Spell combat + Whirlwind Attack


Rules Questions

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

How does Dervish Dance not matter in a discussion about whether the off-hand spell-weapon discounts the ability to use things like Dervish Dance?


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. 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...

Since when do Free Actions require that you must do them in a specific order, or in a specific time? Yes, the option to deliver a Touch Spells lasts for the entire round, but you're equating that to mean the remainder of your turn, which is not the same thing. Let me give you an example of that:

TWF, as an option, states that when you take the Full Attack Action on your turn, you may make an extra attack with an off-hand weapon, and you incur penalties based on your weaponry of choice, and if you have the TWF feat. This only applies when you take the Full Attack Action.

Power Attack, as a feat, states that when you are making an attack on your turn, you may apply a penalty to your to-hit to receive a bonus on damage, scaling based on your BAB and your weaponry of choice. The effects of the feat last until the start of your next turn, but can only be triggered during your turn.

There is a FAQ that specifically agrees with my above claim, using the same exact example and everything, and demonstrates that A. Your limitation of Free Actions does not agree with the written limitation of Free actions (remainder of turn does not equate to being within the round), and B. TWF penalties are specifically limited to apply to attacks made during the TWF action. If we're still likening Spell Combat to TWF, once the spell is cast, and your regular Full Attack is made, Spell Combat is finished, and whatever associated penalties you normally take are over.

Uh, no, you don't have to use all of your attacks. Looks like you need a refresher course for the Full Attack Action in the Combat Section:

Full Attack wrote:

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.

If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.

First part here says that you are required to spend a Full Round Action if you want to get more than one attack in a given round, and gives examples of what constitutes giving extra attacks. Sure, the "some special reason" could constitute the Free Action attack, but it doesn't necessarily match up to the other examples it gives (TWF, BAB, multiple Natural Weapons, and so on), meaning that it doesn't really seem to be an equivalent example.

It then says that you don't need to choose your attacks ahead of time, that you can see how attacks pan out before you continue using your other ones. This means that you don't have to attack if you don't want to, merely that if you want MORE THAN ONE attack, a Full Attack Action is required.

Deciding Between an Attack or a Full Attack wrote:
After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.

Now, this part here, I'd like to pose a question to you, just to see how you would respond. Let's say we're performing Spell Combat, and I choose to cast the Touch Spell first. Would I have to deliver the spell before I decide to take a move action (in place of my other attacks), or would simply casting the spell suffice? Compare that to simply taking a Standard Action to cast the spell, a Move Action to move up to a target, and a Free Action to deliver said spell.

It's a tricky one, and would demonstrate what you truly feel would be requisite of constituting an attack in relation to combat, and how you would run Touch Spells as a whole. I know how I'd run it, but this would be a fun little social experiment (especially when Spell Combat counts as a Full Attack Action).

**EDIT**

You still can't cast or deliver a quickened spell if you keep saying that I can't deliver a spell that's already been cast. Swift Actions can be taken any time a Free Action can be taken, and vice versa. If I can't take a Free Action to deliver a spell, I can't take a Swift Action to cast (and likewise follow up with a Free Action to deliver the spell) either.

Whirlwind Attack forfeits attacks in-so-far as when you're using the feat. Once you're no longer using the feat, you no longer forfeit the bonus/extra attacks you get. Therefore, attacks that you can do as Swift, Immediate, or Free Actions, would no longer be forfeit once the Full Attack Action is over, and can be taken as normal. This is why people are saying you can, for example, use Spell Combat, cast a spell, perform one attack against all enemies in reach with your melee weapon, and that ends the Full Attack Action (and by relation, the use of the Whirlwind Attack feat). After Spell Combat, the spell is (potentially) undelivered, and because the Free Action to deliver the spell last the entire round, you're still able to deliver the spell as a Free Action outside your turn, as well as Quicken Cast (and deliver) another spell.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
How does Dervish Dance not matter in a discussion about whether the off-hand spell-weapon discounts the ability to use things like Dervish Dance?

Because we aren't talking about dervish dance. So it is irrelevant to this conversation.


Because it's a catch-22 meant to demonstrate the error of an argument.

Rephrased:

Regarding the spell in the offhand
Either
It's an actual weapon, which prevents Dervish Dance which contradicts the commonly accepted interpretation
OR
It's not an actual weapon, which, since this is a binary, is the only other option (and Dervish Dance works)


Cavall wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
How does Dervish Dance not matter in a discussion about whether the off-hand spell-weapon discounts the ability to use things like Dervish Dance?
Because we aren't talking about dervish dance. So it is irrelevant to this conversation.

You have to have agreement on the basic mechanics before you have any hope of engaging in a discussion on a complex scenario like spell combat + whirlwind.

FFS, apparently even the basic rules regarding how actions work in combat aren't understood. Unless we can sort out the basics, trying to achieve agreement on whirlwind is a fool's errand.

So please, can we stop criticizing steps to nail down these basics by calling them off topic? Whether or not a spell is really a weapon is on topic, and using that 'weapon' counts as an attack is very much on topic. Instead of complaining, you can offer your opinion and reasoning on the basic topic. That will do a lot more towards making some progress.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Basic Rules.

The spell is cast. If it does damage, it is considered an attack. If it is an attack, whirlwind will have the character forfeit it for the single attack on each enemy in range.

Now, was that so hard?

Ok, my wonky internet was off for a bit, so I had this ready when I got back on...

Quote:
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.

So the action taken to cast the spell is a full round action, one that includes the weapon attacks from the main hand. The casting of the spell does not happen in a void, just as the extra attack does not come from nowhere.

It is agreed, I would hope, that TWF with Whirlwind would not gain any benefit. The extra attack would be forfeit just as it would coming from the effects of Haste. As I have just posted in the previous post, the Full Attack says the character "must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks." This would include any free action attacks gained from casting a spell from Spell Combat. The parallel is used in this way to have the player understand the basics of the ability. TWF uses attacks, but the interaction between attacks and spells is, as I have mentioned before, wonky. This is a way to make a gish class that can melee and spell at the same time.

Please keep in mind, when combining these two abilities, you are in a Full Round Action, Full Attacking with the Whirlwind Attack changing the aspects of what those attacks will do.

So, that was in an answer to the post. Since then, you asked when you can use the Free Action Attack.

You can use it at anytime, my point is that it will be considered a part of the attacks with the Full Round Action when you do, as that is when the spell was cast, as a part of the full round action. "you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks."

So, going through all this, the focus is on this one particular about the spell, the melee touch attack spell getting this free action attack. When it comes to this ability working with the other, it is the casting of the "attack" spell that would be prevented at this point, and that free action attack would not be there for that character.

Dervish Dance and Spell Combat work fine with one another. The hand is free except for an instant when the spell is used. (much like the Mystic Bolts from the Warlock Vigilante Archtype)


thaX wrote:

Basic Rules.

The spell is cast. If it does damage, it is considered an attack. If it is an attack, whirlwind will have the character forfeit it for the single attack on each enemy in range.

Now, was that so hard?

Apparently it is since you still don't understand how Shocking Grasp works, and when the attack is considered to have occurred.

Hint, it's not when the spell is cast.

See, this is what I'm talking about. You're not going to believe me, and the people who only participate briefly in this thread to bemoan its length aren't going to jump in and correct you.

Thus, you keep restating incorrect rules.

Quote:
This would include any free action attacks gained from casting a spell from Spell Combat.

Free actions are not 'part' of full-attack actions. Actions are taken separate from each other.

Once again, we need people to chime in and explain the basics of how actions work, since you're wrong and won't believe it from me.

Quote:
The hand is free except for an instant when the spell is used.

If that were true, and if that spell counted as a weapon, Dervish Dance would not work. Period. You don't get to violate Dervish Dance 'for an instant' and still have it function.


Quote:
The hand is free except for an instant when the spell is used. (much like the Mystic Bolts from the Warlock Vigilante Archtype)

Applying the same logic, then, whirlwind attack has already been long declared before you get to the casting of the spell, and thus it wouldn't care about it in the slightest. And, when you make the free action to deliver a touch attack, that's during an instant where whirlwind attack is no longer happening.

In fact, now spell combat should even work with Slashing Grace and Fencing Grace!

Slashing Grace and Fencing Grace wrote:
You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied.

Because the hand is not occupied except for the instant that you're casting the spell!

My point is, rules governing an action don't care about specific instants, turns, or anything else unless otherwise specified. If it is not specified, an action's rules and penalties only apply to that exact action.

Therefore, because there is an instant where the hand is occupied (the casting of the spell), spell combat does not work at all with slashing or fencing grace.

And also, therefore, if your interpretation that the comparison to TWF is to be taken literally, then the weapon would be considered a spell, and there would be an instant where you hold a weapon in your hand, and thus spell combat would not work with Dervish Dance.

However... it's widely accepted that it does.

Just trying to make sure you understand where you stand when using that angle.


thaX wrote:

Basic Rules.

The spell is cast. If it does damage, it is considered an attack. If it is an attack, whirlwind will have the character forfeit it for the single attack on each enemy in range.

Now, was that so hard?

Ok, my wonky internet was off for a bit, so I had this ready when I got back on...

Quote:
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.

So the action taken to cast the spell is a full round action, one that includes the weapon attacks from the main hand. The casting of the spell does not happen in a void, just as the extra attack does not come from nowhere.

It is agreed, I would hope, that TWF with Whirlwind would not gain any benefit. The extra attack would be forfeit just as it would coming from the effects of Haste. As I have just posted in the previous post, the Full Attack says the character "must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks." This would include any free action attacks gained from casting a spell from Spell Combat. The parallel is used in this way to have the player understand the basics of the ability. TWF uses attacks, but the interaction between attacks and spells is, as I have mentioned before, wonky. This is a way to make a gish class that can melee and spell at the same time.

Please keep in mind, when combining these two abilities, you are in a Full Round Action, Full Attacking with the Whirlwind Attack changing the aspects of what those...

I will ask again, an attack in what context? If it's an attack in the literal term, then yes. Nobody is disputing that. If it's an attack in the game's term, then that's debatable, because an attack roll is required when making an attack, as defined in the game, and even then, that's presuming that the spell itself does the attack, such as the case with Scorching Ray. In the case of Shocking Grasp, simply casting the spell doesn't mean you're attacking, because the attack roll required to deliver the touch spell hasn't taken place at the time of you casting the spell. In fact, based on its description, it actually augments whatever Touch Attack (or even regular Attack) you make, akin to a rider effect when you next perform a Touch (or regular) Attack.

Nobody is saying you're not casting the spell outside the action required to cast the spell. Not only does that make zero sense, but it's practically a strawman. (Again, don't care if it's the wrong term. I like using it to denote irrelevance in an argument.)

It has been agreed that TWF doesn't grant any benefit. But again, not granting any benefit does not mean you aren't using it. It's akin to using Pushing Assault with Power Attack, in that you forgo the benefits of Power Attack for the benefits of Pushing Assault (and in that identical vein, the penalties apply). Same concept with TWF and Whirlwind Attack, you forgo the benefits of TWF for the benefits of Whirlwind Attack. It just so happens that Whirlwind Attack replaces all of the benefits of TWF with mutually exclusive benefits, meaning that performing TWF is mechanically pointless and purposefully makes you weaker than if you were simply using Whirlwind Attack while having two weapons out.

There are two arguments against that can be made here that refute your interpretation on that front; I'll again, leave it up to you to decide which one takes precedence. The first is that it's a conditional requirement. Are you using a Full Round Action to attack? Yes. Therefore, you get the additional Free Action Attack, and that one can be taken at any time.

The other (and is the argument I'd prefer to use), is that those are general rules for performing attacks that require attack rolls, such as by utilizing extra attacks from a high BAB, multiple Natural Weapons, TWF, and so on. Touch Spells that are cast in a given round to be delivered as a Free Action are an exception to that rule, both to keep coherent and fluid function, and because they don't function like the examples the rules gave us, meaning placing them under the same rules as the examples is a stretch to say the least. If they weren't an exception, then you'd have to spend both a Standard Action to cast a spell, and a Full Round Action to deliver the spell, because delivering spells would supposedly fall under "additional attacks," and you're back to the True Strike dilemma all over again, which is not what the rules intended.

If I can use the Free Action Attack at any time, as you just said here, then why were you saying that I can't use it after the results of the Full Round Action are done before, when according to the rules, it's valid for me to do so?

Spell Combat doesn't say that delivering the spell is considered part of the Spell Combat action, nor do the rules say that attacking with a cast spell is part of the action done to cast the spell, which means that you're applying a restriction that doesn't exist to the feature in question.

The only time such a rule applies is in the explicitly-mentioned case of Ranged Touch Attacks, like Scorching Ray, which I have said repeatedly in the past, that it would be forfeited when applying Whirlwind Attack to Spell Combat, since Scorching Ray makes attacks as you cast the spell (which occurs during Spell Combat + Whirlwind Attack) because it's a Ranged Touch spell; and even then, it doesn't stop the Magus from picking up the proper Arcana, applying the spell effect to his sword and Spellstriking with it, since only the act of attacking with the spell is forfeit.


thaX wrote:
The spell is cast. If it does damage, it is considered an attack. If it is an attack, whirlwind will have the character forfeit it for the single attack on each enemy in range.

So, would you agree a buff spell, due to not being an attacking action (not the technical term for attack action, but the one for Invisibility), would be castable in Spell Combat?

(The thread had some large bursts of activity that lost me for some of it, so I might have missed something re: this)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

If these two abilities were to word together, it seems that the buff spells, which are not considered attacks, would be able to be cast in addition to the weapon attacks from the first main hand.

Quote:
I will ask again, an attack in what context? If it's an attack in the literal term, then yes. Nobody is disputing that. If it's an attack in the game's term, then that's debatable, because an attack roll is required when making an attack, as defined in the game, and even then, that's presuming that the spell itself does the attack, such as the case with Scorching Ray. In the case of Shocking Grasp, simply casting the spell doesn't mean you're attacking, because the attack roll required to deliver the touch spell hasn't taken place at the time of you casting the spell. In fact, based on its description, it actually augments whatever Touch Attack (or even regular Attack) you make, akin to a rider effect when you next perform a Touch (or regular) Attack.

Ok.

Full Attack.

Core Rulebook wrote:

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.

So, casting the spell is a part of Spell Combat, as the character is doing a Full Attack via Whirlwind Attack.

Spells in combat.

core rulebook wrote:

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.

So, you get a free action attack After you cast the spell. Notice, this would not negate the Full Attack, it simply allows one to attack with the spell in the same turn that it is cast. This is in context of using a standard action, as that is the section of the book it is in.

Core Rulebook wrote:

Holding the Charge: If you don’t discharge the spell

in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the
charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch
attacks round after round.

So, if you do not attack in the round you cast the spell, you can hold the spell. (This is for Melee touch attack only, as Range Touch Attack are explained further down) Notice, please, that doing Touch Attacks after that first round is a standard action.

Spells counting as an attack

Core Rulebook 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.

The spell is considered an attack when it does something to the enemy that would harm or hamper him, like do damage. Notice, please, that it is referencing the spell descriptions here.

So here how it goes...

Spell Combat allows for a character to hit with his weapon (full iterative) and cast a spell. (Main Hand and Off Hand)

The Spell is considered an attack if it does something to harm/hamper the foe.

Whirlwind Attack.

Quote:

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.

So, the attack that the spell effects would be forfeit by the Whirlwind Attack ability.

Now, you keep going on about a type of attack, or having to roll a D20 for an attack. This is not Inspire Courage or Bless, nothing is being added here. The extra attacks given by the iteratives and the Spell Combat ability are subject to the forfeited attacks in favor of the Whirlwind Attack effects, that of having one (1) hit to each target in range.

Unless a GM says that a Buff spell can be used in the combination, it is better to use either one or the other.


So you're saying that Whirlwind Attack negates any hostile activity outside of whatever Whirlwind Attack permits you to do (which is one weapon attack against all enemies within reach)? So, no spells, no rider effects, nothing that can be deemed remotely hostile by your doing? In other words, I could cast Black Tentacles (as it's the tentacles that are doing the attacking), or Summon Monster, but I can't cast, say, Burning Hands?

Alrighty. That's all you had to say for me to properly understand your stance, because I didn't know if you were simply saying "attack" because you didn't understand that there was a game term definition for it. I'll just go ahead and say that I disagree with it, that it's referring to attacks as they're demonstrated in, for example, the Attack action, but at least I'm not frustrated over your stance anymore...

If an attack roll is being made, then yes, you do add things like Inspire Courage and Bless, because they modify attack rolls, which you'd be making when delivering a spell like Shocking Grasp.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Uh.

Spell Combat. Remember that ability at all?

The spell is cast as the off hand action in the full round.

That spell is considered an attack if it does damage or otherwise is causing the enemy to " resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects."

Your putting this on a broader spectrum than the issue we are discussing, tell me that some sort of context is missing when it is exactly what Whirlwind Attack is looking for to exclude it.

What I am tell you now is that the free attack from a spell, cast in a full round action from Spell Combat, would need to be used before the attacks for that round are resolved. Otherwise, the turn ends and the character ends up holding the spell.

Now, as I have said before, this issue never comes up when Spell Combat is used by itself, as the attack is normally effected without a thought to outside actions. It is the interaction between Spell Combat and Whirlwind Attack that we are discussing, at least on my end.

Whirlwind Attack " forfeits any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities." That free action attack is provided by the spell cast as a part of spell combat, an attack that is on top of the attacks with the weapon in the main hand. Whether or not you agree on the spell being the extra attack or the free action, it is forfeited for the Whirlwind Attack particulars.


thaX wrote:

The spell is cast as the off hand action in the full round.

wtf is 'off hand action'?

Quote:
What I am tell you now is that the free attack from a spell, cast in a full round action from Spell Combat, would need to be used before the attacks for that round are resolved. Otherwise, the turn ends and the character ends up holding the spell.

Wrong, 100%. The free action can be accomplished after the full-round attack is over. How do I know? Because free actions can be taken after full-round actions. Period. End of story. There is nothing about Spell Combat that changes how actions fundamentally work in Pathfinder, and until you realize how these basic mechanics work you will continue to come to the wrong conclusion.


thaX wrote:

Uh.

Spell Combat. Remember that ability at all?

The spell is cast as the off hand action in the full round.

That spell is considered an attack if it does damage or otherwise is causing the enemy to " resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects."

Your putting this on a broader spectrum than the issue we are discussing, tell me that some sort of context is missing when it is exactly what Whirlwind Attack is looking for to exclude it.

What I am tell you now is that the free attack from a spell, cast in a full round action from Spell Combat, would need to be used before the attacks for that round are resolved. Otherwise, the turn ends and the character ends up holding the spell.

Now, as I have said before, this issue never comes up when Spell Combat is used by itself, as the attack is normally effected without a thought to outside actions. It is the interaction between Spell Combat and Whirlwind Attack that we are discussing, at least on my end.

Whirlwind Attack " forfeits any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities." That free action attack is provided by the spell cast as a part of spell combat, an attack that is on top of the attacks with the weapon in the main hand. Whether or not you agree on the spell being the extra attack or the free action, it is forfeited for the Whirlwind Attack particulars.

I thought that it was implied that doing a spell during Whirlwind Attack would be only through the use of Spell Combat. If not, then my mistake. Doesn't change that, from what I'm gathering, your stance is that Whirlwind Attack forfeits any hostile effect outside of whatever Whirlwind Attack allows you, which would include things like Sneak Attack, Shocking Grasp deliveries, and so on. You can't even use things like Cornugon Smash or Enforcer to make Intimidate checks to Demoralize enemies, because that's a hostile effect.

Ironically enough, that also means you can't Spellstrike a spell that is previously cast, because that also translates to being a hostile effect.

I disagree with all of that interpretation, since Whirlwind Attack was written well before spells being usable in a Full Attack Action, so the idea that Whirlwind Attack referred to anything outside of the game term definition of "attack" (as defined in a typical Attack Action) is highly unlikely. The idea that Whirlwind Attack stops all other hostile actions you make, intentional or not, is a questionable conclusion at best, and results in broken rules interactions, such as trying to hold the charge, but can't because the spell dissipates when trying to Whirlwind Attack.

I am putting this on a broader spectrum of things, by applying the interpretation you're presenting (and that I'm trying to understand) to other rules elements, and finding out if the rules remain intact, or if they fall apart and fail upon themselves. I've been doing a lot of the latter, and very rarely any of the former. Also, weren't you the one saying that I wasn't putting all of the pieces together and examining the puzzle as a whole? Now, when the shoe is on the other foot, you're the one who's looking at isolated pieces and reading the words off without comparing those same pieces to the big picture, the grand scheme of the game itself. Pot, meet kettle.

What rules are telling you that the Free Action Attack must be done before all of the attacks of the round are resolved? I mean, who is to say that the Free Action Attack isn't, or to be more accurate, can't be the last attack of the round? In fact, in every example we've given you, it is.

After all, if the Free Action Attack is part of the attacks you can make in a round, as you are saying (despite the fact that you don't have to take that attack at the same time as the other attacks you make), then not all of the attacks you make for that round are taken, until you take the Free Action Attack, right? And Free Actions can be taken after a Full Round Action, right? Then that means I can take the Free Action Attack outside of the Full Round Action, and deliver the spell as my last attack for that round.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Darksol, What are you talking about?

A spell is cast during a full round action via Spell Combat.

The OP wants to use Spell Combat with Whirlwind Attack.

Is this what you are confused about, or is it something else, cause your way off the tracks.

I am saying that the spell itself is an attack, when it is deemed so by the rules I have quoted. Now, where have it said that it means one can not do other things not related to spells?

Here is the problem here, your trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

I had said, early on, that the spell couldn't be cast at all because of the interaction between Whirlwind and Spell Combat (ala TWF)

From there, we have been theory crafting what could be done if the spell could be cast anyway because of some contextual FUBAR that makes a spell something other than the Attack that Whirlwind would forfeit for it's own properties.

So, you and Ozzy have been harping on this Free Attack Action like a monkey wrench into the cogs of action economy. You want to use this to go outside the full round action, to get an extra hit on a target after using Whirlwind Attack. This is call Shenanigans.

Then I point out that the spell itself is considered an attack, something I discovered as I looked it up in the Core Rulebook. Your discounting that as if the spell goes through phases like when playing Magic the Gathering. It does not.

I also am pointing out to you that the Free Action is an extra attack that is given to the character from a spell, the very thing that Whirlwind Attack forfeits for the feat's particulars.

The Free Action attack is a given particular to be able to give the effects of the spell in the form of an attack on an enemy. It was never meant to be a part of a full round action as it is written in the book, as the only ability that does this is Spell Combat and some other things from PrC's.

Yes, Black Tentacles are considered an attack, Burning hands, Charm Person, Confusion, Burning Invective, and on and on. They break invisibility, and would effect this combo that we are discussing.

There are no rules telling me that Free Actions are anything than what they are. It is you coming up with those conclusions. We are only concerned with the free action attack made as a part of a spell, one that is connected to the spell as it is given. This is slightly different than a free action that one takes to shift a grip on a weapon, talk, or something else mundane that can be done quickly.

Quote:
(deleted) is 'off hand action'?

The spell is considered an off hand weapon, as it is implied in Spell Combat. Please keep up.

When the full round action is over, the turn ends. You have done your attack, you have no move action to take.


thaX wrote:
There are no rules telling me that Free Actions are anything than what they are. It is you coming up with those conclusions. We are only concerned with the free action attack made as a part of a spell, one that is connected to the spell as it is given. This is slightly different than a free action that one takes to shift a grip on a weapon, talk, or something else mundane that can be done quickly.

You just made up that bolded part. There are no rules that support that conclusion.

Quote:
The spell is considered an off hand weapon, as it is implied in Spell Combat. Please keep up.

That's not what I asked. I asked 'what is an "off-hand action". Try to keep up.

In any case, it's clear we need more eyes on the topic of free actions than we're getting in this interminably long thread, so I'm going to start a new topic that doesn't hundreds of post for people to wade through. Feel free to chime in with your opinion as you like.


thaX wrote:

Darksol, What are you talking about?

A spell is cast during a full round action via Spell Combat.

The OP wants to use Spell Combat with Whirlwind Attack.

Is this what you are confused about, or is it something else, cause your way off the tracks.

I am saying that the spell itself is an attack, when it is deemed so by the rules I have quoted. Now, where have it said that it means one can not do other things not related to spells?

Here is the problem here, your trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

I had said, early on, that the spell couldn't be cast at all because of the interaction between Whirlwind and Spell Combat (ala TWF)

From there, we have been theory crafting what could be done if the spell could be cast anyway because of some contextual FUBAR that makes a spell something other than the Attack that Whirlwind would forfeit for it's own properties.

So, you and Ozzy have been harping on this Free Attack Action like a monkey wrench into the cogs of action economy. You want to use this to go outside the full round action, to get an extra hit on a target after using Whirlwind Attack. This is call Shenanigans.

Then I point out that the spell itself is considered an attack, something I discovered as I looked it up in the Core Rulebook. Your discounting that as if the spell goes through phases like when playing Magic the Gathering. It does not.

I also am pointing out to you that the Free Action is an extra attack that is given to the character from a spell, the very thing that Whirlwind Attack forfeits for the feat's particulars.

The Free Action attack is a given particular to be able to give the effects of the spell in the form of an attack on an enemy. It was never meant to be a part of a full round action as it is written in the book, as the only ability that does this is Spell Combat and some other things from PrC's.

Yes, Black Tentacles are considered an attack, Burning hands, Charm Person, Confusion, Burning Invective, and on and on. They break...

Clearly, it's something else, if you're not making sense of my argument and how it applies to the discussion at hand.

Yes, you've made me understand that your interpretation of attack is "anything hostile," which means anything that falls outside of what Whirlwind Attack allows you to do is impossible. No Sneak Attack. No Pre-cast Touch Spells. No Rider Effects on your attacks. Nothing that can be deemed remotely hostile, can be done with Whirlwind Attack.

That's what you're saying with your interpretation.

And I disagree with it. And I've given several reasons, both in-rules and game design intentions, as to why I disagree with it.

But, for whatever reason, you don't understand the basis (basii?) of my arguments for disagreement. So I would appreciate if you went more in-depth and brought up the specifics on what you don't understand about my argument, so that I can clarify it for you, otherwise I won't know where to begin.

Actually, from there, I thought we went with the FAQ interpretation that stated Spell Combat counted as a Full Attack Action for effects that were dependant upon Full Attack Actions, of which Whirlwind Attack would qualify (as its effects apply "When you make a full attak action"), and such, it wouldn't work. If you still don't think that's possible, then you're of the interpretation that the FAQ does not do what it says it does.

Calling it shenanigans is fine, since that tells me you believe it's not intended for a Free Action Attack to be taken outside of the action required to take it. (Though, if that is the case, why don't the rules simply say that "you deliver the spell as part of the action required to cast it," as is the case with Ranged Touch Spells, and yet is not so for Touch Spells in general?)

But, saying that the rules don't allow me to do it, on the other hand, is absolutely false, and betrays what the rules have stated that I can do; that's a much different argument from saying "That's not the intent behind that rule."

That's actually the same argument I'm making for your "spells are attacks" clause; that the intent behind that rule isn't to be considered an attack, in that you can cast a hostile spell any time you can make a (melee or ranged) attack, as would be the case for Full Attacks, TWF, and so on, but that it's a general rule regarding spells that are considered hostile actions. There's no "phase" crap going on here.

Yes, Whirlwind Attack forfeits regular attacks, as well as attacks from feats, spells, and abilities. This is why I say Scorching Ray, while it can be cast, does nothing, because its attacks (the sole effect of the spellcast) are forfeited. But by your interpretation, I couldn't even cast the spell, which makes no sense, because Whirlwind Attack forfeits the attacks you make, not the spells you cast. It may nullify the effects of some spells, if those spells are attacks that you, the character, make, but not the spell itself.

Black Tentacles conjures tentacles that make attacks. The tentacles make the attacks, not the caster. By that logic, you'd say that Summon Monster, a spell which summons a monster, and then makes attacks, would break invisibility too. Except, we have confirmation that says casting Summon Monster, and the Monster making the attacks, is not the same as you, the caster, making the attack. Therefore, it stands to reason that Black Tentacles, a spell which summons tentacles that then make attacks, wouldn't break invisibility.

Correct, but you need to prove that the Free Action allotted has the restrictions you're saying it has. As of right now, the only proof you've provided is you saying it has those restrictions, and as it stands, you're not winning the case. I've provided my evidence, that says if you can't deliver a Touch Spell, then you can't cast a Quickened Spell and deliver a Touch Spell.

Also:

Quote:
When the full round action is over, the turn ends. You have done your attack, you have no move action to take.

[citation needed]

**EDIT**

If you're saying this, then my statement of "You can't Quicken Cast a Touch Spell" rings true, and you 100% agree with it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Again, your going beyond the casting of the spell. Your looking at this and coming to a conclusion without looking at where the character is and what he is doing.

A swift action is different than a standard action. A swift action is certainly different than a full round action. I don't see how you don't know the difference.

What the argument is concerning comes from using an attack in addition to the Whirlwind Attack Ability. Because of the wonkyness of how martial and spells work together, you have a TWF like ability that is being molded into something that is not the intended result.

Yes, Black Tentacles is considered an attack, the whole area is considered difficult Terrain. It hampers the characters. It is a creation effect, not a summoning. It also does damage through an attack, using CMD.

As I have said before, this usually does not come up when the Spell Combat ability is used on it's own. There is no reason to fidget about the Free Action Attack as it has nothing to account for. It is when you combine this with Whirlwind Attack that you get some sort of wonky fit and come up with an extra attack outside of the Full Round Action out of thin air.

Is it just easier to say that the attack spell is unable to be cast, that the casting itself is forfeit because of the Whirlwind Attack particulars? Or do you still want to debate this ad finitinum?


Quote:
This is why I say Scorching Ray, while it can be cast, does nothing, because its attacks (the sole effect of the spellcast) are forfeited.

I just wanted to point out that I have a more liberal interpretation of this, for a couple reasons that I'm fairly sure have been pointed out before.

Whirlwind attack says "When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities." which matches language of iterative attacks and "extra" attacks tacked on to your full attack granted by things like haste, speed weapon property, etc.

Scorching ray and co. on the other hand, aren't really "granting" you extra attacks, but are rather attacks made as part of the casting of the spell.

Because personally, it doesn't make sense that you can twirl around a bit and still cast a spell, but the consequence of your twirling makes the energy just poof away. And additionally, whirlwind attack was written in the core rule book, before the magus and before there was any possibility of any kind of attacks other than "bonus attacks" from haste and company.

At it's core, the spirit of the rules appear to work perfectly together. The magus's spell combat allows a regular full attack and a spell, whirlwind attack replaces the normal function of a regular full attack with its own rules, so logically that spell shouldn't be touched.

But, again, this brings me to everyone defaulting to different and valid definitions that exist and/or are used in the books. I'll rule it my way when I'm the GM and respect other GMs ruling it another way until such time as a FAQ may come out, but I have my doubts because nobody's gonna take this anyway except maybe my fun but high-level mindblade.


Johnny_Devo wrote:
Quote:
This is why I say Scorching Ray, while it can be cast, does nothing, because its attacks (the sole effect of the spellcast) are forfeited.
I just wanted to point out that I have a more liberal interpretation of this, for a couple reasons that I'm fairly sure have been pointed out before.

I do as well. I think 'extra' and 'bonus' attacks are specific Pathfinder nomenclature that refer to melee/ranged attacks added to your iterative attacks during a full-attack action, and can ONLY be obtained while attacking using a full-attack action. For example, you can't use an 'extra'/'bonus' attack from Haste, Flurry, Rapid Shot, etc... when you use a standard attack action.

Obviously, attacks as part of spells do not fall under this definition. I fully realize that arguing for this strict interpretation would be a Sisyphean task here.


thaX wrote:

Again, your going beyond the casting of the spell. Your looking at this and coming to a conclusion without looking at where the character is and what he is doing.

A swift action is different than a standard action. A swift action is certainly different than a full round action. I don't see how you don't know the difference.

What the argument is concerning comes from using an attack in addition to the Whirlwind Attack Ability. Because of the wonkyness of how martial and spells work together, you have a TWF like ability that is being molded into something that is not the intended result.

Yes, Black Tentacles is considered an attack, the whole area is considered difficult Terrain. It hampers the characters. It is a creation effect, not a summoning. It also does damage through an attack, using CMD.

As I have said before, this usually does not come up when the Spell Combat ability is used on it's own. There is no reason to fidget about the Free Action Attack as it has nothing to account for. It is when you combine this with Whirlwind Attack that you get some sort of wonky fit and come up with an extra attack outside of the Full Round Action out of thin air.

Is it just easier to say that the attack spell is unable to be cast, that the casting itself is forfeit because of the Whirlwind Attack particulars? Or do you still want to debate this ad finitinum?

Yes, I am going beyond the casting of the spell, because that's exactly what we're discussing; if the Free Action Attack goes beyond the casting of the spell (and the action associated with it) to be usable outside of Spell Combat's Full Round Action. My stance is that Ranged Touch Attacks don't go beyond the casting of the spell, whereas Melee Touch Attacks do, as evidenced by the former's explicit language, and the latter's ability to Hold the Charge. I don't know if I ever expressly said this before, but I'm saying it now so you can atleast understand my argument. (Of course, you're more than welcome to not agree with it for your own reasons; it's just frustrating when an opposing side disagrees with an interpretation simply because they don't understand it.)

Never stipulated that it wasn't different. What I've stipulated is that if I can't take a Free Action to deliver a spell, then I can't take a Swift Action to cast a Quickened spell (much less take the Free Action to deliver aforementioned spell as well), and since you've said that once Spell Combat ends, your turn ends, you've confirmed my understanding of your stance.

Well, Black Tentacles is a Conjuration (Creation) Spell, whereas Summon Monster is a Conjuration (Summoning) Spell. Let's see the difference between the two:

Conjuration (Creation) wrote:
A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates. If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured creature or object vanishes without a trace. If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence.
Conjuration (Summoning) wrote:

A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower, but it is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can't be summoned again.

When the spell that summoned a creature ends and the creature disappears, all the spells it has cast expire. A summoned creature cannot use any innate summoning abilities it may have.

Alright, so the core difference between the two is that Creation, well..."Creates" an object or creature by manipulating matter, whereas Summoning simply brings a creature or object onto a target area. Manipulation of matter to create a creature versus Transportation of a creature, in essence. I don't know if it makes a difference to you, but for me it doesn't. At the end of the day, it's an entity that you created, which is separate from you, acting on its own accord, that is doing the attacks, and not you, the caster.

Actually, it is brought up in the case of Spell Combat alone, as evidenced by Grick's Guide to Touch Spells. The hand you're using to cast a spell must be free for the entirety of the action, and you must use the light or one-handed weapon you have in your hand; you can't use a claw, unarmed strike, or other non-handiness light or one-handed weapon (armor spikes, blade boots, etc).

Now, if the spell you cast is considered a weapon, that means your hand is, in fact, not free, and therefore Spell Combat fails upon itself (and effects that require free hands, a la Crane Wing, Dervish Dance, and so forth, fail to function too) and doesn't work.

Yes, it would be easier. But whether that would be right/correct? That's where the debate rages. Of course, if we do continue this thread for another 250+ posts, we're sure to get developer insight (as has been the case for threads like this in the past), which can clear up a lot of confusion or misunderstanding in this thread. While it's not official like a FAQ or Errata, it's a starting point.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Johnny_Devo wrote:
Quote:
This is why I say Scorching Ray, while it can be cast, does nothing, because its attacks (the sole effect of the spellcast) are forfeited.

I just wanted to point out that I have a more liberal interpretation of this, for a couple reasons that I'm fairly sure have been pointed out before.

Whirlwind attack says "When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities." which matches language of iterative attacks and "extra" attacks tacked on to your full attack granted by things like haste, speed weapon property, etc.

Scorching ray and co. on the other hand, aren't really "granting" you extra attacks, but are rather attacks made as part of the casting of the spell.

It is a wonky fit, as I have said from the beginning. The overall rules do cover the situation, just as if the spell is breaking invisibility, but that would be dependent on counting the casting of the spell as that extra action instead of relaying it as a casting then trying to fit it's effects post casting.

Spell Combat is replacing an attack normally granted in TWF with a Spell. The point of contention here is if that spell would count as that extra attack from TWF if the spell itself is an attack.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

If anything at the end of the holidays you guys will have had increased your mastery of the rules.

If you're not GMing in your local areas yet, you guys no longer have any excuse to shirk the GMing duties! :P :P :P


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

If anything at the end of the holidays you guys will have had increased your mastery of the rules.

If you're not GMing in your local areas yet, you guys no longer have any excuse to shirk the GMing duties! :P :P :P

Unfortunately, I'm a part of the only local group that actually plays this game, and we only meet once a week, tops. (I know, I sound like I'm complaining about a time frame even several groups across the world can't match, but it's about more than simply playing regularly.)

Where I live, practically nobody plays or even hears of games such as Pathfinder, so the odds of me actually being a GM for anybody is slim (since, in the current group I'm a part of, I'm merely a player, and not a GM).

It's a shame, (or a sham?) really. But, such is the life.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Grease allows for a Reflex save and is an obstacle much like difficult terrain. Same thing, it is considered an attack spell.

The difference between creation and Summoning is that the creation effects are directly effecting the environment while the Summons are bringing in separate entities that think and do for themselves. The section doesn't say "Summon spells" but this...

Core Rulebook wrote:

Spells that summon monsters

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

The Creation spells that have been mentioned to hamper/harm the enemy, unlike a spell that summon monsters.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
thaX wrote:

Grease allows for a Reflex save and is an obstacle much like difficult terrain. Same thing, it is considered an attack spell.

Are you sure about this?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah, I quoted the relevant rule above, here it is.

Spell Special Effects:
Core Rulebook 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.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

Thanks... in the last few years we had moved to 'anything that's indirect conjuration is ok'... interesting to see that anything that results in a saving throw is an attack...

I wonder if spell areas not cast directly on creatures are still an attack? (i.e. cast the grease on unoccupied squares, pit spells, etc.) What about clear attack spells like fireballs and lightning bolts cast on objects (like a cliff face to create a landslide, etc.)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

If the initial casting does not effect any creature, anything moving into the area are not subject to a spell, but the effects created by the spell after that initial casting, this would be the same on the rest of the Creation spells. It is the initial casting that is considered the attack, then afterward, the action to cast the spell is done.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

So grease empty squares between you and enemies ok? still invisible yes?


That seems to be fine yes.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I believe that the spells that do damage are always considered attacks, however, even if it is only rocks and ground being damaged.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:

In any case, it's clear we need more eyes on the topic of free actions than we're getting in this interminably long thread, so I'm going to start a new topic that doesn't hundreds of post for people to wade through. Feel free to chime in with your opinion as you like.

For those just joining in.

New thread is here.


Didn't need a second thread to answer one FAQ. I'm good.

701 to 735 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.