Spell combat + Whirlwind Attack


Rules Questions

651 to 700 of 735 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

_Ozy_ wrote:
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?

Your talking down to me doesn't make your argument more compelling. It makes you seem like more an ass, but doesn't convince me that your interpretation is correct.

Really, just stop responding to me unless you have something new to say. You've done nothing but rehash the exact same points for 5-6 pages nows. I wasn't convinced then, I'm not convinced now.


Quote:
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.

Could you explain how this situation is different from the fact that the free attack would not suffer from the penalty of spell combat if spell combat did not specifically call it out?

And before you answer "but it would", consider this:

Why would they waste text space if it's not necessary to write that?


I think the important thing is that it DOES suffer the penalty. Why would it suffer the penalty if it wasn't to be considered part of the full attack?

I'm not going to speculate on the thoughts of the author not expressed on the page.


Thought: if the free-attack wasn't subject to the -2 penalty, then the arcane mark spellstrike interaction would make spell combat strictly better than the similar two-weapon fighting. That's the best idea I can give why it's stated to also inherit the penalties to the attack roll.

In any case, it's kind of unfair to state what amounts to a speculation on the thoughts of the author... and then refuse to speculate on the thoughts of the author.

"it's considered part of the full attack" is a thought not expressed on the page.

So, then, it seems we have yet another impasse. There's two interpretations of the exact same rules text and no parallel examples that we can draw from to try and convince the other.

I, personally, remain convinced that if the free attack were part of the full attack, there would be no need to specify that the penalty applies.


Irontruth wrote:
I think the important thing is that it DOES suffer the penalty. Why would it suffer the penalty if it wasn't to be considered part of the full attack?

Why does Spell Combat have to specifically add the penalty to the attack if it is part of the full attack action?

Quote:
I'm not going to speculate on the thoughts of the author not expressed on the page.

You know, this would come off a lot better if you actually addressed, just once, the above question.

This one, as well as the question regarding the loss of the full-attack action while retaining the free attack.

These two points remain unaddressed by you, and devastate your argument.

Sure, you can say they aren't new, but considering you haven't actually addressed them, much less refuted them, they remain valid. And we will keep bringing them up to remind you, and anyone else you has suffered through this thread, that you have failed to address these points.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I think the important thing is that it DOES suffer the penalty. Why would it suffer the penalty if it wasn't to be considered part of the full attack?

Why does Spell Combat have to specifically add the penalty to the attack if it is part of the full attack action?

I don't know. It's there though. To me, that makes it read as being part of the full attack.

The more I think about it, the more ridiculous your argument about this specific point sounds. It's basically an attempt to bend over backwards to discredit this rules interaction to make it inadmissible for the discussion. Instead of just looking at how these rules are interacting, you're claiming something about authorial intent that isn't expressed.

So yeah, I find this supremely unconvincing. You should harp on it more. That will definitely convince me. That last bit was sarcasm by the way.


Irontruth wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I think the important thing is that it DOES suffer the penalty. Why would it suffer the penalty if it wasn't to be considered part of the full attack?

Why does Spell Combat have to specifically add the penalty to the attack if it is part of the full attack action?

I don't know. It's there though. To me, that makes it read as being part of the full attack.

I do know.

It's there because if it wasn't there the attack wouldn't receive the penalty. Why? Because it's not part of the full attack. Like the vast majority of rules in Pathfinder, those words are there because they are necessary.

If it were part of the full-attack, those words wouldn't need to be there, and they wouldn't be. This should be the default position of reading words in the rules: Those words exist for a reason, and they mean what they say. Your interpretation fails the first part of that statement.

Now, question #2.

Why do you still get the free attack action when the full-attack is interrupted and voided?


_Ozy_ wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I think the important thing is that it DOES suffer the penalty. Why would it suffer the penalty if it wasn't to be considered part of the full attack?

Why does Spell Combat have to specifically add the penalty to the attack if it is part of the full attack action?

I don't know. It's there though. To me, that makes it read as being part of the full attack.

I do know.

It's there because if it wasn't there the attack wouldn't receive the penalty. Why? Because it's not part of the full attack. Like the vast majority of rules in Pathfinder, those words are there because they are necessary.

If it were part of the full-attack, those words wouldn't need to be there, and they wouldn't be. This should be the default position of reading words in the rules: Those words exist for a reason, and they mean what they say. Your interpretation fails the first part of that statement.

Now, question #2.

Why do you still get the free attack action when the full-attack is interrupted and voided?

You claim to know. You have a dev to quote to back up your interpretation? Or maybe you're the author? If so, you should post the reply from your Paizo handle.


Irontruth wrote:
You claim to know. You have a dev to quote to back up your interpretation?

Many of them. Every time a dev says that the words are there for a reason, it backs up my interpretation.

I'll put that against the number of times you can find a dev saying that the words in Pathfinder are meaningless any day of the week.


I agree, the words are there for the reason. The full attack penalty is applied to the attack, because it is part of the full attack. That's the only reason you'd apply full attack penalty to an attack. If it wasn't part of it, it wouldn't take the penalty.


Also because it's meant to act like two weapon fighting, where the spell is the weapon.


Quote:
The more I think about it, the more ridiculous your argument about this specific point sounds.

You earlier speak of being condescending, but you then make this remark.

I can and have admitted that your interpretation has equal technical value in terms of reasoning and evidence. I've also reasoned that because of this, there's no real way we can convince the other side without developer input and/or a FAQ.

I think I'm done engaging.


Cavall wrote:
Also because it's meant to act like two weapon fighting, where the spell is the weapon.

That may certainly be the motivation for applying the penalty to the free action touch attack, but we're talking about the mechanics and the reasons for the actual RAW.

Do you agree with Irontruth that the sentence which applies the penalty to the free action attack is superfluous?


thaX wrote:
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....

Not really. It is as I've said before, you can remove the portion of TWF from Spell Combat entirely, and its function would not change. You still suffer a -2 penalty from all of your attacks, even when you deliver the spell, as intended. You still only cast a spell whose casting time is 1 standard action. You still get the same amount of attacks. All of the ramifications for Spell Combat are clearly defined, meaning the mention of TWF becomes obsolete.

No, no, no, your interpretation is making that a requirement to delay the spell, because according to you, you must deliver the spell as you cast it, which is impossible, because by the rules, you can't deliver a spell until after the spell is cast. Time paradox. You made it, now lie with it.

I did notice it. Doesn't change that this is the only section that explicitly mentions attacks as part of casting. This circumvents the original rule that you must cast, THEN deliver. Ergo, the specifics of that section for Ranged Touch Attacks do not apply to Melee (or other forms of) Touch Attacks. For what we're arguing here (Shocking Grasp and so on), that section is meaningless, and does nothing but demonstrate that Melee Touch Spells and Ranged Touch Spells have different rules that govern how they function.

No, it says normal full attack and 1 standard action spell. I don't care if you simplified it, your interpretation would let me cast, for example, Enlarge Person, and I'd only ever get one attack, ever. Even if I have BAB +11. Not acknowledging or understanding differences like that is precisely why we're at the disagreement we're at. Also, you didn't need to say anything; when you liken one rules element with another, they become synonymous in function, and as such, interchangable. When you say spells are attacks, that means any time I can attack, I can use a spell, because according to the rules, they're the same thing. Hell, I could even, by extension, apply Spell-like Abilities in place of any attack, since SLAs are Spells, except have certain exceptions that makes them otherwise equivalent to spells, none of which exclude them from being applicable to attacks.

At what point is holding a spell relating to "being unable to use Spell Combat"? Would using Spell Combat and casting the spell first dissipate the spell being held? Yes. But it's a good thing that Spell Combat lets you attack first, before casting a spell, right?

Also, no need to focus. You're extending "attack," which is a defined game term, to mean more than what the game term is defined to mean. The one who broke the focus first, is you. Not me. I've used attack as its defined game term. You, on the other hand, are not.

You're also saying that I can't deliver a spell during Whirlwind Attack, because it's an attack, and therefore forfeit (AKA, it's lost, therefore the spell dissipates when I try to Whirlwind Attack), and in the case of Spellstriking, it's a rider-effect. That is, its damage is consequential from a successful melee attack. That, by relation, means all rider effects are forfeit, because those are also "attacks," by your definition, and Whirlwind forfeits all of them, EXCEPT the ones granted by Whirlwind Attack. And again, you may not directly saying it, but your interpretation (and how others perceive that interpretation) certainly is. And that's what we're arguing against. Your interpretation of "attack."


_Ozy_ wrote:
Cavall wrote:
Also because it's meant to act like two weapon fighting, where the spell is the weapon.

That may certainly be the motivation for applying the penalty to the free action touch attack, but we're talking about the mechanics and the reasons for the actual RAW.

Do you agree with Irontruth that the sentence which applies the penalty to the free action attack is superfluous?

Evidently you don't understand my position if you think I said it was superfluous. Though I doubt going over it again is going to improve your understanding. Making up stances for me isn't ver endearing though.


Yeah, James, that's real helpful instead of trying to actually participate in some of the points raised and critiques of your position, which you seem to studiously avoid.

And, your post added what exactly?

That said, I agree that it has long since become unproductive so I'll leave this one final point to all those who seem to think that the free action attack from casting Shocking Grasp in Spell Combat is identical to the extra attack from TWF:

If you start TWF, make your main attack, get staggered and lose the remainder of your full-attack action, you lose your extra off-hand attack.

If you start Spell Combat, cast Shocking Grasp, get staggered and lose the remainder of your full-attack action, you still get to make your free action attack.

They are different. As in not the same. No matter how many times you say otherwise.


Assuming you're able to cast it using SC+WWA in the first place...


Kryzbyn wrote:
Assuming you're able to cast it using SC+WWA in the first place...

That was just using Spell Combat for comparison vs. TWF. The implications for Whirlwind are the next step in the long hashed out chain.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Assuming you're able to cast it using SC+WWA in the first place...
That was just using Spell Combat for comparison vs. TWF. The implications for Whirlwind are the next step in the long hashed out chain.

The subject of the thread is the interaction between these two abilities.

Yes, you can cast a spell while performing Spell Combat in addition to full attacking with the weapon. That has never, nor have anyone but Darksol have indicated, is the issue here. The main question is about the casting of the spell on top of the single attack when using Spell Combat combined with Whirlwind Attack. --->List

  • Can the two Abilities be used together?
  • Can a spell even be cast considering the parallel between Spell Combat and Two Weapon Fighting?
  • If the spell can be cast, is it forfeited when it is considered an attack by Whirlwind Attack?
  • If the spell can be cast, can the character cast buff spells with that casting as well as attack each individual target in range, or will it replace one of those attacks?

The question on whether or not a spell is separate from it's own effects should not be a question.


thaX wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Assuming you're able to cast it using SC+WWA in the first place...
That was just using Spell Combat for comparison vs. TWF. The implications for Whirlwind are the next step in the long hashed out chain.

The subject of the thread is the interaction between these two abilities.

Yes, you can cast a spell while performing Spell Combat in addition to full attacking with the weapon. That has never, nor have anyone but Darksol have indicated, is the issue here. The main question is about the casting of the spell on top of the single attack when using Spell Combat combined with Whirlwind Attack. --->List

  • Can the two Abilities be used together?
  • Can a spell even be cast considering the parallel between Spell Combat and Two Weapon Fighting?
  • If the spell can be cast, is it forfeited when it is considered an attack by Whirlwind Attack?
  • If the spell can be cast, can the character cast buff spells with that casting as well as attack each individual target in range, or will it replace one of those attacks?

The question on whether or not a spell is separate from it's own effects should not be a question.

Let's tackle that list then.

-Spell Combat is akin to a Full Attack Action based on the FAQ, and Whirlwind Attack alters a given Full Attack Action. Flurry of Blows would likewise fall under that premise. To say they don't combine means the FAQ does not actually treat Spell Combat as a Full Attack Action for "other effects," which translates to a FAQ being useless and not doing what it actually says. This would also be twice now that you'd betray FAQs, since you are of the mind that a familiar who delivers a touch spell for you breaks invisibility, even though a FAQ says no.

-No, normally, a spell can't be cast in place of any given attack. Well, by your interpretation, you can, but that requires treating spells as the attack game term, which breaks the game in so many ways that you don't even want to imagine. Spell Combat was specifically designed to allow spellcasting with attacks (as the game term), since by normal standards, it's impossible.

Also, consider the name; SPELL Combat. It's not SPELL-LIKE ABILITY Combat, it's not SUPERNATURAL Combat. Heck, it's not even GM FIAT Combat. It's SPELL Combat. Questioning if Spell Combat lets you actually cast a spell because it refers to TWF for no g!~~&@n reason other than to confuse people is like questioning if Fighters really do fight because it's a poorly-designed class.

-Perhaps the most contended point here, and that's because of the two interpretations; that Whirlwind Attack removes attacks, the literal definition, which refers to a harmful/hostile action against a person, place, or thing, or removes attacks, the game term definition, which refers to an activity that requires an attack roll against the relevant AC/CMD to succeed. The former is your interpretation. The latter is mine.

To put it simply, look at the ramifications of the two interpretations. The former breaks the game in ways that are beyond fixing without simply throwing the system out the window, and I've provided a couple solid examples (with several more that others can find that I'm too lazy to leaf through). The latter doesn't do any of that, and the game remains (for the most part) consistent and coherent. From that information, the proper answer should seem quite obvious.

-Whether it's a buff spell or not makes no difference. Whirlwind Attack doesn't care about buff spells. Heck, it doesn't even care about spells that simply do random effects (like Create Water). All it cares about are attacks (the game term, not the literal definition). And unless a spell being cast makes an attack, it's not considered an attack to remove. Case in point, Ranged Touch Attacks explicitly state that attack(s) are made when you cast a Ranged Touch spell. If that attack is in excess of the amount given to you by Whirlwind Attack, then those attacks do not take place, as they are forfeited.

-BONUS: As for whether a spell and its effects are separate, I'd say it does pose a valid question, because if a spell's effects are not an attack (again, the game term definition, not the literal one), then that translates to the spell itself not generating an attack (which would otherwise be in excess of the ones granted by Whirlwind Attack).

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

2 people marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:
Yeah, James, that's real helpful instead of trying to actually participate in some of the points raised and critiques of your position, which you seem to studiously avoid.

I've made my points.

Others have made my points.

I short:
* I don't believe it works via the FAQ because Spell Combat is a full round not a full attack except for things like Haste which Whirlwind isn't.
* I don't believe it works because the spell is an attack and whirlwind blocks extra attacks.
* I don't believe it works because the free action attack is a bonus extra attack.

So in short, I don't think it works for three reasons, all of which have been debated in here. This thread will never reach a conclusion we all agree upon together.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So the entry in the Special Spell Effects should be ignored? Is that what your saying?

Lets look at this quote from Darksol...

Quote:


Also, consider the name; SPELL Combat. It's not SPELL-LIKE ABILITY Combat, it's not SUPERNATURAL Combat. Heck, it's not even GM FIAT Combat. It's SPELL Combat. Questioning if Spell Combat lets you actually cast a spell because it refers to TWF for no g&*%*$n reason other than to confuse people is like questioning if Fighters really do fight because it's a poorly-designed class.

So, where are you getting this?

Spell Combat allows for two actions in a full round, a full attack (Main Hand) and the casting of a spell (Off Hand) . This has never been disputed.

The problem is when you are using Spell Combat with Whirlwind Attack. This is where, in a full round action, the two abilities butt heads. The spell is an extra action. This should not be in dispute. The question is if it is an action that would be forfeited by the Whirlwind Attack in favor of attacking each enemy a single time. If it is, why use these two abilities together?

When a spell does damage, it is considered an attack.

From what your saying, a character can use Burning Hands, Color Spray, Charm Person, Black Tentacles, and a lot of other spells that are still considered an attack.

Both Melee and Ranged attacks use a free action attack, the difference is that Ranged Attacks need to be used immediately after casting, and that Ranged attacks cause AoO's if done next to an enemy.

Quote:
This would also be twice now that you'd betray FAQs, since you are of the mind that a familiar who delivers a touch spell for you breaks invisibility, even though a FAQ says no.

Look again. I said that the spell is used instead by the familiar, keeping the caster away from the effects of the spell and the caster stays invisible because of that. It is a transference, and that what the FAQ is about, and totally has no bearing on the issue at hand.

Quote:
Perhaps the most contended point here, and that's because of the two interpretations; that Whirlwind Attack removes attacks, the literal definition, which refers to a harmful/hostile action against a person, place, or thing, or removes attacks, the game term definition, which refers to an activity that requires an attack roll against the relevant AC/CMD to succeed. The former is your interpretation. The latter is mine.

I will quote something else here before I respond...

Ultimate Magic wrote:

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.

So, the off hand action that is in addition to the attacks from the main hand is the casting of the spell. If that spell is considered an attack, why would it matter if it uses a D20? There is no bonuses to calculate here, your not adding on Inspire Courage and Bless, this is a Yes/No question.

Attack? Yes? No? If yes, it is forfeit for the Whirlwind effects.

This is assuming your first theory is plausible, that these two abilities can be used together.


thaX wrote:
Both Melee and Ranged attacks use a free action attack, the difference is that Ranged Attacks need to be used immediately after casting,

This is why it's useless to argue. ~90% of the people posting know that this is incorrect, and yet only the people who disagree with you will call you out on it, which gives you the false impression that you are not wrong.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Yeah, James, that's real helpful instead of trying to actually participate in some of the points raised and critiques of your position, which you seem to studiously avoid.

I've made my points.

Others have made my points.

I short:
* I don't believe it works via the FAQ because Spell Combat is a full round not a full attack except for things like Haste which Whirlwind isn't.
* I don't believe it works because the spell is an attack and whirlwind blocks extra attacks.
* I don't believe it works because the free action attack is a bonus extra attack.

So in short, I don't think it works for three reasons, all of which have been debated in here. This thread will never reach a conclusion we all agree upon together.

Ditto, man, Ditto.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
thaX wrote:
Both Melee and Ranged attacks use a free action attack, the difference is that Ranged Attacks need to be used immediately after casting,
This is why it's useless to argue. ~90% of the people posting know that this is incorrect, and yet only the people who disagree with you will call you out on it, which gives you the false impression that you are not wrong.

This is the passage that confused me about this.

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. The act of casting a
spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity.
Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks
and ranged touch attacks.

It doesn't say anything about Ranged Touch Attacks not being a Free Action until later, then it says it is the same "action" as the casting.

Clearly, some kind of disconnect is happening here. That a spell is not considered something and is a separate entity than the attack that delivers it's effects is a new one on me. That the free attack is somehow used outside of the full round is sketchy, and saying that the two are not from the same source is mind boggling.

This is the description of the spell Shocking Grasp.

Quote:

Your successful melee touch attack deals 1d6 points of electricity

damage per caster level (maximum 5d6). When delivering the jolt,
you gain a +3 bonus on attack rolls if the opponent is wearing metal
armor (or is carrying a metal weapon or is made of metal).

Is the mention of a Free Attack there? Would the character still be invisible if the attack misses? Would a Rogue still be invisible if he misses a sneak attack?

The reason the Free Attack is there is for the caster to go up to the target and then touch him. This does not allow for a end around the Whirlwind Attack or any other full round action.


thaX wrote:
James Risner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Yeah, James, that's real helpful instead of trying to actually participate in some of the points raised and critiques of your position, which you seem to studiously avoid.

I've made my points.

Others have made my points.

I short:
* I don't believe it works via the FAQ because Spell Combat is a full round not a full attack except for things like Haste which Whirlwind isn't.
* I don't believe it works because the spell is an attack and whirlwind blocks extra attacks.
* I don't believe it works because the free action attack is a bonus extra attack.

So in short, I don't think it works for three reasons, all of which have been debated in here. This thread will never reach a conclusion we all agree upon together.

Ditto, man, Ditto.

Same for me on those points. Repetition isn't helping either side.


thaX wrote:

So the entry in the Special Spell Effects should be ignored? Is that what your saying?

Lets look at this quote from Darksol...

Quote:


Also, consider the name; SPELL Combat. It's not SPELL-LIKE ABILITY Combat, it's not SUPERNATURAL Combat. Heck, it's not even GM FIAT Combat. It's SPELL Combat. Questioning if Spell Combat lets you actually cast a spell because it refers to TWF for no g&*%*$n reason other than to confuse people is like questioning if Fighters really do fight because it's a poorly-designed class.

So, where are you getting this?

Spell Combat allows for two actions in a full round, a full attack (Main Hand) and the casting of a spell (Off Hand) . This has never been disputed.

The problem is when you are using Spell Combat with Whirlwind Attack. This is where, in a full round action, the two abilities butt heads. The spell is an extra action. This should not be in dispute. The question is if it is an action that would be forfeited by the Whirlwind Attack in favor of attacking each enemy a single time. If it is, why use these two abilities together?

When a spell does damage, it is considered an attack.

From what your saying, a character can use Burning Hands, Color Spray, Charm Person, Black Tentacles, and a lot of other spells that are still considered an attack.

Both Melee and Ranged attacks use a free action attack, the difference is that Ranged Attacks need to be used immediately after casting, and that Ranged attacks cause AoO's if done next to an enemy.

Quote:
This would also be twice now that you'd betray FAQs, since you are of the mind that a familiar who delivers a touch spell for you breaks invisibility, even though a FAQ says no.
Look again. I said that the spell is used instead by the familiar, keeping the caster away from the effects of the spell and the caster stays invisible because of that. It is a transference, and that what the FAQ is about, and totally has no bearing on the issue at hand....

I'm saying if we took that entry under your interpretation, it breaks the game in unintended consequences. Therefore, for that entry to not break the game, it has to mean something else besides your interpretation. Otherwise, spellcasters become better martials than...well...martials. And that's not acceptable, both in game design, and in intent of the rules.

I'm getting that because you're questioning if SPELL Combat lets you cast SPELLS. It's within the name that yes, spells are involved. Saying that they aren't is just plain silly, and defeats the purpose of giving the class feature that name if it doesn't do anything like what it says on the tin. There are still subjects in this book that result from stuff like this (Prone Shooter, which just reduces the penalties and increases the bonuses by half while prone, and doesn't matter if you're using a ranged projectile weapon or not, as the name would imply), but I'm demonstrating that this ability certainly isn't one of those instances.

You perform the two activities listed as part of the action defined in the class feature. That doesn't mean you take two actions as one action. Not everything is defined as an action. Attacks of Opportunity, for example, aren't an action. 5 foot steps, likewise, aren't an action. Nocking an arrow, likewise is not an action. Some things just simply aren't actions, and an activity that normally requires an action, but is performed as part of another ability, does not mean it still requires its separate action. This is why, for example, we're saying Whirlwind Attack can be done with anything that counts as or says it requires a Full Attack Action, because the feat allows you to modify the attacks you make in that Full Attack.

Except, under your paradigm, apparently everything HAS to be an action of some type. That sort of logic breaks the game. Spell Combat would require both a Full Attack Action (for the attacks) and a Standard Action (for the spell), which is physically impossible by the rules of action economy, assuming we stuck with the ideal that "every activity is an action". So, keep suggesting that they're actions, because when you do that, the rules fail upon themselves and the ability doesn't work as it was originally designed to do. Same goes for saying TWF and Spell Combat are the same or identical in some fashion, because once again, you're making the rules fail upon themselves.

Yes, that's precisely what I am saying. Because none of those spells require an attack roll from the caster. Burning Hands, Color Spray, and Charm Person do not require an attack roll from the caster, which is precisely what an attack, as a game term, refers to; making a hostile action that requires an attack roll to succeed at. Black Tentacles, while it conjures tentacles that perform hostile actions (and would be grounds for invisibility to dissipate) and require an attack roll, they are an entity separate from the caster, and therefore wouldn't be an attack the caster makes. It's the same reason why creatures created from Summon Monster wouldn't be an attack from the caster, and is a direct example from the same section you quoted.

No, they don't. The Ranged Touch Attack section specifically outlines that the attack rolls are done as part of casting the spell, and don't give you the option of A->B, nor can you hold the charge on them to deliver them in the following round. This is once again a superseding of the general rules of Touch Spells, and means that you must either attack with the Ranged Touch Spell as you cast it, meaning no Free Action is needed on the caster's part, or you don't attack with it at all.

Yes, it does. You've said that casting the spell breaks invisibility, because the spell is the attack, right? With the familiar "Deliver Touch Spells" feature, you're still the one casting the spell, it's just the familiar is the one that delivers the spell. Therefore, how can you, in one instance, cast a spell and break invisibility, and then in another practically identical instance, cast the very same spell, and not break invisibility, when the proxy for breaking invisibility and the trigger for that proxy has not changed between the two instances?

If the spell is considered an attack in what context? The problem is that the Magic chapter applies one context, the literal definition, whereas the Combat chapter applies another, the game term definition.

In terms of the former context, being a hostile action? Depends on the spell effect. Some are, some aren't. You already listed the section that determines if a spell is a hostile action or not, and from there it's self-evident as to which spells would and would not be considered an "attack."

In terms of the latter context, being an attack roll? Again, depends on if the spell requires an attack roll to succeed, is not an entity separate from and if they can postpone the attack roll to until after Whirlwind Attack ends. Melee Touch Attacks can be held until the end of their Full Attack Action (which means Whirlwind Attack's limitations are over, and the spellcaster can continue his round as normal). Ranged Touch Attacks cannot, since they must be done as part of casting the spell, which is done during Whirlwind Attack.

And even then, certain Magus Arcana can still apply the effects of Ranged Touch Attacks to Melee Attacks, as if they were Melee Touch Attacks, so there's that to contend with as well, if I were a Magus who wanted to utilize the effects of Scorching Ray (because I ran out of 1st level spell slots for Shocking Grasp).

So really, it's not as simple as "Yes/No," because there are a lot of variables to consider, and determining what spells fall under what variable definitions becomes a case-by-case basis. Because spells like Burning Hands, Fireball, and so on, fall under the former context, whereas spells like Shocking Grasp, Frigid Touch, and so on, fall under both the former and the latter context, in that they are hostile actions that also require attack rolls to succeed.


thaX wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
thaX wrote:
Both Melee and Ranged attacks use a free action attack, the difference is that Ranged Attacks need to be used immediately after casting,
This is why it's useless to argue. ~90% of the people posting know that this is incorrect, and yet only the people who disagree with you will call you out on it, which gives you the false impression that you are not wrong.

This is the passage that confused me about this.

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. The act of casting a
spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity.
Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks
and ranged touch attacks.

It doesn't say anything about Ranged Touch Attacks not being a Free Action until later, then it says it is the same "action" as the casting.

Clearly, some kind of disconnect is happening here. That a spell is not considered something and is a separate entity than the attack that delivers it's effects is a new one on me. That the free attack is somehow used outside of the full round is sketchy, and saying that the two are not from the same source is mind boggling.

This is the description of the spell Shocking Grasp.

Quote:

Your successful melee touch attack deals 1d6 points of electricity

damage per caster level (maximum 5d6). When delivering the jolt,
you gain a +3 bonus on attack rolls if the opponent is wearing metal
armor (or is carrying a metal weapon or is made of metal).

Is the mention of a Free Attack there? Would the character still be invisible if the attack misses? Would a Rogue still be invisible if he misses a sneak attack?

The reason the Free Attack is there is for the caster to go up to the target and then touch him. This does not allow for a end around the Whirlwind Attack or any other full round action.

The Combat Chapter from the PRD says that a Touch Attack (in general) is done as a free action in the same round as casting a Touch Spell. While you must still cast the spell first, you can still deliver the spell inbetween movement. Even if you miss, you hold the charge until the spell's effect takes place.

Ranged Touch Spells in the PRD have their own (specific) section, separate from the general Touch Attack section, that says the attack from those spells are done as part of casting the spell, meaning movement inbetween "delivering the spell" is impossible. Same goes for holding the charge.

Specific Trumps General. I don't know how much easier I can put that.

That is the disconnect you're missing.

It's not going to mention it in the Shocking Grasp description because the Shocking Grasp spell modifies the Touch Attack you make. You can always make a Touch Attack in place of whatever attack you make (after all, how else can you deliver a Touch Spell if you miss it in the round that you cast it?), but most choose not to because simply touching a creature does nothing (I mean, it's 0D0 damage). Whereas with the Shocking Grasp spell cast, simply Touching the target with a Touch Attack delivers its effects.

As far as missing the attack roll, that wouldn't work because you made an attack roll. It doesn't matter if you missed or not, the factor that you took the action to deliver the spell means you performed a hostile act is what determines whether you'd break invisibility or not. Rogue Sneak Attack would fall under the same paradigm.

No, the reason the Free Action option is listed is because if it wasn't, Touch Spells would be overly clunky and almost pointless to use. Look at True Strike as a prime example of how clunky Touch Spells would be; having to waste a round to cast a spell, and then another just to deliver it, is just horrible game design. True Strike is purposefully designed to not be a spell like that, and because if it was, it'd be stupidly overpowered. (Look at all the threads who want an At-Will Quickened or Constant True Strike effect item, and you'd understand why.) The reason the sentence(s) of stating you can move is so when you cast the spell, you can go up to the target and touch them, and is technically redundant, since the rules without that section would permit you to do that anyway. Remember my "A->B->C/C->A->B/A->C->B" argument? Here it is again.

If I can't deliver an already-cast Melee Touch spell when Whirlwind Attack ends, then I can't cast (and deliver) a Quickened Melee Touch Spell after or during Whirlwind Attack either, because all of those options can be taken at the same time as themselves. You can't have it both ways, that's a paradox. Even James Risner would tell you that much.


How can the statement of saying Spell Combat allows an offhand spell and no one is disputing that be considered a questioning of if it allows a spell to be cast?

That isn't helping.


thaX wrote:

This is the passage that confused me about this.

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. The act of casting a
spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity.
Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks
and ranged touch attacks.

It doesn't say anything about Ranged Touch Attacks not being a Free Action until later, then it says it is the same "action" as the casting.

Clearly, some kind of disconnect is happening here. That a spell is not considered something and is a separate entity than the attack that delivers it's effects is a new one on me. That the free attack is somehow used outside of the full round is sketchy, and saying that the two are not from the same source is mind boggling.

Ah, I think I see the problem. You are using the d20pfsrd instead of the rules at paizo.com. Go here and scroll down to the section on touch attacks.

You'll notice the formatting is different. Ranged Touch spell attacks are not part of any 'general' touch attack section (unlike d20pfsrd). This is why using formatting as a counter to actual words is unreliable.

Hope that clears up your confusion. (eh, ninja'd a bit, but follow the link).

Now, to answer your other question I'll ask one of mine. Is it 'sketchy' that someone can use the free-attack action outside of the standard action to cast it normally?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

...

I get that you think there is some sort of problem with my overall understanding of the rules. I have seen this explanation you have proffered in several different ways and my question is always the same.

How?

How is the interaction between Spell Combat and Whirlwind attack somehow an indication on how Spell Combat works at all?

Why is a spell not considered a second action because of a Melee touch Free Action is used as a means to complete the effects of the spell?

What am I supposed to do with the rules that expand on how the spell is used, how it is cast and what it counts as? Ignore them?

You keep going back to "free action" as if it explains away all the other interactions of this issue. That if the spell is somehow a certain way, the ability would not work.

That is your interpretation, not mine. Leave me out of it.

Here...you said

Quote:
If I can't deliver an already-cast Melee Touch spell when Whirlwind Attack ends, then I can't cast (and deliver) a Quickened Melee Touch Spell after or during Whirlwind Attack either, because all of those options can be taken at the same time as themselves. You can't have it both ways, that's a paradox. Even James Risner would tell you that much.

Pandora would be ashamed.

The Free Action Attack is made available through the Standard/part of a full action attack that was used to cast the spell. It is connected to that spell, and when you use that attack, it is as a part of the action it came from.

A swift action, when doing a Quickened spell, is done as a Swift action. Not the free attack action itself, but the ACTUAL CASTING OF THE SPELL. See the difference there.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I got it off my PDF of the Core Rulebook. The Ranged Touch Spells section is further down the page. Until you get to that section, the Free Action action is not specified for Melee attack only. It ends up that way, you were right about that.

To answer your question, Ozzy, it is done as a part of completing that action, and the attack would not be outside the norm to allow for an attack from elsewhere, like getting another Standard action. Spell Combat gets those actions with the Main Hand. (again, Spell Combat uses a full round action)

It is a free action to do a lot of stuff a player takes for granted. Talking during combat, drawing an arrow and other things I just can't think of at the moment. To separate every single instance of Free Actions that result in the accomplishment of regular ones would be to segment the round into a whole lot of gaming pain. Do we really want a return of Weapon speeds?


thaX wrote:

I got it off my PDF of the Core Rulebook. The Ranged Touch Spells section is further down the page. Until you get to that section, the Free Action action is not specified for Melee attack only. It ends up that way, you were right about that.

To answer your question, Ozzy, it is done as a part of completing that action, and the attack would not be outside the norm to allow for an attack from elsewhere, like getting another Standard action. Spell Combat gets those actions with the Main Hand. (again, Spell Combat uses a full round action)

It is a free action to do a lot of stuff a player takes for granted. Talking during combat, drawing an arrow and other things I just can't think of at the moment. To separate every single instance of Free Actions that result in the accomplishment of regular ones would be to segment the round into a whole lot of gaming pain. Do we really want a return of Weapon speeds?

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm asking a very simple question.

Do you find it sketchy that someone can do this:

standard action: Cast shocking grasp [end of standard action]
move action: move to enemy [end of move action]
free action: touch attack enemy [end of free action]

Do you find it sketchy that the free action can happen AFTER and OUTSIDE of the standard action?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

That is the reason the section is using the free action, so one can move and effect the attack. It doesn't remove the Standard action used to cast the spell.

Tell me, why would the attack be outside of a full round action? You can already 5ft step between attacks, and your move action is used as a part of the full round action.

The casting of the spell is a part of that full round action, it is one of the actions used in Spell Combat. The Character either holds the spell (until next round) or attacks during the full round action. If he waits, the turn is over and the spell is lost, or likely held until the next round. What your saying it that the spell can be used at anytime despite what the character is doing, that a full round action is somehow different for spells than it is for everything else in the game.

edit...

Let me add something here.

Thinking on this, I believe there is some confusion on actions and what is being discussed. I will break it down here simply.

As a standard action, a spell is cast. That is done. A character can choose to move to a target, then complete the effects of the spell with the free action attack. This is not in dispute. It never should be.

As a standard action, An attack is made with a weapon. One can move first then attack, but there are no AoO's involved from using that weapon like there is with the casting of a spell.

Now...

As a full round action, a magus character can use Spell Combat, and attack with the weapon and cast a spell. If that spell has an attack, it is used during the full round action. This is what is in dispute.

That attacks need to be made during a full round action. Whirlwind Attack actually uses a specific type of full round action, called a Full Attack.

Quote:

If you get more than one attack per round because your

base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus
in Chapter 3), 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.

If you use a free action to attack, it still needs to be when the character is attacking, during the full round action.


thaX wrote:

...

I get that you think there is some sort of problem with my overall understanding of the rules. I have seen this explanation you have proffered in several different ways and my question is always the same.

How?

How is the interaction between Spell Combat and Whirlwind attack somehow an indication on how Spell Combat works at all?

Why is a spell not considered a second action because of a Melee touch Free Action is used as a means to complete the effects of the spell?

What am I supposed to do with the rules that expand on how the spell is used, how it is cast and what it counts as? Ignore them?

You keep going back to "free action" as if it explains away all the other interactions of this issue. That if the spell is somehow a certain way, the ability would not work.

That is your interpretation, not mine. Leave me out of it.

Here...you said

Quote:
If I can't deliver an already-cast Melee Touch spell when Whirlwind Attack ends, then I can't cast (and deliver) a Quickened Melee Touch Spell after or during Whirlwind Attack either, because all of those options can be taken at the same time as themselves. You can't have it both ways, that's a paradox. Even James Risner would tell you that much.

Pandora would be ashamed.

The Free Action Attack is made available through the Standard/part of a full action attack that was used to cast the spell. It is connected to that spell, and when you use that attack, it is as a part of the action it came from.

A swift action, when doing a Quickened spell, is done as a Swift action. Not the free attack action itself, but the ACTUAL CASTING OF THE SPELL. See the difference there.

The interaction between the two isn't really relevant to determining how Spell Combat works.

Ditching Whirlwind Attack for a moment, Spell Combat is a Full Round Action that is classified as a Full Attack Action for Haste and other effects, for the purposes of applying the benefits and restrictions of said effects. The Spell Combat FAQ says this. Whirlwind Attack has nothing to do with that.

Spell Combat lets you cast a spell with a casting time of 1 Standard Action (no more, and no less), while making a full attack with a light or one-handed melee weapon in one of your hands, as if you were just simply making a Full Attack Action. Whirlwind Attack has nothing to do with that either.

Spell Combat applies penalties and has other conditions (such as improving your concentration check by adding more penalties, determining if you want to cast the spell first or make your melee attacks first, and so on). Again, Whirlwind Attack has nothing to do with any of that as well.

Point is, the description and FAQs of Spell Combat define what it is. Not Whirlwind Attack, or a combination of the two. Whirlwind Attack alters whatever Full Attack you make by replacing whatever attacks you make in your regular Full Attack. That's all it does; it's like an archetype for a given class.

The spell isn't a second "action" because Spell Combat doesn't define the spell being cast as requiring an action in and of itself to perform. It actually says that the spell you cast must normally have a casting time of 1 Standard Action, but that doesn't mean the spell you cast takes an action to, you know, cast (outside of the action you spend to perform Spell Combat, of course). In other words, the simple act of performing the action Spell Combat is defined as (a full round action) is all the action you need to take in order to cast the spell.

I never said to ignore the rules. I've said to apply the context properly. (Something which I'm sure Mr. Risner is saying we all aren't doing correctly.)

The rules, in no way, shape, or form, would say that a spell that deals damage, requires a save, and so on, equates to being substituting a given attack, either in an Attack Action, Full Attack, Attack of Opportunity, and other forms of Attack Rolls, and that's what I'm trying to demonstrate in the examples I've given so far.

You're right, it's not your interpretation. It's my interpretation of how your interpretation would operate. What I'm saying is that, if I conceded to your argument and simply accepted what you're saying as being "the rules", those relevant "rules" that you don't know what to do with, would make no sense, and not be applicable in the intended sense that they were designed to be applied. It's an issue that results from me conceding to your argument and applying your argument to the rules as they're currently written (and traditionally enforced).

Also, I think you got the wrong character there. Pandora is associated with a box that contains "the root of all evil." It has nothing to do with paradoxes. (Paradoxii?) Either that, or you're saying that my argument there is attempting to demonstrate "the root of all evil" and is failing horribly. Either way, you missed it.

A FREE ACTION attack is possible because a spell is cast within the round that you want to touch the target. (Doesn't matter how it was cast, Quickened, Metamagic'd, or normally.) Touch Attacks are possible any time you would make an attack roll in a given attack sequence (through the Attack Action, Full Attack Action, an Attack of Opportunity, and so on). It's just they don't do damage normally, and most everybody doesn't bother with them unless they have stuff like Shocking Grasp going on, which triggers given effects on a successful Touch Attack.

Again, if you can't deliver a Touch Spell outside of the Free Action you'd be allotted to deliver said spell, then you can't ever deliver a spell outside of casting it, which means the rules for Holding the Charge is useless and does nothing.

Doesn't matter. Swift Actions can be taken any time a Free Action can be taken, and vice-versa. If you're telling me I can't deliver a pre-cast Touch Spell, then I can't deliver a Quickened Touch Spell (much less be able to actually cast said Quickened Touch Spell) either, because both have the same rules and restrictions for delivery. James Risner would tell you this, and he'd easily say that you can't cast or deliver Quickened Touch Spells during a Whirlwind Attack; his stance clearly says this.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The spell replaces the weapon in the off hand. I think you have forgotten that, or think it is irreverent because weapon and attack are not the same thing. To use that "weapon", you need to cast the spell, which normally takes a Standard action. Spell Combat allows you to cast it as a part of a full round action instead. It still takes an action, an Off Hand one, to effect the casting of the spell.

To say there is no action until one appears from taking that non-action is like saying Two Weapon Fighting doesn't have an extra attack.

I will wait until you respond to the post above, as repeating it here is not helpful.

Pandora's Box, yeah, a bit off kilter on that one.


thaX wrote:
If you use a free action to attack, it still needs to be when the character is attacking, during the full round action.

Incorrect. Like the standard action example, a free action can be taken after the full-attack action has finished, whether that's dropping a weapon, changing a grip, drawing ammunition, or using your free action touch attack.

That's just how the action rules work in Pathfinder.


thaX wrote:
That is the reason the section is using the free action, so one can move and effect the attack.
No, that's what the rules that actually say "You can move before, during, or after A->B," are for. The Free Action rules are so that every Touch Spell doesn't function like True Strike, in that you have to waste 2 rounds of combat to do something that is designed to be done in 1 round of combat.
Quote:
It doesn't remove the Standard action used to cast the spell.

Nobody has ever said this in relation to simply casting a spell in this thread, ever. This is a strawman argument. (And no, I don't care if the term was used incorrectly.)

Quote:
Tell me, why would the attack be outside of a full round action? You can already 5ft step between attacks, and your move action is used as a part of the full round action.

The same reason why the Quickened Spell would be outside of (or in the case of Spellstrike, during) the full attack action. I'll leave it up to you to determine the correlation there.

Quote:
The casting of the spell is a part of that full round action, it is one of the actions used in Spell Combat.

You mean that it's one of the activities involved when the character performs Spell Combat, right? Because if you're throwing Standard Actions onto other Standard or Full Attack Actions (like Monkey Lunge does when a character uses the Lunge feat), the action economy rules fail upon themselves.

Quote:
The Character either holds the spell (until next round) or attacks during the full round action.

It's not like an alchemist bomb, where the component gathering, combining, and throwing of the bomb are all a part of the same standard action, or how an alchemist extract, where the component gathering, combining, and consumption/injection of the extract are all part of the same standard action. Those abilities specifically say those things (and have FAQs for them too). That sort of text is missing in the relevant sections, so what you're saying here is at best, conjecture.

Quote:
If he waits, the turn is over and the spell is lost, or likely held until the next round.

The spell would be lost if the duration of the spell ran out or he couldn't hold the charge for whatever reason (such as being a Ranged Touch Spell). Other than that, he doesn't have to wait until the turn is over. Here's some relevant rules citations in relation to that:

The Combat Round wrote:
Each round's activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds in order. When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions. (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity and Special Initiative Actions.)
Actions in Combat wrote:

An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated. There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, swift actions, immediate actions, and free actions.

In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one swift action and one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action.

So, the rules tell us that we take our round's worth of actions (AKA, all that we can) when it's our turn, and then demonstrates what we can normally do within our round. At worst, you can say that once you've exhausted all of the actions you can take, your turn is done.

Quote:
What your saying it that the spell can be used at anytime despite what the character is doing, that a full round action is somehow different for spells than it is for everything else in the game.

The first part you have is correct, the second is not. If we have Shocking Grasp cast as:

-A regular spellcast from a Wizard
-An Intensified Metamagic application
-A Quickened Metamagic application
-The chosen spell for Spell Combat

In all of those situations, the Free Action to deliver the spell would be allowed. And because Free Actions, based on their Combat Chapter definitions, can be taken before, during, or even after any sort of action, it stands to reason that yes, Free Actions (which is the action type you are permitted when you cast a spell on a given round) can be taken outside of a Full Round Action. Also, because Swift Actions and Free Actions have identical wording, Quickened Spells can also be done in the same manner as delivering the spell as a Free Action.


thaX wrote:

The spell replaces the weapon in the off hand. I think you have forgotten that, or think it is irreverent because weapon and attack are not the same thing. To use that "weapon", you need to cast the spell, which normally takes a Standard action. Spell Combat allows you to cast it as a part of a full round action instead. It still takes an action, an Off Hand one, to effect the casting of the spell.

To say there is no action until one appears from taking that non-action is like saying Two Weapon Fighting doesn't have an extra attack.

I will wait until you respond to the post above, as repeating it here is not helpful.

Pandora's Box, yeah, a bit off kilter on that one.

Maybe a little bit of both. And probably a third related or unrelated thing. But mostly because TWF rules make no sense when the ability is already fully quantified.

Never disputed that you have to cast the spell in order to deliver the spell's effect on a melee touch attack. What's been disputed is why you have to deliver the spell's effect (as a free action) during the same full round action that you cast the spell, when in simply casting the spell as a standard action, you don't have to deliver the spell's effect as a free action during the standard action spent to cast the spell. Which, I will add, would disallow movement to deliver the spell due to event execution.

I'm not sure I fully understand the TWF correlation you're making. I will say that the interpretation that the Spell cast during Spell Combat does not require its own action would likewise apply to whatever Off-Hand Attacks you get during TWF; that is, you don't have to spend extra actions to get those attacks either. The extra attacks from TWF is all from spending the proper Full Attack Action, gaining the extra attacks for said Full Attack Action, and suffering the associated penalties. I don't have to spend any actions further than the Full Round Action to get those extra attacks, because the TWF rules don't say that I have to spend more.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
thaX wrote:
If you use a free action to attack, it still needs to be when the character is attacking, during the full round action.

Incorrect. Like the standard action example, a free action can be taken after the full-attack action has finished, whether that's dropping a weapon, changing a grip, drawing ammunition, or using your free action touch attack.

That's just how the action rules work in Pathfinder.

It depends on what that free action is. Drawing an arrow after the attack is over would do no good, unless the character just wants to hold an arrow for some reason. (have it as an improvised weapon for AoO's, for example)

Let's look at Spell Combat. The Spell is the off hand weapon. When you cast that spell, it puts that weapon in the character's hand. The Free Action attack can't be used outside of a full attack, because the Full Attack clearly states that the character must use all of it for all his additional attacks. This includes the free action attack from the spell cast from Spell Combat. It is the full action being used with Spell Combat that is giving the character the spell to cast.

Now, a Quickened Spell can be used afterward as a Swift action, not because the Free Action is separate from the Full Attack, but because the spell is cast as a swift action instead of a Standard action.

Now, to be sure, this does not come up when using Spell Combat alone. The weapon attacks and spell attack never are in conflict with one another, and a full attack is performed and it is done. The question we are discussing is when Whirlwind Attack is being used (somehow) with Spell Combat. It is now that a Full Round Action is being combined with the Full Attack and the spell is called "weapon" in the ability that everyone is scratching their head and saying "maybe?" The actions have not changed, the way Spell Combat works is the same, and the spell is still considered an attack, independent of whether or not it gains a free action attack, when it effect the enemy in a detrimental way (such as causing damage). Just as missing with a weapon doesn't matter on if it is an attack or not, it doesn't matter if the spell has an attack roll, area of effect, or emanates from the character (like Channel Energy), it is considered an attack.

Whether or not the Free Action Attack can be used before or after, Whirlwind will still have the character forfeit that attack.


thaX wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
thaX wrote:
If you use a free action to attack, it still needs to be when the character is attacking, during the full round action.

Incorrect. Like the standard action example, a free action can be taken after the full-attack action has finished, whether that's dropping a weapon, changing a grip, drawing ammunition, or using your free action touch attack.

That's just how the action rules work in Pathfinder.

It depends on what that free action is.

No, it absolutely does not.


thaX wrote:

The Spell is the off hand weapon.

*snip*

the spell is still considered an attack, independent of whether or not it gains a free action attack, when it effect the enemy in a detrimental way (such as causing damage). Just as missing with a weapon doesn't matter on if it is an attack or not, it doesn't matter if the spell has an attack roll, area of effect, or emanates from the character (like Channel Energy), it is considered an attack.

So you do, then, claim that spell combat does not work with dervish dance?

Dervish Dance wrote:
You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand.


How does dervish dance pertain to the concept of using spell combat in a whirlwind?

Can we stay in topic?

651 to 700 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.