Spell combat + Whirlwind Attack


Rules Questions

301 to 350 of 735 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

@ Purple Dragon Knight: If I get one extra attack with that secondary weapon, why can't I both get an attack with that "weapon," and have a Free Action to deliver the spell, since we're going with the argument that Spell Combat = TWF, and Spell Combat doesn't say you lose the attack?

thaX wrote:

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.

If it's not the same, then saying that it is like TWF does not make it TWF. Different abilities, different mechanics, which results in different expectations of how it's supposed to function.

Relevant FAQ says it counts as a Full Attack Action for effects that trigger on Full Attack Actions. Therefore, the action economy argument is debunked, since Spell Combat counts as a Full Attack Action for effects like Haste, Hammer the Gap, and Whirlwind Attack (which has identical wording).

No, you get a -2 penalty because Spell Combat says so. It doesn't say that it replaces the penalties normally incurred from TWF, so those penalties apply in addition.

And I disagree. Mentioning that it functions like TWF is probably the biggest and most-confusing aspect of the ability there is, because if we go with the intention that it only changes what it says it changes (and leaves everything else intact), it still leaves a lot of ambiguous and clearly unintended consequences. (Enjoy the -8/-12 penalties, silly Magi! You won't do anything for your entire adventuring career, might as well be a Wizard.)

No, they're not. Whirlwind Attack functions when you perform a Full Attack Action, and doesn't take a Full Attack Action in and of itself to do. If it did, the reference of substituting normal or extra attacks would be irrelevant, since all it would have to say is "As a Full Round Action, you may make a single attack at your highest base attack bonus against all enemies within reach." That's it. That's all it'd have to say. But it doesn't say that, does it? It says "When you use the full-attack action..." It's no different than Vital Strike, which says "When you use the attack action..." But I don't hear you posting that you can't Vital Strike and attack in the same round, because if you did, you'd be quite the hypocrite.

Spell Combat is a Full Round Action. Now, normal circumstances would leave them mutually exclusive, but the relevant FAQ says it counts as a Full Attack Action for effects that trigger on Full Attack Actions (in this case, Whirlwind Attack), so that means Spell Combat is a valid choice for application of Whirlwind Attack.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe if both sides post the same rules 7 or 8 more times then we will figure this out.


@ Tarantula

Of course it does, nobody is arguing this. What's being argued is that Spell Combat = TWF, and whatever benefits Spell Combat gives you is the same that TWF gives you, therefore it doesn't work.

Actually, you are considered TWF when you choose to suffer the penalties for it as well; I mean, if you're penalizing yourself for it, I don't see why it wouldn't be considered as not-functioning. It's not much different than, for example, applying Power Attack penalties to a Disarm check, even though you may or may not be dealing damage with that attack.

Even so, you can "wield" two weapons and attack with Whirlwind Attack regardless of performing TWF or not, meaning that most everybody wouldn't do it because there's no benefit. The point is that TWF doesn't say that it can't be done here, what's being demonstrated is that it's nothing but detrimental to do so.. Again, it's like using Smite Evil on a Good or Neutral character, or taking the old-school Prone Shooter feat; it might not do anything, but that doesn't mean you can't perform that activity or make that choice.

Similar in what respect? The ability could have simply stated you suffer a -2 penalty across the board (same as Rapid Shot), and not have any association with TWF's penalties. The ability could have said you use a free hand to cast a spell of one standard action or less and a one-handed or light weapon to full attack with, and not have any association with TWF's main-hand off-hand shenanigans. The ability could have mentioned the concentration stuff, and not have any association with TWF. It could say all of those things, and it would function exactly the same as it has, and it would have no affiliation with TWF whatsoever.

I know it doesn't have those alterations, but the ability's references to TWF do nothing but detract from its function and creates confusion (like what everybody in this thread is having now). It'd be better if we made a FAQ that quantified how similar Spell Combat is to TWF, and what is different between the two, because that's really the heart of the issue here regarding Whirlwind Attack; whether Spell Combat is a Full Attack Action (which a FAQ would indicate yes), whether the spell is considered an attack and therefore forfeit (which general rules would indicate no), and so on.

No, it doesn't stipulate that the -2 across the board replaces the TWF penalties, just like how it doesn't stipulate that you lose the attack your off-hand would normally have when performing TWF. It's a fair assumption, just like it is a fair assumption that creatures that are Dead can't act and the whole 9 yards. But it's not specifically mentioned, which leaves the interpretation of -8/-12 penalties quite open for the GM to enforce.

As for whether TWF and Spell Combat would work together, it's plausible, but for a typical two-arm character? No. Why? Because Spell Combat requires a free hand, full stop. I mean, you could, if you specialized in Unarmed Strikes, but I don't think you could use your one-handed/light weapon to make the attacks for both activities, only one, based on the FAQ regarding Armor Spikes (most specifically, the Gauntlet reference).

Now, a four arm character, like the Kasatha? Endless possibilities...but by that point, Multi-Weapon Fighting comes into play, and that's a whole other can of worms.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Darksol wrote:
What's being argued is that Spell Combat = TWF, and whatever benefits Spell Combat gives you is the same that TWF gives you, therefore it doesn't work.

Actual both are being argued:

  • TWF = Spell Combat = can't cast even Shield with Whirlwind
  • Can't combine Spell Combat with Whirlwind because Spell Combat FAQ only allows things like Haste.


  • Tarantula wrote:


    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.

    This isn't true. If I start a full attack action using TWF, and after my first attack (with all the bonuses and penalties applied for TWF and whatever feat chains I've taken are applied), then decide I don't want to make any more attacks I can still take a move action. I did not take any extra attacks, but I was TWF, and the penalties still are applied.

    I could likewise take all my iteratives under the TWF penalties and benefits, then decide for any reason to not take my off-hand attacks (enemy is dead, enemy is unconscious, I'm just feeling moody, doesn't matter).

    I can clearly get the penalties for TWF without getting the benefit of an extra attack.

    The optional combat stamina feat also clearly shows you can combine WW and TWF. With the feat you can then get the extra attack out of TWF as well.

    WW Attack wrote:


    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.

    Emphasis mine. The combat stamina trick doesn't say "Now you can combine WW with TWF when before you couldn't." It merely changes the restriction the default WW feat has of no extra attacks, to now allowing the extra attacks ALREADY available to you.

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    Darksol.

    Let us say that it "alters" TWF instead, just as an Archtype would alter a class ability. A magus TWF with the Spell Combat ability with a weapon and a spell. Both are still gaining an extra attack, or "action" if you want to call it that, both are still using a full round action to enact, and both take the penalties as the character is proficient in doing the practice. (Whether it is having TWF feat or using Spell Combat)

    I know you like to parse rules, divide them up into pieces and put them together to spell Bingo!. I never like the divide between Rule as Written (RAW) and Rule as Intended (RAI). The intent is the reason for the written, and subverting intent is detrimental to the cohesion of the rules set and makes for a game that gets mired in rules discussions at the table.

    So, this feat says it is as a part of a full round action/attack. Does this mean other full round actions can run along with it, shake hands, jump rope and give the peace sign? I would say that it would not. My understanding of what your trying to impart to me has you saying that it does, and that TWF, Spell Combat and other things can be used to gain an extra action, just so long as it isn't an "attack."

    My point, all along, is that the spell is considered the off-hand attack, in the altered TWF ability called "Spell Combat."


    bbangerter wrote:
    Tarantula wrote:


    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.
    This isn't true. If I start a full attack action using TWF, and after my first attack (with all the bonuses and penalties applied for TWF and whatever feat chains I've taken are applied), then decide I don't want to make any more attacks I can still take a move action. I did not take any extra attacks, but I was TWF, and the penalties still are applied.

    You took the penalties for it, but were you really two weapon fighting? No, because you never attacked with two weapons.

    Quote:
    I could likewise take all my iteratives under the TWF penalties and benefits, then decide for any reason to not take my off-hand attacks (enemy is dead, enemy is unconscious, I'm just feeling moody, doesn't matter).

    I know iterative attacks have to go from highest to lowest, I thought all the attacks went highest to lowest. Are you saying you could go (20/15/10/5) for main hand iteratives, then -10/-5/-TWF for the off-hand? Because nothing says what order you have to take the offhand attacks in?

    Quote:
    I can clearly get the penalties for TWF without getting the benefit of an extra attack.

    And if you don't make an extra attack, you aren't really fighting with two weapons. You were planning to maybe, but you didn't actually do it.

    Kind of like, if you spell combat, and plan to attack, then cast a spell, but your attack kills him, so you don't cast the spell. You didn't actually complete your action.

    Quote:

    The optional combat stamina feat also clearly shows you can combine WW and TWF. With the feat you can then get the extra attack out of TWF as well.

    WW Attack wrote:


    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.
    Emphasis mine. The combat stamina trick doesn't say "Now you can combine WW with TWF when before you couldn't." It merely changes the restriction the default WW feat has of no extra attacks, to now allowing the extra attacks ALREADY available to you.

    Ok, I get this. You can declare TWF and Whirlwind, take the penalties and get no benefit. With the stamina spent, you can get the extra attack.

    Why do you think the extra attack isn't analogous to the cast spell in spell combat? Is it only because spell combat says the off-hand weapon is replaced by casting the spell? Do you understand my point of view that stating spell combat works much like TWF says to me that it is the off-hand weapon and attack that is being replaced?


    Tarantula wrote:


    Why do you think the extra attack isn't analogous to the cast spell in spell combat? Is it only because spell combat says the off-hand weapon is replaced by casting the spell? Do you understand my point of view that stating spell combat works much like TWF says to me that it is the off-hand weapon and attack that is being replaced?

    There is an analogy there, but the analogy is the spell becomes the off-hand weapon. But when using an analogy, taking it to far breaks the analogy. Analogies are a way of saying "These things are similar in some aspects, but they are not identical".

    The analogy is you are doing things with both hands during this full round action. In TWF you are doing pokey things with both hands, in spell combat you are doing pokey things with one hand, and spelly things with the other. In both cases you get a penalty to doing your pokey things. That is where the analogy ends because casting a spell is not an attack, just like an apple is not an orange. Some spells may then give the caster an attack upon completion of the spell, but casting a spell has never been an attack. Side note: yes, there is the reference to spells being an attack in terms of ending invisibility, or allowing another saving throw on certain enchantments etc, but that is not the usual definition of attack used in the rules. E.g, spells without attack rolls do not grant sneak attack damage, do not work with smite evil, do not benefit from bards, etc. And even then not all spells qualify as an attack under that spell specific definition of attack (shield, mage armor, light, dimension door, etc ad nasuem).

    I very much understand the viewpoint, and have even agreed multiple times that disallowing spell combat and WW attack because of that similarity may be RAI. And I would have no objection to a GM ruling in that way. I don't agree that it is RAW, because every instance of it trying to be proved that that is the RAW has required that the argument alter or substitute words in the rules, or add words that aren't there, or ignore select portion of the rules.


    Fantastic.
    I agree under strict as written, spell combat doesn't have an attack, so it works fine with whirlwind.

    I don't think that was the intention, and would rule that spell combat replaces the off-hand attack with the spell casting for my own game, if it ever came up, which it won't.


    It really won't will it?

    Unless you're making a chill touch specialist.


    Cavall wrote:

    It really won't will it?

    Unless you're making a chill touch specialist.

    For the next PF game I run I'm thinking of houseruling Combat Expertise out of existence and combining Dodge and Mobility into one feat, then it's only 3 feats to get to Whirlwind Attack, but the difficulty in getting reach for the Magus (who is restricted to 1h weapons) is going to make this tough.

    In an extreme example, even if you ruled it's compatible with Spell Combat and you gave everybody Whirlwind Attack for free at level 1, the "whirlwind magus" is probably not the most appealing way to go with that gift (you'd probably see more whip-using warpriests and aberrant bloodragers with polearms, certainly).

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    bbangerter wrote:
    Tarantula wrote:


    Why do you think the extra attack isn't analogous to the cast spell in spell combat? Is it only because spell combat says the off-hand weapon is replaced by casting the spell? Do you understand my point of view that stating spell combat works much like TWF says to me that it is the off-hand weapon and attack that is being replaced?

    There is an analogy there, but the analogy is the spell becomes the off-hand weapon. But when using an analogy, taking it to far breaks the analogy. Analogies are a way of saying "These things are similar in some aspects, but they are not identical".

    The analogy is you are doing things with both hands during this full round action. In TWF you are doing pokey things with both hands, in spell combat you are doing pokey things with one hand, and spelly things with the other. In both cases you get a penalty to doing your pokey things. That is where the analogy ends because casting a spell is not an attack, just like an apple is not an orange.

    Full Stop.

    The Orange is not there. It is a free hand that can be used to cast a spell in place of an off hand attack. Until you take an action to cast (and hold) the spell, you can't do anything with it. Spell Combat gives you two actions in a full round, attack and cast, and Whirlwind will not allow for the second action. Attacking with the spell upon completion is a free action, so it doesn't matter if you end up attacking with the spell or not, it is the act of casting that spell that Whirlwind will specifically prevent as the character hits each target one (1) time.

    Now, if a character cast a spell the turn before, and held it, he can use Spellstrike to send it through the weapon, but Whirlwind will prevent any extra attack that results in this use as well, expending the held spell on one of the single hits to the targets instead.

    I fail to see how RAI and RAW are somehow different in this matter.


    thaX wrote:
    bbangerter wrote:
    Tarantula wrote:


    Why do you think the extra attack isn't analogous to the cast spell in spell combat? Is it only because spell combat says the off-hand weapon is replaced by casting the spell? Do you understand my point of view that stating spell combat works much like TWF says to me that it is the off-hand weapon and attack that is being replaced?

    There is an analogy there, but the analogy is the spell becomes the off-hand weapon. But when using an analogy, taking it to far breaks the analogy. Analogies are a way of saying "These things are similar in some aspects, but they are not identical".

    The analogy is you are doing things with both hands during this full round action. In TWF you are doing pokey things with both hands, in spell combat you are doing pokey things with one hand, and spelly things with the other. In both cases you get a penalty to doing your pokey things. That is where the analogy ends because casting a spell is not an attack, just like an apple is not an orange.

    The Orange is not there. It is a free hand that can be used to cast a spell in place of an off hand attack. Until you take an action to cast (and hold) the spell, you can't do anything with it. Spell Combat gives you two actions in a full round, attack and cast, and Whirlwind will not allow for the second action. Attacking with the spell upon completion is a free action, so it doesn't matter if you end up attacking with the spell or not, it is the act of casting that spell that Whirlwind will specifically prevent as the character hits each target one (1) time.

    Now, if a character cast a spell the turn before, and held it, he can use Spellstrike to send it through the weapon, but Whirlwind will prevent any extra attack that results in this use as well, expending the held spell on one of the single hits to the targets instead.

    I fail to see how RAI and RAW are somehow different in this matter.

    Tarantula already went with the "Apples and Oranges" analogy, and it didn't work. Quite frankly, that's a telling piece of evidence for why Spell Combat would work with Whirlwind Attack, simply because his own analogy regarding "Apples and Oranges" backfired in demonstrating the point that Whirlwind Attack's "No Extra Attacks" clause would not apply to spells acquired from special abilities, even if they are categorized as another fruit for that purpose (let's say Pineapple, since we confuse Weapons, called Pineapples in this case, with Apples, categorized as Attacks; fitting for the path the current discussion keeps taking, really).

    I believe you also partook in that fun little exercise, and likewise shared Tarantula's perspective, which means collectively, that analogy backfired for you as well.

    Now, you're changing the mechanics of Spell Combat to not have a Spell (an orange) to justify the means of Whirlwind Attack not functioning in conjunction. In other words, moving goal posts; from "Spell Combat's Spell is an Attack (Apple), therefore not permitted for Whirlwind Attack" to "Spell Combat doesn't cast a Spell (Orange), therefore doesn't work at all."

    It has now become official. I'm done arguing this. If we're really going to sit there and say the Orange (the spell being cast) is not there when you perform Spell Combat, BY ITSELF, then quite frankly we're not arguing about the same Spell Combat written in the rulebooks. We're arguing about some Spell Combat in some bizarro Pathfinder universe that doesn't involve casting a Spell whatsoever (hence the name, SPELL Combat). A funny adventure path that I'd be interested in playing, to be quaint (as long as I was familiar enough with the "new" rules). But for the purposes of arguing the original rules? That draws the line.

    I'm okay with people having differing interpretations of singular rules, and explaining their case for why that is, but this most certainly isn't that, and if this isn't that, then there's no reason for me to have a part of this that isn't that. Because I'm a part of this discussion because I thought it was about that. But if it's about this, then there's no point (per se).

    So, I'll bow my head out, only popping back in until the Devs give out an official answer (if they ever do). Until then, we clearly don't have the same Ultimate Magic rulebooks, which means this discussion is fruitless.


    Darksol:
    In the revised analogy, you don't get an orange unless you A) take the standard action to cast a spell(get an orange), or B) use spell combat to trade the extra attack (apple) for casting a spell(orange).

    The criticism of the analogy was if you spell combat first, then you have an orange, and whirlwind doesn't take that away.

    I don't think the order matters. Whirlwind says, "did you take an extra attack this turn?" not "give up any extra attacks you have remaining".

    Again, this falls back to the interpretation that spell combat's casting of a spell is intended to be analogous to the extra attack from TWF. RAW it isn't, it is the weapon not the attack.

    I think we've all covered this from any angle someone wants to approach it from, and the likelihood of someone ever making a whirlwind attack magus is still approximately 0%.

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    "which means this discussion is fruitless."

    Nice turn of phrase.

    What your skipping over is the fact that the rules for Spell Combat is based on the TWF mechanic, and saying something is different because of a difference between two particulars does not ring true when that difference is already explained as a placeholder for the particular it is different from.

    Apples, oranges, pineapples, or raisins, it doesn't matter, the overall structure is such that it doesn't work with Whirlwind, even if the character takes the -2 to hit penalty to do it.

    Simple.

    Two actions. Both considered to be or replace normal attacks gained from the ability (TWF or Spell Combat), Whirlwind does not allow for the extra attack. This is before both being full round actions/attacks is being considered.

    Now, looking at the RAI vs. RAW is all fine and good, but should this really be clarified for a combo that is sub-par and not likely to be used? Is the intent for this ability actually that hard to decipher?

    I, personally, don't think so.


    James Risner wrote:
    Darksol wrote:
    What's being argued is that Spell Combat = TWF, and whatever benefits Spell Combat gives you is the same that TWF gives you, therefore it doesn't work.

    Actual both are being argued:

  • TWF = Spell Combat = can't cast even Shield with Whirlwind
  • Can't combine Spell Combat with Whirlwind because Spell Combat FAQ only allows things like Haste.
  • Well some people are going a step further apparently and claiming that casting a shield spell during spell combat would break invisibility.


    I don't think that would be the case. I do think doing so in this instance certainly would, of course.


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

    Casting a spell is not, and never has been, an attack.

    If casting a spell was an attack, it would break invisibility, which explicitly does not happen without additional conditions being met.

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    "Casting a spell is not, and never has been, an attack."

    That isn't being questioned, it is the action that the spell is replacing, which is an attack, to which the extra action is possible with Spell Combat. The act of casting any spell, be it Shocking Grasp or Shield, in respects to using this ability, will be prevented from doing so if the character uses Whirlwind Attack.

    This is on top of trying to use two full actions in a round.

    The go around by saying the spell itself isn't an attack is semantics. The casting of a spell is never an attack into itself, one gets a free action to enact an attack that the spell gives on the initial casting for those spells that have one, but as Snowlily has pointed out, the actual casting is not considered an attack, no matter what the spell is.

    The basic combination for a Magus is Spell Combat (Shock Grasp is popular, as is Brand for infinite spell casting), then Spellstrike to use the spell through the weapon, gaining two hits (and two changes to hit with the spell as well) with the weapon.

    Now, this edge case, it is clear that the overall advantage to using Whirlwind Attack with Spell Combat would be sub par use of resources and not very intuitive for the character. It is obvious that combining the two abilities is, at best, difficult, or simply not possible at all. The main crux of the argument seems to be (as I mentioned above) about word smithing the interaction of the spell compared to TWF mechanics that Spell Combat uses.

    My overall point is that it is putting lipstick on a pig. Call a spade a spade. The action involved replaces another action that is normally an attack. It can't be done while doing the other ability.


    thaX wrote:

    "Casting a spell is not, and never has been, an attack."

    That isn't being questioned, it is the action that the spell is replacing, which is an attack, to which the extra action is possible with Spell Combat. The act of casting any spell, be it Shocking Grasp or Shield, in respects to using this ability, will be prevented from doing so if the character uses Whirlwind Attack.

    There's already been plenty of analogy regarding this; either Spell Combat replaces it first, or it's not there to be replaced at all. Note: I prefer the latter interpretation, but I can argue in the former just fine. See: Apples, Oranges, Cantaloupe.

    thaX wrote:
    This is on top of trying to use two full actions in a round.

    Incorrect. Whirlwind Attack is a modification to a full attack, not a full attack / full-round action in it's own right (like Vital Strike is an attack in it's own right, or Spring Attack)

    thaX wrote:
    The go around by saying the spell itself isn't an attack is semantics.

    Well, this is a rules forum.

    thaX wrote:

    The casting of a spell is never an attack into itself, one gets a free action to enact an attack that the spell gives on the initial casting for those spells that have one, but as Snowlily has pointed out, the actual casting is not considered an attack, no matter what the spell is.

    The basic combination for a Magus is Spell Combat (Shock Grasp is popular, as is Brand for infinite spell casting), then Spellstrike to use the spell through the weapon, gaining two hits (and two changes to hit with the spell as well) with the weapon.

    Now, this edge case, it is clear that the overall advantage to using Whirlwind Attack with Spell Combat would be sub par use of resources and not very intuitive for the character. It is obvious that combining the two abilities is, at best, difficult, or simply not possible at all. The main crux of the argument seems to be (as I mentioned above) about word smithing the interaction of the spell compared to TWF mechanics that Spell Combat uses.

    Admittedly, it *is* a very wasteful build, but it could be fun in the right sort of campaign.

    thaX wrote:
    My overall point is that it is putting lipstick on a pig. Call a spade a spade. The action involved replaces another action that is normally an attack. It can't be done while doing the other ability.

    Spade: Magus gets full attack plus a standard-action spell, because that and Spellstrike are its whole shtick.

    Spade: Whirlwind Attack is a rider on a Full Attack.

    And it's not REPLACING an attack. Not only is the TWF thing an analogy to conceptualize it, but Spell Combat never HAD an off-hand attack TO replace - it's always been just the spell in that hand. The only way for the spell to be lost is if it's an attack, which by your admission it is not.

    Note:
    Before you insult the combo as a "pig" to have lipstick added, please consider: it is not overpowered. It is a heavy feat investment for minimal benefit - for example, Attack, Haste Attack, Shocking Grasp free attack, QUICKENED shocking grasp free attack, any iteratives is probably much better than this combo under most circumstances. This is not a "pig." This combo is an attempt at something cool-but-not-broken.

    TL;DR:
    Spell is neither attack nor replacing an attack, but even if it were replacing an attack, Magus's intent means it should still work because it would be replaced before choosing to make the Full Attack part be a Whirlwind. (And this combo is coolness, not brokenness.)


    thaX wrote:
    bbangerter wrote:
    Tarantula wrote:


    Why do you think the extra attack isn't analogous to the cast spell in spell combat? Is it only because spell combat says the off-hand weapon is replaced by casting the spell? Do you understand my point of view that stating spell combat works much like TWF says to me that it is the off-hand weapon and attack that is being replaced?

    There is an analogy there, but the analogy is the spell becomes the off-hand weapon. But when using an analogy, taking it to far breaks the analogy. Analogies are a way of saying "These things are similar in some aspects, but they are not identical".

    The analogy is you are doing things with both hands during this full round action. In TWF you are doing pokey things with both hands, in spell combat you are doing pokey things with one hand, and spelly things with the other. In both cases you get a penalty to doing your pokey things. That is where the analogy ends because casting a spell is not an attack, just like an apple is not an orange.

    Full Stop.

    The Orange is not there. It is a free hand that can be used to cast a spell in place of an off hand attack. Until you take an action to cast (and hold) the spell, you can't do anything with it. Spell Combat gives you two actions in a full round, attack and cast, and Whirlwind will not allow for the second action. Attacking with the spell upon completion is a free action, so it doesn't matter if you end up attacking with the spell or not, it is the act of casting that spell that Whirlwind will specifically prevent as the character hits each target one (1) time.

    Now, if a character cast a spell the turn before, and held it, he can use Spellstrike to send it through the weapon, but Whirlwind will prevent any extra attack that results in this use as well, expending the held spell on one of the single hits to the targets instead.

    I fail to see how RAI and RAW are somehow different in this matter.

    Two points:

    In the first paragraph, you imply that the spell in Spell Combat is replacing an attack. Can a Magus use Spell Combat to forgo the spell entirely and just make a normal attack? If yes, then I buy your argument. If not, than you're making a false equivalency.

    Secondly, you say that WW prevents all bonus actions. Can you prove this to be true? If a character has special movement attached to their attacks, does WW prevent the use of that movement? My reading of the text is that it only prevents bonus ATTACKS and nothing else. Do you have text that says something else?

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    James...

    "When you use the full attack action... " seems pretty straightforward to me, but some are trying to fit lego blocks to generic brand bricks. In addition to not being able to use extra attacks from "... other feat, spells or abilities" the character is also "...give(s) up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack ... against each opponent within reach."

    Now, I know a spell is something that can be a benefit for the caster or a target instead of an (free action upon casting) attack. The main reason the ability references TWF is because spells are typically not used in this way anywhere else in the game, and a main reason to play the Magus. The disadvantage is that the spell is considered the weapon that effects the extra attack made with the off hand in TWF. Why is this a question?

    Iron Truth...

    If he forgoes using the spell, he isn't using Spell Combat. WW prevents all other extra attacks, specifically one would not be able get an extra attack from the effects of Haste, which is the prime example in the FAQ.

    The word smithing tries to make the Spell of the ability something that it is not. It isn't a simple casting of a spell like a normal wizard/sorcerer would do, but a rider on a full round action to be able to effect an attack and a spell in the same round. "This functions much
    like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell
    that is being cast." This effectively replaces the attack gained from TWF, and is prevented from being used by Whirlwind attack.

    Now, if one just wants to use the spell instead of the weapon, the spell would need to be able to hit multiple times, which has been mentioned. Most are one time attacks and would not make sense to use as a weapon that needs to hit multiple targets.

    The two abilities simply do not work together.


    thaX wrote:

    James...

    "When you use the full attack action... " seems pretty straightforward to me, but some are trying to fit lego blocks to generic brand bricks. In addition to not being able to use extra attacks from "... other feat, spells or abilities" the character is also "...give(s) up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack ... against each opponent within reach."

    By your own previous statements, the spell isn't an attack. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

    thaX wrote:
    Now, I know a spell is something that can be a benefit for the caster or a target instead of an (free action upon casting) attack. The main reason the ability references TWF is because spells are typically not used in this way anywhere else in the game, and a main reason to play the Magus. The disadvantage is that the spell is considered the weapon that effects the extra attack made with the off hand in TWF. Why is this a question?

    ... by your previous statements, which I quoted in my previous post, (and by my arguments) it is NOT an attack, which means the spell is NOT affecting an extra attack. The logical extension is that it's something completely different that just so happens to apply to the full attack.

    thaX wrote:

    Iron Truth...

    If he forgoes using the spell, he isn't using Spell Combat. WW prevents all other extra attacks, specifically one would not be able get an extra attack from the effects of Haste, which is the prime example in the FAQ.

    The word smithing tries to make the Spell of the ability something that it is not. It isn't a simple casting of a spell like a normal wizard/sorcerer would do, but a rider on a full round action to be able to effect an attack and a spell in the same round. "This functions much
    like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell
    that is being cast." This effectively replaces the attack gained from TWF, and is prevented from being used by Whirlwind attack.

    Well, under the "both are riders" interpretation, the two riders then do different things in different ways and don't interfere with each other. Spell Combat adds a spell, which is is NOT an attack to be forfeited. Whirlwind replaces attacks with hitting everyone once.

    But I have a question: How is a pre-defined action a "rider?" Spell Combat is a full-round action that just so happens to count as a Full Attack for such purposes.

    Wouldn't Haste would allow a second off-hand attack if you wanted, rather than primary hand (say, different materials)? If Haste doesn't allow a second SPELL per Spell Combat, then it is not an attack, and thus not forfeit.

    thaX wrote:

    Now, if one just wants to use the spell instead of the weapon, the spell would need to be able to hit multiple times, which has been mentioned. Most are one time attacks and would not make sense to use as a weapon that needs to hit multiple targets.

    The two abilities simply do not work together.

    <probably no need for me to respond to that part of the quote>

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    thaX: You have argued to me in the quoted post that the spell is replacing an attack. To Irontruth, you argued that it is rider on a full attack, to both attack and cast a spell. Those interpretations appear contradictory - if it replaces an attack, then /Why can't I get a second spell under Haste?/, but if it is a rider on a full attack, then /since you have accepted that spells aren't necessarily attacks, why is it lost by losing regular attacks?/

    It looks like you're trying to have it both ways here.

    If it is full attack + spell as you used in your argument to Irontruth, then the spell is NOT lost because it is NOT an attack (it's not a regular attack to be forfeit, and since it's not an attack in the first place, it's not a bonus attack, despite being a bonus).

    For the off-hand attack version: You can still USE off-hand attacks in a whirlwind attack (it's extra ATTACKS that are forbidden), so it can't be lost that way (nor is it a bonus attack unto itself). The only way it could be lost is if the off-hand attacks are lost first. HOWEVER, this extends the Two-Weapon Fighting metaphor past where it is contradicted by the text of Spell Combat. Spell Combat says you cast the spell before or after your attacks, not as one of the attacks.


    Quote:
    If he forgoes using the spell, he isn't using Spell Combat. WW prevents all other extra attacks, specifically one would not be able get an extra attack from the effects of Haste, which is the prime example in the FAQ.

    Your understanding appears flawed:

    Quote:
    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).

    A magus using spell combat does not have to cast a spell, he can just choose to. There may be many reasons why someone using spell combat might not cast a spell, such as killing their opponent with a regular attack first.


    thaX wrote:

    James...

    "When you use the full attack action... " seems pretty straightforward to me, but some are trying to fit lego blocks to generic brand bricks. In addition to not being able to use extra attacks from "... other feat, spells or abilities" the character is also "...give(s) up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack ... against each opponent within reach."

    Now, I know a spell is something that can be a benefit for the caster or a target instead of an (free action upon casting) attack. The main reason the ability references TWF is because spells are typically not used in this way anywhere else in the game, and a main reason to play the Magus. The disadvantage is that the spell is considered the weapon that effects the extra attack made with the off hand in TWF. Why is this a question?

    Iron Truth...

    If he forgoes using the spell, he isn't using Spell Combat. WW prevents all other extra attacks, specifically one would not be able get an extra attack from the effects of Haste, which is the prime example in the FAQ.

    The word smithing tries to make the Spell of the ability something that it is not. It isn't a simple casting of a spell like a normal wizard/sorcerer would do, but a rider on a full round action to be able to effect an attack and a spell in the same round. "This functions much
    like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell
    that is being cast." This effectively replaces the attack gained from TWF, and is prevented from being used by Whirlwind attack.

    Now, if one just wants to use the spell instead of the weapon, the spell would need to be able to hit multiple times, which has been mentioned. Most are one time attacks and would not make sense to use as a weapon that needs to hit multiple targets.

    The two abilities simply do not work together.

    You still haven't answered my questions, such as:

    Does WW prevent bonus actions that aren't attacks?

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    It is the action that the spell represents in Spell Combat, not the spell itself. It replaces the attack one normally gets in TWF, which Spell Combat emulates. Otherwise, the Magus couldn't do the ability at all.

    Everyone keeps going back to "The spell isn't an attack." It is parsing the rules because of a particular, ignoring the basic actions in a given round and playing word games.

    Let's take a look at it...

    Ultimate Magic wrote:

    Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells

    and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much
    like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell
    that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one
    hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic
    components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee
    weapon in the other hand. As a full-round action, he can make
    all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and
    can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting
    time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this
    spell also takes this penalty).

    So, you get a full attack with the weapon and the spell casting with both getting a -2 penalty. The off hand weapon that is the extra attack for TWF, which, in turn, is the casting spell for Spell Combat. This is spelled out in the ability quoted above, the only reason we are discussing the possibility is the fact that the spell itself is not wielded and Whirlwind Attack specifically says "attacks" that are not added and forgoes. To anyone that reads this quote above, there is clearly the intent that the extra action is used offensively, most likely against the target of the other attacks. Though it doesn't need to be used in that way, it is how it is set up and the parallel that it uses, Two Weapon Fighting, give the extra action as an attack. The basic actions are not changed from TWF and Spell Combat, no matter if the Spell is called an "attack" or a "casting," it takes the same action and Whirlwind would prevent it from being performed.

    I, myself, never considered putting these two together, either TWF or Spell Combat with Whirlwind, because both are used in a full round. The puzzle of fitting one full action inside another is something of a new rules loop hole for me, and certainly is something of a unique circumstance in this instance.


    You're just making stuff up completely. There is no mechanism in pathfinder to replace 'an attack' with an entirely different type of action because 'an attack' isn't actually an action (though there is a separate attack action which is a standard action).

    Quote:
    The off hand weapon that is the extra attack for TWF, which, in turn,

    Dude, your misrepresentation of what the rules actually say, at this point, is dishonesty. Call it semantics if you like, but you are changing what the rules actually say.

    The 'offhand wweapon' is not an extra attack, it is an offhand weapon that gives you one OR MORE extra attacks. If spell combat replaced an offhand 'attack' with a spell, then if you had TWF feats which gave you additional off-hand iteratives, you would be able to take those extra attacks.


    thaX wrote:
    So, you get a full attack with the weapon and the spell casting with both getting a -2 penalty. The off hand weapon that is the extra attack for TWF, which, in turn, is the casting spell for Spell Combat.

    You have previously agreed that spells are not necessarily attacks. (Side note: If I whirlwind with a sword while holding a shield, I still keep the benefit of the shield - so why should I not get the benefit of a spell?)

    Additionally, if Spell Combat STARTS you with the spell, as this quote implies, before the rider is applied, then since you have already said that spells are not necessarily attacks, there *NEVER WAS* an off-hand attack TO lose in the first place, so it works.

    thaX wrote:
    To anyone that reads this quote above, there is clearly the intent that the extra action is used offensively, most likely against the target of the other attacks.

    There exist a multitude of utility spells that work with spell combat, too, and which are not attacks. Shield, True Strike, Unerring Weapon, Bull's Strength/Cat's Grace, Invisibility (best cast that one after, though), Dispel Magic (on ally with debuff), Blink, and I haven't even gotten halfway done with a mere cursory look past the level 3 spells. The extra action is not necessarily offensive. The spell is just that: a spell, to be used as spells can, which is to say: however the user thinks best.

    thaX wrote:
    I, myself, never considered putting these two together, either TWF or Spell Combat with Whirlwind, because both are used in a full round. The puzzle of fitting one full action inside another is something of a new rules loop hole for me, and certainly is something of a unique circumstance in this instance.

    So, which is it? A rider, as you said in your *previous* post to Irontruth, or a full action like you said in this one? The text for Whirlwind makes clear that it's a rider. Thus, you are NOT fitting one full action inside another. This is a rider on an action.

    ________

    Actually, I agree with Darksol the Painbringer that this has ceased to be rules-as-written, but rules-not-as-written-but-as-they-might-have-been-written-in-another-univers e. I'm taking a fair bit of a break from this thread, at the least.

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    _Ozy_ wrote:

    You're just making stuff up completely. There is no mechanism in pathfinder to replace 'an attack' with an entirely different type of action because 'an attack' isn't actually an action (though there is a separate attack action which is a standard action).

    Quote:
    The off hand weapon that is the extra attack for TWF, which, in turn,

    Dude, your misrepresentation of what the rules actually say, at this point, is dishonesty. Call it semantics if you like, but you are changing what the rules actually say.

    The 'offhand wweapon' is not an extra attack, it is an offhand weapon that gives you one OR MORE extra attacks. If spell combat replaced an offhand 'attack' with a spell, then if you had TWF feats which gave you additional off-hand iteratives, you would be able to take those extra attacks.

    It is an extra attack on top of the iteratives you have with a single weapon. (hence, TWF) The penalties normally associated with them is -6/-10, the feat takes those down to -4/-4, and using a light weapon makes it -2/-2. Progressive TWF feats gives additional attacks with the off hand.

    The off hand weapon in TWF is replace by the spell in Spell Combat. The penalties are defined within the ability (-2/-2). That is what the ability is, TWF with a weapon and a spell.

    Iteraves or not, Whirlwind takes them away for a single attack on each target in reach. You will not be able to get more than one attack for each target in a Whirlwind attack, nor will you get an extra action (unless you use a quickened spell) to cast a spell via Spell Combat. That is my stance on this, and how the rules are intended to work. If you have a RAW reading that somehow makes a spell something new when used in the way it is with Spell Combat, I believe your parsing terms and defining them in a way that separates them from what was or will ever be intended.


    thaX wrote:

    It is the action that the spell represents in Spell Combat, not the spell itself. It replaces the attack one normally gets in TWF, which Spell Combat emulates. Otherwise, the Magus couldn't do the ability at all.

    Everyone keeps going back to "The spell isn't an attack." It is parsing the rules because of a particular, ignoring the basic actions in a given round and playing word games.

    Let's take a look at it...

    Ultimate Magic wrote:

    Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells

    and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much
    like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell
    that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one
    hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic
    components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee
    weapon in the other hand. As a full-round action, he can make
    all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and
    can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting
    time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this
    spell also takes this penalty).
    So, you get a full attack with the weapon and the spell casting with both getting a -2 penalty. The off hand weapon that is the extra attack for TWF, which, in turn, is the casting spell for Spell Combat. This is spelled out in the ability quoted above, the only reason we are discussing the possibility is the fact that the spell itself is not wielded and Whirlwind Attack specifically says "attacks" that are not added and forgoes. To anyone that reads this quote above, there is clearly the intent that the extra action is used offensively, most likely against the target of the other attacks. Though it doesn't need to be used in that way, it is how it is set up and the parallel that it uses, Two Weapon Fighting, give the extra action as an attack. The basic actions are not changed from TWF and Spell Combat, no matter if the Spell is called an "attack" or a "casting," it takes the same action and Whirlwind...

    The problem is you're taking statements about how they are similar and taking a leap in logic to claim they are identical. Show me that Spell Combat is IDENTICAL to Two Weapon Fighting. For example, does it qualify the Magus to take Improved Two Weapon Fighting? If they're identical, this would be true. If they aren't identical, then this isn't true and it means that there are differences between the two.

    Can you show me that Spell Combat and Two-Weapon Fighting are identical?

    If they aren't identical, than any argument that relies on Two Weapon Fighting is irrelevant, since they aren't the same. Remember, the words "similar" and "same" have different meanings. Don't confuse the two.

    I'm not playing word games, I'm paying attention to the words that are written. You can't ignore them just because they are inconvenient to your argument. Really, you're the one playing word games and making leaps of logic that don't exist in the rules.

    You're making the claim that spells are attacks. You still haven't convinced me this is the case and I find your argument weak and lacking in proof.


    Here's the real rub as far as I'm concerned:

    Whirlwind Attack prevents any bonus attacks. It doesn't prevent any other sort of bonus actions though (movement, spells, special abilities, magic items, etc). So for it to prevent the spell from being cast, you have to prove that spell IS AN ATTACK. Not that it's gained in a similar manner to other attacks, but that the spell itself is actually an attack. As long as it isn't an attack, Whirlwind doesn't care.

    I would agree that you can't gain a bonus attack via casting a spell, because WW automatically precludes bonus attacks. The spell happens, but it doesn't trigger an attack roll of any sort. Spells that don't involve attacks would happen normally.

    But the rules clearly state that casting a spell is a different type of action than an attack.


    thaX wrote:
    "That isn't being questioned, it is the action that the spell is replacing, which is an attack, to which the extra action is possible with Spell Combat. The act of casting any spell, be it Shocking Grasp or Shield, in respects to using this ability, will be prevented from doing so if the character uses Whirlwind Attack.

    There is no action being replaced.

    The full round action declared is Spell Combat, not TWF.

    Spell Combat has an off hand spell. The ability makes no mention of off-hand attacks.

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    Snowlilly wrote:
    thaX wrote:
    "That isn't being questioned, it is the action that the spell is replacing, which is an attack, to which the extra action is possible with Spell Combat. The act of casting any spell, be it Shocking Grasp or Shield, in respects to using this ability, will be prevented from doing so if the character uses Whirlwind Attack.

    There is no action being replaced.

    The full round action declared is Spell Combat, not TWF.

    Spell Combat has an off hand spell. The ability makes no mention of off-hand attacks.

    Spell Combat says...

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

    So, it is giving an extra action, which is normally an extra attack with the off hand weapon. That attack is replace with a spell. Whirlwind Attack is not going to care if the extra action is an attack via weapon or spell, it is an extra action that it will prevent.

    I get that there is a reading on this that somehow slips some sort of rules hiccup into the cogs, it is the worst case of reading to much into specifics when the intent is clearly seen to not support it. I know, the word "attack" would seem to be missing from the equation for Spell Combat, using the term "weapon" instead. Spells in combat are wonky, always have been. Wizards typically stood in the back, flinging ranged spells and area effects from a distance. PF, as a whole, has made the classic Wizard be closer to the action than they have been before, and the Magus is a difficult hybrid of a fighter/mage combo that has some abilities that work with the standard rules with a bit of a wedge.

    I know you can see the parallel between TWF and Spell Combat, the later couldn't exist without the other to reference or emulate. My overall confusion with this discussion is why this combo would even be considered, let alone work together. This is why I asked about Spring Attack and such in much the same way. I know that those won't work, but somehow this ability called Spell Combat is different?

    So a spell is cast, a weapon is wielded and a potion is imbibed. Each can effect an attack, like Shocking Grasp, off hand attack, or Fire Breath. Each need an action to effect, usually a standard action, or a full round action for TWF/Spell Combat to effect the off hand's action.

    Whirlwind has "one" action. Hit each target in range one time. No extras, like an attack from haste, or a casting of a spell/making an attack with the off hand action for Spell Combat/Two Weapon Fighting.

    From here, I can see we are not going to agree on this issue. I doubt anything more I post on this will convince those unwilling to see the basic text and how it works with the core mechanic of the rules. I would invite you to please read the Core Rulebook, about how rounds are played, what actions one can take, and when a character can do a full round action/attack. What this combination would do is go beyond that basis, all because of the want of an errata that would add the word "attack" so Spell Combat.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    thaX wrote:
    Snowlilly wrote:
    thaX wrote:
    "That isn't being questioned, it is the action that the spell is replacing, which is an attack, to which the extra action is possible with Spell Combat. The act of casting any spell, be it Shocking Grasp or Shield, in respects to using this ability, will be prevented from doing so if the character uses Whirlwind Attack.

    There is no action being replaced.

    The full round action declared is Spell Combat, not TWF.

    Spell Combat has an off hand spell. The ability makes no mention of off-hand attacks.

    Spell Combat says...

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

    So, it is giving an extra action, which is normally an extra attack with the off hand weapon. That attack is replace with a spell. Whirlwind Attack is not going to care if the extra action is an attack via weapon or spell, it is an extra action that it will prevent.

    I get that there is a reading on this that somehow slips some sort of rules hiccup into the cogs, it is the worst case of reading to much into specifics when the intent is clearly seen to not support it. I know, the word "attack" would seem to be missing from the equation for Spell Combat, using the term "weapon" instead. Spells in combat are wonky, always have been. Wizards typically stood in the back, flinging ranged spells and area effects from a distance. PF, as a whole, has made the classic Wizard be closer to the action than they have been before, and the Magus is a difficult hybrid of a fighter/mage combo that has some abilities that work with the standard rules with a bit of a wedge.

    I know you can see the parallel between TWF and Spell Combat, the later couldn't exist without the other to reference or emulate. My overall confusion with this discussion is why this combo would even be considered, let alone work together. This is why I asked about Spring Attack and such in much the same way. I know that those won't work, but somehow this ability called Spell...

    Quote the text for Whirlwind Attack and bold the portion where is says you forgo bonus actions. This is of course a trick question, because we all know that it doesn't say that. It says you don't gain bonus ATTACKS and from a simple reading of the combat section, we can easily see that not all actions are attacks. Whirlwind Attack doesn't preclude all bonus actions, it only prevent bonus attacks.

    You have to show that the spell from spell combat is an ATTACK and not some other kind of action if you want Whirlwind Attack to prevent it.

    I understand that Spell Combat and TWF are similar, but they are not identical. Therefore, you can't treat them as identical in all ways, because there are differences. For example, having Spell Combat does not qualify you for Improved TWF. Nor can the two be combined (Ie. using spell combat to replace one of the bonus attacks from Imp TWF). These are not interchangeable terms and you can't treat them as if they are.

    It's more that they are similar and presented as such for ease of grasping how Spell Combat works, but they are not identical, nor can they be used wholly as stand ins for each other.


    thaX wrote:
    Snowlilly wrote:
    thaX wrote:
    "That isn't being questioned, it is the action that the spell is replacing, which is an attack, to which the extra action is possible with Spell Combat. The act of casting any spell, be it Shocking Grasp or Shield, in respects to using this ability, will be prevented from doing so if the character uses Whirlwind Attack.

    There is no action being replaced.

    The full round action declared is Spell Combat, not TWF.

    Spell Combat has an off hand spell. The ability makes no mention of off-hand attacks.

    Spell Combat says...

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

    So, it is giving an extra action,

    Absolutely wrong.

    Quote:
    which is normally an extra attack with the off hand weapon. That attack is replace with a spell. Whirlwind Attack is not going to care if the extra action is an attack via weapon or spell, it is an extra action that it will prevent.

    It's not an extra 'action', it's an extra attack, or two attacks, or three attacks. Except when you whirlwind, you don't get any extra attacks, not 1, not 2, not 3. And you get these extra attacks normally because you are holding an off-hand weapon. Now, with spell combat, you are casting a spell instead of holding a weapon. So Whirlwind will prevent you (again) from getting any extra attacks from casting that spell. However, you can feel free to cast spells that don't give you attacks. Heck, you can even cast shocking grasp, you just won't get the free attack.

    Quote:
    I get that there is a reading on this that somehow slips some sort of rules hiccup into the cogs, it is the worst case of reading to much into specifics when the intent is clearly seen to not support it. I know, the word "attack" would seem to be missing from the equation for Spell Combat, using the term "weapon" instead.

    Yeah, the difference is evey one else actually uses what the rules say.

    Quote:

    Spells in combat are wonky, always have been. Wizards typically stood in the back, flinging ranged spells and area effects from a distance. PF, as a whole, has made the classic Wizard be closer to the action than they have been before, and the Magus is a difficult hybrid of a fighter/mage combo that has some abilities that work with the standard rules with a bit of a wedge.

    I know you can see the parallel between TWF and Spell Combat, the later couldn't exist without the other to reference or emulate. My overall confusion with this discussion is why this combo would even be considered, let alone work together. This is why I asked about Spring Attack and such in much the same way. I know that those won't work, but somehow this ability called Spell...

    Consider an imaginary feat called Two Weapon Defense, which reads like this:

    Quote:
    While holding an off-hand weapon, the wielder can choose to add a +2 shield bonus to his AC. While doing so, the wielder can not make any off-hand attacks.

    This feat would function just fine during Whirlwind Combat.

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    Irontruth wrote:

    I understand that Spell Combat and TWF are similar, but they are not identical. Therefore, you can't treat them as identical in all ways, because there are differences. For example, having Spell Combat does not qualify you for Improved TWF. Nor can the two be combined (Ie. using spell combat to replace one of the bonus attacks from Imp TWF). These are not interchangeable terms and you can't treat them as if they are.

    It's more that they are similar and presented as such for ease of grasping how Spell Combat works, but they are not identical, nor can they be used wholly as stand ins for each other.

    So we are at an impasse. I quoted Irontruth as it is clearer than the other post, though both are saying the same thing.

    My point is that the want for this combo is to ignore the action economy that TWF gives in favor of whipping out an extra Standard action in the middle of a full attack. Both abilities use the same action and it doesn't make a difference how it is derived. The reason Spell Combat uses the terms and explains as it does is for the very cases mentioned here, to use Sheild instead of attacking, or cast some other enhancement while still getting an attack in. That is the magus, surprising those think of a silly Wizard.

    It is still using two actions in a full round, normally done with a standard action (Attack or cast a spell). My overall stance is if one can not get the extra action from TWF, than Spell Combat follows that same limitation.

    Wordsmith all you want, there are a lot of GM's out there that are gonna say "no."


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Yeah, we're at an impasse because you aren't bothering to read the rules.

    You're the one who is wordsmithing and twisting definitions to suit your purpose.

    I'm the one who is proposing we read the rules and apply the simplest method of determining their meanings as possible.

    You still haven't provided evidence that the rules consider "attack" and "cast a spell" to be the same action. Until you do, the text of Whirlwind Attack is exceptionally clear that it doesn't prevent you from casting a spell.

    The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    We've been at an impasse since the 10th post in a 340 post thread.


    I'm back.

    _Ozy_ wrote:
    While holding an off-hand weapon, the wielder can choose to add a +2 shield bonus to his AC. While doing so, the wielder can not make any off-hand attacks.

    Just felt I should point out that while I agree with your point, the feat does exist, and it just gives +1 AC for double weapon or two-weapon wielding (not necessarily TWF, though), or +2 fighting defensively.

    thaX wrote:
    My point is that the want for this combo is to ignore the action economy that TWF gives in favor of whipping out an extra Standard action in the middle of a full attack.

    Casting a spell is usually a standard, yes, but if that's your interpretation: Spell Combat already does exactly that. (Note: it's actually it's OWN action, which is TREATED as equivalent to a Full Attack for certain purposes, and which happens to include casting a spell)

    thaX wrote:
    Both abilities use the same action and it doesn't make a difference how it is derived.

    They both require a full round, yes. But Full Attack is NOT the same action as Spell Combat - Spell Combat is it's own action, and Full Attack is found here: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#Table-Actions-in-Combat

    Quote:
    The reason Spell Combat uses the terms and explains as it does is for the very cases mentioned here, to use Sheild instead of attacking, or cast some other enhancement while still getting an attack in. That is the magus, surprising those think of a silly Wizard.

    I'm not sure where you're going with this. But aside from Spellstrike showing that they're QUITE intended to be able to attack with it (under normal full attacks, but also not required to), this actually undermines your point by admitting that the spell is not an attack.

    Whirlwind Attack: you forfeit extra *attacks*
    This, per the only interpretation I can think of for what you said: *not* an attack
    Spell Combat: Action unto itself, and so there never was an attack in the off-hand - just a spell, likened to TWF for conceptualization and explanation of the penalty to hit.

    thaX wrote:
    It is still using two actions in a full round, normally done with a standard action (Attack or cast a spell). My overall stance is if one can not get the extra action from TWF, than Spell Combat follows that same limitation.

    It is not an extra action from TWF. It is an extra ATTACK. You can use actions to make an attack, but "an attack" is not, in and of itself, an action. It can be the entirety of a standard, or it can be part of a full attack. Without a specific feat, you only get TWF on a full attack, making the off-hand attacks be only part of what an action does.

    thaX wrote:
    Wordsmith all you want, there are a lot of GM's out there that are gonna say "no."

    You're the one who's wordsmithing Spell Combat to be replacing an attack with a spell or to be an extra action or for the spell to count as an attack in some way shape or form.

    We're looking at it and saying, spell combat is full attack equivalent (per FAQ), and is attacks + spell or spell + attacks (per a simple and literal interpretation of the RAW), and whirlwind attack modifies full attack (per the RAW on it being when you "full attack"), and reading that spells are not defined as attacks.


    Have only 12 people FAQ'd this because it's "obvious" to most people, or are only 12 people discussing this?


    james014Aura wrote:

    I'm back.

    _Ozy_ wrote:
    While holding an off-hand weapon, the wielder can choose to add a +2 shield bonus to his AC. While doing so, the wielder can not make any off-hand attacks.

    Just felt I should point out that while I agree with your point, the feat does exist, and it just gives +1 AC for double weapon or two-weapon wielding (not necessarily TWF, though), or +2 fighting defensively.

    Lol, that will teach me not to google, though that particular feat doesn't take away your off-hand attack.

    Nonetheless, it's a good example of a feat that would still be operative during a Whirlwind.


    Kryzbyn wrote:
    Have only 12 people FAQ'd this because it's "obvious" to most people, or are only 12 people discussing this?

    On one hand, this won't be resolved without a FAQ.

    On the other hand, this is kind of a waste of the design team's time since nobody is likely to actually want to do this even if it did work.


    Hey, if it does work (re: I'm fairly sure it does), then I might just add such an NPC in my campaigns! Especially ones where my PCs dabble in zombies and skeletons and have a lot of melee characters besides.

    The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

    Kryzbyn wrote:
    Have only 12 people FAQ'd this because it's "obvious" to most people, or are only 12 people discussing this?

    A number have each of these opinion expressed in this thread already:

    • They don't want to burn a FAQ on this non-common question.
    • They think it's obvious you can't use Spell Combat with Whirlwind and gain a spell casting or attack.
    • They think it's obvious you can use Spell Combat with Whirlwind and gain a spell casting or attack.
    • They think it should be answered (the 12 who clicked FAQ.)

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    It is replacing an attack action with a spell. It is still under the limitations that using that attack action would entail, as that is the action that the casting of the spell represents in Spell Combat.

    That is what fits in the actions in combat, and what Whirlwind Attack prevents specifically.

    But no, the wedge has to be stuck in there to get a third "standard" action in the mix.

    Tell me, if you try casting Shocking Grasp, would it fizzle when Whirlwind prevents the attack? (even with Spellstrike)


    thaX wrote:
    It is replacing an attack action with a spell. It is still under the limitations that using that attack action would entail, as that is the action that the casting of the spell represents in Spell Combat.

    Once again, wrong. The 'attack action' is a standard action that is irrelevant to this discussion.

    Quote:

    That is what fits in the actions in combat, and what Whirlwind Attack prevents specifically.

    But no, the wedge has to be stuck in there to get a third "standard" action in the mix.

    Tell me, if you try casting Shocking Grasp, would it fizzle when Whirlwind prevents the attack? (even with Spellstrike)

    Of course it wouldn't 'fizzle', it would discharge on the next successful attack. You just wouldn't get the 'free' attack that is inherent in casting the spell. If you cast it before you started the whirlwind, it would discharge on the first successful whirlwind attack. If you cast it after, it would discharge on your next successful attack the following round(s).


    Isn't Whirlwind Attack really just a replacement for the extra attacks you'd get with a high Base Attack Bonus?

    A Magus with BAB +6 gets two attacks and a spell with Spell Combat. Or he could, instead of making two attacks on one guy, make one attack on every enemy within reach, by burning all of his Feats to do so. Which only pays off if there are, in fact, enough enemies in reach to justify Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, and Combat Expertise. In fact, thinking about that, when is the earliest level a Magus could get Whirlwind Attack?


    I'm treating this like the bard thread now. Only coming back to see if it's answered.

    If this gets answered before the bard FAQ I may weep a touch.

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    Lynceus.

    Whirlwind Attack takes away all extra attacks, itteraves and those gained from other effects/abilities, like from haste or TWF, if TWF could be used at all.

    The crux of the argument for the combo to work is the fact that "Off Hand Weapon" is not called "Off Hand Attack" that is replaced in Spell Combat. Spells are not attacks, though a lot of them do give a free action to make an attack as a part of the casting of the spell (which Whirlwind would take away as a an "extra" attack)

    The overall question is whether a character can cast a beneficial spell as he is doing a Whirlwind attack as a part of Spell Combat (Assuming that both can be done at once).

    Ozzy, at best, the character would only be able to hold the spell in this combo, likely able to use the held spell at some point when he is not Whirlwind attacking. (talking about a spell that has an attack after it is cast), as it is an extra attack on top of a single attack on each target. There could be a case where the extra attack is used as one of the single hits on the available targets, but this is beyond the scope of how one is able to cast the spell in the first place. (So three targets, Weapon hit, weapon hit, Shocking Grasp) Spellstrike would not be able to be used as it is an extra attack on top of Whirlwind's single hit targets. (Your hitting one target twice) You certainly wouldn't get the extra swing using both Spell Combat and Spellstrike together.

    Now, keep in mind, both Spell Combat and Whirlwind Attack are started at the same time. There is no starting one before the other, "as a part of a full attack action."


    You need to brush up on the rules for spellstrike and spell combat. Spellstrike is not an extra attack in any sense.

    301 to 350 of 735 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Spell combat + Whirlwind Attack All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.