Is the spell instantaneous?
Does it matter? Casting the spell is the weapon, once the spell is cast, there is no 2nd weapon.
Correct: a character using Whirlwind would be unable to take extra attacks granted by spells.
That is incorrect. You can whirlwind, then cast a quickened shocking grasp, and take the free action to touch attack that the spell gives you.
False: spell casting ≠ attacking.
It takes the place of the extra attack. It is not an attack, but takes the place of it. You gave up the extra attack to whirlwind, so how can casting the spell take the place of something you gave up?
As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty).
TWF you take a full-round action, and make your attack(s) with your primary, plus the extra one with your off-hand. Very similar to spell combat having the spell cast. Whirlwind negates the extra attack you would get from having a second weapon. Spell combat functions like TWF. Whirlwind negates TWF, so whirlwind negates spell combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is the spell instantaneous?Does it matter? Casting the spell is the weapon, once the spell is cast, there is no 2nd weapon.
Either the spell is a weapon or it is not. Some spells have durations, i.e. they persist after casting is complete.
State your position and stick to it, for both the positive and negative implications.
Correct: a character using Whirlwind would be unable to take extra attacks granted by spells.That is incorrect. You can whirlwind, then cast a quickened shocking grasp, and take the free action to touch attack that the spell gives you.
The free action to make a touch attack with a quickened spell is no different than the free action to make a touch spell cast as a part of spell combat.
In both cases the spell is not an attack, the free action granted by the spell is an attack. Example: casting Scorching Ray in melee provokes twice: once for casting, once for attacking. Two separate actions, two AoO's
One action is prohibited by Whirlwind, one is not. it makes not difference if Spell Combat or Quickened metamagic is used to cast the spell.
False: spell casting ≠ attacking.It takes the place of the extra attack. It is not an attack, but takes the place of it. You gave up the extra attack to whirlwind, so how can casting the spell take the place of something you gave up?
Spell Combat replaces the off-hand attack with a completely different action - spell casting.
Spell casting is not an attack.
As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty).
Absolutely, if the magus were able to make an extra attack as a result of casting a spell it would suffer the -2 penalty. Whirlwind says no extra attack, it does not say no spells, e.g. no touch attack as a free action if you cast Shocking Grasp.
TWF you take a full-round action, and make your attack(s) with your primary, plus the extra one with your off-hand. Very similar to spell combat having the spell cast. Whirlwind negates the extra attack you would get from having a second weapon. Spell combat functions like TWF. Whirlwind negates TWF, so whirlwind negates spell combat.
Whirlwind does not negate TWF. Whirlwind prevents additional attacks gained from TWF. There is a difference between the two statements.
Spell Combat replaces the off-hand attack with a completely different action - spell casting.
Whirlwind says no extra attack
If you don't have an extra attack, then you can't replace it with something else.
Whirlwind does not negate TWF. Whirlwind prevents additional attacks gained from TWF. There is a difference between the two statements.
Two-weapon fighting is getting an extra attack with the second weapon. Whirlwind prevents that, so it does negate TWF. Whirlwind doesn't stop you from wielding 2 weapons, and you could even alternate which weapon you are using to make the attacks whirlwind gives you. What it does stop is the extra attack you would normally get by wielding a second weapon. Spell combat trades that extra attack for casting a spell. As above, and so, you can't cast the spell, because whirlwind removes the extra attack.
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
Is the spell instantaneous?Does it matter? Casting the spell is the weapon, once the spell is cast, there is no 2nd weapon.Either the spell is a weapon or it is not. Some spells have durations, i.e. they persist after casting is complete.
State your position and stick to it, for both the positive and negative implications.
So you think that a shield spell cast with spell combat counts as a weapon for the duration of the shield?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two weapon fighting: You get an extra thing!
Whirlwind: You don't get the extra thing.
Spell combat: I get an extra thing, though, right?
Whirlwind: ...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Considering that the ability itself says the spell is a weapon, yes, people are considering it so. That's not pedantic that's just what it is.
The off hand weapon is a spell seems very clear.
Then you have the answer for "does Two Weapon Defense work with Spell Combat."
So you think that a shield spell cast with spell combat counts as a weapon for the duration of the shield?Is the spell instantaneous?Does it matter? Casting the spell is the weapon, once the spell is cast, there is no 2nd weapon.Either the spell is a weapon or it is not. Some spells have durations, i.e. they persist after casting is complete.
State your position and stick to it, for both the positive and negative implications.
Only if you define the spell as a weapon, which spell combat does.
Like bonuses will not stack in this case.
So you think that a shield spell cast with spell combat counts as a weapon for the duration of the shield?Is the spell instantaneous?Does it matter? Casting the spell is the weapon, once the spell is cast, there is no 2nd weapon.Either the spell is a weapon or it is not. Some spells have durations, i.e. they persist after casting is complete.
State your position and stick to it, for both the positive and negative implications.
Do you have anything in RAW that says when the spell stops counting as a weapon?
The only limitation on time I could find was spell duration.
Somebody stresses the word choice trying to limit something only to find that the same word choice make the ability stronger when applied elsewhere.
Two weapon fighting: You get an extra thing!
Whirlwind: You don't get the extra thing.
Spell combat: I get an extra thing, though, right?
Whirlwind: ...
TWF: You get Thing A
Spell Combat: Thing A is replaced with Thing BWhirlwind: Thing A is prohibited. Thing B is not.
Of important note: It is legal to Combine TWF and Whirlwind; you would not get extra attacks if you did so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only if you define the spell as a weapon, which spell combat does.
Spell combat defines CASTING the spell as a weapon. Not the spell itself. Once the casting is complete, then there is no longer a 2nd weapon from spell combat.
TWF: You get Thing A
Spell Combat: Thing A is replaced with Thing B
Whirlwind: Thing A is prohibited. Thing B is not.
Its the order.
TWF: You get Thing A.
Whirlwind: Thing A is prohibited.
Spell Combat: Thing A is replaced with Thing B. Oh, thing A was prohibited, so it can't be replaced.
Of important note: It is legal to Combine TWF and Whirlwind; you would not get the extra attacks if you did so.
TWF is the extra attack. You cannot combine it with whirlwind. You can hold 2 weapons and whirlwind attack, but you cannot get the extra attack from holding a 2nd weapon.
Its the order.
TWF: You get Thing A.
Whirlwind: Thing A is prohibited.
Spell Combat: Thing A is replaced with Thing B. Oh, thing A was prohibited, so it can't be replaced.Of important note: It is legal to Combine TWF and Whirlwind; you would not get the extra attacks if you did so.TWF is the extra attack. You cannot combine it with whirlwind. You can hold 2 weapons and whirlwind attack, but you cannot get the extra attack from holding a 2nd weapon.
TWF is the Full Attack Action being taken. It is not the individual die rolls.
Whirlwind can be used with any Full Attack Action.
You aren't two weapon fighting if you aren't attacking with the second weapon.
You can have 2 weapons, take a full attack action, and attack once at BAB+6 with the right hand, and once at BAB+1 with the left, and not be two weapon fighting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You aren't two weapon fighting if you aren't attacking with the second weapon.
You can have 2 weapons, take a full attack action, and attack once at BAB+6 with the right hand, and once at BAB+1 with the left, and not be two weapon fighting.
TWF is a specific Full Round Action. You declare that action before any dice are rolled.
Should something prevent you from taking your full number of attacks, you are still TWFing. You continue to gain all the benefits and suffer all of the penalties for your chosen action.
You aren't two weapon fighting if you aren't attacking with the second weapon.
You can have 2 weapons, take a full attack action, and attack once at BAB+6 with the right hand, and once at BAB+1 with the left, and not be two weapon fighting.
TWF is a specific Full Round Action. You declare that action before any dice are rolled.
Should something prevent you from taking your full number of attacks, you are still TWFing. You continue to gain all the benefits and suffer all of the penalties for your chosen action.
Its not. It is a full attack action. You must take the penalties to all the attacks if you want to get the extra attack from wielding a 2nd weapon, but two weapon fighting is not a specific full round action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could totally pay -2 and not get a spell, and use whirlwind attack...
Doesn't sound like a good idea, but you could.
You can whirlwind, then cast a quickened shocking grasp, and take the free action to touch attack that the spell gives you.
Interesting.
Can a magus combine spell combat with Whirlwind attack?Going to say no. Whirlwind attack says as it's first line
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.
While Spell Combat gains many of the advantages of the full attack action it is still it's own Full ROUND action. The full attack action is not the same as the Spell Combat action.
You could do that without spell combat, couldn't you? Spellstrike doesn't require spell combat to use.
You don't even need spellstrike. Any quickened touch spell could do this.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
While Spell Combat gains many of the advantages of the full attack action it is still it's own Full ROUND action. The full attack action is not the same as the Spell Combat action.
While true, it's difficult to address this while they take the FAQ allowing Haste out of context to conflate full round action and full attack action.
You can whirlwind, then cast a quickened shocking grasp, and take the free action to touch attack that the spell gives you.
No, you can't. **EDIT** At least, not during the Whirlwind Attack.**EDIT** You give up bonus or extra attacks from feats, spells or abilities when using Whirlwind Attack. That would include the free action to deliver the touch spell, because you're gaining an extra attack outside of what Whirlwind Attack allows.
You could still cast the Quickened spell, and deliver it in place of one of the attacks allotted from Whirlwind Attack (if applicable, either normally or via Spellstrike), but you cannot utilize the free action rule, since that's a general ability of casting touch spells.
You likewise couldn't use spells like Acid Arrow or Scorching Ray, since those spells grant attacks outside of what Whirlwind Attack allows (though, if utilized via Spellstrike with the right Arcana, their effects can occur on enemies that are hit through the likes of Whirlwind Attack).
@ Gilfalas: Relevant FAQ says that Spell Combat is considered a Full Attack Action for Haste and other effects, which can very easily include stacking things like Hammer the Gap, which is a feat. Whirlwind Attack, which is also a feat, can likewise be applicable on the same token of it being (or involving) Full Attack Actions.
@ Kryzbyn: To be honest, the reason why people are saying TWF with Whirlwind Attack doesn't work is because you don't need to TWF to utilize Whirlwind Attack. If I am dual-wielding whips (it's ridiculous, but play along for now), and I perform a Whirlwind Attack, I could execute any of the allotted attacks with either whip of my choosing, no TWF required. The only time I apply TWF would be if I accept the penalties and perform the proper attacks, which you don't do with Whirlwind Attack.
Spell Combat is different in that your off-hand never attacks (unless your delivering the touch spell normally instead of via Spellstrike), and even if it does, Whirlwind Attack would negate whatever extra attack you would get if you tried to deliver the spell as a free action. Granted, you could still deliver the spell via a Touch Attack, but it would replace one of the attacks against one of the enemies of your choice in your Whirlwind Attack, as it rightfully should.
No, you can't. **EDIT** At least, not during the Whirlwind Attack.**EDIT** You give up bonus or extra attacks from feats, spells or abilities when using Whirlwind Attack. That would include the free action to deliver the touch spell, because you're gaining an extra attack outside of what Whirlwind Attack allows.
Whirlwind forces you to give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack for each opponent within reach. The regular attacks are from the full attack action. The swift action to cast shocking grasp and the attack from the spell are not your regular attacks from a full attack action, and so whirlwind doesn't stop it.
Spell Combat is different in that your off-hand never attacks (unless your delivering the touch spell normally instead of via Spellstrike), and even if it does, Whirlwind Attack would negate whatever extra attack you would get if you tried to deliver the spell as a free action. Granted, you could still deliver the spell via a Touch Attack, but it would replace one of the attacks against one of the enemies of your choice in your Whirlwind Attack, as it rightfully should.
The extra attack from TWF is replaced by casting a spell with spell combat. If you lose extra attacks, then you have nothing to replace.
Off-hand weapon: Grants 1 extra attack
Whirlwind: Lose extra attacks
Spell Combat: Trade off-hand extra attack for spell cast
Combine them all? You don't have an extra attack to trade. So you can whirlwind but not cast.
TWF: You get Thing A.
Whirlwind: Thing A is prohibited.
Spell Combat: Thing A is replaced with Thing B. Oh, thing A was prohibited, so it can't be replaced.
While I'm not 100% on that interpretation, going by it:
Choose Full AttackTWF: You get thing A on Full Attack
Choose Spell Combat
Spell Combat: You replace A with B
Choose Whirlwind
Whirlwind: Any A left over is forfeit. Oh, you don't have any of A left, so nothing is forfeit.
or:
Spell Combat, get thing B which specifies you can't get A on top of it.
Whirlwind: Get thing C, forfeit any A remaining, but there is none.
While Spell Combat gains many of the advantages of the full attack action it is still it's own Full ROUND action. The full attack action is not the same as the Spell Combat action.
Actually, a FAQ revision means Spell Combat *is* a Full Attack action.
I submit that since Spell Combat was in a later book than Whirlwind Attack, that Magus's intent, "full attack and spell", is more important than Whirlwind's anti-(Wizard's Haste/Druid's or Monster's Natural Attacks/Iteratives/Divine Power/Blessing of Fervor) clause - and that even then, the intent was "only attack each person once" which spell combat doesn't necessarily violate.
(Just a note: Whirlwind only requires BAB +4. So, using it doesn't even require you to have any extra attacks to give up.)
No, you can't. **EDIT** At least, not during the Whirlwind Attack.**EDIT** You give up bonus or extra attacks from feats, spells or abilities when using Whirlwind Attack. That would include the free action to deliver the touch spell, because you're gaining an extra attack outside of what Whirlwind Attack allows.Whirlwind forces you to give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack for each opponent within reach. The regular attacks are from the full attack action. The swift action to cast shocking grasp and the attack from the spell are not your regular attacks from a full attack action, and so whirlwind doesn't stop it.
Whirlwind Attack forfeits both regular attacks, and attacks allotted through feats, spells, and abilities. The ability to deliver a touch spell as a free action as part of casting a touch spell would likewise be forfeited. Again, that's only if cast during the Whirlwind Attack. If it was cast after Whirlwind Attack took place, it'd be legal, but if it's during, it's not, because extra attacks would be forfeited.
It's a lot like using Spell Combat, and doing the sword attacks before the spell. In that example, you're only getting maybe one attack, assuming the spell actually casts, with the effects of that Touch Spell. If you do the Spell first, and the free attack there misses, you still have the remainder of your full attack to deliver that spell (via Spellstrike, anyway).
james014Aura: Like I said, its all about order. I think that losing any extra attacks granted bars you from being able to trade them for spell casting with spell combat. You don't get to say, "Oh already used that!" Instead its, "You already used it, so you can't whirlwind attack."
If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first.
If I take a full attack action, and make my offhand attack first, I can't then decide, "Oh, well I used that, now I want to whirlwind attack instead"
Darksol:
Full attack is required to get any extra attacks at all. Whirlwind forces you to give up all extra attacks granted by taking a full attack action.
The free attack from casting a spell is not part of the full attack action, but is instead granted by completing the spell. So a quickened shocking grasp could be cast before the whirlwind, after the whirlwind, or in the middle, because the attack granted by casting a spell is not one given by the full attack, which is what you are giving up by whirlwinding.
I've followed this with interest, and I'm about 60/40 towards "no, you can't." But I'm surprised only one person FAQ'd the first post.
Agreed. From the discussion I know what my call would be if it happened to come up in a game. Big IF because I doubt it ever will.
Whirlwind Attack forfeits both regular attacks, and attacks allotted through feats, spells, and abilities. The ability to deliver a touch spell as a free action as part of casting a touch spell would likewise be forfeited. Again, that's only if cast during the Whirlwind Attack. If it was cast after Whirlwind Attack took place, it'd be legal, but if it's during, it's not, because extra attacks would be forfeited.
If you use your swift action to cast a spell it's not a part of your full-round-action, so it's not affected by Whirlwind-Attack. You would still get your free touch attack (or weapon attack through spellstrike).
If you cast Shocking Grasp as part of a Whirlwind attack (assuming that works) you wouldn't get the free touch attack for casting a touch spell because Whirlwind specifically prevents that. However as a Magus you would simply use your weapon to deliver the spell through one of the attacks Whirlwind-Attack gives you. A non-Magus (or a Magus I guess) could deliver a held touch spell as part of a Whirlwind-Attack - The held spell counts as armed and is a valid option for one (or more if the spell has multiple charges) of the attacks granted by Whirlwind-Attack.
Actually an ELDRITCH KNIGHT could make use of Spell Critical in the middle of a Whirlwind - the swift action used is still not part of the full round action, it's just happening at the same time.
It doesn't change that you can't TWF, FoB or Spell Combat with Whirlwind.
Whirlwind-Attack doesn't specifically say you can't do any of those things, but you lose the benefits from those things (extra attacks). There may be benefits you keep ... That's more or less what we're asking in this thread.
Of important note: It is legal to Combine TWF and Whirlwind; you would not get extra attacks if you did so.
Actually as far as I can tell TWF isn't an action on it's own. TWF is simply the full attack action where you happen to be holding an extra weapon. What this means is that there is no difference between Whirlwind-Attack while holding one weapon or Whirlwind-Attack while holding two weapons. You simply don't get the main benefit of this if you do it (the extra attack). As I said above, this thread is all about discussing whether you keep other benefits, and whether or not the spell in Spell-Combat counts as one of the benefits you'd keep or not.
If you're holding two weapons and you have more than one iterative attack you can choose to use different weapons to deliver your iteratives. In the same way, you can choose to deliver the attacks granted by Whirlwind with different weapons. This would still be considered "Two-Weapon Fighting" and would even let you benefit from things like TWO-WEAPON-DEFENSE as far as I can tell (There's nothing in the text for these things that would stop that from working, but there may be an FAQ or something out there that contradicts this).
Alright, let's try looking at this differently and see if it changes anything for anyone...
The default assumption for this thread has been the following order of operations:
1. Full-Attack.
2. Swap Full-Attack for Spell-Combat.
3. Insert Whirlwind-Attack into Spell-Combat.
When we look at it this way, Whirlwind-Attack says it replaces all attacks, but the spell may or may not be an attack, so it may or may not be replaced. Let's try ...
1. Full-Attack.
2. Swap Full-Attack for Whirlwind-Attack.
3. Insert Spell-Combat into Whirlwind-Attack.
Does this order change the way people think about this? This is purely a thought exercise to see if it changes anyone's perception of the problem at hand.
Pathfinder doesn't deal with "Order or Operations" so if it does work it should work in either order. If it doesn't work it should not-work in either order.
Thoughts?
I don't care enough to want to see this answered instead of something else. It's an implausibly rare combination that just doesn't matter much one way or the other.
Put another way, this is NOT 'frequently' asked.
There are several questions and concerns that aren't asked "frequently" that are thrown on the FAQ page, but you don't see us complain about them.
If you don't think this is worthy of a FAQ, then it could at least warrant a developer comment; even if it's not official, they could offer insight or intent that we're missing.
Alright, let's try looking at this differently and see if it changes anything for anyone...
The default assumption for this thread has been the following order of operations:
1. Full-Attack.
2. Swap Full-Attack for Spell-Combat.
3. Insert Whirlwind-Attack into Spell-Combat.When we look at it this way, Whirlwind-Attack says it replaces all attacks, but the spell may or may not be an attack, so it may or may not be replaced. Let's try ...
1. Full-Attack.
2. Swap Full-Attack for Whirlwind-Attack.
3. Insert Spell-Combat into Whirlwind-Attack.Does this order change the way people think about this? This is purely a thought exercise to see if it changes anyone's perception of the problem at hand.
Pathfinder doesn't deal with "Order or Operations" so if it does work it should work in either order. If it doesn't work it should not-work in either order.
Thoughts?
To me, it doesn't change, because the order to Full Attack is all the same action to do. This is no different than trying to apply, for example, Combat Expertise and/or Power Attack to your Full Attack regime, or even Fighting Defensively. It's all part of the same action, you aren't spending separate actions; at best, you're basically using ON/OFF switches for whether you wish to use or not use these abilities.
Also, in the second combination, the spell you're casting via your off-hand still isn't an attack unless it generates one upon casting (such as via Scorching Ray or Acid Arrow). Until then, it's a spell. Even so, if those same spells are applied to their weapon via Spellstrike and the proper Arcana, it's not an attack until you make the roll to attack via your main-hand weapon, and by that point, it's an attack with a main-hand melee weapon, not with a spell (or off-hand, which subsumes the clause of "losing" the off-hand attack), and as long as the clause of "one attack per enemy within reach" is met, it doesn't matter how the attack (or any of its potential riders) are carried out.
And yes, I understand that the people are saying that the attack normally associated with the off-hand in terms of TWF is part of the "spell" being cast, but Spell Combat alters the TWF regime to not have an off-hand attack whatsoever, and in Whirlwind Attack, it's pointless to TWF because, if you already have both weapons out, you can attack with either weapon against a given enemy within reach. This is evidenced by the TWF FAQ found here.
Until a FAQ or other "official" clarification from a dev post comes in and says that the spell is treated as an off-hand attack for effects related to it, then we're better off just calling it table variation at this point.
If you're holding two weapons and you have more than one iterative attack you can choose to use different weapons to deliver your iteratives. In the same way, you can choose to deliver the attacks granted by Whirlwind with different weapons. This would still be considered "Two-Weapon Fighting" and would even let you benefit from things like TWO-WEAPON-DEFENSE as far as I can tell (There's nothing in the text for these things that would stop that from working, but there may be an FAQ or something out there that contradicts this).
The bolded part is inaccurate. Two-weapon fighting has a very specific meaning in the game rules. It means you have two weapons, are taking a penalty on your attacks based on the size of those weapons, and are gaining one (or more with the feat chain) extra attacks beyond your normal iteratives as a result.
e.g, I can have a sword and a club, and a BAB of +6, and attack once with the sword, and once with the club, and that does not meet the definition of two weapon fighting in game terms. No feats or abilities that interact with two weapon fighting would trigger in this scenario. Two weapon defense would be fine because its requirement is not to be two weapon fighting, but merely to have two weapons in hand.
1. Full-Attack.
2. Swap Full-Attack for Spell-Combat.
3. Insert Whirlwind-Attack into Spell-Combat.
....
1. Full-Attack.
2. Swap Full-Attack for Whirlwind-Attack.
3. Insert Spell-Combat into Whirlwind-Attack.
These orders actually can't happen. On your turn you declare you are going to use a full-round action. GM will ask you, "Okay, what full round action are you using?". Your choices (in this simple scenario) are the full attack action, or the spell combat action.
So step 1 is
Full-attack OR Spell combat. There is no swapping at step 2.
Step 2 simply becomes:
Is my choice of full round action compatible with WW attack? If so, add it. Of course this thread is all about whether both choices are legal choices to stack with WW attack or not.
If you're holding two weapons and you have more than one iterative attack you can choose to use different weapons to deliver your iteratives. In the same way, you can choose to deliver the attacks granted by Whirlwind with different weapons. This would still be considered "Two-Weapon Fighting" and would even let you benefit from things like TWO-WEAPON-DEFENSE as far as I can tell (There's nothing in the text for these things that would stop that from working, but there may be an FAQ or something out there that contradicts this).The bolded part is inaccurate. Two-weapon fighting has a very specific meaning in the game rules. It means you have two weapons, are taking a penalty on your attacks based on the size of those weapons, and are gaining one (or more with the feat chain) extra attacks beyond your normal iteratives as a result.
e.g, I can have a sword and a club, and a BAB of +6, and attack once with the sword, and once with the club, and that does not meet the definition of two weapon fighting in game terms. No feats or abilities that interact with two weapon fighting would trigger in this scenario. Two weapon defense would be fine because its requirement is not to be two weapon fighting, but merely to have two weapons in hand.
You could be right here. What I was thinking is from what I've read Two-Weapon-Fighting isn't a specific action in it's own right. As far as I can tell it's a Full-Attack-Action - whether you use the bonus attacks (and take the penalties) or not is up to you (and you don't even have to decide you're doing a Full-Attack until after you've resolved the first attack). HERE is my post on the other page with the relevant quotes (and links). If there's relevant text somewhere else I'm completely open to being wrong there. If not I'm still open to it, I just need it explained better ...?
1. Full-Attack.
2. Swap Full-Attack for Spell-Combat.
3. Insert Whirlwind-Attack into Spell-Combat.
....
1. Full-Attack.
2. Swap Full-Attack for Whirlwind-Attack.
3. Insert Spell-Combat into Whirlwind-Attack.
These orders actually can't happen. On your turn you declare you are going to use a full-round action. GM will ask you, "Okay, what full round action are you using?". Your choices (in this simple scenario) are the full attack action, or the spell combat action.
So step 1 is
Full-attack OR Spell combat. There is no swapping at step 2.
Step 2 simply becomes:
Is my choice of full round action compatible with WW attack? If so, add it. Of course this thread is all about whether both choices are legal choices to stack with WW attack or not.
It's a thought exercise to help people try to see things from a different perspective. The point of this is to try to put the puzzle pieces in a different order and see if they still fit in your brain. Since technically there is no order the entire thing is wrong, but it might help people see things in a different light (so far no luck =P )
When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.
I'm pretty sure this is referring to things that actually grant extra attacks as part of a normal full-attack action, such as Medusa's Wrath, Haste, etc. This wording in no way prohibits actions outside of the full-attack action it modifies. In the case of Spell Combat, it is a full-round action that in itself contains a spell-casting action, and a full-attack action. Whirlwind will modify the full-attack part, but it in no way touches the spell-casting part. If the spell-casting part grants a free touch attack, that will still be available.
Whirlwind Attack replaces attacks, not spells. Spell Combat substitutes the off-hand weapon (and the attacks associated with it) with a spell. Therefore, Whirlwind Attack doesn't replace the spell, because the attacks that the off-hand would normally grant, are already forfeited.
The entire intent of whirlwind attack is that you sacrifice everything you normally can do in a full-attack in order to make an attack against each creature adjacent to you.
Also, even though spell combat has you use a spell instead of an off-hand attack, the ability still treats the spell as an off-hand attack for action economy purposes. And Whirlwind Attack is a feat that interacts with action economy.
You can't be generous with interpretation of these rules when Whirlwind Attack was written with the context that you could not do anything other than attack during a full-attack action. And context is extremely important when interpreting rules text.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spell Combat is much easier to understand and especially easier to determine how it interacts with other rules if you treat it as such:
Spell Combat (Full-Round Action) = Cast Spell Action + Full-Attack Action
- OR -
Spell Combat (Full-Round Action) = Full-Attack Action + Cast Spell Action
Whirlwind attack simply changes what happens inside that Full-Attack Action.
On the other hand the fact it wasn't written like that could be interpreted as a strong hint it isn't supposed to be that easy.
Which doesn't suprise as the original wording did not allow the combination of Spell Combat and Whirlwind Attack to begin with.
The FAQ might have changed that, but I'm pretty sure that potential side effect is not intended. My understanding is that Spell Combat is supposed to work like TWF, so when something doesn't work with one it also wouldn't work with the other. For those who like to get overly technical: working as in granting benefits.
One reason to favor that reading is that things get needlessly complicated if only some spells are allowed. Notice that attack is not a very well defined term within the rules and can be used to describe weapon attacks or aggressive actions on a whole depending on which section you are in. I'd rather not open that can of worms again.
I think it wasn't written like that (as a combination of a spell action and a full-attack action), simply because Paizo's writers are just not good at writing 'rules'. They write narrative, and hope that the readers can parse them into rules, and they have repeatedly stated that the books are NOT technical manuals (which any rulebook really SHOULD be).On the other hand the fact it wasn't written like that could be interpreted as a strong hint it isn't supposed to be that easy.
Which doesn't suprise as the original wording did not allow the combination of Spell Combat and Whirlwind Attack to begin with.
The FAQ might have changed that, but I'm pretty sure that potential side effect is not intended. My understanding is that Spell Combat is supposed to work like TWF, so when something doesn't work with one it also wouldn't work with the other. For those who like to get overly technical: working as in granting benefits.One reason to favor that reading is that things get needlessly complicated if only some spells are allowed. Notice that attack is not a very well defined term within the rules and can be used to describe weapon attacks or aggressive actions on a whole depending on which section you are in. I'd rather not open that can of worms again.
I think the only reason they included the 'much like two-weapon fighting' phrase in the Spell Combat description was to assuage worry that this new thing was way too powerful. I think they did it to show that it has its trade-offs just like two-weapon does (limited weapon selection, attack roll penalties, etc). I don't think they ever intended it to truly be ruled on AS two-weapon fighting, otherwise they wouldn't have used 'soft' words like 'much like'.
If the expectation was that Spell Combat was going to be ruled AS two-weapon fighting, with the spell being the off-hand attack, then taking the two-weapon fighting feat should reduce the spell combat attack roll penalty to 0, which it obviously does not do.
No to whirlwind attack and cheesing off a spell at the same time. Come on...
It's not cheese if you're using a class feature exactly as it was intended (casting a spell while being able to full attack).
@ Cyrad: That could very well be the intent, but the wording doesn't reflect that. It mentions that you forfeit regular attacks, as well as attacks from feats, abilities, and spells. That's it. Spells aren't attacks any more than if you were affected by an Invisibility spell. In fact, if it didn't mention that it forfeited attacks from spells, our example Magus could theoretically cast Scorching Ray (quickened or otherwise), and still benefit from that spell normally. However, because Scorching Ray gives the character attacks from spells, it's not permissible under the rules of Whirlwind Attack.
Even if Whirlwind Attack was written well before you had the ability to substitute weapons (and/or attacks, though RAW doesn't say you lose the off-hand attack associated with TWF, which means you technically should get 2 attacks, one for your base off-hand via TWF, and one for your free action to deliver the spell, but that's semantics and obviously not intended), the ideal that the wording for Whirlwind Attack still only covers attacks, when there are options to do more than simply attack when it comes to a Full Attack Action (as evidenced by Spell Combat), it would need more precise wording to extend the intent that it removes all sorts of action economy associated with attacks.
**EDIT** That would include being able to cast a Quickened Spell and the free action to deliver it, since those are extra attacks allotted from the general ability to deliver touch attacks, which I feel many who are part of this discussion would disagree. Of course, you could do so after the results of the Whirlwind Attack were determined. But not during.
Whirlwind Attack replaces all regular attacks, which the offhand strike would be a part of. That is the main argument of those saying Spell Combat and Whirlwind Attack shouldn't work together after all.
Depending on how you read the rules it could be argued that combining the Spell Combat and Whirldwind Attack replaces your offhand attack twice, which obviously wouldn't be allowed.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
They write narrative, and hope that the readers can parse them into rules, and they have repeatedly stated that the books are NOT technical manuals (which any rulebook really SHOULD be).
I'm pretty sure 98% or more of players and GM appreciate it's written in the narrative style. I'd be happy with a technical (like magic the gathering) rules format. But I'm one of a little over 1000 Level 2 Magic judges in the world. I think they'd like to sell the rules to more than a thousand people in the world.
They write narrative, and hope that the readers can parse them into rules, and they have repeatedly stated that the books are NOT technical manuals (which any rulebook really SHOULD be).I'm pretty sure 98% or more of players and GM appreciate it's written in the narrative style. I'd be happy with a technical (like magic the gathering) rules format. But I'm one of a little over 1000 Level 2 Magic judges in the world. I think they'd like to sell the rules to more than a thousand people in the world.
They CAN write narrative while keeping technical consistency, but choose not to do so. That's where the problems arise. They choose to describe the same basic premise 3 or 4 different ways, because that's what you're taught to do in creative writing courses, but it simply is not appropriate here, and causes confusion, frustration and bickering among people who are just trying to have a good time around a table together, but end up with different expectations based on reading the same or similar passages.
The different ways to describe things is great to break up the monotony while reading through a long passage, but these books are most often read as reference material, looking up a few specific passages as a time, where monotony would not come up, not front-to-back.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
causes confusion, frustration and bickering among people who are just trying to have a good time around a table together
While in almost 400 games I've been player or GM, I've seen this happen at a table only a couple times.
Generally, this is far more of a problem online and mostly related to some that cling to some sort of "only one way to read the rules".
causes confusion, frustration and bickering among people who are just trying to have a good time around a table togetherWhile in almost 400 games I've been player or GM, I've seen this happen at a table only a couple times.
Generally, this is far more of a problem online and mostly related to some that cling to some sort of "only one way to read the rules".
I've only ever seen this happen with my wife, who has never actually read the rules but has strong beliefs about how the game is played, dating back to first and second edition AD&D :P