|
You need to brush up on the rules for spellstrike and spell combat. Spellstrike is not an extra attack in any sense.
It is when you use it to effect two strikes with the weapon combined with Spell Combat. One is the weapon hit and the other is the Spellstrike hit after the spell is cast. Typically, it gives two chances to hit a target (free Action, attack with held spell if the first misses)
Your right about using it, though, I misspoke. A held spell can be used as one of the attacks used during Whirlwind, though there is no extra hit from the weapon (which Whirlwind would not allow) as it is not a free action to effect an attack with a held spell. This is assuming the character held the spell from the previous round. I think your still hitting the same target twice (Attack with Spell), but Spellstrike is a single attack in this way.
Yes, I took a look at it in the PDF. It is funny that there is no mention of a held spell with Spellstrike, but it is something that is done when you have a double miss in the previous round.
You need to brush up on the rules for spellstrike and spell combat. Spellstrike is not an extra attack in any sense.It is when you use it to effect two strikes with the weapon combined with Spell Combat. One is the weapon hit and the other is the Spellstrike hit after the spell is cast.
Not quite. Spellstrike is never an extra attack - that's the SPELL giving an extra attack. Spellstrike merely lets you deliver the touch attack in a different way - it's not ADDING any attack.
It is funny that there is no mention of a held spell with Spellstrike,
Naturally not, that's in the core rulebook (cited from the PRD's copy at http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/combat.html):
Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. ... If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
(There's something about touching things discharges it, but the magus has an exception with his sword, thanks to a FAQ).
|
So I have a question trying to understand the discussion here.
Can you cast a spell using spell combat and whirlwind attack at the same time?
Now it seems that is the question but no one is answering it because they are not asking that question. They are asking can you cast a non-attack spell, spell combat and whirlwind attack in the same round?
So my question is, what differentiates the two castings to allow one and not the other? Spell combat doesn't differentiate what spell you cast, just that you can. So mechanically, how are you separating which spell you are casting from the overall mechanic?
Or are people saying you could say cast shocking touch, not get the attack to deliver it because of whirlwind attack, and instead deliver it with the first successful whirlwind attack hit?
So I have a question trying to understand the discussion here.
Can you cast a spell using spell combat and whirlwind attack at the same time?
Now it seems that is the question but no one is answering it because they are not asking that question. They are asking can you cast a non-attack spell, spell combat and whirlwind attack in the same round?
So my question is, what differentiates the two castings to allow one and not the other? Spell combat doesn't differentiate what spell you cast, just that you can. So mechanically, how are you separating which spell you are casting from the overall mechanic?
Or are people saying you could say cast shocking touch, not get the attack to deliver it because of whirlwind attack, and instead deliver it with the first successful whirlwind attack hit?
The last. Spell combat lets you cast ANY spell. WW attack would prevent any additional attacks beyond the 1 per target. WW attack however does not care what method of attack you use for each of those one attacks. For example, if a caster had a held charge of shocking grasp, then they could WW attack against 3 opponents. Target the first one with dagger, target the second one with a touch attack for the held charge, target the third with your dagger.
So spell combat and WW combined then: Cast shocking grasp, which grants a free attack - but even though your BAB + free attack might normally grant you 4 attacks, you are still limited to 1 per target - 3 in our example. Again you could dagger, touch attack, dagger. Of course as a magus you could dagger + spellstrike to deliver the charge, dagger, dagger.
@thaX: You have several misunderstandings regarding how the magus works. I highly recommend you read Gricks guide.
A guide is not the best source for anything other than opinion.
A guide backed by the rules is not opinion. It's not a 'this is how to build a magus guide, or best ways to build the ultimate magus'. It's 'How do touch spells, spell combat, and spellstrike work together'. But feel free to read it and point out any rules errors you find.
It's not a build guide. It's a rules guide and how they apply to the class.
edit: ninja'd
Have only 12 people FAQ'd this because it's "obvious" to most people, or are only 12 people discussing this?
The people attempting to argue casting a spell is an attack have actively attempted to dissuade people from clicking the FAQ button, within the first 10 posts on the FAQ thread.
Anything to prevent an official answer that may go against their opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone mind if I just pick up my original question and quietly back away into the darkness?
|
|
The spell doesn't give the attack, it is a part of the casting of that spell that gives the (free Action) attack. If it isn't used in the turn that it was cast, then it needs a standard action to use the touch attack with that spell. This is the same with Spellstrike, you get two hits with the weapon when combined with Spell Combat.
My understanding (with having read the guide, thank you) is that you can spellstrike during Whirlwind with a held spell.
The question is if Spell Combat can be used to effect an extra action during Whirlwind Attack. Since Spell Combat and TWF use the same off hand use to effect the extra action, this seems a simple answer of "no."
The fact that a spell is not an attack should not factor into it. The fact that it is replacing an off hand attack (specified as the spell being the "weapon") should be obvious and would not work with Whirlwind, on top of being a full round action to enact.
Now, using the spell at one of the attacks on a single target should only be possible if the spell is held from the previous turn when using this combo.
Remember, you only get the free action attack at the time of casting the spell. Once you hold the spell, that free action is gone.
The question is if Spell Combat can be used to effect an extra action during Whirlwind Attack. Since Spell Combat and TWF use the same off hand use to effect the extra action, this seems a simple answer of "no."
Just because two things are similar, does not mean they are identical. Spell Combat is similar to TWF, but it is not ACTUALLY TWF.
Unless you're making the claim that they are identical, in which case I have some questions that will prove that they aren't.
|
|
That is the sticking point. To ask for a FAQ because the term "weapon" is used instead of "attack" is rather silly.
As I said, that would seem the simple answer, but we now have over 350 posts saying that the answer is more complicated than that.
It is an off hand attack that is replaced. It is the question of whether or not it is still an "attack" that is being proffered, and my point has always been that the action is the same in both abilities. (TWF and Spell Combat) It is just a different "weapon" that is used.
That is the sticking point. To ask for a FAQ because the term "weapon" is used instead of "attack" is rather silly.
As I said, that would seem the simple answer, but we now have over 350 posts saying that the answer is more complicated than that.
It is an off hand attack that is replaced. It is the question of whether or not it is still an "attack" that is being proffered, and my point has always been that the action is the same in both abilities. (TWF and Spell Combat) It is just a different "weapon" that is used.
I added the bolding in the last paragraph.
Nothing is being replaced.
I repeat, nothing is being replaced.
Spell Combat and TWF are not identical. They are not the same ability. They are similar, and to help explain Spell Combat, TWF is referenced. But they aren't the same. They are different.
Because of that, NOTHING IS BEING REPLACED. Spell Combat lets you cast a spell when making a full attack action. Normally, it also allows you to make the free attack associated with that spell, if it has one (like Shocking Grasp). But nothing is being replaced, because this is Spell Combat and has nothing to do with TWF.
BTW, I can prove that Spell Combat is not TWF. Only one of them qualifies you for Improved TWF. If Spell Combat were ACTUALLY TWF, it would qualify for and combine with Improved TWF (giving additional attacks). But it doesn't qualify for, or combine with, Imp TWF. Therefore, Spell Combat is NOT TWF. They are merely similar, not identical.
And no, we don't have 350 posts saying it's more complicated. We have a few posts saying it's more complicated and a bunch of others saying that it isn't and people are needlessly complicating it.
As a disclaimer, I have not read all 370 posts in this thread (because jesus christ that's a lot), but I did want to provide my personal view on this. I've pretty much read the first couple pages and the last page.
I would also like to note that I once thought of the possibility a few months back, thought it was an obvious "no", and discarded the idea. My view changed during this thread when I actually began to think of it, though, for the reasons I will list below.
I believe that, when you begin to parse out everything in the ability with regards to actions, turns, effects, modification of said effects, et cetera, you may come to the conclusion as follows. My view is that from what I've read, people have been doing too much "blending" of the text and their interconnecting function. Please note that this is entirely a "the way I see it" situation, but it is based upon carefully thought out logic once I get into the nitty-gritty of it. Let me first begin with the relevant texts for easy reference.
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). If he casts this spell defensively, he can decide to take an additional penalty on his attack rolls, up to his Intelligence bonus, and add the same amount as a circumstance bonus on his concentration check. If the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still take the penalty. A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks.
When you use the full-attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach. You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent.
When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.
The basic assumption I'm making is that Spell Combat does, in fact, count as a full-attack for whirlwind attack, and whirlwind attack does count as "other effects" for the purpose of the relevant spell combat FAQ.
Let me first begin by parsing out the technical workings of spell combat.
- Be wielding one-handed weapon in one hand
- Not be holding anything in your other hand
- Full-round action (spend your standard and move actions)
- Take -2 penalty to-hit during this action
- Optionally take extra to-hit penalty for extra concentration
- Make a full attack
- Cast a spell
- Do the previous two in any order
- If you gain a free action attack to deliver a touch spell, it also takes above penalties
First thing, yes I am aware of the fact that the spell may or may not "count as a weapon". The text is extremely ambiguous, and can either be seen as "helpful" comparison text to help people understand exactly how the ability works, or it could be seen as a notation that this ability counts as weapon for the purpose of abilities that key off of that. However, I would like to note that I'm firmly in the camp of "misleading comparison text" for two reasons. The first reason being that the ability later specifically states that you must have one hand free, which would be unnecessary text if the spell-weapon were being wielded in that hand, and the feat "dervish dance" would be an illegal choice if that were the case, which pretty much everyone agrees that it does work.
So with that nitty-gritty, The magus confirms that he meets the requirements, and he spends the action. So he's now making a full attack. Because he is making a full attack, he may use his "whirlwind attack" feat and "give up your regular attacks" during this action, and "instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach".
Spell combat now becomes:
- Be wielding one-handed weapon in one hand
- Not be holding anything in your other hand
- Full-round action (spend your standard and move actions)
- Take -2 penalty to-hit during this action
- Optionally take extra to-hit penalty for extra concentration
- Make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach
- Cast a spell (this is not an attack, nor a weapon, for reasons listed above)
- Do the previous two in any order
- If you gain a free action attack to deliver a touch spell, it also takes above penalties (see below)
The first thing I'm going to mention is that whirlwind attack is, in my opinion, most likely mentioning the forfeiting of extra attacks to cover the existence of haste, two-weapon fighting, weapon enchantment abilities, and so on. However, I will also defend myself with the following; Attacks made from ray spells are made as part of casting the spell, and aren't extra attacks made as part of the whirlwind attack, and the free action gained by casting a touch spell is made after the full-round action is over, and thus is not affected unless specifically called out, like how spell combat specifically calls out this extra attack also taking the related penalties. I would like to note that if spell combat lacked that text, the free action attack would, in fact, be exempt from the spell combat penalties. The fact that it is a separate action is supported by the fact that you can cast a touch spell as your standard, then take a move action, then take a free action to deliver the touch spell.
So, to review, this is basically an example of what happens, in order.
> Magus player is in the middle of a group of 6 enemies.
> Player decides he wants to use spell combat.
> Player confirms that he has the necessary actions and that he meets the requirements for activating the ability.
> Because he doesn't want to take 6 attacks of opportunity, player decides to take a penalty on his to-hit rolls to get an extra concentration bonus
> Player chooses to make his full-attack first.
> Because he is making a full-attack, he chooses to give up all his attacks in the full-attack and instead use whirlwind attack.
> All 6 attacks against each of the enemies are resolved normally. Even though he is under the effects of haste, he does not get that extra attack because he forfeits it due to whirlwind attack
> Player now gets to decide to cast one spell, he chooses shocking grasp and casts it defensively
> Cast is successful and the effect resolves; He is now holding the charge for shocking grasp and he is granted a free action that he may use at any point during the rest of his turn to deliver it as a touch attack.
> The full-round action "Spell combat" is technically now completely resolved. His turn is not yet over, though, and he still has swift or free actions that he may want to perform.
> The magus chooses to use a free action, "deliver touch spell cast this turn". Because this is not an attack made during the whirlwind attack, it is not forfeited. However, because spell combat specifically imparts the to-hit penalties, it IS affected.
> The magus then chooses to use a swift action to cast a quickened shocking grasp.
> The magus may now use the free action to deliver a spell once again. Once again, because it is not an attack made during whirlwind attack, it is not forfeited. But now, it is not "any attack roll made as part of this spell", so you get your full to-hit bonus on this attack, even not including the base -2 from spell combat (you still take power attack penalties though).
... So yeah. That's how I logic it out. There may be different intention, but based upon everything I know about the magus (which makes up like 90% of my characters), I do believe this works about as well in the magus's favor as possible. I still would not take this on any characters, except maybe a high level mindblade magus utilizing two-handed reach weapons (incidentally, the mindblade spell combat working with two-weapon fighting is additional evidence of the first few lines of spell combat being "help text".)
There may be additional points I forgot to... um... point out, but this post is getting a little too involved.
Huh the "for" side got really caustic on this page. This discussion is bordering on unhealthy.
Are you accusing me of being caustic?
I didn't insult anyone. I didn't ridicule anyone. I didn't say anything indecent. I did rely on the lazy man's method of emphasis by using capitals, but nothing more.
If you think something is inappropriate, flag it and move on.
|
|
Johny, thank you for posting, as you have put a thoughtful and reasoned out post and detailed the steps quite thoroughly.
My main gripe about this all is how this is played out with both abilities going at the same time. Both do take the full round to perform, and the main flaw in your steps is that once Whirlwind is done the turn is over. The free actions would happen during the attacks, and if the spell is able to be cast, it would be used either through Spellstrike or as one of the attacks on the six targets.
Is isn't the free action attack that is in question, it is whether or not the spell can be cast as an extra action. If a FAQ were to come out, the clarification would be on the casting of the spell and how it interacts, or does not interact, with Whirlwind attack.
Some have said that the extra attack would not happen (free action or not) but that the magus could cast "Shield" or another beneficial spell, likely cast to be on the character instead.
As both abilities are being done at the same time, any attack spells would not be able to be used on top of the six attacks, but instead be a part of those attacks if the combo is allowed. (five weapon strikes and one free action attack from cast spell)
Also keep in mind, a held spell no longer has the free action attack, that is only at the time of casting. The character can not hold the spell specifically to use the free action attack after something happens, it is done as a part of the casting of the spell. If the character either misses or forgoes the attack, he then chooses to hold the spell from that point.
once Whirlwind is done the turn is over.
Could you cite the source for this? I'm not aware of a full-round action ending your turn. As far as I'm aware, it's just a name for an action that happens to have a "standard action + move action" cost, and your turn isn't over until you say "that's the end of my turn", since you still may want to use your swift action or any number of free actions that you can take, such as dropping prone perhaps.
Is isn't the free action attack that is in question, it is whether or not the spell can be cast as an extra action. If a FAQ were to come out, the clarification would be on the casting of the spell and how it interacts, or does not interact, with Whirlwind attack.
As I explained in my post, the answer to this is the same as the answer to whether spell combat works with Dervish Dance, as dervish dance says "You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand." From what I've read, it's pretty widely accepted that dervish dance DOES work with spell combat, which means the spell is not a weapon. And because the base ability is spell combat and a spell is by definition not an attack, it is not included in the list of things that whirlwind attack will replace. As another way to think of it, Whirlwind attack isn't looking for specific attacks and then trying to replace them, it's simply going "okay, see these attacks? Toss them out. Do this instead. What do you mean 'what about the spell?' is it an attack? no! It stays."
Some have said that the extra attack would not happen (free action or not) but that the magus could cast "Shield" or another beneficial spell, likely cast to be on the character instead.
This is one of the things I was referring to when I said "people have been doing too much 'blending' of the text and their interconnecting function". The attack is not a bonus attack granted by the spell, but it is an attack made as part of the spell itself and thus is not affected by whirlwind attack.
As both abilities are being done at the same time, any attack spells would not be able to be used on top of the six attacks, but instead be a part of those attacks if the combo is allowed. (five weapon strikes and one free action attack from cast spell)
My argument is that the base ability is "spell combat", and whirlwind attack modifies the core function of spell combat itself by subtracting all attacks made in that full attack and adding one attack for each enemy in reach. Free attacks made afterwards are not part of the resolution of spell combat, and thus are made afterwards.
Also keep in mind, a held spell no longer has the free action attack, that is only at the time of casting. The character can not hold the spell specifically to use the free action attack after something happens, it is done as a part of the casting of the spell. If the character either misses or forgoes the attack, he then chooses to hold the spell from that point.
This seems to be an example of lack of clarity in pathfinder rules text. A touch spell's core mechanics say "In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action." This means that you're not limited to using that free action at the same time as you cast the spell, you simply gain that free action and can use it any time during the same round. As I said, further evidence supporting this is that it's a well-documented and completely legal move to cast the spell, then take your move action, then deliver the spell all in the same round. This would not be possible if you had to take the free action at the same time as your spell.
My personal prediction is that if this doesn't work, it would be because they overturn the FAQ that allows "other effects that affect full-attack actions" to affect spell combat, and turn it into an exclusive list.
A thought occurred to me- if we take the sentence "This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast" too literally, would we be saying the spell is a weapon now? Would it qualify for Inspire Courage bonus damage?
I mean obviously not, so I think it's fair to say that the spell is not a weapon and that sentence is just trying to help people wrap their mind around the ability.
Huh the "for" side got really caustic on this page. This discussion is bordering on unhealthy.
Yeah, and they are clearly sexist and racist too!
*rolls eyes*
I've not seen any of what you describe, and trying to discredit the other side by painting them as "the bad guys" in order to "win" the debate is totally not cool. In fact, it is outright unhealthy for any community. As has been said, flag it and move on if you think something is as bad as all that.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
You don't have to paint one side bad.
As far as I'm concerned both sides (myself included) are bad and unhealthy. As is the case in most of these long threads, neither side can accept that others can read the same sentences and not come to the same conclusion as them. This forum would be better if we (the users) had more of a comment and click FAQ and move on. Posting the same rules repetively isn't going to change opinions.
I think the only healthy thing to do here, since we've gone over this again and again is
- Figure out how you'd run it on a table you're GMing.
- Hit FAQ if you're really curious.
- Just let the argument drop; without any new information there's not really anything more to be said on the topic.
|
|
That is a good point on the held spell.
The limitation on Dervish Dance is not one that is taking away actions, but one that limits what is wielded or worn. Having a free hand, which both abilities need, is the only requirement.
The main problem is that Spell Combat adds what is normally a standard action to the mix, which when combined with Whirlwind attack, means that it is an extra resource that the character normally would not have in a normal turn. The free action attack is done as a part of the casting of a spell, and would be done as a part of Whirlwind Attack. (This assumes that both can be done at the same time) If the two abilities are used together, the spell is used as one of the attacks. Or it could buff the character, perhaps in the place of one of the attacks (so a sixth target in your example will not be swung at), or perhaps on top of the attacks, since it does not actually effect/attack the targets. Any "extra" attacks are not allowed, free action or not.
Now, the quickened spell can be used at anytime, no matter what abilities are being used. I think that the penalties for Spell Combat are not there yet/are over when a quickened spell is cast.
I get that the parallel to TWF is somewhat disjointed, but that is what happens in this system of rules when you combine spells with martial. I do not choose to ignore the TWF action economy and know that the wonky fit for Spell Combat is with some twerks that should be taken into account when looking at edge cases such as this.
A FAQ, which I think is really not needed on this sub-par, feat intensive build, would likely clarify the action economy that Spell Combat represents and classify the casting of the spell as the off hand attack, just as it would be in TWF, no matter what the spell actually does. The overall question would be if the spell can be cast, holding it if it has an attack, or using it in loo of an attack, or if it can be used as a part of Whirlwind and replace one of the attacks, no matter if the spell itself has one or not. (as if the spell was a second weapon)
I don't think the free action attack would be a seventh (using your example) attack. Whirlwind would prevent it, just as it does with the extra Haste attack.
Is isn't the free action attack that is in question, it is whether or not the spell can be cast as an extra action. If a FAQ were to come out, the clarification would be on the casting of the spell and how it interacts, or does not interact, with Whirlwind attack.
The FAQ is only necessary if you think we need the difference between "attack" and "cast a spell" clarified.
The main problem is that Spell Combat adds what is normally a standard action to the mix
This is the core function of Spell Combat. It adds a spell to a full attack action. That is how the ability works and is central to the concept of the Magus. Arguing that you can't cast a spell and make a full attack using Spell Combat is to make the claim that the Magus doesn't exist.
The main problem is that Spell Combat adds what is normally a standard action to the mix, which when combined with Whirlwind attack, means that it is an extra resource that the character normally would not have in a normal turn.
This is irrelevant. Having a BAB of +16 adds what is normally 3 standard actions to your full attack (3 extra attacks). Having haste adds the equivalent of a extra attack action to that full attack. Fighting TWF, with the complete feat chain adds another 3 equivalent attack actions to your full attack.
Activities within a declared action are all allowed. And I purposely make that distinction of activities vs actions. Actions have a very well defined meaning within the game. Casting a spell as a wizard is (usually) a standard action. Casting a spell as a magus is likewise - when that is all the magus is doing. Casting a spell within the context of spell combat is not an extra standard action though (even though that is what it would have taken the magus if that were all he was doing) - it is simply an activity that occurs within the full round action of spell combat.
Full-attack? All the attacks your BAB/Haste/etc allowed. Spell combat? Your BAB iteratives plus a spell. Spring attack? Movement with an attack mid move. Charge? Up to double move with an attack at the end. Great Cleave? One attack, with a possibility of more. Bladed dash? Make an attack as part of the spells movement.
Regardless, all of those use the specified action requirement only, and do not grant extra actions as a result (save casting a touch spell with grants a free touch attack action).
|
|
Isn't that what we are discussing? How the spell is different than an attack as it is replacing the off hand "weapon?" Right? The clarification will likely use the parallel between Spell Combat and Two Weapon Fighting as the catalyst for what that means.Is isn't the free action attack that is in question, it is whether or not the spell can be cast as an extra action. If a FAQ were to come out, the clarification would be on the casting of the spell and how it interacts, or does not interact, with Whirlwind attack.The FAQ is only necessary if you think we need the difference between "attack" and "cast a spell" clarified.
This is the core function of Spell Combat. It adds a spell to a full attack action. That is how the ability works and is central to the concept of the Magus. Arguing that you can't cast a spell and make a full attack using Spell Combat is to make the claim that the Magus doesn't exist.
The main problem is that Spell Combat adds what is normally a standard action to the mix
And using Spell Combat with Whirlwind Attack makes it Three. It isn't that Spell Combat is giving two actions in a turn, it is what can be used with Whirlwind attack that is in question. I know how Spell Combat works. It is the interaction between the two abilities that would be clarified.
Regardless, all of those use the specified action requirement only, and do not grant extra actions as a result (save casting a touch spell with grants a free touch attack action).
Thank you for this.
My overall point is that the extra attack would not be on top of the single hits to each target. This is what Whirlwind Attack prevents, both before and after. I think that the casting of the spell would be akin to attacking with the off hand weapon, but that is the contested issue and everything else goes off the rails from there.
Isn't that what we are discussing? How the spell is different than an attack as it is replacing the off hand "weapon?" Right? The clarification will likely use the parallel between Spell Combat and Two Weapon Fighting as the catalyst for what that means.Is isn't the free action attack that is in question, it is whether or not the spell can be cast as an extra action. If a FAQ were to come out, the clarification would be on the casting of the spell and how it interacts, or does not interact, with Whirlwind attack.The FAQ is only necessary if you think we need the difference between "attack" and "cast a spell" clarified.
Your whole argument rests on Spell Combat being joined at the hip with TWF.
Give me another feat/ability where they interact the exact same way. For example, Improved TWF.
For your "replacement" theory to be correct, a Magus could use Imp TWF and "replace" one of the attacks with a spell. If that isn't true, then your replacement theory is incorrect.
The limitation on Dervish Dance is not one that is taking away actions, but one that limits what is wielded or worn. Having a free hand, which both abilities need, is the only requirement.
Dervish dance is not taking away actions, but it DOES hinge on the same definition. IF the off-hand spell counted as a weapon, then dervish dance would not work, because dervish dance specifically says "You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand."
Because it is already widely accepted that spell combat does, in fact, work with dervish dance, we know this is not the case. I can, with supreme confidence, assert that the spell is never a weapon, regardless of if it's in the context of spell combat.
Now to cover the other question. Is the spell an attack? No. A spell is never an "attack", by definition. You may at some point make an attack as part of the spell, but the spell itself is not. It is, in fact, a "spell". These are two different rules entities with clearly defined differences in the language, and thus you would need specific language for it to count as such. Because spell combat never says "The spell counts as an attack for x and y", we know it doesn't count as an attack by the simple virtue that spells are not attacks. The only thing spell combat says is "but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast.", and as I showed above, if you wanted to use that sentence to overturn whirlwind attack, you would also have to overturn dervish dance for the same exact reason.
And using Spell Combat with Whirlwind Attack makes it Three.
Incorrect. You're reading whirlwind attack as "as a full-round action", but whirlwind attack actually reads "When you use the full-attack action". It's not an action cost of it's own, its an option with which you can modify an existing action. Extrapolating from this is why I believe you can use it with spell combat, because spell combat, per FAQ, does count as a full-attack "for the purpose of haste and other effects". Essentially, you're making a full-attack action (spell combat), which allows you to modify said action with whirlwind attack feat, and now all attacks made as part of that action are now deleted, then replaced with one attack against each adjacent opponent.
|
|
And the circle continues.
We keep going back to the term "attack" and not looking at the very thing that the ability uses to effect the use of the weapon attack and spell in the same turn.
The spell counts as the off hand weapon at the time it is cast, though for it to be able to be cast, that off hand needs to be free.
It is still free after the casting, as the spell goes off and does it's effects and then is gone (at least from the hand)
So, in the example above, you have six targets. When you combine both abilities (spell combat and whirlwind attack) you get a single attack on each of the six targets.
The question becomes...
1- can the spell be cast on top of the six attacks
2- Can the spell use the free action attack during the Whirlwind Attack use
3- is the attack from the spell a part of the six individual attacks
4- Is the attack from the spell instead an extra attack on one of the six targets
5- can Spellstrike be used with the spell cast during whirlwind
6- would Spellstrike being used as a part of the sex individual attack use
7- would Spellstrike instead be a seventh strike with the weapon on one of the six original targets.
8- can a spell be cast to buff the caster.
9- can a spell be cast to buff an ally
Now, I don't think 1 can happen, but that seems moot at this point. Theory crafting from there, I think 4 and 7 are likely nixed by the Whirlwind Attack axing extra attacks.
"Your whole argument rests on Spell Combat being joined at the hip with TWF."
"(Spell Combat) functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast."
So, what in this statement from the book make it not like TWF? As I have posted above, the ruleset is such that any abilities that uses both martial and spells will be a wonky and odd fit. This is nothing new. The action economy is the same as TWF, that should not be in dispute.
The spell counts as the off hand weapon at the time it is cast
So what you're saying is that spell combat does not work with Dervish Dance?
Now I'm going to go over your list again, but I would like to note I've already gone over all of these use cases in my original post, as well as given explanations to my reasoning, but you just keep saying "but you haven't looked at the thing" when I have, in fact, referred directly to the thing.
1- can the spell be cast on top of the six attacks
Yes. A spell is categorically not an attack, and whirlwind attack says nothing about forfeiting or disallowing spells.
2- Can the spell use the free action attack during the Whirlwind Attack use
No, actually. Because the free action attack is not made as part of the full-round action which is whirlwind attack. It is, in fact, a separate action and not in any way bound to the whirlwind attack. So the real question is "can you make a free attack during the same round" and the answer is "yes".
3- is the attack from the spell a part of the six individual attacks
As I pointed out above, the free action gained to deliver the touch attack is its own action and made outside of the full-round action. In fact, I would assert that you could even make the free action attack before taking your full attack and after casting the spell, just not in the middle of the "attacks against all adjacent enemies" part of the action, as there is precedent for being able to use unrelated free actions or swift actions in the middle of a full-round action.
4- Is the attack from the spell instead an extra attack on one of the six targets
Being a free action, it can target any member you like. In fact, if you so chose, you could even take a 5ft step to put yourself in range of a hypothetical 7th opponent and make the free attack against that opponent, but this would be after the whirlwind attacks have resolved and you would not get a regular attack against him.
5- can Spellstrike be used with the spell cast during whirlwind
100% yes, because spellstrike is in no way an extra attack; it is simply a modification to existing attacks and is generally quite flexible.
6- would Spellstrike being used as a part of the six individual attack use
I'm not sure I 100% understand this question and how it differs from the above point. If you decided to cast, say chill touch before the resolution of whirlwind attack, they would 100% deliver chill touch charges. If you choose to cast the spell after the attacks are resolved, though, you wouldn't be able to deliver the spell via whirlwind attack because you chose to cast the spell second.
7- would Spellstrike instead be a seventh strike with the weapon on one of the six original targets.
Again, spellstrike is in no way an extra attack. It is very simply a modification to an existing attack. In this case, it is modifying the free action granted by the spell, so yes you can target one of the original targets, and as I pointed out before you can also 5ft step to get in reach of a hypothetical 7th target.
8- can a spell be cast to buff the caster.
It does not matter if the spell is a buff, an evocation, a conjuration, or what-have-you. Whirlwind attack does not preclude the use of spells.
9- can a spell be cast to buff an ally
Why is this a separate point from #8? In fact, why is either question separate from #1?
---
For a separate note regarding the TWF issue: It makes no sense to compare spell combat to TWF for anything more than comparison. If it were meant to be the same rules entity, then it would say something along the lines of "Spell combat follows the same rules as two-weapon-fighting, except ((exceptions))". However, it instead draws a comparison, using simile, to a core mechanic. Presumably to help players unfamiliar with the concept wrap their minds around the ability.
This is further supported by the fact that spell combat then goes on to clearly define every aspect of the ability, which would be unnecessary if it was drawing rules from an outside source. It tells you the exact requirements, the taken penalties, what you can do with it, and the interactions with other rules entities.
|
|
The free action to attack with the spell is made with the casting of the spell. Once you hold it to complete the Whirlwind attack, you have already made all the attacks that is allowed by the attacks that Whirlwind Attack allows/gives. The full round action is done at that point, and the spell is now held. So the fact that one can not take another attack on top of those six individual ones is... what, ignored?
The attack that you get from the spell is as a part of the casting of that spell.
Now, the reason there is some confusion is because a spell is not typically used in conjunction with other actions, like a weapon used more than once or with another weapon when TWF. This is why the Two Weapon Fighting ability is referenced when setting up the ability, that the spell is the weapon used in the off hand.
Saying the ability wouldn't work for using the very rules that makes it work is... I don't know, like saying the sky is blue but not blue? Maybe?
So, the first question is if these two abilities can work together. I don't see how two full round actions can fit into one another, but because of a particular turn of phrase, the wedge is being fitted in. (and this is the 391st post about this)
The next question is if the spell can be used as an attack. Well, we seem to agree that the spell itself is not the "attack," but that it can create a separate attack during it's action in Spell Combat.
Now, can that attack be used as a part of Whirlwind attack? If so, would it be as one of the individual targets that Whirlwind hits...
Or, can that attack be held until the round is over then used before the turn is completed, hitting one of the original targets on top of the attacks already performed?
Can it be used to buff instead while using Whirlwind? Would the buff take away one of the individual attacks for the casting? Would it instead be in addition to the attacks?
Now, this is a repeat of what I listed above, but I believe in a better format. My overall stance is that the two combined abilities would not result in an extra action, the seventh attack (using above example). Whether or not it can be used as a part of Whirlwind is still a question in my mind, though without the extra attack it is not really a good combination.
From here, I think I will agree to disagree here. The whole premise of this combo is dependent on a feat chain that is not likely be taken by a straight magus, and a multiclass character would likely have better options to use than this.
The free action to attack with the spell is made with the casting of the spell. Once you hold it to complete the Whirlwind attack, you have already made all the attacks that is allowed by the attacks that Whirlwind Attack allows/gives. The full round action is done at that point, and the spell is now held. So the fact that one can not take another attack on top of those six individual ones is... what, ignored?
While I'm ambivalent on the Magus getting to use that specific sort of spell in a Whirlwind-modified Spell Combat, the example seemed to be clearly saying that the free action is taken outside the whirlwind, that the spell would be completed before the full attack part of it.
Or, if the spell was cast after, then you can still take the free action... after the full-round completes. Because the rule to do that is already something that completely exists (the rules on holding a charge specifically allow you to cast the spell, then move, then deliver the touch, as an example). And if you still can do something, then your turn isn't over - Full-Round Actions don't consume Swift of Free.
So, the first question is if these two abilities can work together. I don't see how two full round actions can fit into one another, but because of a particular turn of phrase, the wedge is being fitted in. (and this is the 391st post about this)
It doesn't fit one action into another, except as Spell Combat *already does*. Whirlwind Attack IS NOT an ACTION. It is a MODIFIER on an action. It does NOT have "As a full-round action," in it like Spring Attack - it says "When you use the full-attack action," then specifies a modification to full attacks (which spell combat was ruled to count as).
My overall stance is that the two combined abilities would not result in an extra action,
The *whole point* of Magus and Spell Combat is that it gets to cast that spell. Also, while it does something an action does (specifically, a standard action to cast a spell), Spell Combat *is an action unto itself*. It is not adding an action to the already-existent Full Attack. It is an action that makes attacks at a penalty, casts a spell, and counts as a full attack. And Whirlwind Attack isn't adding anything - it is swapping out the attacks (and only attacks, the feat clearly only says attacks) in a full attack action for a different set of attacks.
Nobody would waste the feats on this combination which would almost never be useful.
I would (for an NPC, anyway).
I've thought about this, and the "Whirlwind Magus" makes even less sense as an antagonist than a PC, since there are usually only 4 or so PCs and they don't often line up so that one person (with a one handed weapon) can threaten more than one.
PCs at least sometimes get to fight "whole bunch of skeletons" or w/e.
|
|
"And Whirlwind Attack isn't adding anything - it is swapping out the attacks (and only attacks, the feat clearly only says attacks) in a full attack action for a different set of attacks. "
This is my point, James. It is trading out a normal full attack for a strike against each target. Spell Combat should not add to this, just as haste does not add to it.
Isn't that what we are discussing? How the spell is different than an attack as it is replacing the off hand "weapon?" Right? The clarification will likely use the parallel between Spell Combat and Two Weapon Fighting as the catalyst for what that means.
The spell counts as the off hand weapon at the time it is cast, though for it to be able to be cast, that off hand needs to be free.
Now, the reason there is some confusion is because a spell is not typically used in conjunction with other actions, like a weapon used more than once or with another weapon when TWF. This is why the Two Weapon Fighting ability is referenced when setting up the ability, that the spell is the weapon used in the off hand.
Okay, I'm just going to straight up say that I'm getting mildly annoyed at this. You are continually re-iterating this point without actually addressing my counterpoint and example. The only thing you've said in counter is:
The limitation on Dervish Dance is not one that is taking away actions, but one that limits what is wielded or worn. Having a free hand, which both abilities need, is the only requirement.
However, this is incorrect because Dervish Dance says "You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand.", and if you were to insist that the spell combat spell were a weapon, that would negate the usability of dervish dance.
So to be clear, what I'm saying is that there are exactly two possibilities with this rules interaction.
1) The spell counts as a weapon
2) The spell does not count as a weapon
In case #1, you're completely disqualifying dervish dance from working with spell combat, and maybe preventing whirlwind attack from working, because even if you established that the spell is a weapon, it doesn't say that casting the spell counts as making an attack.
In case #2, dervish dance works and whirlwind attack, as far as the language of spells and attacks goes, will not ever look at the spell and say "no you can't do that".
You cannot mix and match these. Either it's a weapon or it's not, and you must accept that interpretation across all abilities that it is affected by. So I reiterate: Are you saying that spell combat does not work with Dervish Dance?
"And Whirlwind Attack isn't adding anything - it is swapping out the attacks (and only attacks, the feat clearly only says attacks) in a full attack action for a different set of attacks. "
This is my point, James. It is trading out a normal full attack for a strike against each target. Spell Combat should not add to this, just as haste does not add to it.
Spell Combat is not adding anything. Spell Combat is the *base action* that is getting modified. Whirlwind is trading out attacks for attacking everything at once. And spells are *not attacks* and thus *not included* in Whirlwind Attack's clause about forfeiting *attacks*.
Spells are NOT being added on top of Whirlwind. Whirlwind is being switched in for a Full Attack, like it was meant to be and like the rules say, and it ignores the pre-existing spell from a the base action since that isn't an attack.