Spell combat + Whirlwind Attack


Rules Questions

551 to 600 of 735 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

I think the free action to attack is part of the spell. I disagree with you on this aspect of analysis. I'll start presenting evidence once you're done.


Irontruth wrote:
I think the free action to attack is part of the spell.

Can you translate that to actual Pathfinder game mechanics? I've already shown you ranged touch attack spells which say this and what it means, and touch attack spells that say the opposite.


Please continue.


Ok, Step 2 is Spell Combat:

1) Magus initiates spell combat full-attack action
2) Magus casts shocking grasp (part of full-attack action)
3) Magus uses his main attack to attack enemy and misses (part of full-attack action)
4) Magus uses his free action to make another weapon attack, hits, and discharges the spell

Important game mechanics:
- spell is cast as part of full-attack action
- full-attack action is over at the end of item 3
- like Step 1, the free action to attack is not part of the action to cast the spell, in this case the full-attack action


Irontruth wrote:
I think the free action to attack is part of the spell. I disagree with you on this aspect of analysis. I'll start presenting evidence once you're done.

The point he's making is that the evidence that the free action is a separate act is because it's a separate action that is made entirely independent of the spell.

As he provided, you can:

Cast the spell - spell is done and resolved
Take your move action - spell has already been long resolved
Deliver the touch attack with a free action - A separate action that simply exists as a function of being on the same turn as when you cast a spell with the range of touch.

Evidence: The CRB states "You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target.", which indicates it is indeed a separate action.

Additional evidence: Spell combat states "any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty". Why would it then call this out if the spell's effects would normally be subject to the rules of the full-round action?

This, in my opinion, is something that is simply not arguable. If whirlwind attack works with spell combat or does not work, it certainly won't be because of a difference in this core concept.


Yes, to clarify. I didn't say 'it wasn't part of the spell' because that has no relevant meaning for my analysis.

I said the attack action was not part of 'casting the spell', and the attack action is not part of the action to cast the spell.

That's all that is needed for my analysis. If you have some other 'part of the spell' meaning that is distinct from these points, it's irrelevant to my analysis.


Anything else? Once you're done, I'll summarize to make sure I'm getting the gist of it.


Alrighty.

whirlwind attack wrote:
When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities

It is important to note that Whirlwind attack only forfeits extra attacks.

invisibility wrote:
For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.

Here we have precedent to say that in general spells are not attacks.

The big argument comes from here:

spell combat wrote:
This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast.

So let's look at two-weapon fighting:

two-weapon fighting wrote:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way.

Technically speaking, you can just wield two weapons and fight normally to get neither the extra attack nor the penalty.

So going back to whirlwind attack, whirlwind attack technically doesn't forbid you from two-weapon fighting; using whirlwind attack merely forfeits your bonus attacks that you elected to take when you elected to use two-weapon weapon fighting. This leaves you only receiving a penalty from having two-weapon fighting modifying your full-round attack. Suppose you have some class ability that allows you to move up to your base speed whenever you take a full-round attack. Whirlwind attack would not forbid you from taking that movement since that movement is not a bonus attack. Since I have demonstrated that two-weapon fighting can be (poorly) combined with whirlwind attack, spell combat is a class ability that allows the character to take a particular additional action when taking a full-round attack. As from invisibility, there is a class of spells that do not count as attacks that extends fairly broadly. Now it is a little blurry whether casting a touch spell counts as an attack since you can just hold the charge and not make the actual touch attack, but it is obvious that a touch attack is an attack. Therefore additional touch attacks granted by spells would be clearly be forfeited by whirlwind attack.

My ruling: I would allow any spell that would not break invisibility to be used with whirlwind attack and spell combat.


Yes, Step 3: Integration into Whirlwind.

During Spell Combat, the Magus may initiate the Whirlwind maneuver and:

1) Cast Shocking Grasp (not an attack, extra or otherwise as per Step 1) (part of full-attack action)
2) Make single attack against adjacent opponents (part of full-attack action)
3) five foot step
4) Make a melee attack against an opponent (free action)

Relevant pathfinder mechanics:
- Whirlwind modifies full-attack action, which spell combat qualifies for as per the FAQ
- full-attack action ends at end of item 2
- melee attack occurs during separate action from full-attack (as per step 2), and is therefore not subject to restrictions and penalties of the whirlwind-modified full-attack action (similar to AoOs, Quickened Shocking Grasp, etc...)


To add on to Ozy's Step 3, Item 3 (the five foot step) can be done inbetween any of the other items in that step, and is actually (technically) irrelevant to the other mechanics. He can take the 5-foot step before casting the spell, or after casting the spell. He could take it before delivering the spell, or after delivering the spell. He could even take it before his full attack, or after his full attack with the weapon (in the example he provides, it's placed at this juncture).

So, he could have his Step 3 arranged as 3->1->2->4, 1->3->2->4, or 1->2->4->3, and its "relevant pathfinder mechanics" bits would likewise remain unchanged.


Correct. It can be entirely removed and not change the analysis.


It's an interesting question. I'm sure they've all been reposted, but bear with me because I'm going to want them handy for my analysis of the issue.

Full-Attack Action:

Full Attack
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.
The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action: You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full-attack action. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for until the start your next turn.

Magus Spell Combat Class Feature:

Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty). If he casts this spell defensively, he can decide to take an additional penalty on his attack rolls, up to his Intelligence bonus, and add the same amount as a circumstance bonus on his concentration check. If the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still take the penalty. A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks.

Whirlwind Attack:

Whirlwind Attack (Combat)
You can strike out at every foe within reach.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Int 13, Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: When you use the full-attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach. You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent.
When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.

Two Weapon Fighting:

Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.

Okay, so the question is, can I use spell combat with Whirlwind attack.

Looking at Whirlwind, it says that when I use the full-attack action, I give up my normal attacks and make a single attack on each enemy in range, so instead of getting my iterative attacks, I get to make an attack at my highest bab against each enemy in range.

Whirlwind also says that you give up any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities. So no haste/blessing of fervor extra attack, definitely no improved/greater two-weapon fighting attacks, no cleaving finish or medusa's wrath, and no flurry of blows attacks, since I would make the fairly reasonable logical leap that class abilities are abilities.

Spell combat says that it works like TWF (Two-Weapon Fighting), with the exception that instead of wielding two weapons, the extra attack I would get from two-weapon fighting is actually me casting a magus spell.

It's really the fact that you give up all of your normal attacks in the full-attack action that is the problem with combining the two. Assuming that you make (somehow) the argument that TWF is not the full-attack action (even though TWF is clearly called out in the full-attack action, which makes this question even at all in doubt), you would give up those attacks when you made the whirlwind attack action, since you give up your "regular attacks". One could make the pedantic argument that the phrase I put in quotes above would only apply if I do it all the time or even regularly, it is my opinion that this replaces all of the attacks you would get from taking the full-attack action.

Now, as someone pointed out earlier, you could cast a spell that makes multiple melee attacks (like chill touch) and then next round whirlwind to hit multiple targets with touch attacks (which is an intriguing idea), since whirlwind doesn't call out that you have to do it with a specific weapon, you just have to make a melee attack.

I will say that there is some differential, due to the fact that it's unclear if combat actions are considered abilities.


Btw, an example of 'bonus attacks' for those who think they don't exist:

Quote:

Medusa's Wrath (Combat)

Benefit: Whenever you use the full-attack action and make at least one unarmed strike, you can make two additional unarmed strikes at your highest base attack bonus. These bonus attacks must be made against a dazed, flat-footed, paralyzed, staggered, stunned, or unconscious foe.

Again, extra/bonus attacks are defined as attacks added to a full-attack action.

There are a few threads on Whirlwind + Greater Trip which come to the same conclusion.


Vrog Skyreaver wrote:

It's an interesting question. I'm sure they've all been reposted, but bear with me because I'm going to want them handy for my analysis of the issue.

...
Spell combat says that it works like TWF (Two-Weapon Fighting), with the exception that instead of wielding two weapons, the extra attack I would get from two-weapon fighting is actually me casting a magus spell.
...

No, it does not state this.


Spell Combat wrote:


This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast.

I'm confused how that doesn't state what I said.

EDIT: Here's what TWF has to say on the subject:

TWF wrote:


If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.


_Ozy_ wrote:

Yes, Step 3: Integration into Whirlwind.

During Spell Combat, the Magus may initiate the Whirlwind maneuver and:

1) Cast Shocking Grasp (not an attack, extra or otherwise as per Step 1) (part of full-attack action)
2) Make single attack against adjacent opponents (part of full-attack action)
3) five foot step
4) Make a melee attack against an opponent (free action)

Relevant pathfinder mechanics:
- Whirlwind modifies full-attack action, which spell combat qualifies for as per the FAQ
- full-attack action ends at end of item 2
- melee attack occurs during separate action from full-attack (as per step 2), and is therefore not subject to restrictions and penalties of the whirlwind-modified full-attack action (similar to AoOs, Quickened Shocking Grasp, etc...)

I'm guessing this is the conclusion, but I want to make sure. I don't want you to feel like I'm telling you to stop making your point and that it's complete.


Vrog Skyreaver wrote:
Spell Combat wrote:


This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast.

I'm confused how that doesn't state what I said.

EDIT: Here's what TWF has to say on the subject:

TWF wrote:


If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.

Because wielding a weapon is not identical to making an attack with that weapon. Spell Combat says 'casting a spell' is like 'wielding a second weapon'. It does not say 'casting a spell' is like 'attacking with a second weapon'.

That's why it has to specifically add this language:

Quote:
any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty

Because otherwise, an attack made with the spell WOULD NOT be considered part of the normal iterative full attack sequence (with the appropriate penalty), like TWF.


Irontruth wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

Yes, Step 3: Integration into Whirlwind.

During Spell Combat, the Magus may initiate the Whirlwind maneuver and:

1) Cast Shocking Grasp (not an attack, extra or otherwise as per Step 1) (part of full-attack action)
2) Make single attack against adjacent opponents (part of full-attack action)
3) five foot step
4) Make a melee attack against an opponent (free action)

Relevant pathfinder mechanics:
- Whirlwind modifies full-attack action, which spell combat qualifies for as per the FAQ
- full-attack action ends at end of item 2
- melee attack occurs during separate action from full-attack (as per step 2), and is therefore not subject to restrictions and penalties of the whirlwind-modified full-attack action (similar to AoOs, Quickened Shocking Grasp, etc...)

I'm guessing this is the conclusion, but I want to make sure. I don't want you to feel like I'm telling you to stop making your point and that it's complete.

Yup, that covers the basic argument.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Wow, it exploded.

Look at the spell. Does it have the target "resist with saving throws, deal damage, or otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks."

It is considered an attack spell if it does so. It matters not when that attack occurs, it is an attack that is the result of casting the spell. It is considered an attack before any free action that is taken after the initial casting, or even when the spell is held.

Ozzy, you seen stuck on this thing about free actions from spells and have discounted anything else. The FAQ you quoted transfers a spell from the character to the Familiar and has nothing to do with Free Actions or if Shocking Grasp would break invisibility.

To be sure, we are talking about a wonky set of abilities that should not work together in the first place, but to go down to not being able to draw a fourth arrow because of Free Action limits is looking at things under a very high magnification under the microscope.

The spell is cast and used as a part of the Spell Combat full round action. If the character decides to hold the charge, it is held, but otherwise it is going to be a part of the overall attack that Spell Combat provides, at a -2 to that attack. He can, as you say, take a 5 foot step to get into range of a target of his attacks as he does so, but that "free Action" is going to go off during the attack. Your analysis is flawed because your separating the two events into different segments of the round, segments that do not exist. (This isn't Magic the Gathering) If you use the Free Action Attack from the spell, it is because you cast that spell and using that free action to complete the effects of the spell, which will occur before the end of the turn. If you use this effect from the spell that was cast from Spell Combat, it is used in conjunction to Spell Combat (and with Whirlwind Attack if both are used at the same time) because it came from the standard casting of a spell from Spell Combat.

I can continue to repeat myself here, but it goes in a circle. The spell is what it is, the attack is a part of the spell, in it's description and Spell Combat will give that -2 penalty to the attack.


Dude, how is the spellcaster in that FAQ invisible if casting shocking grasp counts as an attack?

Edit: the is basic game mechanics that has been decided years ago. Search the threads if the FAQ ain't good enough for you.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Because it is the Familiar that uses the spell, through transferance, and that is what the FAQ is clarifying. Caster casts, then the Familiar receives the (use of) effects. It has nothing to do with the current discussion.

The only real question in my mind is if buff spells can be used in during this combo, spells like Mage Armor, or Lead Blades. It seems pretty clear, to me, that "attack" spells are forfieted by the character to effect the Whirlwind Attack feat.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

Yes, Step 3: Integration into Whirlwind.

During Spell Combat, the Magus may initiate the Whirlwind maneuver and:

1) Cast Shocking Grasp (not an attack, extra or otherwise as per Step 1) (part of full-attack action)
2) Make single attack against adjacent opponents (part of full-attack action)
3) five foot step
4) Make a melee attack against an opponent (free action)

Relevant pathfinder mechanics:
- Whirlwind modifies full-attack action, which spell combat qualifies for as per the FAQ
- full-attack action ends at end of item 2
- melee attack occurs during separate action from full-attack (as per step 2), and is therefore not subject to restrictions and penalties of the whirlwind-modified full-attack action (similar to AoOs, Quickened Shocking Grasp, etc...)

I'm guessing this is the conclusion, but I want to make sure. I don't want you to feel like I'm telling you to stop making your point and that it's complete.
Yup, that covers the basic argument.

To summarize (to make sure I understand):

The attack is unconnected to the spell's action, therefore it doesn't interact with the full attack. This means it isn't restricted by Whirlwind's attack limit.


Irontruth wrote:

To summarize (to make sure I understand):

The attack is unconnected to the spell's action, therefore it doesn't interact with the full attack. This means it isn't restricted by Whirlwind's attack limit.

Let's stick with game mechanics:

The attack action (free) is a different action than casting the spell (standard Step 1 or full-attack Step 2&3). It occurs after the action where the spell is cast.

And yes, this means it is not restricted by Whirlwind's attack limit, just as if you used a swift action after the full attack action to cast a quickened shocking grasp + free attack.


thaX wrote:
Because it is the Familiar that uses the spell, through transferance, and that is what the FAQ is clarifying. Caster casts, then the Familiar receives the (use of) effects. It has nothing to do with the current discussion.

It absolutely does, because when the caster casts the spell, he is still invisible because he hasn't yet made an attack.

Btw, what rules are you using to say that a wizard stays invisible if he casts shocking grasp and hands the charge off to his familiar, vs. if he casts the spell and holds onto the charge himself?

This seems absolutely wrong to me (and the several threads that agree), so can you please confirm which rules you are using to delineate that difference?

If a caster hasn't yet made an attack with shocking grasp, in what way has an enemy been targeted?


If you're going to "stick with game mechanics" then you should not confuse this free attack with the attack action. An attack action is a specific standard action.

Did I understand it correctly?


Irontruth wrote:
If you're going to "stick with game mechanics" then you should not confuse this free attack with the attack action. An attack action is a specific standard action.

Yes, I can see how that could be confusing. I did not mean the 'attack action' which is a standard action, but the 'attack action' which is the action in which the attack occurred. Thanks for prompting the clarification.


There have been like 100 new posts in this thread today... I assume that's because a FAQ came out?

No?

Carry on then.

(I now want an unchained magus, that is essentially the normal magus, but excises the wholly superfluous "this is like TWF" clause from spell combat.)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Your confusing what the Swift Action is replacing. It is casting the spell as a swift action, when the normal casting is a standard action. Are you saying there is no reason to cast Melee touch attack spells with Quickened? Should all Melee touch spells be changed to Swift casting time? That the spells are written up wrong because they do not work with the rules?

When you use that attack, you are using the spell to impart the effects with an attack on the target. Are you saying the rules for holding the spell should be ignored, that the free attack is there until used beyond the casting of the spell.

"Oh, it's been three weeks since I cast Shock Grasp and I never used that attack. A bird is attack me, take that *zap*"

It doesn't work that way.

Using this combination of Spell Combat and Whirlwind Attack, if you attack with the spell, it is going to take the -2 penalty from Spell Combat and be forfeited (likely held until the next round) by Whirlwind Attack. My assertion is that the spell will be prevented from being cast because it is an attack spell. (See page 208 in the Core Rulebook)


So, it's not actually an attack action, because attack action is a clearly defined thing. In fact, the action does have a definition and I think the placement of that definition is important. We can leave it for now though and I can get into it as part of my stance once you're ready.


thaX wrote:

Wow, it exploded.

Look at the spell. Does it have the target "resist with saving throws, deal damage, or otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks."

It is considered an attack spell if it does so. It matters not when that attack occurs, it is an attack that is the result of casting the spell. It is considered an attack before any free action that is taken after the initial casting, or even when the spell is held.

Ozzy, you seen stuck on this thing about free actions from spells and have discounted anything else. The FAQ you quoted transfers a spell from the character to the Familiar and has nothing to do with Free Actions or if Shocking Grasp would break invisibility.

To be sure, we are talking about a wonky set of abilities that should not work together in the first place, but to go down to not being able to draw a fourth arrow because of Free Action limits is looking at things under a very high magnification under the microscope.

The spell is cast and used as a part of the Spell Combat full round action. If the character decides to hold the charge, it is held, but otherwise it is going to be a part of the overall attack that Spell Combat provides, at a -2 to that attack. He can, as you say, take a 5 foot step to get into range of a target of his attacks as he does so, but that "free Action" is going to go off during the attack. Your analysis is flawed because your separating the two events into different segments of the round, segments that do not exist. (This isn't Magic the Gathering) If you use the Free Action Attack from the spell, it is because you cast that spell and using that free action to complete the effects of the spell, which will occur before the end of the turn. If you use this effect from the spell that was cast from Spell Combat, it is used in conjunction to Spell Combat (and with Whirlwind Attack if both are used at the same time) because it came from the standard casting of a spell from Spell Combat.

I can continue to repeat myself here, but it goes in a...

There were a bunch of tiny posts that were either one-liner insults or taking baby steps at a time. Makes sense, considering how long the thread has been going, but whether it gets anywhere, who knows. At best, we'll get developer input once this thread hits 1,000 posts (AKA, 20 pages). Until then, let's just trek towards that, because developer input would clear up a lot of the angst and frustration.

So then you agree that, I can substitute spells for attacks, because spells are attacks, and anyone who cast spells (Touch spells in particular are/)is infinitely stronger than anyone who isn't because they can circumvent BAB reductions that are obviously intended to be there? After all, that's what you're saying.

I understand the point you're making with the whole FAQ thing, but if that's the case, then casting any spell would break invisibility, not just hostile ones, which means the FAQ does nothing, and means nothing. Something which, again, I highly doubt is intended.

Not to mention, the way you currently run Touch Spells would actually fail upon itself, both in relation to the rules, and to how the Touch Spells are currently written.


_Ozy_ wrote:


Because wielding a weapon is not identical to making an attack with that weapon. Spell Combat says 'casting a spell' is like 'wielding a second weapon'. It does not say 'casting a spell' is like 'attacking with a second weapon'.

But wielding a 2nd weapon has nothing inherently to do with TWF. All TWF does is let you make an extra attack if you are wielding a 2nd weapon, and further clarifies that the 2nd attack has to be with the weapon in the other hand.

Otherwise, you wouldn't take a penalty to your attack roll per this FAQ:

FAQ on multi-weapon wielding and TWF

_Ozy_ wrote:


That's why it has to specifically add this language:

Quote:
any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty

Per the FAQ above, just holding two weapons when you make a full attack doesn't give you the penalty; you only take the penalty if you're trying to get an extra attack.


Yes, but there's no extra attack being gained there. You cast a spell. When you cast a Touch Spell, you may deliver it as a Free Action against a suitable target. That happens regardless of TWF or Spell Combat being in the mix.

I'll tell you this now, the reference to TWF is just a giant misnomer that should be dashed from the ability description, because it does nothing but create confusion for a class feature that is otherwise perfectly defined.


Irontruth wrote:
So, it's not actually an attack action, because attack action is a clearly defined thing. In fact, the action does have a definition and I think the placement of that definition is important. We can leave it for now though and I can get into it as part of my stance once you're ready.

Correct, as I explained, it is not actually an 'attack action' (standard action Pathfinder definition. It is an 'attack' 'action' (colloquial phrase used by Ozy to indicate the action in which the attack occurred.

If it bothers you, I'll reword it in the future to avoid confusion.


Vrog Skyreaver wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:


Because wielding a weapon is not identical to making an attack with that weapon. Spell Combat says 'casting a spell' is like 'wielding a second weapon'. It does not say 'casting a spell' is like 'attacking with a second weapon'.
But wielding a 2nd weapon has nothing inherently to do with TWF. All TWF does is let you make an extra attack if you are wielding a 2nd weapon, and further clarifies that the 2nd attack has to be with the weapon in the other hand.

Yeah, which is why many of us feel that part of the rules is superfluous

Quote:

Otherwise, you wouldn't take a penalty to your attack roll per this FAQ:

FAQ on multi-weapon wielding and TWF

_Ozy_ wrote:


That's why it has to specifically add this language:

Quote:
any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty
Per the FAQ above, just holding two weapons when you make a full attack doesn't give you the penalty; you only take the penalty if you're trying to get an extra attack.

Correct, which is why Spell Combat doesn't give you TWF penalties!!! It gives you its own set of penalties that have nothing to do with attacking with two weapons.

As I said.

Superfluous.

That is, unless you think the -2 from Spell Combat stacks with TWF penalties...


Food for thought...

I start my full-attack TWF action. I make an attack, then get staggered by a readied action. I lose the rest of my attacks, including the extra attack from TWF.

I start my full-attack Spell Combat action. I cast a shocking grasp spell, then get staggered by a readied action. I lose my iterative melee attacks.I still get my free action attack!

Think about it. ;)


_Ozy_ wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
So, it's not actually an attack action, because attack action is a clearly defined thing. In fact, the action does have a definition and I think the placement of that definition is important. We can leave it for now though and I can get into it as part of my stance once you're ready.

Correct, as I explained, it is not actually an 'attack action' (standard action Pathfinder definition. It is an 'attack' 'action' (colloquial phrase used by Ozy to indicate the action in which the attack occurred.

If it bothers you, I'll reword it in the future to avoid confusion.

Anything else you need to add?


Irontruth wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
So, it's not actually an attack action, because attack action is a clearly defined thing. In fact, the action does have a definition and I think the placement of that definition is important. We can leave it for now though and I can get into it as part of my stance once you're ready.

Correct, as I explained, it is not actually an 'attack action' (standard action Pathfinder definition. It is an 'attack' 'action' (colloquial phrase used by Ozy to indicate the action in which the attack occurred.

If it bothers you, I'll reword it in the future to avoid confusion.

Anything else you need to add?

I'll of course add any necessary to answer questions or critiques, but my presentation is complete for the moment.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


Yes, but there's no extra attack being gained there. You cast a spell. When you cast a Touch Spell, you may deliver it as a Free Action against a suitable target. That happens regardless of TWF or Spell Combat being in the mix.

It seems like you're confusing two separate things: The free attack you get from casting a spell (we're specifically talking about an attack spell, but technically any spell that requires touching a target gets a free attack) and spell combat, which works like TWF. The free action attack from casting a spell occurs and exists outside of the action(s) required to cast the spell (although technically in the CRB there's nothing saying that you get a free attack to deliver the spell, just that you have to touch the target to effect them and that if a spell deals damage, it can crit on a 20 and do double damage, but the magus spell strike ability says "in place of the free melee attack", so I'm going to assume that is the correct verbage).

What we're specifically talking about the is TWF portion of spell combat, the interpretations of which are either:

A) the casting of the 2nd spell is equivalent to just wielding a weapon, not attacking with it

or

B) the casting of the 2nd spell is equivalent to the extra attack granted by TWF, which means that anything that would effect the 2nd attack would effect the casting of the spell.

Obviously, based on everything I can find, I would certainly (in fact I am currently) stating that B is correct.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


I'll tell you this now, the reference to TWF is just a giant misnomer that should be dashed from the ability description, because it does nothing but create confusion for a class feature that is otherwise perfectly defined.

Regardless of what should or shouldn't happen to it (I tend to agree that it should probably be rewritten) we have to deal with what we have.


_Ozy_ wrote:

Food for thought...

I start my full-attack TWF action. I make an attack, then get staggered by a readied action. I lose the rest of my attacks, including the extra attack from TWF.

I start my full-attack Spell Combat action. I cast a shocking grasp spell, then get staggered by a readied action. I lose my iterative melee attacks.I still get my free action attack!

Think about it. ;)

That's a pretty good analogy, but the problem with it is that it ignores the fact that TWF doesn't exist if you don't make the extra attack it provides. I can't find any rule source or FAQ that contradicts that premise, and would be more than happy to be proven wrong. I can, however, find several rules sources to back up my claim, including the FAQ that I posted earlier.


Quote:
although technically in the CRB there's nothing saying that you get a free attack to deliver the spell

Er, what?

Quote:
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action.


Vrog Skyreaver wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

Food for thought...

I start my full-attack TWF action. I make an attack, then get staggered by a readied action. I lose the rest of my attacks, including the extra attack from TWF.

I start my full-attack Spell Combat action. I cast a shocking grasp spell, then get staggered by a readied action. I lose my iterative melee attacks.I still get my free action attack!

Think about it. ;)

That's a pretty good analogy, but the problem with it is that it ignores the fact that TWF doesn't exist if you don't make the extra attack it provides. I can't find any rule source or FAQ that contradicts that premise, and would be more than happy to be proven wrong. I can, however, find several rules sources to back up my claim, including the FAQ that I posted earlier.

You are wrong.

You declare TWF and the penalties apply regardless of whether you actually choose to, or get to, make your extra attack.


_Ozy_ wrote:

Er, what?

Quote:
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action.

Touching someone is not the same thing as attacking them. What you just quoted encompasses all touch spells, not just ones that attack. Otherwise, you would have to roll attack rolls on harmless spells that you were casting on willing targets, which would mean that statistically speaking 5% of the time you wouldn't be able to effect willing targets with touch attacks.


Vrog Skyreaver wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

Er, what?

Quote:
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action.

Touching someone is not the same thing as attacking them. What you just quoted encompasses all touch spells, not just ones that attack. Otherwise, you would have to roll attack rolls on harmless spells that you were casting on willing targets, which would mean that statistically speaking 5% of the time you wouldn't be able to effect willing targets with touch attacks.

When you are touching someone with a touch attack spell, you are making an attack. Yes, that rule is a superset of the specific rule that is under contention.

So that rule I quoted also includes touch attack spells. It's just not limited to them.


_Ozy_ wrote:

You are wrong.

You declare TWF and the penalties apply regardless of whether you actually choose to, or get to, make your extra attack.

Actually no, as I quoted before, all TWF does is give you an extra attack on a full-attack action. There is no TWF action; it's like power attack, a rider that you can put on a full-attack action.

TWF wrote:


If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get
one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a
–6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your
primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your
off hand when you fight this way.

Emphasis mine.

When you fight this way is exactly that. Further, the FAQ I posted earlier specifically states that merely holding two weapons does not TWF make; I can also attack with both weapons in the same combat round as long as I am adhering to the BAB attack progression rules and not take the penalty for TWF. In order to take the penalty for TWF, I have to specifically attempt to get the extra attack. You can end a full-attack after the first attack if you want, and still move, thus turning a full attack into an attack action and a move action.


You have to declare TWF before your first attack, otherwise you wouldn't be able to apply the TWF penalty to your first attack.

Now, let's say your first attack kills the enemy, and there are no other valid targets. You can not take your extra attack. And yet, you were still using TWF because you declared it and took the penalty.

Dude, this is pretty basic level game mechanics that have many threads to help you. Perhaps you should search around a little bit more instead of contributing to the clutter of this thread.


Let me ask you this _Ozy_:

If casting the (for lack of a better term) off-hand spell isn't the extra attack from TWF, then why do you still take a penalty with your melee attacks?


Vrog Skyreaver wrote:

Let me ask you this _Ozy_:

If casting the (for lack of a better term) off-hand spell isn't the extra attack from TWF, then why do you still take a penalty with your melee attacks?

Let me ask you this. Is the attack in your off-hand with a light weapon? Why don't you take TWF penalties when using Spell Combat? Can you use TWF feats to lower your penalty and gain extra off-hand attacks?

Now, to answer your question: Because Spell Combat says that you do. Not TWF.


_Ozy_ wrote:


Let me ask you this. Is the attack in your off-hand with a light weapon? Why don't you take TWF penalties when using Spell Combat? Can you use TWF feats to lower your penalty and gain extra off-hand attacks?
Now, to answer your question: Because Spell Combat says that you do. Not TWF.

Interesting. Thanks for making me look up spell combat again. Spell combat is a Full-Round action, not a full-attack action, thus you can't whirlwind attack because it specifically calls out a full-attack action, which spell combat is not.


*facepalm*

FFS dude, this was addressed in the 2nd post

And you still didn't answer my questions vis-a-vis the TWF penalties and feats for Spell Combat. Think they apply?


So I missed a post in a 12 page forum. Life is pain.

To answer your question, I don't see why they wouldn't. It says that spell combat functions as TWF.

But to reply to your answer of my question, It's interesting that it says it works as TWF and the lists specific penalties. A valid RAW case could be made for the argument that if you are using spell combat, you take the -6/-10 penalty in addition to the penalty to for spell combat.

551 to 600 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.