Spell combat + Whirlwind Attack


Rules Questions

251 to 300 of 735 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

The stamina version of the feat is also pretty much irrelevant. Everybody agrees that Spell Combat Shocking Grasp cannot be combined with whirlwind attack to get attacks against everyone in reach plus one" (whether or not that works at all is the subject of debate) but the stamina version is specifically to let people get bonus attacks on their whirlwind attack.

The question is "does Spell Combat Enlarge Person work with Whirlwind Attack" since there's no real sense in which Enlarge Person can be seen as an attack (casting it it doesn't break invisibility, after all.)


Byakko wrote:

Barring an official response (haven't they been getting rather sparse of late?), I think we can at least agree that the rules are a bit muddy here.

Despite some decent from the other side, I still believe the combo won't work because WA bars additional attacks, and the spell from Spell Combat functions like TWF. Since you can't use TWF, you can't use Spell Combat (even if the latter may not actually be an attack).

I believe this is both RAW and RAI, but expect table variation. :)

There is nothing barring you from using TWF and WW attack together. The net result however is that you'd get a -2 (or more) on all your attacks, and you would not get any extra attacks as a result. So there is no reason for this to ever occur unless some other feat that works with TWF gives you a bonus of some kind other than extra attacks. So in practice it is just never really a combo someone would use.

PossibleCabbage wrote:


The question is "does Spell Combat Enlarge Person work with Whirlwind Attack" since there's no real sense in which Enlarge Person can be seen as an attack (casting it it doesn't break invisibility, after all.)

No its not allowed, because enlarge person is a 1 round casting time, and thus not valid with spell combat.

However, WW, Spell Combat, and a prestidigitation spell would be a valid way to phrase that question.


bbangerter wrote:

No its not allowed, because enlarge person is a 1 round casting time, and thus not valid with spell combat.

However, WW, Spell Combat, and a prestidigitation spell would be a valid way to phrase that question.

Yeah, I overlooked that. The example I gave earlier was Shield + Spell Combat + WWA, and shield does have a standard casting time, but I wanted to change it up and was incautious.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Basically, if your using a second action that normally would take a standard to perform (Casting a spell), the ability that allows that (Spell Combat) would not work with Whirlwind because of how that extra action is accessed. (Emulating TWF) Doing word games will not change this.

Looking at the word games, would one be able to Spring Attack and Whirlwind in the middle? Would a character be able to use Vital Strike as I Whirlwind?

I would think not, but the way some are looking at this, the possibility is there.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Everybody agrees that Spell Combat Shocking Grasp cannot be combined with whirlwind attack to get attacks against everyone in reach plus one" (whether or not that works at all is the subject of debate

I don't agree so everyone doesn't agree.

I think this doesn't work for a multitude of reasons.


It seems to me that the biggest word game in this thread is "emulating TWF" as though that has any bearing on how spell combat works, since that's explanatory text for the idea behind the ability, not actual rules text for how the ability works.

The only sense in which Spell Combat is like TWF is that you take a -2 penalty to all of your attacks (assuming a light/1h weapon in your main hand), that penalty is incurred for casting a spell not for making an attack. If the spell results in an attack, that's due to the properties of the spell not spell combat itself.


thaX wrote:

Basically, if your using a second action that normally would take a standard to perform (Casting a spell), the ability that allows that (Spell Combat) would not work with Whirlwind because of how that extra action is accessed. (Emulating TWF) Doing word games will not change this.

Considering the opposing argument to WW and spell combat functioning together is reliant on changing the word "weapon" in spell combat to mean "attack", complaining about word games is.... Pot, meet kettle.

Every argument put forth so far as to why they don't work together has been one of the following:

1) Spell combat is not a full attack action, WW requires a full attack action. Problem: This response completely ignores the FAQ, the FAQ makes plain that spell combat counts as a full-attack action in, at the very least, some situations, and possibly all.

2) The FAQ only applies to haste. Problem: What then does "other effects" in the FAQ response refer to. Ignoring part of the FAQ does not make for a strong argument.

3) The FAQ only applies to haste and effects that emulate haste. (This is the strongest, and only valid argument IMO, as to this being possibly RAI). Problem: It doesn't say haste like effects. It just says "other effects". Other effects without further clarification could very well include other things that are not haste like.

4) The spell in spell combat counts as an attack. Problem: It doesn't actually say that, it says it counts as the weapon. Changing the words of the actual rules does not make for a strong argument. (refer back to word games you are complaining about).

So the problem with every opposition argument is that every single one of them ignores in whole, or in part, part of the actual written rules. Only #3 has any basis around which an argument can be made, and at best it becomes a difference of opinion on the RAI of what "other effects" actually refers to.

thaX wrote:


Looking at the word games, would one be able to Spring Attack and Whirlwind in the middle?

No.

Spring Attack wrote:


As a full-round action, you can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack.

Spring attack is not a full attack action, and unlike spell combat, has no FAQ stating that it can be treated as a full attack action under even a limited set of circumstances. WW attack requires you to be making a full attack action.

thaX wrote:


Looking at the word games, would one be able to Spring Attack and Whirlwind in the middle? Would a character be able to use Vital Strike as I Whirlwind?

Also no.

Vital Strike wrote:


When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage.

Vital strike requires you to be using an attack action. What is an attack action? It is the specific standard action used to make an attack - see the FAQ. You cannot use a standard action to attack while also making a full-attack action as the basic requirement for using WW attack.

I don't believe anyone in this thread who has stated that WW and spell combat work together has made any assertion that either of your above two examples could be used together. If they do, they are wrong as I've just shown.


Quote:
3) The FAQ only applies to haste and effects that emulate haste. (This is the strongest, and only valid argument IMO, as to this being possibly RAI). Problem: It doesn't say haste like effects. It just says "other effects". Other effects without further clarification could very well include other things that are not haste like.

Haste, speed weapon, blessing of fervor, stalwart defender smash, cleaving finish, wild fighting.

Maybe monk flurry of blows extra attack from 1 ki spent. Not sure if that combines with spell combat or not.
Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.

Those are some "other effects" that allow extra attacks that could work with spell combat. Anything that requires a full-attack action, and grants an extra attack should work.

Whirlwind requires a full-attack action, and specifically changes the attacks allowed. That is the difference.


Cavall wrote:

Your argument was "optional rule is optional".

Which...uh.. yeah that's the whole book.

The stamina rules for Whirlwind are not relevant to the discussion, optional or not.

During spell combat, you can cast and spell and make one attack vs each opponent in reach.

If you use the stamina rules, you can cast a spell, make one attack vs each opponent in reach, and use iterative attacks/extra attacks/free attacks.

Tarantula wrote:

Maybe monk flurry of blows extra attack from 1 ki spent. Not sure if that combines with spell combat or not.

Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.

You cannot combine FoB and Spell Combat.

They are both full attack actions.


Tarantula wrote:
Quote:
3) The FAQ only applies to haste and effects that emulate haste. (This is the strongest, and only valid argument IMO, as to this being possibly RAI). Problem: It doesn't say haste like effects. It just says "other effects". Other effects without further clarification could very well include other things that are not haste like.

Haste, speed weapon, blessing of fervor, stalwart defender smash, cleaving finish, wild fighting.

Yes, those are all things that grant additional attacks. Many of those are not haste-like effects as some would require. It also still has yet to be proven that it is limited to only things that provide extra attacks.

Tarantula wrote:


Whirlwind requires a full-attack action, and specifically changes the attacks allowed. That is the difference.

And....?

How many extra attacks does spell combat provide? Zero. None. It provides you all the attacks a full attack action would require, and a spell. A spell is still not an attack, no matter how many times people repeat it. Some spells provide an attack once the casting is complete (which would not be compatible with WW), but a spell is just a spell. WW replaces all your attacks in a round with a single attack against all enemies in range. It does not replace all spells you might cast in a round, it does not replace all potions you might drink in a round, it does not replace all 5' steps you make in a round. It replaces only attacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bbangerter wrote:
Tarantula wrote:


Whirlwind requires a full-attack action, and specifically changes the attacks allowed. That is the difference.

And....?

How many extra attacks does spell combat provide? Zero. None. It provides you all the attacks a full attack action would require, and a spell. A spell is still not an attack, no matter how many times people repeat it. Some spells provide an attack once the casting is complete (which would not be compatible with WW), but a spell is just a spell. WW replaces all your attacks in a round with a single attack against all enemies in range. It does not replace all spells you might cast in a round, it does not replace all potions you might drink in a round, it does not replace all 5' steps you make in a round. It replaces only attacks.

Spell combat functions as TWF where casting the spell is the offhand weapon. Instead of attacking you cast with it. Casting the spell replaces the offhand attack. If it only replaced the weapon then it has no need to refer to TWF because you can hold two weapons and not be TWF. TWF is using a second weapon to get an extra attack, which spell combat replaces with casting a spell.


Tarantula wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
Tarantula wrote:


Whirlwind requires a full-attack action, and specifically changes the attacks allowed. That is the difference.

And....?

How many extra attacks does spell combat provide? Zero. None. It provides you all the attacks a full attack action would require, and a spell. A spell is still not an attack, no matter how many times people repeat it. Some spells provide an attack once the casting is complete (which would not be compatible with WW), but a spell is just a spell. WW replaces all your attacks in a round with a single attack against all enemies in range. It does not replace all spells you might cast in a round, it does not replace all potions you might drink in a round, it does not replace all 5' steps you make in a round. It replaces only attacks.

Spell combat functions as TWF where casting the spell is the offhand weapon. Instead of attacking you cast with it. Casting the spell replaces the offhand attack. If it only replaced the weapon then it has no need to refer to TWF because you can hold two weapons and not be TWF. TWF is using a second weapon to get an extra attack, which spell combat replaces with casting a spell.

Yes, it replaces,

Replaced = old thing is no longer there, a new thing has taken its place.

The new thing is not an attack, which is the only thing disallowed by Whirlwind.

Declaring Spell Combat does not equal declaring TWF. You don't start with an extra attack and replace it after the action is declared. You declare Spell Combat and commence an action with iterative attacks + a spell. Whirlwind prevents the iterative attacks. The spell is not an attack and is not prevented.


Snowlilly wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
Tarantula wrote:


Whirlwind requires a full-attack action, and specifically changes the attacks allowed. That is the difference.

And....?

How many extra attacks does spell combat provide? Zero. None. It provides you all the attacks a full attack action would require, and a spell. A spell is still not an attack, no matter how many times people repeat it. Some spells provide an attack once the casting is complete (which would not be compatible with WW), but a spell is just a spell. WW replaces all your attacks in a round with a single attack against all enemies in range. It does not replace all spells you might cast in a round, it does not replace all potions you might drink in a round, it does not replace all 5' steps you make in a round. It replaces only attacks.

Spell combat functions as TWF where casting the spell is the offhand weapon. Instead of attacking you cast with it. Casting the spell replaces the offhand attack. If it only replaced the weapon then it has no need to refer to TWF because you can hold two weapons and not be TWF. TWF is using a second weapon to get an extra attack, which spell combat replaces with casting a spell.

Yes, it replaces,

Replaced = old thing is no longer there, a new thing has taken its place.

The new thing is not an attack, which is the only thing disallowed by Whirlwind.

So which comes first, chicken or the egg? I mean, TWF/Spell Combat or whirlwind?

If whirlwind first, then it replaces any extra attacks, so you can't replace the extra attack granted by TWF with casting a spell.

If spell combat comes first, you replace the extra attack with casting a spell, but then whirlwind says "you can't have any extra attacks" which is questionable as to if the replaced extra attack counts as having been used when it is replaced.

As a different analogy.
You have 2 apples, one in each hand.
Spell combat trades the apple in your left hand for an orange.
Whirlwind trades all apples for a cantaloupe.

Depending on the order you apply this, you can either:
A) Trade your left apple for an orange, trade all your apples for a cantaloupe. You now have an orange and a cantaloupe.
or
B) Trade all your apples for a cantaloupe. You now have no apples to trade for a orange.

The question is in what order does it happen. Or, do you have to have the extra attack available to trade for spell combat to function.


Tarantula wrote:

So which comes first, chicken or the egg? I mean, TWF/Spell Combat or whirlwind?

If whirlwind first, then it replaces any extra attacks, so you can't replace the extra attack granted by TWF with casting a spell.

If spell combat comes first, you replace the extra attack with casting a spell, but then whirlwind says "you can't have any extra attacks" which is questionable as to if the replaced extra attack counts as having been used when it is replaced.

You cannot declare Whirlwind unless you are making a full attack, i.e. the full attack action must be declared before whirlwind is an option.

The full attack action being declared is not, and never was, TWF. The full attack action declared is Spell Combat. Spell Combat does not, at any point in its resolution, grant an extra attack. Specific spells may grant an extra attack(s), which would not be usable in conjunction with whirlwind.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Tarantula wrote:
Whirlwind requires a full-attack action...

More accurately, it is a rider to/modification of an existing full-attack action.


Tarantula wrote:
So which comes first, chicken or the egg? I mean, TWF/Spell Combat or whirlwind?

Well, in order to apply the effects of Whirlwind Attack, one must first commit to taking the full attack action, in this case, Spell Combat, since Whirlwind Attack's effects only take place when you are performing a full attack action.

You also even said it yourself:

Tarantula wrote:
Whirlwind requires a full-attack action, and specifically changes the attacks allowed. That is the difference.

If it requires an activity (full attack action) to take place, then one must perform that very activity in order to apply it.

And as Ravingdork concluded from your statement:

Ravingdork wrote:
More accurately, it is a rider to/modification of an existing full-attack action.

So yes, Spell Combat would come first.


Isn't spell combat also a full-attack action?

Example:
Player: "I use a full-attack action."
GM: "Okay."
Player: "I want to use spell combat to cast shield, then make my attack, then 5 foot step and I'm done."
GM: "Okay, that's your actions next player."

Not:
Player: "I use a full-attack action."
GM: "Okay."
Player: "I want to use spell combat to cast shield, then make my attack, then 5 foot step and I'm done."
GM: "You can't do that its a different action than full-attack and you didn't declare spell combat when you said it so you have to full-attack now."


bbangerter wrote:
It also still has yet to be proven that it is limited to only things that provide extra attacks.

The feat specifies attacks.

Tarantula wrote:

As a different analogy.

You have 2 apples, one in each hand.
Spell combat trades the apple in your left hand for an orange.
Whirlwind trades all apples for a cantaloupe.

Spell Combat says you never had the apple in your left hand, and had the orange all along. Some spells let you trade the orange for an apple, though (and would not be allowed/work, because Whirlwind trades future apples, too.)


james014Aura wrote:
Spell Combat says you never had the apple in your left hand, and had the orange all along. Some spells let you trade the orange for an apple, though (and would not be allowed/work, because Whirlwind trades future apples, too.)

That is where I disagree. Spell combat trades the apple for an orange. It doesn't act as if the apple was never there.

Whirlwind takes all apples. If you declare you want to full-attack, then say, "Oh, and I'm TWF so I get an extra attack" roll, and then say, "Oh wait, I meant to whirlwind attack instead, let me just pretend I didn't roll that extra attack."


james014Aura wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
It also still has yet to be proven that it is limited to only things that provide extra attacks.

The feat specifies attacks.

Right... my comment was in reference to the FAQ on spell combat though - the WW feat does not enter the picture in reference to this. The FAQ does not make the limitation that it only applies to feats/spells/abilities that grant extra attacks, that is what I'm asking the side saying spell combat and WW do not work together to provide, proof that the FAQ has that narrow limitation for counting spell combat as a full attack.


Tarantula wrote:
james014Aura wrote:
Spell Combat says you never had the apple in your left hand, and had the orange all along. Some spells let you trade the orange for an apple, though (and would not be allowed/work, because Whirlwind trades future apples, too.)

That is where I disagree. Spell combat trades the apple for an orange. It doesn't act as if the apple was never there.

To show this, you have to show that spell combat granted an extra attack though - regardless of what spell was being cast.

Tarantula wrote:


Whirlwind takes all apples. If you declare you want to full-attack, then say, "Oh, and I'm TWF so I get an extra attack" roll, and then say, "Oh wait, I meant to whirlwind attack instead, let me just pretend I didn't roll that extra attack."

These take backsies style comments have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. That is between a player and their GM.

Correctly stated, a player says "I'm using spell combat. Because the FAQ says spell combat can count as a full attack, I'm going to also use WW with it."

They do not state, "I'm doing a full attack. And I'm adding spell combat on top of that." Unlike WW attack, spell combat is not a rider effect on top of a full attack action. It is a separate action, that based on the FAQ, counts as a full attack for things that care about whether you are making a full attack or not.

TWF is iteratives plus an off-hand attack. Spell Combat is iteratives plus a spell. It was never an off hand attack to begin with. The spell replaces your off hand weapon, not your off hand attack. If the chosen spell happens to allow an attack after casting the spell (and you aren't using WW attack) then you also get that attack. But if the spell does not, then no extra attack was ever considered part of the equation.

You seem to be wanting to make the same mistake you made just above with trying to suggest a player might have to declare they were doing WW attack before they declared they were making a full-attack equivalent action.

WW attack replaces all attacks. I'm doing spell combat, so do I have an extra attack? I don't know if I have an extra attack until I have chosen what spell I am casting. The spell decision comes first - and determines whether an extra attack would be granted or not. It is not an attack, converted to a spell, that may then grant an attack. It is simply, and plainly, a spell, and the spell chosen might allow an attack associated with it.


Tarantula wrote:

Isn't spell combat also a full-attack action?

Per multiple FAQs, yes, though since it isn't a typical full attack action, simply saying "I perform a full attack action" probably isn't sufficient enough for people to understand what you mean.

Also, that GM is a bit of a jerk, even if the player is technically wrong, as the player doesn't commit to anything until he rolls attacks and his character performs the activities associated with it. Now, if the PC made his attacks without applying Spell Combat penalties and effects, THEN the GM has the right to say the PC can't do that.

Then again, saying "I perform Spell Combat" is just as easy, and has much less confusion involved, so I don't understand why the player in question simply doesn't say that.

/endtangentialrant


Tarantula wrote:
james014Aura wrote:
Spell Combat says you never had the apple in your left hand, and had the orange all along. Some spells let you trade the orange for an apple, though (and would not be allowed/work, because Whirlwind trades future apples, too.)

That is where I disagree. Spell combat trades the apple for an orange. It doesn't act as if the apple was never there.

Whirlwind takes all apples. If you declare you want to full-attack, then say, "Oh, and I'm TWF so I get an extra attack" roll, and then say, "Oh wait, I meant to whirlwind attack instead, let me just pretend I didn't roll that extra attack."

Yes, it does, because you don't have an apple there anymore. When you perform Spell Combat, your off-hand weapon becomes a spell that you cast; an orange. Not an apple. TWF has (an) apple(s) there, Spell Combat doesn't, even if they are similar in their function, they're different in that regard.

Also, you're applying Whirlwind Attack after you substituted the apple for an orange, since we've proven that Spell Combat came first.

It doesn't take the orange because you switched it with an apple, because then you're altering the ramifications of what Whirlwind Attack takes, i.e. moving goal posts. It might go after the apple that you switched it with, but that's irrelevant to the orange that's in your hand right now.

**EDIT**

A couple reference mistakes have been fixed.

@ bbangerter: Actually, you can choose to do the attacks first, and then cast the spell, according to Spell Combat's description. That being said, the only time Whirlwind Attack would circumvent the attacks given would be if the spells themselves performed attacks, like Ranged Touch Attacks (i.e. Scorching Ray, Acid Arrow, and so on).

Spells that are Melee Touch Attacks would technically work, since the casting of the spell ends Spell Combat (and by relation, Whirlwind Attack), leaving you able to deliver that spell as a Free Action (though, if you performed the spell first, and then went on to make your attacks, you wouldn't be able to deliver the spell as a Free Action until after Spell Combat ends, and if it's already discharged before that via Spellstrike, then the Free Attack cannot be done).


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Some people are wasting their energy the wrong way. Why not petition Paizo for a 'whirlwind magus' archetype instead and in the process gain other cool abilities that you can do as part of a ww attack?

Genius!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

There's already a way to do Spell Combat with Whirlwind Attack, but you'll also need to take the Combat Stamina feat. When you do, you'll then be able to do this:

Quote:
Whirlwind Attack (Combat): When using this feat, you can spend stamina points to still take bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities. You must spend 5 stamina points per extra attack you take in this way. This combat trick allows you to make extra attacks to which you have access—it doesn't by itself grant extra attacks.

There, problem solved. Spend the feats, Magus!!!! SPEND THE FEATS!! MUHAHAHAHAHA!

*slaps the popcorn out of Ravingdork's hand*

Looks like the combo of spell combat plus whirlwind isn't normally allowed. Otherwise, the way this optional rule is put together doesn't really make sense.


Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

There's already a way to do Spell Combat with Whirlwind Attack, but you'll also need to take the Combat Stamina feat. When you do, you'll then be able to do this:

Quote:
Whirlwind Attack (Combat): When using this feat, you can spend stamina points to still take bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities. You must spend 5 stamina points per extra attack you take in this way. This combat trick allows you to make extra attacks to which you have access—it doesn't by itself grant extra attacks.

There, problem solved. Spend the feats, Magus!!!! SPEND THE FEATS!! MUHAHAHAHAHA!

*slaps the popcorn out of Ravingdork's hand*

Looks like the combo of spell combat plus whirlwind isn't normally allowed. Otherwise, the way this optional rule is put together doesn't really make sense.

This optional feat has nothing to do with a magus - it is not a magus exclusive feat - its simply a feat that is available with the optional stamina rules. In fact the entire optional feat system presented is primarily focused on boosting fighters, and even has an option to make it exclusive to pure class fighters only.

Quote:


If you want to significantly strengthen fighters compared to all other classes and keep this system as a special fighter-only perk, you can restrict the Combat Stamina feat to fighters and limit the feats a character can use with his stamina pool to those gained with the fighter's bonus feats. A multiclass fighter can't use stamina with bonus feats he gained from any other class, even if that class can take fighter-only feats as bonus feats (like the warpriest and the swashbuckler). In this version, if a character really wants the stamina ability of a few key feats, he will need to diversify his martial training by taking a level in fighter.

The WW feat in this optional rule system has to do with using WW attack while getting the bonus attack from haste, speed weapons, cleaving finish, and the like. All the extra ATTACKS that WW normally prevents.

So once again, we are looking at the opponents of this idea trying to apply rules in a manner inconsistent with the full context of the actual written rules.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

I'm not an opponent to the idea. I'd rather have the 'idea' supported by new feats or archetypes instead of having the 'idea' supported by a large bed of kraft dinner noodles (with extra cheese).


Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

There's already a way to do Spell Combat with Whirlwind Attack, but you'll also need to take the Combat Stamina feat. When you do, you'll then be able to do this:

Quote:
Whirlwind Attack (Combat): When using this feat, you can spend stamina points to still take bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities. You must spend 5 stamina points per extra attack you take in this way. This combat trick allows you to make extra attacks to which you have access—it doesn't by itself grant extra attacks.

There, problem solved. Spend the feats, Magus!!!! SPEND THE FEATS!! MUHAHAHAHAHA!

*slaps the popcorn out of Ravingdork's hand*

Looks like the combo of spell combat plus whirlwind isn't normally allowed. Otherwise, the way this optional rule is put together doesn't really make sense.

It basically lets you benefit from things like Haste and other effects which give attacks (AKA TWF), whereas without that benefit, you can't.

@ Purple Dragon Knight: You should really clarify about what exactly you think is "cheese" here, because I don't understand what's being "cheesed."

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Skirting around the idea that the spell (in Spell Combat) is a second ... let's call it an action ... in addition to the attack with a weapon is deliberately trying to bend the rules to a favorable conclusion. (That would allow the casting of the spell in addition to the attacks that Whirlwind provides)

I try to clarify my point and the wordsmiths are still turning into legalize. The spell is replacing the off-hand attack as if the character was TWF. Whirlwind Attack would not allow for that "attack" to go off in addition to the single attacks on each target. The two abilities do not work with one another.

Now, in addition to this, there is the overall question on if the abilities can be used with one another despite the fact that the extra attack would be void. It should be obvious, really, but because of a turn of phrase ("... as a part of a full round action...") it is believed that one can combine a lot of things to accommodate this combo.

My two examples has been (correctly) shown not to work with Whirlwind, though I think the same reasoning exists here as it did for Spring Attack, that the two are using cross means and can not overlap.

Apples and oranges are fine to determine, but the orange (Spell) doesn't actually exist, the character has a free hand, not a wielded object like the apple (weapon).

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
@ Purple Dragon Knight: You should really clarify about what exactly you think is "cheese" here, because I don't understand what's being "cheesed."

@ Darksol the Painbringer: you should clarify whether you're advocating this for one of your characters or if you're advocating this as a GM. Because if you're advocating this for the fun of arguing the rules, we don't have the same goals.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
@ Purple Dragon Knight: You should really clarify about what exactly you think is "cheese" here, because I don't understand what's being "cheesed."
@ Darksol the Painbringer: you should clarify whether you're advocating this for one of your characters or if you're advocating this as a GM. Because if you're advocating this for the fun of arguing the rules, we don't have the same goals.

Neither.

I'm advocating what the rules, as-is, are permitting characters with the relevant abilities to do.

It has nothing to do with one of my characters, or being a GM, nor does it have to.


thaX wrote:

Skirting around the idea that the spell (in Spell Combat) is a second ... let's call it an action ... in addition to the attack with a weapon is deliberately trying to bend the rules to a favorable conclusion. (That would allow the casting of the spell in addition to the attacks that Whirlwind provides)

I try to clarify my point and the wordsmiths are still turning into legalize. The spell is replacing the off-hand attack as if the character was TWF. Whirlwind Attack would not allow for that "attack" to go off in addition to the single attacks on each target. The two abilities do not work with one another.

Now, in addition to this, there is the overall question on if the abilities can be used with one another despite the fact that the extra attack would be void. It should be obvious, really, but because of a turn of phrase ("... as a part of a full round action...") it is believed that one can combine a lot of things to accommodate this combo.

My two examples has been (correctly) shown not to work with Whirlwind, though I think the same reasoning exists here as it did for Spring Attack, that the two are using cross means and can not overlap.

Apples and oranges are fine to determine, but the orange (Spell) doesn't actually exist, the character has a free hand, not a wielded object like the apple (weapon).

Bending the rules? Pot meet kettle. Bending "weapon" to mean "attack" is not much different than us bending "spell" to not mean "attack." The only difference is that we adhere to the written rules, whereas the others...well...don't. Which is fine, because some times the written rules are incorrect. But when we're arguing what the rules say, and it's not an unreasonable or inconsistent conclusion...

And you did clarify your point. Except it does nothing to sway the argument that "weapon" = "attack," which is what Whirlwind Attack explicitly mentions as being forfeited; attacks, not weapons. If you can prove that Longswords are attacks, then by all means many of us would concede to your argument, myself included. Unfortunately, you haven't provided any feasible evidence to support that claim.

Nobody is saying that Full Round Actions can be combined with Whirlwind Attack. What we're saying is that a FAQ, which likens Spell Combat to a Full Attack Action for the purposes of effects which work on Full Attack Actions (Haste, Hammer the Gap, and so on), gives enough credence for Spell Combat to be treated as a Full Attack Action for the purposes of applying Whirlwind Attack, since Whirlwind Attack has the same exact wording and application as Haste, Hammer the Gap, and so on.

That's it. Nobody is saying you can cast a Full Round Action spell, or perform Spring Attack, or Charge, and use Whirlwind Attack. Nobody. Not a single poster on this thread has said anything like that. So I don't know where you got that idea, but I can assure you that it's not present anywhere in this thread. If it is, they're wrong, and they should feel wrong.

Now you're saying the spell in Spell Combat does not exist? Then what are you doing with your "off-hand"? Something that is unspeakable and I dare not ask what? Your "off-hand" is used to cast the spell, even if you have a Still Metamagic (or non-Somatic Component) Spell that you are casting. Full stop. Most everybody agrees that is the case.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Now you're saying the spell in Spell Combat does not exist? Then what are you doing with your "off-hand"? Something that is unspeakable and I dare not ask what? Your "off-hand" is used to cast the spell, even if you have a Still Metamagic (or non-Somatic Component) Spell that you are casting. Full stop. Most everybody agrees that is the case.

The off-hand is used to cast the spell, in the same way that TWF the off hand is used to make an extra attack. TWF and whirlwind do not work together. Spell combat says it functions like TWF. It follows that Spell combat and whirlwind do not work together.

Yes, spell combat says the off-hand weapon is replaced by the spell and not the off-hand attack. I understand that. I think the concept includes casting the spell taking place of making an off-hand attack, not holding an off-hand weapon.

RAW: The off-hand spell replaces an off-hand weapon, and because Whirlwind only denies additional attacks not holding a weapon, it technically works.

RAI: I think that spell combat functioning as TWF means the spell is your off-hand attack, and so whirlwind and spell combat should not work, as casting the spell is taking the place of the off-hand attack. I think that is what was intended and they said weapon to emphasize that the hand must be empty and not holding a weapon (so as to be free to cast the spell with), not because it doesn't replace the off-hand weapon attack.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Neither.

I'm advocating what the rules, as-is, are permitting characters with the relevant abilities to do.

It has nothing to do with one of my characters, or being a GM, nor does it have to.

Reason I asked: I'm a 'really' easygoing GM that most of the time gives players benefit of the doubt in regards to MANY rules and combos. This wouldn't fly in my games, and no one I know would allow this. They would laugh at me if I'd bring that up during a game session.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Bending the rules? Pot meet kettle. Bending "weapon" to mean "attack" is not much different than us bending "spell" to not mean "attack."

What does this even mean? why would they even talk about spell in lieu of weapon if it wasn't in the context of TWF offhand? Please explain their thought process for specifically choosing that word, when they created Spell Combat, since you seem to know the backstory behind it (i.e. beyond the fact that in the same paragraph they say 'works just like TWF')


thaX wrote:

Skirting around the idea that the spell (in Spell Combat) is a second ... let's call it an action ... in addition to the attack with a weapon is deliberately trying to bend the rules to a favorable conclusion. (That would allow the casting of the spell in addition to the attacks that Whirlwind provides)

I try to clarify my point and the wordsmiths are still turning into legalize. The spell is replacing the off-hand attack as if the character was TWF. Whirlwind Attack would not allow for that "attack" to go off in addition to the single attacks on each target. The two abilities do not work with one another.

Let me quote the relevant rule straight from the PRD one more time.

Spell Combat wrote:


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

It is not wordsmithing (in the negative connotation you are applying to that term) to read the words as-is. Wordsmithing here is saying "Well it says weapon, but we know it really means attack. Or WW attack says no extra attacks, but we know that really means no extra anythings at all." Wordsmithing, in the negative connotation you've used, means to try and alter or expand the definition of the words to get a different meaning.

I'm not trying to force the words to come to a pre-determined conclusion. I'm simply reading the words as they are, and applying the most straight forward meaning.

You, nor I, nor anyone else, gets to change the actual words in the book in order to support our side of the argument. For RAW, you have to use the words given. Again I will acknowledge that your view may be RAI, but until such time as the PRD makes an errata we can't be certain if the current RAW is also RAI, or if the RAW needs to be fixed to match the RAI.

Here is how the spell in spell combat works. Instead of having a weapon, with which you can make an attack, you have a spell, and it does whatever the chosen spell does. In some cases that may include an attack - prohibited in this scenario by WW. But if it is not an attack, then WW does not prohibit it. This is based on how the rules are CURRENTLY written. Spell Combat working much like TWF, is not the same as spell combat working exactly like TWF. The comparison is an aid to help you visualize the ability. But spell combat has its own mechanics explicitly called out. It does not benefit from feats that benefit TWF (the whole TWF feat chain, and some others like double slice). It does not have two weapons - it has a weapon and a spell. It has some additional options with casting defensively. And it has specific restrictions on the weapons allowed (no double bladed weapons).

WW attack doesn't even prohibit you from getting attacks with multiple weapons. It prohibits you from getting more than 1 attack against each opponent. You can choose whichever weapon you want for each target.

Like Darksol, I don't have any kind of personal agenda I'm after here. I would never build a WW magus as a player or a GM - I think its a terrible combination for what you get out of it. The WW feat has far to narrow a niche use, with far to heavy a feat investment to get to it (and not just a heavy feat investment, but a relatively poor set of feats as the pre-reqs).

And because I don't play PFS, I don't have to have this come out in the rules one direction or another - I will rule how I like in my own games. My involvement and interest in the discussion is a matter of how the building blocks of the rules come together.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
(i.e. beyond the fact that in the same paragraph they say 'works just like TWF')

While I suspect you were just paraphrasing here, again please stop misquoting the rules.

"functions much like TWF", not "just like TWF".

The continued inability to use the actual words, without modification, in order to "prove the viewpoint" should be a big red flag that maybe, just maybe, the view point is incorrect.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

Maybe, just maybe, that last post you made was just to troll me, and you actually have nothing to bring to the table on this.


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

You are not two-weapon fighting just because you are holding an off-hand weapon. The only way you are two-weapon fighting is when you use an off-hand weapon to make an attack.

Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.

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

Two-Weapon Fighting is taking an extra attack with your off-hand weapon. Spell combat functions like TWF, but replaces the off-hand weapon with the spell, and logically the casting replaces the attack of the weapon. The spell is the weapon, the casting is the attack.


Tarantula wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Now you're saying the spell in Spell Combat does not exist? Then what are you doing with your "off-hand"? Something that is unspeakable and I dare not ask what? Your "off-hand" is used to cast the spell, even if you have a Still Metamagic (or non-Somatic Component) Spell that you are casting. Full stop. Most everybody agrees that is the case.

The off-hand is used to cast the spell, in the same way that TWF the off hand is used to make an extra attack. TWF and whirlwind do not work together. Spell combat says it functions like TWF. It follows that Spell combat and whirlwind do not work together.

Yes, spell combat says the off-hand weapon is replaced by the spell and not the off-hand attack. I understand that. I think the concept includes casting the spell taking place of making an off-hand attack, not holding an off-hand weapon.

RAW: The off-hand spell replaces an off-hand weapon, and because Whirlwind only denies additional attacks not holding a weapon, it technically works.

RAI: I think that spell combat functioning as TWF means the spell is your off-hand attack, and so whirlwind and spell combat should not work, as casting the spell is taking the place of the off-hand attack. I think that is what was intended and they said weapon to emphasize that the hand must be empty and not holding a weapon (so as to be free to cast the spell with), not because it doesn't replace the off-hand weapon attack.

That was actually a response to thaX's point of "the orange (the spell) does not exist," which is silly. But I'll bite.

What text says TWF and Whirlwind Attack doesn't work together, exactly? None. No (relevant) citation has been given. So, you can certainly use both, as there is nothing that says you can't, and there are no other conflicting mechanics; but I, as well as most everybody else here, have said that there is no benefit for doing so, and the penalties you incur for the assumed benefit simply take place. I mean, you can have two weapons drawn at once, and make your attacks with either weapon via Whirlwind Attack, but that doesn't make it TWF, per a relevant FAQ.

"No benefit" does not equate to "Mutually Exclusive". This isn't Vital Strike and Spring Attack, it is the equivalent of using Smite Evil on a Good or Neutral character; that is, it can be done, but there is no mechanical benefit for doing so, meaning there is no sane reason to do so other than to just to do so.

Spell Combat, on the other hand, has a completely separate benefit from TWF's extra attacks, which is casting a spell while being able to full attack normally with a light or one-handed melee weapon. This is separate from TWF, which normally requires two weapons (of which a spell certainly isn't, even if it is a weapon-like spell), and they must be drawn and ready to attack with. If those conditions are not met, you cannot TWF, and at no point in time could you feasibly meet those conditions to perform the stringent requirements of Spell Combat (which, according to everyone else, is TWF), at least without pulling shenanigans like an Alchemist's Vestigial Arm.

There's also the idea that Spell Combat, if it is to function as TWF, doesn't say that it excludes the standard penalties for TWF. So, not only am I suffering -2 to all of my attacks because of the specific text of Spell Combat, but the TWF penalties apply as well, which is -6 and -10 to attacks with my off-hand (or -8/-12 total), since, you know, you're TWFing, right? Of course you are, because that's what the text says, right?

Now you see why the analogous interpretation of "Spell Combat = TWF as Spells = Attacks" fails upon itself. The reference of TWF, in my honest opinion, does nothing more than complicate the ability in question, since:

A. The feature's ramifications are already quantified further than what TWF's base mechanic applies. There is no "off-hand", because you are never making an off-hand attack, you are always casting a spell. You aren't making extra attacks as if you are TWF, you aren't even getting any more attacks than if you weren't using TWF. The ideal that your hand must be free, regardless of Somatic components, is specifically noted, whereas TWF would have made that an ambiguous assumption.

B. Applying other mechanics (because it doesn't say you don't, and you're saying it functions as the other aspect) to an already well-defined feature causes the original ability to fail upon itself due to lack of feasible usage and conflicting mechanics. I mean, how is a 1st level Magus supposed to hit with -8/-12 to his attacks? Unless he's targeting an object (and even that's not a guarantee), it's not gonna happen. And that's not including things like cover, miss chance, and so on.

So yeah, I'd much rather go with the interpretation that doesn't turn the Magus into the next Flurry of Misses Monk or "I Can't Do Anything" Rogue, since I highly doubt the Magus was intended to be the worst class in the history of Paizo.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It isn't the spell being wielded that is the point of contention, it is the casting of that spell.

You need that extra action/attack to cast the spell, and Whirlwind specifically denotes that those extra attacks are not taken in place of getting one for each target in range.

Think of it this way. When you cast a spell that has an attack, you make that attack as a free action as a part of the casting of that spell. It isn't whether or not you attacking with the spell that denotes how it interacts with Whirlwind, it is how that spell is being cast, no matter if it has an attack on it's own or not. The casting is what is being used for the extra "attack" action with Spell Combat, and Whirlwind would not allow for it's use.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Bending the rules? Pot meet kettle. Bending "weapon" to mean "attack" is not much different than us bending "spell" to not mean "attack."
What does this even mean? why would they even talk about spell in lieu of weapon if it wasn't in the context of TWF offhand? Please explain their thought process for specifically choosing that word, when they created Spell Combat, since you seem to know the backstory behind it (i.e. beyond the fact that in the same paragraph they say 'works just like TWF')

It's not so much that I know any backstory, I just know the difference between terms. Here's a fun little exercise:

Longswords aren't attacks, are they? No. They're weapons, defined in the Weapons Table. Manufactured weapons, in fact. You attack, WITH (manufactured) weapons. After all, if I weapon(ize) somebody, I turn them into something that can be used to attack someone (or something).

See the above context? Good. Now, the ability text says that the spell you cast becomes the off-hand weapon. So, for this ability's purpose, the spell becomes the weapon. So, let's apply the spell as if it were a weapon with the above context, and it does not change anything, since for this purpose, it is specifically considered a weapon, whereas in a general sense, spells aren't weapons to attack with (and therefore aren't technically usable for TWF).

I hope that helps clarify things.


thaX wrote:

It isn't the spell being wielded that is the point of contention, it is the casting of that spell.

You need that extra action/attack to cast the spell, and Whirlwind specifically denotes that those extra attacks are not taken in place of getting one for each target in range.

Think of it this way. When you cast a spell that has an attack, you make that attack as a free action as a part of the casting of that spell. It isn't whether or not you attacking with the spell that denotes how it interacts with Whirlwind, it is how that spell is being cast, no matter if it has an attack on it's own or not. The casting is what is being used for the extra "attack" action with Spell Combat, and Whirlwind would not allow for it's use.

I've tried thinking of it that way, but there's nothing in the rules that says or even implies anything requiring actions beyond the Full Round Action noted within the Spell Combat entry. At best, it's conjecture that needs to be verified with a FAQ of some sort. At worst, it's simply incorrect and adding restrictions to something that just isn't there.

I could be 5 feet away from an enemy, use Spell Combat to cast a spell (since I can choose which portion of the action takes place first, I can do the spell first), take a 5-foot step to the enemy, discharge the spell as a Free Action, independent of whatever attacks I have, and then continue my attack routine as normal.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

I understand you're trying to equate this sentence

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

with

"This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that's like an off-hand dagger that you're just holding in that hand, not using it, so it's no longer two-weapon fighting, but hey, huh.... what the hell, let's just fire that spell anyway... and yeah, let's apply those -2 penalties to your primary hand longsword for no good reason..."

Here's the wording of TWF, for ease of reference. I've bolded some parts of that as well, for no obvious reasons...

Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)
You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way 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. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.

Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties

Circumstances Primary Hand Off Hand
Normal penalties –6 –10
Off-hand weapon is light –4 –8
Two-Weapon Fighting feat –4 –4
Off-hand weapon is light and Two-Weapon Fighting feat –2 –2

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

No, it isn't the same at TWF, it emulates it as stated in the ability. It has it's own penalties, and can be used in conjunction with Spellstrike.

A. The casting of the spell is normal a standard action, taking the place of one's attack. Spell Combat allows for an attack and a casting of the spell, resulting in two standard actions being used. It even states in the ability that the spell takes the place of the off hand weapon. The ability is used "As a full round action..."

B. The function of the ability explains the difference between TWF and Spell Combat, including the -2 penalty and particulars about casting defensively while using the ability. The differences between TWF and Spell Combat are explained and nothing I nor anyone else have posted changes this. That doesn't mean that Whirlwind Attack ignores Spell Combat's extra action, or that somehow being a spell allows for the extra action.

The reference to TWF is for ease of use, so the explanation can use it as a basis for the explanation instead of taking up a page to explain one class ability. If you do not like that it uses TWF to gain an extra action to cast a spell with, what would you suggest it use instead?

Both abilities are full round or full attack actions. Is this in dispute? Both give a benefit that gives extra attacks (assuming there is more than one target for Whirlwind), and one prohibits extra attacks from other effects, such as that which is gained from Spell Combat.

The two do not mix.

Apologizes for the double post, got ninja'd.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

In other words folks, be thankful the spell combat wording references the actual TWF feat (you're basically getting this for free, without the Dex 15 requirement), and that firing off the spell does not result in a -4 to all your attacks... (casting the spell is like attacking with light weapon, not one-handed weapon... again, wow). It's an extremely powerful ability, worth way more than a feat.. (if you'd want this on par with a regular feat, you'd have to add TWF as a prereq, and make it so that you can cast a spell instead of attacking with your off-hand weapon, straight swap, with another feat required to make the spell considered attacking with a light weapon in the off-hand)


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

That was actually a response to thaX's point of "the orange (the spell) does not exist," which is silly. But I'll bite.

What text says TWF and Whirlwind Attack doesn't work together, exactly? None. No (relevant) citation has been given. So, you can certainly use both, as there is nothing that says you can't, and there are no other conflicting mechanics; but I, as well as most everybody else here, have said that there is no benefit for doing so, and the penalties you incur for the assumed benefit simply take place. I mean, you can have two weapons drawn at once, and make your attacks with either weapon via Whirlwind Attack, but that doesn't make it TWF, per a relevant FAQ.

TWF grants an extra attack. Whirlwind attack forfeits extra attacks.

Quote:
"No benefit" does not equate to "Mutually Exclusive". This isn't Vital Strike and Spring Attack, it is the equivalent of using Smite Evil on a Good or Neutral character; that is, it can be done, but there is no mechanical benefit for doing so, meaning there is no sane reason to do so other than to just to do so.

I don't know about that. To be two-weapon fighting you must take a full-attack action, and get an extra attack from your off-hand weapon. If you don't take the attack, then you aren't two-weapon fighting. So I submit that using whirlwind does stop you from TWF, because you give up the extra attack TWF provides. It results in you simply wielding 2 weapons, and making a full attack with whirlwind.

Quote:
Spell Combat, on the other hand, has a completely separate benefit from TWF's extra attacks, which is casting a spell while being able to full attack normally with a light or one-handed melee weapon. This is separate from TWF, which normally requires two weapons (of which a spell certainly isn't, even if it is a weapon-like spell), and they must be drawn and ready to attack with. If those conditions are not met, you cannot TWF, and at no point in time could you feasibly meet those conditions to perform the stringent requirements of Spell Combat (which, according to everyone else, is TWF), at least without pulling shenanigans like an Alchemist's Vestigial Arm.

TWF: You get all your main hand attacks and 1 extra attack with your off-hand.

Spell Combat: You get all your main hand attacks and 1 spell cast with your off-hand.
Those are pretty similar to me. As far as spells not counting as weapons, all touch spells count as armed attacks, so they certainly could be used as the off-hand in TWF.

Quote:
There's also the idea that Spell Combat, if it is to function as TWF, doesn't say that it excludes the standard penalties for TWF. So, not only am I suffering -2 to all of my attacks because of the specific text of Spell Combat, but the TWF penalties apply as well, which is -6 and -10 to attacks with my off-hand (or -8/-12 total), since, you know, you're TWFing, right? Of course you are, because that's what the text says, right?

It says it functions like TWF and then stipulates how it is different. Instead of an off-hand weapon you have a spell cast, and instead of TWF penalties you have -2 on all the main hand attacks.

Quote:
Now you see why the analogous interpretation of "Spell Combat = TWF as Spells = Attacks" fails upon itself. The reference of TWF, in my honest opinion, does nothing more than complicate the ability in question, since:

No, I don't.

TWF: All main hand attacks as normal, one extra off-hand attack.
Spell Combat: All main hand attacks as normal, one extra spell cast with the off-hand.
They are very similar. The differences being TWF feat isn't required for spell combat, and instead of an extra attack you get to cast a spell.

Quote:

A. The feature's ramifications are already quantified further than what TWF's base mechanic applies. There is no "off-hand", because you are never making an off-hand attack, you are always casting a spell. You aren't making extra attacks as if you are TWF, you aren't even getting any more attacks than if you weren't using TWF. The ideal that your hand must be free, regardless of Somatic components, is specifically noted, whereas TWF would have made that an ambiguous assumption.

B. Applying other mechanics (because it doesn't say you don't, and you're saying it functions as the other aspect) to an already well-defined feature causes the original ability to fail upon itself due to lack of feasible usage and conflicting mechanics. I mean, how is a 1st level Magus supposed to hit with -8/-12 to his attacks? Unless he's targeting an object (and even that's not a guarantee), it's not gonna happen. And that's not including things like cover, miss chance, and so on.

So yeah, I'd much rather go with the interpretation that doesn't turn the Magus into the next Flurry of Misses Monk or "I Can't Do Anything" Rogue, since I highly doubt the Magus was intended to be the worst class in the history of Paizo.

A) It is clear there is an off-hand when using spell combat, as the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. Spell combat overrides the normal TWF penalties with its own.

B) As I said, it stipulates its own penalties instead of the TWF penalties. How is a level 1 magus supposed to hit with -2 to his attack?

Lastly, If Spell combat is treated as a full-attack action that allows for other effects to add extra attacks, can you spell combat and TWF?

That is to say, Main hand is a longsword, off-hand is unarmed combat. Magus has IUS and TWF, so he should be able to Spell Combat TWF at -2 for SC, and -2 for TWF, total -4 to the attacks.
He can cast a spell like frostbite, then make Main attack longsword, Free attack with longsword from the touch spell and spellstrike, Offhand attack unarmed combat, and deliver the spell with each successful hit.
So that's 3 attacks at -4/-4/-4. Do you agree with that?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
thaX wrote:

It isn't the spell being wielded that is the point of contention, it is the casting of that spell.

You need that extra action/attack to cast the spell, and Whirlwind specifically denotes that those extra attacks are not taken in place of getting one for each target in range.

Think of it this way. When you cast a spell that has an attack, you make that attack as a free action as a part of the casting of that spell. It isn't whether or not you attacking with the spell that denotes how it interacts with Whirlwind, it is how that spell is being cast, no matter if it has an attack on it's own or not. The casting is what is being used for the extra "attack" action with Spell Combat, and Whirlwind would not allow for it's use.

I've tried thinking of it that way, but there's nothing in the rules that says or even implies anything requiring actions beyond the Full Round Action noted within the Spell Combat entry. At best, it's conjecture that needs to be verified with a FAQ of some sort. At worst, it's simply incorrect and adding restrictions to something that just isn't there.

I could be 5 feet away from an enemy, use Spell Combat to cast a spell (since I can choose which portion of the action takes place first, I can do the spell first), take a 5-foot step to the enemy, discharge the spell as a Free Action, independent of whatever attacks I have, and then continue my attack routine as normal.

So, how are we at an impasse, then? You used Spell Combat already in that scenario, so what you have left is an attack with the weapon. A full round action is already been used, so Whirlwind Attack isn't able to be used at that point, so where is the point where both are being used at the same time?

Are you saying you use Whirlwind after casting the spell with the other off-hand action? There is already a commitment to Spell Combat, and doing another full round attack on top of that for Whirlwind?

Are you instead saying your Whirlwind attacking as a part of Spell Combat? How are you getting the extra action that Whirlwind prohibits if it even could be used together with Spell Combat?


I think we are at an impasse regardless. Unless they actually answer this in a FAQ, what we have is mutually irreconcileable interpretations.

To me, spell combat is supposed to work like "you can cast a standard casting-time spell with your off-hand, and you can do anything you would otherwise be able to do (had you not cast a spell) with a full attack using a 1h/light weapon in your other hand, but at a -2 penalty to each attack because of spell combat."

Beyond that it's just word games and legalese, and that's how I intend to play spell combat in case someone actually wants to build a whirlwind magus (they won't.)

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think we are at an impasse regardless. Unless they actually answer this in a FAQ, what we have is mutually irreconcileable interpretations.

+1

We knew that 5 pages ago. Both sides keep thinking "if I just show the rule they will come around". Some don't seem to understand that they won't because we are using different interpretations for the same rules.

251 to 300 of 735 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Spell combat + Whirlwind Attack All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.