in resolving these issues.


thaX wrote:

Drawing a sword is it's own action, usually a move but done as a free action when BAB is at least +1 as a part of a move.

The spell is already considered to be the off hand weapon in Spell Combat, so casting it is the action that is being discussed.

Drawing an arrow from a quiver is a free action that is used when shooting a bow. Would you consider them to be separate? If a GM only gives three free actions in a turn, would that limit a bow to three attacks in a turn?

I would hope that if that limit was imposed, it would be for declared free actions and not arbitrary ones, such as drawing a weapon as a part of a move, drawing an arrow to shoot a bow, or attacking with a spell.

Yes, it is separate. Your character must consciously and by choice draw arrows for him to attack with his bow. Even if such a thing functions in tandem with it (you must draw an arrow to attack with a bow), the point being is that you must perform one action in order to perform another.

And yes, if a GM limits a character to only have 3 Free Actions per turn to draw an arrow for his bow, then he only ever gets 3 Attacks. Even if he has 16 or higher BAB, he only ever gets 3 attacks. That's not including stuff like Rapid Shot and so on, which generate extra attacks. A character with Rapid Shot would be at his maximum attacks at BAB +6. A character with Rapid Shot and even Manyshot would be at his maximum attacks at BAB +1, which is quite sad. There's also the matter of feats like Snap Shot and Improved Snap Shot likewise becoming useless (AKA Prone Shooter), and it's imperative that drawing (AKA reloading) your ammunition is a required and consciously-chosen activity that must preclude the use and implementation of said ammunition, elsewise those feats would fail upon themselves. (There is even a FAQ that emphasizes this same deficiency.)

The irony of you making such a statement is that there was a FAQ that was passed in the past (if that makes sense to you) that did this very same thing (limited characters to 3 Free Actions per turn). And you know what happened? Do you see where that FAQ is?

No? Good. Now you know what happened. It's gone. That little rule was abolished for the sanity of Ranged Characters, and now only exists at the hands of Anti-Ranged Character GMs who thinks ranged options are overpowered and should not exist at their table. Or as we like to politely call it, GM FIAT.


I thought that any spell that required an attack roll was considered an attack spell, regardless?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Simmer down folks.

But the instructions on "how to cook up a FAQ" say "bring the thread to a boil and set the timer for one month"


*mental gymnastics may be required*


Kryzbyn wrote:
I thought that any spell that required an attack roll was considered an attack spell, regardless?

Casting shocking grasp does not require an attack roll.

Using the free action touch attack is what requires an attack roll.

That's why you stay invisible until you use that free action to make a touch attack, or a standard action touch attack on following rounds.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
I thought that any spell that required an attack roll was considered an attack spell, regardless?

Casting shocking grasp does not require an attack roll.

Using the free action touch attack is what requires an attack roll.

That's why you stay invisible until you use that free action to make a touch attack, or a standard action touch attack on following rounds.

To be honest with you though, although you're invisible, it's difficult to maintain invisibility with a giant electric current surrounding what they understand is a hand-like effigy, making surging sounds and growing louder as it approaches them.

So, while they can't see you, per se, they can still certainly perceive you and the spell effect.

Which does make sense. However, you'd still be right in that it doesn't cancel the Invisibility spell, since no attack has been made.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I don't know which FAQ you're referring to, there's a lot of posts in here.

Come on, dude, it's not really that hard to track them and/or search:

FAQ

Quote:

Familiar and Invisibility: If I use my familiar to deliver a touch spell while I am invisible, does that break my invisibility?

No. The familiar is not you, and the familiar attacking does not count as you attacking, therefore your invisibility is unaffected.

So, clearly an invisible spell caster who casts a touch attack spell stays invisible, and can even remain invisible if he hands off the 'attack' part (delivering the touch attack) to someone else.

Listen, if you are going to come straight out and accuse someone of not providing rules to back up their arguments, it's a pretty weak ass excuse to say you haven't been reading the posts. Don't you think?

Yeah, I don't see how this shows the attack and spell are separate, just that the wizard has options of how to deliver the attack.

You haven't shown that the spell and attack aren't directly linked. The attack is still a direct consequence of having cast the spell. You're right, Invisibility isn't impacted, but this debate isn't about Invisibility.

So, basically I see you continuing to waste time with tangents. Let me know when you're ready to hear what I have to say, instead of wasting our time by adding more and more tangents.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
I thought that any spell that required an attack roll was considered an attack spell, regardless?

Casting shocking grasp does not require an attack roll.

Using the free action touch attack is what requires an attack roll.

That's why you stay invisible until you use that free action to make a touch attack, or a standard action touch attack on following rounds.

That's not my point. As a mechanical definition, minutiae aside, spells that require an attack roll to hit are attack spells. This is defined as far as getting sneak attack with spells is concerned. Doesn't matter the steps you go through, if it requires a to hit roll, it's an attack spell.


Irontruth wrote:

Yeah, I don't see how this shows the attack and spell are separate, just that the wizard has options of how to deliver the attack.

You haven't shown that the spell and attack aren't directly linked. The attack is still a direct consequence of having cast the spell. You're right, Invisibility isn't impacted, but this debate isn't about Invisibility.

So, basically I see you continuing to waste time with tangents. Let me know when you're ready to hear what I have to say, instead of wasting our time by adding more and more tangents.

If the attack and spell are not separate, then the wizard would turn visible just from casting the spell.

He does not.

Delivering the touch attack is a separate action from casting the spell, casting the spell is not an attack. This is what the FAQ says.

If you don't want to engage me, nobody is forcing you. However, the fact that you don't seem to realize that you need to get the frickin' basics correct before we can add in the complexity of Spell Combat, much less how that integrates with Whirlwind is mind boggling. But to give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll lay out my process:

Step 1:
Demonstrate casting Shocking Grasp is not an attack
Demonstrate the free touch attack is a separate free action

Step 2:
Using Step 1, demonstrate that the free touch attack is a free action, separate from the Spell Combat full-attack action

Step 3:
Using Step 1 and Step 2, demonstrate the during the full-attack Spell Combat, Whirlwind does not preclude the casting of Shocking grasp since it is not an attack (Step 1) extra or otherwise.
Nor does it preclude the free touch attack, as that happens during a separate free action (Step 2) which is not governed by the restrictions of the full-attack action

If necessary to further support the last point, demonstrate that free actions are not governed by the restrictions and penalties of other full-attack actions, such as TWF, Spell Combat, etc...


_Ozy_ wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Yeah, I don't see how this shows the attack and spell are separate, just that the wizard has options of how to deliver the attack.

You haven't shown that the spell and attack aren't directly linked. The attack is still a direct consequence of having cast the spell. You're right, Invisibility isn't impacted, but this debate isn't about Invisibility.

So, basically I see you continuing to waste time with tangents. Let me know when you're ready to hear what I have to say, instead of wasting our time by adding more and more tangents.

If the attack and spell are not separate, then the wizard would turn visible just from casting the spell.

He does not.

Delivering the touch attack is a separate action from casting the spell, casting the spell is not an attack. This is what the FAQ says.

If you don't want to engage me, nobody is forcing you. However, the fact that you don't seem to realize that you need to get the frickin' basics correct before we can add in the complexity of Spell Combat, much less how that integrates with Whirlwind is mind boggling. But to give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll lay out my process:

Step 1:
Demonstrate casting Shocking Grasp is not an attack
Demonstrate the free touch attack is a separate free action

Step 2:
Using Step 1, demonstrate that the free touch attack is a free action, separate from the Spell Combat full-attack action

Step 3:
Using Step 1 and Step 2, demonstrate the during the full-attack Spell Combat, Whirlwind does not preclude the casting of Shocking grasp since it is not an attack (Step 1) extra or otherwise.
Nor does it preclude the free touch attack, as that happens during a separate free action (Step 2) which is not governed by the restrictions of the full-attack action

If necessary to further support the last point, demonstrate that free actions are not governed by the restrictions and penalties of other full-attack actions, such as TWF, Spell Combat, etc...

I'm not saying the attack is mandatory. I'm saying the attack cannot happen without the spell.

Do you disagree?


Kryzbyn wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
I thought that any spell that required an attack roll was considered an attack spell, regardless?

Casting shocking grasp does not require an attack roll.

Using the free action touch attack is what requires an attack roll.

That's why you stay invisible until you use that free action to make a touch attack, or a standard action touch attack on following rounds.

That's not my point. As a mechanical definition, minutiae aside, spells that require an attack roll to hit are attack spells. This is defined as far as getting sneak attack with spells is concerned. Doesn't matter the steps you go through, if it requires a to hit roll, it's an attack spell.

Shocking grasp does not 'require' a roll to hit. Unlike ranged touch attacks, you can cast shocking grasp and discharge it harmlessly, all without an attack roll.

The thing that is an attack is the free action touch attack. That's the mechanical definition that matters.

Frankly, the classification of 'attack spell' doesn't even matter, it's whether or not you're actually MAKING an attack with a spell. E.g. a fireball that hits no enemy is not making an attack. You stay invisible.


Irontruth wrote:

I'm not saying the attack is mandatory. I'm saying the attack cannot happen without the spell.

Do you disagree?

To use your words, I think that's an irrelevant tangent unless you can explain why you think it matters. I've already explained my reasoning.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I'm not saying the attack is mandatory. I'm saying the attack cannot happen without the spell.

Do you disagree?

To use your words, I think that's an irrelevant tangent unless you can explain why you think it matters. I've already explained my reasoning.

Do you disagree with it though?

Or to rephrase, the attack (if made) is a direct consequence of the spell.


Irontruth wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I'm not saying the attack is mandatory. I'm saying the attack cannot happen without the spell.

Do you disagree?

To use your words, I think that's an irrelevant tangent unless you can explain why you think it matters. I've already explained my reasoning.
Do you disagree with it though?

I'll let you know once you explain how this isn't a tangent.


I'm building my case one point at a time.


Irontruth wrote:
I'm building my case one point at a time.

You threw a bit of a tantrum when I tried that, so I laid out my entire case for you to view. So, let's see your entire case.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Cavall wrote:

I read your lengthy post. It's wrong. Because your definition of bonus requires adding in extra wording to a feat that don't exist makes the lengthy post irrelevant and moot.

You've convinced yourself that it is allowed (though somehow when you did so you thanks "others" for doing so) but that doesn't mean it's a convincing argument at all and certainly not a correct one.

In short, you needed to redefine and change wording to allow your concept to exist, but the recording doesn't so your definition is both incorrect and misleading.

Bull.

I've listed quite clearly the rules that show how extra and bonus attacks are used to refer to attacks that add to your full-attack.

What you've done is say: "Well, it doesn't say 'bonus', but clearly it should, so let's call it a 'bonus'."

YOU are the one who is adding extra wording, not I.

You know what the rules call the free action touch attack? An attack. An attack you can get without a full attack action. You know what the rules call the attacks you get from things like haste and flurry and TWF? Extra/bonus attacks. Why? Because you ONLY get them added on to your full-attack action.

You pretend this difference doesn't exist, or isn't important.

No. What you are doing is counting extra attacks as bonus attacks when the wording of the feat CLEARLY makes a difference between them. You don't get to say "extra/bonus" attacks as if the feat itself doesn't say they are two separate entities.

In fact the only few examples I could clearly find of a "bonus" attack was unchained monk, and something from the adventurers armoury. So unless we are saying that whirlwind feat incorporated language for a book that wouldn't be created for years to come and also was optional, I reassert bonus means "in addition to". Because I could find no examples of "bonus attack" in the core book. So pretending the wording of extra attack means bonus attack AS WELL is the real bull and the one adding extra words in. Because it DOESN'T say bonus in any core book to any attack. Not flurry. Not haste. You're the one adding words to change your own opinion.

Find me "this is a bonus attack".

Find me examples of this. Because you will have a hard time. Because it doesn't exist for years into pathfinder.

So stop pretending it's the same thing as extra for your definition when the feat is clear.

"When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities."

So saying haste is a bonus attack is wrong. Haste is an extra attack. The spell says so. And it DOESN'T say extra/bonus like you want us to believe it does.

Shocking grasp gives an attack. Therefore it is a bonus attack by a spell.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I'm building my case one point at a time.
You threw a bit of a tantrum when I tried that, so I laid out my entire case for you to view. So, let's see your entire case.

I want to do this in a clear and concise manner that avoids confusion. You're allowed to present your argument how you want, and I can present mine how I want.


I assert bonus means extra, and that if it doesn't say bonus or extra then it is neither.

AoO gives an attack, therefore it is a bonus attack?


Irontruth wrote:
I want to do this in a clear and concise manner that avoids confusion. You're allowed to present your argument how you want, and I can present mine how I want.

When I tried to present the argument how I liked, you complained that I was wasting your time with tangents.

If you want the courtesy to argue how you please, then extend it to others.


_Ozy_ wrote:

I assert bonus means extra, and that if it doesn't say bonus or extra then it is neither.

AoO gives an attack, therefore it is a bonus attack?

Not relevant to whirlwind. And your assertion without proof means it's an opinion.


Cavall wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

I assert bonus means extra, and that if it doesn't say bonus or extra then it is neither.

AoO gives an attack, therefore it is a bonus attack?

Not relevant to whirlwind. And your assertion without proof means it's an opinion.

Opinion, like when you claim that attacks are bonus attacks without any proof?

So, an AoO IS a bonus attack? Just not a bonus attack relevant to Whirlwind? Why not?

How's this:

Can you cast a quickened shocking grasp during or after a whirlwind?


_Ozy_ wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I want to do this in a clear and concise manner that avoids confusion. You're allowed to present your argument how you want, and I can present mine how I want.

When I tried to present the argument how I liked, you complained that I was wasting your time with tangents.

If you want the courtesy to argue how you please, then extend it to others.

I'm sorry, I thought you were responding/questioning my argument. Please, make your case how you like. Let me know when you've made it, then I'll make mine.

Once you're done, I'd like to make my case point by point, without tangents. But please go ahead and put everything you want in yours.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Cavall wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

I assert bonus means extra, and that if it doesn't say bonus or extra then it is neither.

AoO gives an attack, therefore it is a bonus attack?

Not relevant to whirlwind. And your assertion without proof means it's an opinion.

Opinion, like when you claim that attacks are bonus attacks without any proof?

So, an AoO IS a bonus attack? Just not a bonus attack relevant to Whirlwind? Why not?

How's this:

Can you cast a quickened shocking grasp during or after a whirlwind?

Wait for FAQ.


Well, the first point was to determine that casting Shocking Grasp is not an attack. The situation is a basic situation: Invisible wizard casting shocking grasp, moving, and touch attacking an enemy:

1) Casts shocking grasp (standard action) (stays invisible)
2) Moves to enemy (move action)
3) Touch attacks enemy (free action) (turns visible)

This basic scenario is not controversial. This is how it works. It demonstrates a couple of items that are relevant to the rules mechanics:

- casting shocking grasp is not an attack
- delivering the free touch attack is not part of the action used to cast the spell

Once we agree on these basics, I can move on to Step 2.


Cavall wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Cavall wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

I assert bonus means extra, and that if it doesn't say bonus or extra then it is neither.

AoO gives an attack, therefore it is a bonus attack?

Not relevant to whirlwind. And your assertion without proof means it's an opinion.

Opinion, like when you claim that attacks are bonus attacks without any proof?

So, an AoO IS a bonus attack? Just not a bonus attack relevant to Whirlwind? Why not?

How's this:

Can you cast a quickened shocking grasp during or after a whirlwind?

Wait for FAQ.

So, you have no particular opinion then? Well, I do. AoOs are not bonus attacks, since they are not part of the full-attack action.

Casting a quickened spell during your turn is a valid action which is also separate from a full-attack action, therefore the restrictions imposed on the full-attack action are not relevant. Just as any penalties from TWF would not apply to the free attack or AoOs.


Irontruth wrote:

I'm not saying the attack is mandatory. I'm saying the attack cannot happen without the spell.

Do you disagree?

You know, instead of posing the question, it'd be easier to deduce that he has no reason to disagree.

The rules clearly state that, in order to deliver a touch spell, you must first cast it. As I've demonstrated, it's A->B.

In most every example that he's made so far, it functions exactly that way. He first casts the spell, then he delivers it. That's A->B, so his examples match the written requirements.

In several of the examples that thaX and company have given, it's been that you deliver the spell when you cast it, or as I've called it, A=B. Which is technically impossible, since the rules say that you must cast the spell before you can deliver it.

If you try to deliver the spell as you cast it, as thaX is suggesting, then the rules fail upon themselves, as the rules say what the requirement is (A->B), which the above (A=B) does not match in any manner.

It also betrays factors such as Holding the Charge, since you are required to deliver the spell as you cast it, meaning any other ability to deliver a spell becomes null and void, as it doesn't meet that listed requirement. That also means in order to deliver a spell, you must spend another slot and a Standard Action to cast it again, which overwrites the spell you originally cast (even if it is identical). Spells like Chill Touch now only function once per round, instead of once per attack per caster level by those rules, something which I am absolutely certain is unintended when going by those requirements.


_Ozy_ wrote:

Well, the first point was to determine that casting Shocking Grasp is not an attack. The situation is a basic situation: Invisible wizard casting shocking grasp, moving, and touch attacking an enemy:

1) Casts shocking grasp (standard action) (stays invisible)
2) Moves to enemy (move action)
3) Touch attacks enemy (free action) (turns visible)

This basic scenario is not controversial. This is how it works. It demonstrates a couple of items that are relevant to the rules mechanics:

- casting shocking grasp is not an attack
- delivering the free touch attack is not part of the action used to cast the spell

Once we agree on these basics, I can move on to Step 2.

I agree that shocking grasp is not an attack.

I disagree that the free attack is not part of the spell.


Irontruth wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

Well, the first point was to determine that casting Shocking Grasp is not an attack. The situation is a basic situation: Invisible wizard casting shocking grasp, moving, and touch attacking an enemy:

1) Casts shocking grasp (standard action) (stays invisible)
2) Moves to enemy (move action)
3) Touch attacks enemy (free action) (turns visible)

This basic scenario is not controversial. This is how it works. It demonstrates a couple of items that are relevant to the rules mechanics:

- casting shocking grasp is not an attack
- delivering the free touch attack is not part of the action used to cast the spell

Once we agree on these basics, I can move on to Step 2.

I agree that shocking grasp is not an attack.

I disagree that the free attack is not part of the spell.

Can you explain what you mean by 'part of the spell' using Pathfinder game mechanics, because that phrase is ambiguous on its own.

The attack is not part of the action (standard action) to cast the spell. This is clear, unambiguous, and means something in the rules. Casting the spell is completed by the time the touch attack has been made. Once the spell has been cast, it can no longer be counterspelled, the spell is over (duration: instantaneous), yet the charge remains.

We are trying to determine what happens by the rules, so using rules mechanics, as I did in my post, is really the only way we can do that.


Btw, here is an example of an attack that is 'part of' the action to cast the spell:

Quote:
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action.

Touch attack spells are not ranged touch attack spells.

501 to 550 of 735 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Spell combat + Whirlwind Attack All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.