Spell combat + Whirlwind Attack


Rules Questions

601 to 650 of 735 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

The free action attack gained from casting a spell is part of casting the spell. In fact, the place where this free attack is defined is literally within the definition of "Casting a Spell". It doesn't have it's own entry, it is contained within the definition of something else.

Logically, we know that the free attack is not independent. It cannot happen alone. It's trigger is the spell. It can't happen before the spell, nor can it happen if the spell fails for some reason. The attack is not mandatory and there are ways to transfer it (such as holding for future rounds or using a familiar), but the attack can only exist as a consequence of having utilized the Casting a Spell action (however it is modified by special abilities, feats, etc).

Further more, the attack from the spell suffers the -2 penalty like all the attacks in the regular full attack action. This is significant because other attacks gained that are not part of the full attack action, such as attacks of opporutunity, do not receive this penalty.

Using simple logic, we see that the cause of the bonus attack is the full attack action. Since whirlwind cannot grant bonus attacks, this bonus attack is lost. To keep the attack it would have to have a trigger outside of the full attack action.

When using Spell Combat, casting a spell becomes part of a full attack action. Since the spell is part of the full attack action, the free attack, which is part of the spell, is also part of the full attack action. Therefore the attack from the spell cannot be used to go beyond the limit of Whirlwind Attack.


Irontruth wrote:

The free action attack gained from casting a spell is part of casting the spell. In fact, the place where this free attack is defined is literally within the definition of "Casting a Spell". It doesn't have it's own entry, it is contained within the definition of something else.

Logically, we know that the free attack is not independent. It cannot happen alone. It's trigger is the spell. It can't happen before the spell, nor can it happen if the spell fails for some reason. The attack is not mandatory and there are ways to transfer it (such as holding for future rounds or using a familiar), but the attack can only exist as a consequence of having utilized the Casting a Spell action (however it is modified by special abilities, feats, etc).

Further more, the attack from the spell suffers the -2 penalty like all the attacks in the regular full attack action. This is significant because other attacks gained that are not part of the full attack action, such as attacks of opporutunity, do not receive this penalty.

Using simple logic, we see that the cause of the bonus attack is the full attack action. Since whirlwind cannot grant bonus attacks, this bonus attack is lost. To keep the attack it would have to have a trigger outside of the full attack action.

When using Spell Combat, casting a spell becomes part of a full attack action. Since the spell is part of the full attack action, the free attack, which is part of the spell, is also part of the full attack action. Therefore the attack from the spell cannot be used to go beyond the limit of Whirlwind Attack.

Another example of fundamentally different views on base definitions.

When using the term "bonus attack" to mean attacks that are granted by spells like haste and add to your full-attack's list of iterative attacks, the side supporting this is correct.

When reading "bonus attack" more literally and not as a game term, the side against it is correct.

I would ask both sides to provide evidence, but there is none. On the support of one side, the concept clearly exists. On the support of the other, it's never fully defined. We can go back and forth over and over to try and convince the other of it, but the core issue lies in the game's casual writing that creates confusion of this level.

I, personally, hope that my side is correct, admittedly partially because I like being right but mostly because of "rule of cool" and the fact that I'd rather see more options for builds open up.


Irontruth wrote:
The free action attack gained from casting a spell is part of casting the spell. In fact, the place where this free attack is defined is literally within the definition of "Casting a Spell". It doesn't have it's own entry, it is contained within the definition of something else.

Refuted by my post. The free action to make the attack is not part of the action to cast the spell. You have not posted any rules to counter this fact.

Quote:
Logically, we know that the free attack is not independent. It cannot happen alone. It's trigger is the spell. It can't happen before the spell, nor can it happen if the spell fails for some reason. The attack is not mandatory and there are ways to transfer it (such as holding for future rounds or using a familiar), but the attack can only exist as a consequence of having utilized the Casting a Spell action (however it is modified by special abilities, feats, etc).

100% irrelevant with regard to the Pathfinder rules that we are discussing. There are no rules that say: any attacks which are dependent on spells cast during a full-attack action are disallowed by Whirlwind, or counted as 'extra attacks' or 'bonus attacks'. Pathfinder follows specific rules, and the logic of your causal chain is irrelevant to those rules.

Quote:
Further more, the attack from the spell suffers the -2 penalty like all the attacks in the regular full attack action. This is significant because other attacks gained that are not part of the full attack action, such as attacks of opporutunity, do not receive this penalty.

This is significant because this is ONLY true because of specific wording included in Spell Combat that makes it so. Absent these specific words, the free action attack would NOT receive the penalty because it is NOT part of the Spell Combat full attack action.

This can be further supported by the fact that if the Spell Combat full attack action is interrupted and cancelled after the spell is cast, you STILL get the free action attack.

Quote:
Using simple logic, we see that the cause of the bonus attack is the full attack action. Since whirlwind cannot grant bonus attacks, this bonus attack is lost. To keep the attack it would have to have a trigger outside of the full attack action.

A free action attack is not a bonus attack. Bonus attacks and extra attacks are specifically called out by things like TWF (extra) and Medusa's Wrath (bonus), and are uniformly attacks that are added into the full-round attack action.

Quote:
When using Spell Combat, casting a spell becomes part of a full attack action. Since the spell is part of the full attack action, the free attack, which is part of the spell, is also part of the full attack action. Therefore the attack from the spell cannot be used to go beyond the limit of Whirlwind Attack.

Absolutely not. I demonstrated conclusively that this was not the case, and furthermore that you still get your free action attack even if your full-action attack was aborted after you cast the spell.

Free actions are separate actions from full-attack actions.


Johnny_Devo wrote:

Another example of fundamentally different views on base definitions.

When using the term "bonus attack" to mean attacks that are granted by spells like haste and add to your full-attack's list of iterative attacks, the side supporting this is correct.

When reading "bonus attack" more literally and not as a game term, the side against it is correct.

I would ask both sides to provide evidence,...

It would be trivial to disallow all other attacks.

Say: all other attacks, from all other feats, spells, or abilities are disallowed for the remainder of the creatures round/turn (or during the whirlwind depending on their intent).

Notice, other isn't 'extra' or 'bonus' or some other word that implies something 'added' to a set of iteratives. It's all encompassing.

I have provided specific examples of 'extra' and 'bonus' attacks, which are uniformly that...additions to a full-attack set of iteratives.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
The free action attack gained from casting a spell is part of casting the spell. In fact, the place where this free attack is defined is literally within the definition of "Casting a Spell". It doesn't have it's own entry, it is contained within the definition of something else.

Refuted by my post. The free action to make the attack is not part of the action to cast the spell. You have not posted any rules to counter this fact.

Name the rule that defines the free attack from casting a spell. I've give you a hint, it's listed on the table of Standard Actions.


Irontruth wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
The free action attack gained from casting a spell is part of casting the spell. In fact, the place where this free attack is defined is literally within the definition of "Casting a Spell". It doesn't have it's own entry, it is contained within the definition of something else.

Refuted by my post. The free action to make the attack is not part of the action to cast the spell. You have not posted any rules to counter this fact.

Name the rule that defines the free attack from casting a spell.
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. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target.

Quote:
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

And then, to show you the type of spell which DOESN'T grant you a separate free action touch attack:

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.

There you have it, black and white. Touch attack spells provide a separate free action touch attack. Ranged touch attack spells do not.

Edit: I don't need any hints. I got this.


Evidently you do still need the hint. You didn't post the whole rule.

Post the whole rule.


Irontruth wrote:

Evidently you do still need the hint. You didn't post the whole rule.

Post the whole rule.

Dude, I posted the relevant part of the rule. If you think you've got rules that contradict what the rules I posted say, specifically, then post them yourself.

The rules I post say specifically that you get a FREE ACTION for a touch attack in the same round that you cast a spell.

Furthermore, it says that you may take that action after you cast and then move.

Now, can you explain to me how a free action taken after a move action which is taken after a standard action is somehow 'not' separate from that standard action?


Read what you just wrote in that first sentence, "part of the rule".

I made the claim that what you're posting is part of a bigger rule, which you agree with. My point is that the touch attack is part of "Casting a Spell", therefore it isn't independent.

You can't even refute me without either dodging the question, or agreeing with my premise.


Irontruth wrote:

Read what you just wrote in that first sentence, "part of the rule".

I made the claim that what you're posting is part of a bigger rule, which you agree with. My point is that the touch attack is part of "Casting a Spell", therefore it isn't independent.

You keep saying this, and yet can't explain what this means with regard to Pathfinder mechanics.

Quote:
You can't even refute me without either dodging the question, or agreeing with my premise.

Bull. You asked for the rule. I gave it to you. You complained.

Now YOU do it.

You post the rule that you think contradicts what I said. Don't hide behind words that have no meaning in Pathfinder. Use the rules.


Quote:

Cast a Spell

Most spells require 1 standard action to cast. You can cast such a spell either before or after you take a move action.

Note: You retain your Dexterity bonus to AC while casting.

Spell Components
To cast a spell with a verbal (V) component, your character must speak in a firm voice. If you’re gagged or in the area of a silence spell, you can’t cast such a spell. A spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance to spoil any spell he tries to cast if that spell has a verbal component.

To cast a spell with a somatic (S) component, you must gesture freely with at least one hand. You can’t cast a spell of this type while bound, grappling, or with both your hands full or occupied.

To cast a spell with a material (M), focus (F), or divine focus (DF) component, you have to have the proper materials, as described by the spell. Unless these materials are elaborate preparing these materials is a free action. For material components and focuses whose costs are not listed, you can assume that you have them if you have your spell component pouch.

Some spells have an experience point (XP) component and entail an experience point cost to you. No spell can restore the lost XP. You cannot spend so much XP that you lose a level, so you cannot cast the spell unless you have enough XP to spare. However, you may, on gaining enough XP to achieve a new level, immediately spend the XP on casting the spell rather than keeping it to advance a level. The XP are expended when you cast the spell, whether or not the casting succeeds.

Concentration
You must concentrate to cast a spell. If you can’t concentrate you can’t cast a spell. If you start casting a spell but something interferes with your concentration you must make a Concentration check or lose the spell. The check’s DC depends on what is threatening your concentration (see the Concentration skill). If you fail, the spell fizzles with no effect. If you prepare spells, it is lost from preparation. If you cast at will, it counts against your daily limit of spells even though you did not cast it successfully.

Concentrating to Maintain a Spell
Some spells require continued concentration to keep them going. Concentrating to maintain a spell is a standard action that doesn’t provoke an attack of opportunity. Anything that could break your concentration when casting a spell can keep you from concentrating to maintain a spell. If your concentration breaks, the spell ends.

Casting Time
Most spells have a casting time of 1 standard action. A spell cast in this manner immediately takes effect.

Attacks of Opportunity
Generally, if you cast a spell, you provoke attacks of opportunity from threatening enemies. If you take damage from an attack of opportunity, you must make a Concentration check (DC 10 + points of damage taken + spell level) or lose the spell. Spells that require only a free action to cast don’t provoke attacks of opportunity.

Casting on the Defensive
Casting a spell while on the defensive does not provoke an attack of opportunity. It does, however, require a Concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) to pull off. Failure means that you lose the spell.

Touch Spells in Combat
Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

Touch Attacks
Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.

Holding the Charge
If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the discharge of the spell (hold the charge) indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.

Dismiss a Spell
Dismissing an active spell is a standard action that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity.

The touch attack is PART of a rule. Not a whole rule in itself.


Now, explain how that contradicts the touch attack being a separate free action.

Btw, since you think the 'whole rule' is somehow relevant, explain what Dismissing the Spell has to do with the discussion. Or casting on the defensive, or concentration, or the 99% of the irrelevant material that you included.

There's a reason people post relevant snippets of the rules, to avoid a large wall of largely irrelevant text.

It's bad form.


Because it's part of Casting a Spell. Literally. There is no separate entry for "free melee touch attacks". It doesn't have it's one entry on any table, or it's own listing as a rule. It exists as part of Casting a Spell.


Irontruth wrote:
Because it's part of Casting a Spell. Literally.

That's not an explanation.

If I cast a spell as a standard action, use a move action to move, and then a free action to attack, how is that free action not 'separate' from the standard action?

Also, inside that part of the rule, it literally tells you that you get a separate free action. Literally.


_Ozy_ wrote:

Now, explain how that contradicts the touch attack being a separate free action.

Btw, since you think the 'whole rule' is somehow relevant, explain what Dismissing the Spell has to do with the discussion. Or casting on the defensive, or concentration, or the 99% of the irrelevant material that you included.

There's a reason people post relevant snippets of the rules, to avoid a large wall of largely irrelevant text.

It's bad form.

Dude, you told me to post it. Don't b#%+! at me for what you told me to do.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Because it's part of Casting a Spell. Literally.

That's not an explanation.

If I cast a spell as a standard action, use a move action to move, and then a free action to attack, how is that free action not 'separate' from the standard action?

Also, inside that part of the rule, it literally tells you that you get a separate free action. Literally.

But the free action is part of Casting a Spell.

Unless you can find a separate independent entry to claim it isn't part of that rule.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The free touch attack is definitely part of the spell. It's also definitely a different action.

;P


Irontruth wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

Now, explain how that contradicts the touch attack being a separate free action.

Btw, since you think the 'whole rule' is somehow relevant, explain what Dismissing the Spell has to do with the discussion. Or casting on the defensive, or concentration, or the 99% of the irrelevant material that you included.

There's a reason people post relevant snippets of the rules, to avoid a large wall of largely irrelevant text.

It's bad form.

Dude, you told me to post it. Don't b+*~% at me for what you told me to do.

I told you to post the rules that contradicted what I said.

That means relevant rules. You did not post any relevant rules (other than what I already excerpted).

If you asked me to post the rules and I posted the CRB, I hardly think that would be a responsive post, no?


Irontruth wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Because it's part of Casting a Spell. Literally.

That's not an explanation.

If I cast a spell as a standard action, use a move action to move, and then a free action to attack, how is that free action not 'separate' from the standard action?

Also, inside that part of the rule, it literally tells you that you get a separate free action. Literally.

But the free action is part of Casting a Spell.

Unless you can find a separate independent entry to claim it isn't part of that rule.

I never said it wasn't 'part of' casting the spell, I said it was a separate action. And it is. The 'part of' casting a spell has no particular game mechanics relevance in the context we are discussing.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

Now, explain how that contradicts the touch attack being a separate free action.

Btw, since you think the 'whole rule' is somehow relevant, explain what Dismissing the Spell has to do with the discussion. Or casting on the defensive, or concentration, or the 99% of the irrelevant material that you included.

There's a reason people post relevant snippets of the rules, to avoid a large wall of largely irrelevant text.

It's bad form.

Dude, you told me to post it. Don't b+*~% at me for what you told me to do.

I told you to post the rules that contradicted what I said.

That means relevant rules. You did not post any relevant rules (other than what I already excerpted).

If you asked me to post the rules and I posted the CRB, I hardly think that would be a responsive post, no?

Just stop acting like the touch attack rule isn't inside the Casting a Spell. Because every time I bring it up, you act like I'm talking nonsense. So, stop doing that.


Irontruth wrote:
Just stop acting like the touch attack rule isn't inside the Casting a Spell. Because every time I bring it up, you act like I'm talking nonsense. So, stop doing that.

No, the nonsense is that you seem to believe that means the free action granted by those rules isn't a separate action.

Btw, those tables are not a comprehensive listing of all standard, move, full round, and free actions available in Pathfinder.


It's a separate action like a quarterback is a separate member of a football team.

It's a discrete portion of the process, but it's still part of that process.


Irontruth wrote:

It's a separate action like a quarterback is a separate member of a football team.

It's a discrete portion of the process, but it's still part of that process.

Sure, but that's not what you're using to support your ultimate conclusion. Instead, you are claiming that the free action used to make the touch attack is part of the Spell Combat full-attack action, and therefore is disallowed.

This is incorrect. It's a separate free action that can be taken after the Spell Combat has completed.

Edit: Heck, it can even be taken if the full-attack Spell Combat action was interrupted and nullified after the spell was cast.


_Ozy_ wrote:


I have provided specific examples of 'extra' and 'bonus' attacks, which are uniformly that...additions to a full-attack set of iteratives.

By this logic, wouldn't you lose your spell attack when whirlwinding anyway, since the free attack is outside of the normal progression of bab iterative rules?

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Vrog Skyreaver wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:


I have provided specific examples of 'extra' and 'bonus' attacks, which are uniformly that...additions to a full-attack set of iteratives.
By this logic, wouldn't you lose your spell attack when whirlwinding anyway, since the free attack is outside of the normal progression of bab iterative rules? a bonus or extra attack granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.

Edited that for you! :)

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Vrog Skyreaver wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:


I have provided specific examples of 'extra' and 'bonus' attacks, which are uniformly that...additions to a full-attack set of iteratives.
By this logic, wouldn't you lose your spell attack when whirlwinding anyway, since the free attack is outside of the normal progression of bab iterative rules? a bonus or extra attack granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.
Edited that for you! :)

+1

The extra attack is a bonus attack via a free action touch attack that is part of the spell casting.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

It's a separate action like a quarterback is a separate member of a football team.

It's a discrete portion of the process, but it's still part of that process.

Sure, but that's not what you're using to support your ultimate conclusion. Instead, you are claiming that the free action used to make the touch attack is part of the Spell Combat full-attack action, and therefore is disallowed.

This is incorrect. It's a separate free action that can be taken after the Spell Combat has completed.

Edit: Heck, it can even be taken if the full-attack Spell Combat action was interrupted and nullified after the spell was cast.

Except Spell Combat also implies that the attack is part of the full attack. Only attacks that are part of the full attack receive the -2 penalty. All other attacks gained from sources other than the full attack do not receive that penalty (like attacks of opportunity).

So, the attack is directly gained from the full attack, and suffers the penalty of being part of that action.

From my perspective you haven't shown that the attack is fully separate. The attack isn't it's own rule entry, it doesn't exist on it's own. It only exists as part of "Casting a Spell".

I agree that the attack is separate, but it isn't independent. To not be "part of" Casting a Spell, it needs to be shown to be independent. The issue I have is even when you're trying to tell me I'm wrong, you continually admit that it isn't independent and is part of Casting a Spell.

At this point, unless a Dev declares you correct, I'm going to disagree with you unless you've got something new to add or are changing your stance.


If the free attack normally suffered from the regular limitations of the parent action, why would spell combat have to specifically call out that the penalties are applied?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Thank you, guys.

The rules about spell effects on page 208 connects that bridge of being a part of the spell, and states that the spell is considered an attack spell. (for those joining in, the spell used is most likely Shocking Grasp, or another Touch Attack spell like it)

The breakdown is this.

Spell Combat.

Ultimate Magic Spell Combat magus ability - Page 10:
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.

So, if functions much like Two-Weapon fighting, with the off hand being the spell as the weapon. Interesting that he can not cast the spell between weapon attacks.

Core Rulebook - Combat section - Touch Spells In Combat - Page 185:
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. You
may take your move before casting the spell, after touching
the target, or between casting the spell and touching the
target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the
spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must
succeed on an attack roll.

So, you cast the spell and then touch the target. This is then separated into two events of cast > touch in the next sentence. This does not ignore the previous sentence, it clarifies the basic resolution of touch spells.

Core Rulebook - Combat section - Ranged Touch Spells in Combat - page 186:
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. Ranged touch
attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the
spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless
otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held
until a later turn.

So this is the Ranged touch attacks mentioned earlier. This means the only spells that can be held are Melee Touch Attacks, like Shocking Grasp.

Core Rulebook - Magic Section - Special Spell Effects - Page 208:
Special Spell Effects
Many special spell effects are handled according to the
school of the spells in question. Certain other special
spell features are found across spell schools.
Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All
offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage
opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel
energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures
in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving
throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or
hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters
or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves
don’t harm anyone.

So the spell is considered an attack, because it will cause damage.

Core Rulebook - Feats - Whirlwind Attack - Page 137:
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.

Now, since the spell cast is considered an attack, and is the off hand weapon in Spell Combat, it is "forfeit"ed for the effects of Whirlwind Attack. This is assuming that the two abilities can work together.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Because it's part of Casting a Spell. Literally.

That's not an explanation.

If I cast a spell as a standard action, use a move action to move, and then a free action to attack, how is that free action not 'separate' from the standard action?

Also, inside that part of the rule, it literally tells you that you get a separate free action. Literally.

But the free action is part of Casting a Spell.

Unless you can find a separate independent entry to claim it isn't part of that rule.

Part of it in that you must cast the spell in order to deliver as a free action in the same round. But that's about as much affiliation that it possesses.

Ozy's point is that, if it's part of casting the spell, then you can't hold the charge. Why? Because delivering must be part of casting, as you just said. Once you cast the spell, the spell is cast, therefore, if you try to deliver the spell after it's cast, you can't, because the spell is already cast, and you can't deliver it unless you cast it again, which dissipates the previous casting of the spell.


thaX wrote:

Thank you, guys.

The rules about spell effects on page 208 connects that bridge of being a part of the spell, and states that the spell is considered an attack spell. (for those joining in, the spell used is most likely Shocking Grasp, or another Touch Attack spell like it)

The breakdown is this.

-snip-

Thanks for posting your argument (and the relevant RAW) in full. Now it's time for the cross-examination...

Spell Combat:

If it were to function as TWF, then the TWF FAQ requires that you take all primary attacks in order from highest to lowest, then secondary attacks in order from highest to lowest. In fact, if we went strictly based off of that, the rules would require that you make your melee attacks first, as they are the primary, since Spell Combat denotes your off-hand as the spell being cast.

However, the ability specifically notes that, which means the mention and/or restrictions of TWF has no bearing on this factor. I figured you should know this, since you seem puzzled over the fact that Spell Combat has specific ramifications for something that TWF rules already have covered, because this demonstrates that you, yourself, don't have the full understandings and ramifications of TWF. Because if you did, this wouldn't have been a surprise to you.

Touch Spells in Combat:

Also note that the Free Action to deliver isn't limited to your turn, as you would assume, but limited to the round. Ironically enough, you still cannot ready a regular Touch Spell to deliver onto an enemy outside of your round, since the Free Action to touch would have to be readied to deliver the spell, which you cannot do since Readying an Action is a Standard Action, something which you already did to cast a spell.

The problem with this is that we aren't in agreement as far as A->B is concerned. The thing is that you're trying to say that it's both A->B and A=B at once (that is, you cast then touch, but then state that touching is part of the spell).

The two equations are mutually exclusive. You can't have both, it's a time paradox. If I go to cast and touch, then that'd simply be part of the action required to cast the spell (which hypothetically, would allow for readying touch spells as I described in the first paragraph here). The factor that we have to resort to A->B alone, as the rules say, should be enough evidence that delivering the spell (B) is its own entity, separate from casting the spell (A). And might I add, A=B causes a lot more problems and rules inconsistencies than A->B, such as by nullifying Holding the Charge rules, not being able to move in-between casting or delivering (since casting and delivering are one and the same), and so on.

Ranged Touch Spells in Combat:

It also has wording different from the normal Touch Spells section, which is an indication that its ramifications are separate. It's also the only section that explicitly mentions "attack as part of casting the spell," which means that any assumption to the other sections is at-best, conjecture, and opens the path for the countercase of Specific Trumps General. That is, the specifics of Ranged Touch Spells, Trumps the General rule of Melee (or other) Touch Spells; and as such, the statement would apply only to Ranged Touch Spells. (I will say that on the point of Ranged Touch Spells, we are in agreement.)

Special Spell Effects:

I'll say this for the last time; this interpretation makes Spell Combat equivalent to Prone Shooter, something which is easily highly unintended. Why? Because this means I can substitute casting a spell for any attack I make, iterative or otherwise, and in the case of Full Attacks, characters who can cast spells (specifically, Melee Touch Spells) just became a lot stronger than characters who cannot. Spell Combat is designed to be able to cast spells and full attack, simultaneously. Telling me that I can do that without Spell Combat is just plain silly. Not only is the class feature nullification unintended, but it gives a likewise unintended offensive boost to characters who can simply use or cast touch spells. Remember the Bloodrager V.S. Barbarian example I gave you? It's still there and existing.

Whirlwind Attack:

This is really just an expansion from the previous entity, but with this, you'd now suggest that, if I have a previously-cast Shocking Grasp, and missed my attacks (while holding the charge, which by the A->B + A=B rules, is impossible, but play along with it for now), that if I attempt to perform Whirlwind Attack in the following round, ANY effect that is hostile is forfeited and lost?

So, any previously cast Shocking Grasp dissipates, any Flaming, Flaming Burst, Sneak Attack, and so on, would not apply either? What about Lay On Hands, Conductive Weapons, etc.? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds when we enforce the rule in that manner?

I understand you'd respond with the rebuttal "Well, if what the rules say is supposedly wrong, then what are we supposed to go with?" To which point, SKR would tell you "Common sense." Sounds crazy, and in a rules forum, it basically is. But if the Courageous Property FAQ/Errata has taught me anything, it's that "If the game term somehow doesn't make sense or is applicable, use the literal dictionary term." Attack, as a literal dictionary term, which turns up "an aggressive and violent action against a person or place."

So, in the context of a literal attack (and not the game term)? Yes, I can totally agree with a spell (potentially, based on the conditions and ramifications listed,) being an attack. But as far as it being synonymous with the game term? No way.

No way in hell. No way in heaven. No way in purgatory. No way in the developer's office, would I agree with a spell being synonymous with attack. The mechanics are too different, and the variables don't match up for it to be likened to themselves.

Anyway, that's the cross-examination. I await the counter-cross-examination that you would like to provide.

**EDIT** Band-aid applied to help reduce the wall-of-text-syndrome appearing in this post.


PRD wrote:

Special Spell Effects

Many special spell effects are handled according to the school of the spells in question. Certain other special spell features are found across spell schools. Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone.

Unless I've misunderstood you, you've previously made the argument that WW and spell combat do not work together because the spell is an attack?

Are you changing your position on this, and that only spells that are an attack cannot be used? So a shield spell would be allowed?

Because I see several flaws with your initial claim that no spells can be cast based on your reasoning here.

Lets start with

PRD wrote:


Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone.

So if I cast a shield spell, it is not an attack, because it does not harm anyone. Would you then allow WW and spell combat with a shield spell. If I recall correctly, you've previously indicated no, but based on your logic above it seems you'd have to allow it.

thaX wrote:


So the spell is considered an attack, because it will cause damage.

You have likewise erred in this (though perhaps this was just you using brevity in your comments).

PRD wrote:


All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents, are considered attacks.

A spell counting as an attack (when it is appropriate to consider a spell as an attack) is not based upon it doing damage, but on it harming another in any fashion.

This definition of attack however, is the wrong definition to be using (IMO). This should only be applied when considering whether it breaks invisibility or allows a new saving throw against an enchantment (usually the kind of enchantment that makes what could otherwise be a hostile enemy peaceful).

People have argued on these forums that smite evil bonus damage would apply to magic missile because it counted as an attack.

PDT said no it does not count as an attack, the bonus only applies to attacks that require an attack roll, it does not apply to magic missile, fireball, or other forms of damage where no attack roll was made.

People have argued that sneak attack can be applied to fireballs, channeled energy, and so forth.

PDT said no (unless you are an arcane trickster with specific rules that allow it). Otherwise SA only applies to damage from things that required an attack roll to deal damage.

We can also infer that because WW attack is a combat feat, and has nothing to do with spells, the appropriate definition of attack to use is not the one found in the chapter on spells, but the one on combat, where the definition of attack is making an attack roll. Again a spell like magic missile, even though it deals damage, is not an attack under this definition.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Because it's part of Casting a Spell. Literally.

That's not an explanation.

If I cast a spell as a standard action, use a move action to move, and then a free action to attack, how is that free action not 'separate' from the standard action?

Also, inside that part of the rule, it literally tells you that you get a separate free action. Literally.

But the free action is part of Casting a Spell.

Unless you can find a separate independent entry to claim it isn't part of that rule.

Part of it in that you must cast the spell in order to deliver as a free action in the same round. But that's about as much affiliation that it possesses.

Ozy's point is that, if it's part of casting the spell, then you can't hold the charge. Why? Because delivering must be part of casting, as you just said. Once you cast the spell, the spell is cast, therefore, if you try to deliver the spell after it's cast, you can't, because the spell is already cast, and you can't deliver it unless you cast it again, which dissipates the previous casting of the spell.

My disagreement is not through ignorance. I understand what he's trying to say. I disagree with it. I've stated why.

The free melee touch attack action to deliver a spell exists ONLY as part of casting a spell. If I'm wrong, feel free to show me evidence of it existing somewhere else.


Irontruth wrote:
The free melee touch attack action to deliver a spell exists ONLY as part of casting a spell. If I'm wrong, feel free to show me evidence of it existing somewhere else.

It does exist as a consequence of the spell, yes, but it's also a separate action.

The argument presented is that because of its existence as a separate action, it does not follow the same rules and limitations attached to the parent action, unless otherwise stated.

So, for example, spell combat alone. Normally the free attack would be made at your full base attack bonus, because the free action is not subject to the limitations of the full-attack action. However, the rules specifically call out that the free action suffers the -2 penalty, thus it suffers the -2 penalty. This is an example of specific trumps general.

To expand upon that, because the general rule is that an action doesn't suffer from the limitations of another action, the free action attack does not suffer from whirlwind attack's "give up your regular attacks" limitation.

Everyone agrees that the touch attack is a direct consequence of the spell. However, you have not demonstrated any precedent that an independent action would suffer the same restrictions as its parent action, when there is precedent that it would normally not.


In general, would you agree that when you get one aspect of a thing, you share the other aspect of the thing.

IE: Event A carries with it penalty X and penalty Y. If you're subjected to penalty X, unless specifically called out, you are also subject to penalty Y.

Am I incorrect in this generic assumption of the rules?


Johnny_Devo wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
The free melee touch attack action to deliver a spell exists ONLY as part of casting a spell. If I'm wrong, feel free to show me evidence of it existing somewhere else.

It does exist as a consequence of the spell, yes, but it's also a separate action.

The argument presented is that because of its existence as a separate action, it does not follow the same rules and limitations attached to the parent action, unless otherwise stated.

So, for example, spell combat alone. Normally the free attack would be made at your full base attack bonus, because the free action is not subject to the limitations of the full-attack action. However, the rules specifically call out that the free action suffers the -2 penalty, thus it suffers the -2 penalty. This is an example of specific trumps general.

To expand upon that, because the general rule is that an action doesn't suffer from the limitations of another action, the free action attack does not suffer from whirlwind attack's "give up your regular attacks" limitation.

Everyone agrees that the touch attack is a direct consequence of the spell. However, you have not demonstrated any precedent that an independent action would suffer the same restrictions as its parent action, when there is precedent that it would normally not.

Also, there's a difference between separate and independent. I agree, the free attack is separate. I disagree that it is independent. Show me it's independent and I'll agree with you. You still haven't done this.

If you have something new, feel free to share it. If you just disagree with me, we don't need to keep retreading this over and over.

I think the attack from casting a spell is part of the full attack action and not independent of it. I've explained why. If you disagree with me, that's your choice. Neither of us are Devs.


Quote:
Show me it's independent and I'll agree with you. You still haven't done this.

You keep saying that, but I keep presenting that there's two pieces of evidence:

1) It is its own action
2) Spell combat specifically calls out penalties to extend to it

Because spell combat must specify that, it stands to reason that it would normally not receive any of the penalties of the parent action. Therefore, because whirlwind attack doesn't specifically call out "any attack roll made as part of this spell" like spell combat does, it is not affected.

... which brings us back to the difference in definitions. As I've said, each person in the argument seems to be using different but equally valid definitions for various terms. It is an unfortunate symptom of how this game is written as a whole. Because both definitions are valid, the only thing these arguments have been presenting is "I choose to interpret it with THIS definition" which is getting us nowhere because both definitions are correct for different parts of the game.


Another detail for the difference is that if it weren't independent, you wouldn't get to take a move action in between casting and delivering the touch. You'd have more of a 5-foot only like for Full Attack, or "must continue in the next round"-type thing for full-round casting times with only a standard left in the turn you start it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
thaX wrote:

Thank you, guys.

The rules about spell effects on page 208 connects that bridge of being a part of the spell, and states that the spell is considered an attack spell. (for those joining in, the spell used is most likely Shocking Grasp, or another Touch Attack spell like it)

The breakdown is this.

-snip-

Thanks for posting your argument (and the relevant RAW) in full. Now it's time for the cross-examination...

Wow.

Spell Combat.

Spell Combat is a parallel to TWF. The main reason to use Spell Combat is to get the main attacks from the main hand and the cast spell from the off hand. That is what the ability does. Your refuting this, saying that it does... what exactly?

Touch spells in Combat.

That means, instead of attacking during your turn, you can delay and use the attack afterward when and if that delayed action fires. Once your turn comes up in the next round without using the spell, the spell is considered held. (needing a standard action to use, just like any other attack) If you just using spell combat, you can do this. When trying to use these two abilities together, then the particulars with Whirlwind Attack does come into account, using a free action to enact the effects of a standard action cast spell will not change this.

Ranged Touch Spells in Combat.

Notice, please, that the previous section did not differentiate between melee and ranged. This section clarifies that Ranged Touch Attack need to be made immediately instead of being allowed to move to get into range. Both still use the free action attack.

Special Spell Effects.

Spell Combat specifically says one attack and one spell. The statement in my quote was "So the spell is considered an attack, because it will cause damage." Where, in that quote, did I say that anyone can cast a melee touch spell at anytime?

I did ask if that was what a poster was trying to do, but that was not what you were responding to at this point.

Does it do damage? Hinder the target? Have him roll a saving throw? All three? Yes? Then. It is considered an attack. Period.

Wirlwind Attack.

Your ignoring me.

I have said from the very beginning that a held spell is able to be used during Whirlwind attack, as one of the individual attacks, just as he can when wielding two weapons. (This is not TWF at this point, Spell Combat would not be used if the character is holding a spell from the previous round)

Focus here. Casting the spell is the action we are concerned with. The question is if casting the spell is forfeit in favor of Whirlwind Attack.

My overall confusion here is that it seems your are talking beyond the context of these two abilities and whether or not they can work with one another. I never said that the spell being an attack would change the very fabric of the universal way it works with and for the normal casting of a spell or that it would force Spell Combat to be something that it could not do.

My overall contention has always been that these two abilities cannot work with one another. I have, since then, participated in these discussions about what spells would or would not be "allowed" when they are used together. I suppose when a kind and gentle GM would allow it.

Yes, the question should turn to if Buff Spells could be used instead of those that are considered attacks. Spells like Mage Armor, shield, Bull's Strength and so forth.

BBangerter, The examples you provide are those providing something extra to the base "attack" of the spell. This combination is something that prevents that spell from being cast, not an additional qualifier. Whirlwind even states " you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities." This would include the extra "attack" from Spell Combat. (If that spell counts as an attack)

All this is "if.."

If you could use these abilities together.

If you could cast that extra action spell with the Whirlwind Attack.

If you could do two Full Round Actions together.

If ... If... Only if...


Irontruth wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

It's a separate action like a quarterback is a separate member of a football team.

It's a discrete portion of the process, but it's still part of that process.

Sure, but that's not what you're using to support your ultimate conclusion. Instead, you are claiming that the free action used to make the touch attack is part of the Spell Combat full-attack action, and therefore is disallowed.

This is incorrect. It's a separate free action that can be taken after the Spell Combat has completed.

Edit: Heck, it can even be taken if the full-attack Spell Combat action was interrupted and nullified after the spell was cast.

Except Spell Combat also implies that the attack is part of the full attack. Only attacks that are part of the full attack receive the -2 penalty. All other attacks gained from sources other than the full attack do not receive that penalty (like attacks of opportunity).

So, the attack is directly gained from the full attack, and suffers the penalty of being part of that action.

Exactly wrong. It implies the opposite because Spell Combat has to explicitly ADD the spell combat penalty to the free attack. If that free attack were a bonus attack and part of the full-attack action, it would not need to include the words that added the -2 penalty to that attack.

You statement undermines your own argument.

Quote:
From my perspective you haven't shown that the attack is fully separate. The attack isn't it's own rule entry, it doesn't exist on it's own. It only exists as part of "Casting a Spell".

Fully separate? WTF does that even mean?

When you cast a spell, you move, and then you free attack. How the absolute F#$^# can the free action attack be part of the standard action that happened before you moved, and before you attacked?

Furthermore, when your full-attack action is interrupted and voided, such as by being staggered after the spell is cast you still get your free action attack

I don't know how to make it more explicit. The free action occurs at a different time than the standard action, and if the Spell Combat action is interrupted and lost, you still get your free attack action.

Just how more separate can you be?

Quote:
I agree that the attack is separate, but it isn't independent. To not be "part of" Casting a Spell, it needs to be shown to be independent. The issue I have is even when you're trying to tell me I'm wrong, you continually admit that it isn't independent and is part of Casting a Spell.

Because what you just posted, right now, is 100% meaningless with regard to the topic under discussion. It doesn't matter one little bit.


Irontruth wrote:
Johnny_Devo wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
The free melee touch attack action to deliver a spell exists ONLY as part of casting a spell. If I'm wrong, feel free to show me evidence of it existing somewhere else.

It does exist as a consequence of the spell, yes, but it's also a separate action.

The argument presented is that because of its existence as a separate action, it does not follow the same rules and limitations attached to the parent action, unless otherwise stated.

So, for example, spell combat alone. Normally the free attack would be made at your full base attack bonus, because the free action is not subject to the limitations of the full-attack action. However, the rules specifically call out that the free action suffers the -2 penalty, thus it suffers the -2 penalty. This is an example of specific trumps general.

To expand upon that, because the general rule is that an action doesn't suffer from the limitations of another action, the free action attack does not suffer from whirlwind attack's "give up your regular attacks" limitation.

Everyone agrees that the touch attack is a direct consequence of the spell. However, you have not demonstrated any precedent that an independent action would suffer the same restrictions as its parent action, when there is precedent that it would normally not.

Also, there's a difference between separate and independent. I agree, the free attack is separate. I disagree that it is independent. Show me it's independent and I'll agree with you. You still haven't done this.

If you have something new, feel free to share it. If you just disagree with me, we don't need to keep retreading this over and over.

I think the attack from casting a spell is part of the full attack action and not independent of it. I've explained why. If you disagree with me, that's your choice. Neither of us are Devs.

Show me Pathfinder rules that change how attacks are handled if they are 'independent' or 'dependent' in the rules, or stop using that word.

It means nothing.


James Risner wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Vrog Skyreaver wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:


I have provided specific examples of 'extra' and 'bonus' attacks, which are uniformly that...additions to a full-attack set of iteratives.
By this logic, wouldn't you lose your spell attack when whirlwinding anyway, since the free attack is outside of the normal progression of bab iterative rules? a bonus or extra attack granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.
Edited that for you! :)

+1

The extra attack is a bonus attack via a free action touch attack that is part of the spell casting.

There are abilities that provide extra attacks. They are called extra attacks, and are added to full-attack actions.

There are abilities that provide bonus attacks. They are called bonus attacks, and are added to full-attack actions.

Then there are free attack actions, attacks from spells, and other abilities that are just that. Attacks you can take without being part of a full-attack action.

You have no particular reason to call these 'extra' or 'bonus' attacks unless you make the assumption that 'extra' and 'bonus' are generic words rather than specific Pathfinder appellations.

Why do you suppose Pathfinder would use such specific words when they could have just as easily written a generic sentence like:

No other attacks are allowed during whirlwind. Or no other attacks are allowed until the following round.

Btw, what's your rationale for saying that free action attacks are extra/bonus, and AoOs are not?


Johnny_Devo wrote:
Quote:
Show me it's independent and I'll agree with you. You still haven't done this.

You keep saying that, but I keep presenting that there's two pieces of evidence:

1) It is its own action
2) Spell combat specifically calls out penalties to extend to it

Because spell combat must specify that, it stands to reason that it would normally not receive any of the penalties of the parent action. Therefore, because whirlwind attack doesn't specifically call out "any attack roll made as part of this spell" like spell combat does, it is not affected.

... which brings us back to the difference in definitions. As I've said, each person in the argument seems to be using different but equally valid definitions for various terms. It is an unfortunate symptom of how this game is written as a whole. Because both definitions are valid, the only thing these arguments have been presenting is "I choose to interpret it with THIS definition" which is getting us nowhere because both definitions are correct for different parts of the game.

If you keep presenting them, what makes you think I'm unaware of them?

I find your argument unpersuasive up to this point. If you have something new, I'm interested, but I'm unconvinced by the evidence presented so far. I find the evidence I've presented to be MORE compelling than what you've shown.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Johnny_Devo wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
The free melee touch attack action to deliver a spell exists ONLY as part of casting a spell. If I'm wrong, feel free to show me evidence of it existing somewhere else.

It does exist as a consequence of the spell, yes, but it's also a separate action.

The argument presented is that because of its existence as a separate action, it does not follow the same rules and limitations attached to the parent action, unless otherwise stated.

So, for example, spell combat alone. Normally the free attack would be made at your full base attack bonus, because the free action is not subject to the limitations of the full-attack action. However, the rules specifically call out that the free action suffers the -2 penalty, thus it suffers the -2 penalty. This is an example of specific trumps general.

To expand upon that, because the general rule is that an action doesn't suffer from the limitations of another action, the free action attack does not suffer from whirlwind attack's "give up your regular attacks" limitation.

Everyone agrees that the touch attack is a direct consequence of the spell. However, you have not demonstrated any precedent that an independent action would suffer the same restrictions as its parent action, when there is precedent that it would normally not.

Also, there's a difference between separate and independent. I agree, the free attack is separate. I disagree that it is independent. Show me it's independent and I'll agree with you. You still haven't done this.

If you have something new, feel free to share it. If you just disagree with me, we don't need to keep retreading this over and over.

I think the attack from casting a spell is part of the full attack action and not independent of it. I've explained why. If you disagree with me, that's your choice. Neither of us are Devs.

Show me Pathfinder rules that change how attacks are handled if they are 'independent' or 'dependent' in...

Attacks of Opportunity are independent from the full attack action, as shown by the fact that they don't suffer the penalty of using Two Weapon Fighting.

The attack from Haste is dependent, because it requires you to take the full attack action in order to trigger it (it also suffers the penalty of TWF if used in the same round).

That's an example of each.


_Ozy_ wrote:


Fully separate? WTF does that even mean?

As a broad example, the Attack action is a completely separate entry from the Cast a Spell action. Both get separate entries on the appropriate table, separate entries in the rule book (including heading formats that indicate they're separate from things around them). They also get their own entries in the index.


Irontruth wrote:

Attacks of Opportunity are independent from the full attack action, as shown by the fact that they don't suffer the penalty of using Two Weapon Fighting.

The attack from Haste is dependent, because it requires you to take the full attack action in order to trigger it (it also suffers the penalty of TWF if used in the same round).

That's an example of each.

Why are you inventing words for things Pathfinder has already identified as extra and bonus attacks? Can you actually find the words 'independent' or 'dependent' anywhere in the rules that actually refer to the game mechanic you are describing? Because I've already pointed out the words 'extra' and 'bonus' that you seem to conveniently ignore.

The attack from Haste is an extra attack. It is part of the full-attack action.

Free action attacks do not contain the word 'extra' and do not contain the word 'bonus'. They are not part of the full attack action.

I'll give you one more example, since you seem to have a difficult time with this.

A Hasted person is starting a full attack action. He manages to get his first attack, and is then staggered so he loses his full-attack action.

Does he get his hasted extra attack? No.

A Magus starts using Spell Combat, casts Shocking Grasp, and is then staggered so he loses his full-attack action.

Does he get his free action attack? YES.

See the difference?

Finally, why do you refuse to comment on the fact that Spell Combat specifically has to include the attack penalty for the free attack action, otherwise it wouldn't actually apply?


Irontruth wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:


Fully separate? WTF does that even mean?
As a broad example, the Attack action is a completely separate entry from the Cast a Spell action. Both get separate entries on the appropriate table, separate entries in the rule book (including heading formats that indicate they're separate from things around them). They also get their own entries in the index.

Are you you seriously arguing game mechanics via book formatting?

Wow. How about instead of that, we just use the words that are written, ok?

Or are you saying that 'Casting a Spell' is completely separate from the full-attack action since they are in separate sections?


Irontruth wrote:
If you keep presenting them, what makes you think I'm unaware of them?

Probably your complete refusal to address them. Just a guess. Since you do the same when I bring up those points.

You realize ignoring an argument is not quite the same as refuting it, no?

601 to 650 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.