Spell combat + Whirlwind Attack


Rules Questions

401 to 450 of 735 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Johnny_Devo wrote:

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?

When you use a weapon, you wield it and effect an attack.

When you use a spell, you cast it and wield it's effects.

Ultimate Magic wrote:
"(Spell Combat) functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast."

It isn't me saying that it is the off hand weapon, it is the ability.


So you are saying that it's your interpretation that with spell combat, the spell counts as a weapon, and thus does not work with dervish dance?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

No, your saying that, not me.

The casting of the spell is the action you should be focused on, not what happens before, during, or after. Before it is cast, there is nothing there. Once it is cast, there is nothing there (assuming the spell isn't held).

The warlock as the same instance with her mystic bolts. She only has them at the time of the attack, her hands are free (and need to be free to use them) otherwise.

The free action to attack is a part of the casting of the spell, an additional effect of the spell that is used as it is being cast.

I am not sure what else to say at this point.


Okay, cool, we're making a little bit of progress and identifying where your problem with it lies.

First, the casting of the spell is not its own action. It is a component of the whole action named "spell combat", in which you:

1) cast a spell
2) make your iterative attacks

With the extra rules via FAQ of "counts as a full-attack" for "other effects".

With that in mind, the whirlwind attack stating "when you make a full attack action", it means it is legal to modify spell combat as spell combat counts as a full-attack. So, it looks at both of those things and goes "cool, take out the attacks and replace them with these other attacks". Unless you are defining the spell as an attack, this means it is not replaced.

Second, the warlock is a different case, because the mystic bolts are clearly defined as weapons, not spells. And even then they are occupying the hand that they fill at the time that they use it, which would be during that action.

To explain what I mean there further, say a vanilla magus (without any of the mess in this topic) has his scimitar and decides to activate spell combat. He casts his spell, "chill touch", then decides to take his 5-ft step to go into range of the opponent. Now he decides to take his full attack. One might think 'ok, so now I can use a free action to grip my scimitar in both hands and get 1.5x str bonus!' but that is actually not the case. Because he is still in the "spell combat" action and even though the part of that action that requires the off hand to be open, he's still within that action and thus must continue to follow those restrictions while still resolving that action.

It is the same idea with dervish dance. Because it requires no weapon to be held in the off hand, the point when (if you define it that way) spell combat's "off-hand weapon" spell is cast instantly means that the entire action of spell combat no longer works with dervish dance.

And finally, what that brings me to is the previous logic with the spells and how they interact with whirlwind attack.

Quote:
The free action to attack is a part of the casting of the spell, an additional effect of the spell that is used as it is being cast.

The free action to attack is gained as a result of the overall rules of touch spells. Touch spell rules simply state that you gain a free action that you may use during the same round. This free action may be a direct result of the spell being cast, but it is not a part of the action itself. Whirlwind attack's restriction "When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities." covers things like Haste, Rapid Shot, Two-Weapon Fighting, the "speed" weapon enhancement, etc. However, the free action granted by touch spells is a seperate rules entity and made outside of the restricting action, and attack rolls made as part of spells like scorching ray are attacks made as part of the resolution of the spell, not a "bonus or extra attack granted by" the spell.


Yeah, you guys have convinced me that the free action attack granted from spells like shocking grasp are not lost with Whirlwind. It's clear that bonus and extra attacks refer to attacks made as part of the full-attack action. Free action attacks are separate entities, distinct from the full-attack whirlwind.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

This is what the holidays feel like in this thread.


read the text:

" When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities"

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

When you cast the spell, you gain the free touch attack action as a means to complete that spell's effects. You gain that attack as a part of casting that spell. When Spell Combat allows for the casting of that spell, a part of the off hand action that it is representing is to complete that spell or hold it.

Thank you, 666bender. To expand on his point, to me there is not a difference between the continuing effects of Haste or the immediate effects of a cast spell done via Spell Combat. What can be argued is whether or not one can forgo attacking one of the targets to cast a buff spell, or if forgoing that attack is necessary when the spell itself doesn't have a touch attack.

Then what about area effect spells, such as Burning Hands?


thaX wrote:
When you cast the spell, you gain the free touch attack action as a means to complete that spell's effects. You gain that attack as a part of casting that spell. When Spell Combat allows for the casting of that spell, a part of the off hand action that it is representing is to complete that spell or hold it.

You keep stating this, and I keep stating that it is not a direct granting of an extra attack that the spell is doing. It is the overarching rules of touch attack spells that you may, in the same round, make a free action touch attack to attempt to deliver the spell. That's the core point we seem to be disagreeing upon. My contention is that because this free action is where the attack takes place, and because this free action is technically made not as a part of the full-round action that would normally prevent an extra attack, whirlwind attack does not make you forfeit it. And, again, my evidence for this is that there are clearly defined examples where the free action is a completely separate rules entity and action from the spell that grants it, even though one leads into the other.

thaX wrote:
Thank you, 666bender. To expand on his point, to me there is not a difference between the continuing effects of Haste or the immediate effects of a cast spell done via Spell Combat. What can be argued is whether or not one can forgo attacking one of the targets to cast a buff spell, or if forgoing that attack is necessary when the spell itself doesn't have a touch attack.

Therein seems to be our second point of contention. I'm putting forward that there is "granting attacks", such as having a second weapon, being under the effects of haste or speed, or having feats such as rapid shot. Then there is "coincidentally making an attack roll as part of", such as literally any ray spell.

To put this into perspective, how does it make sense that whacking a guy 3 times then casting scorching ray is A-OK, but if you do a twirly instead, you're still allowed to cast the spell but you can't make the attacks? Are you dizzy?

thaX wrote:
Then what about area effect spells, such as Burning Hands?

Are you making an attack roll? Because that is how you're defining "attack", right?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Johnny_Devo wrote:

Therein seems to be our second point of contention. I'm putting forward that there is "granting attacks", such as having a second weapon, being under the effects of haste or speed, or having feats such as rapid shot. Then there is "coincidentally making an attack roll as part of", such as literally any ray spell.

To put this into perspective, how does it make sense that whacking a guy 3 times then casting scorching ray is A-OK, but if you do a twirly instead, you're still allowed to cast the spell but you can't make the attacks? Are you dizzy?

Well, nice turn of phrase as we are talking about Whirlwind Attack.

One of the contentions is that the parallel between TWF and Spell Combat is somehow just an example instead of a mechanic. That the off hand action is somehow changed because it is a spell instead of a sliver of steel. I have said, earlier in the thread, that this action is as an attack because of how it is used in Spell Combat, not because a spell is an attack, but because that is what the casting of the spell represents in the parallel with TWF. I am trying to point out that with allowing the spell be cast while Whirlwind Attacking, it is opening up a can of worms.

So instead of one attack against each target in range, you have that plus the extra "attack" from spell combat, whether or not the spell ends up with an attack of it's own. I would see that any attack from a spell would be forfeit because of Whirlwind, causing the caster to have to hold the spell for the next round. Benefits would go off if using the "not an attack" reading, area effect would pop, as that isn't an attack per se either. The worms just keep flowing out of that can.

Black Tentacles? Wish? Time Stop? Charm Person?

To answer your question, No, I don't think your allowed to cast the spell during Whirlwind. This is where the disagreement is based, and I am trying to see how it would be if it were allowed, and how attacks would be effected when they are used, but I still think it is a moot point beyond "can I cast the spell while I Whirlwind Attack?"

Edit..

Read this post and think that it is relevent. ranged touch spells


Quote:
One of the contentions is that the parallel between TWF and Spell Combat is somehow just an example instead of a mechanic.

Of course it's not a mechanic! All of the relevant mechanics Spell Combat are actually defined for you. There are zero mechanics defined in TWF that are relevant for Spell Combat that are not also explicitly called out in Spell Combat.

The comment about TWF could be excised completely from the definition of Spell Combat without losing any mechanical rules. In fact, it obviously should be considering how it is confusing people.


Quote:
One of the contentions is that the parallel between TWF and Spell Combat is somehow just an example instead of a mechanic. That the off hand action is somehow changed because it is a spell instead of a sliver of steel. I have said, earlier in the thread, that this action is as an attack because of how it is used in Spell Combat, not because a spell is an attack, but because that is what the casting of the spell represents in the parallel with TWF. I am trying to point out that with allowing the spell be cast while Whirlwind Attacking, it is opening up a can of worms.
Quote:
To answer your question, No, I don't think your allowed to cast the spell during Whirlwind. This is where the disagreement is based, and I am trying to see how it would be if it were allowed, and how attacks would be effected when they are used, but I still think it is a moot point beyond "can I cast the spell while I Whirlwind Attack?"

Which brings me back to my counter-point.

Do you claim that, therefore, spell combat does not work with Dervish Dance?

Quote:
No, your saying that, not me.

So, then, are you saying that for dervish dance, the "off-hand spell is a weapon" comparison means nothing, but for whirlwind attack it's suddenly opening a can of worms?

Quote:
Black Tentacles? Wish? Time Stop? Charm Person?

Two of these are 9th level spells that the magus doesn't have access to, but even hypothetically they would still work because you are not making an attack roll, and can extrapolate the rules just from reading the effects of the spell. In fact, if you have a problem with time stop, you have the exact problem with regular spell combat. Charm person does not involve making any sort of attack roll. Black tentacles reads "attack" in it, but it's the tentacles making attacks after you create the area, and even then it's firmly under the category of "attacks made as part of the resolution of the spell" and not "extra attacks granted by the effect of the spell. Hell, I'm pretty convinced that whirlwind attack is simply talking about iterative attacks, because those are the only kind of attacks that are ever "granted by" any effect.

To go back to the can of worms analogy, I've already explained exactly how it works mechanically, and those explanations can be expanded to include every spell in the game, but you just keep pouring dirt in my spaghetti and calling it worms.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The attack gained with Haste is not an iterative attack. The free hit with the weapon when combining Spell Combat with Spellstrike is not an iterative. TWF extra attack (the parallel we talk of) is not an iterative. Whirlwind says "any" extra attack.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
Quote:
One of the contentions is that the parallel between TWF and Spell Combat is somehow just an example instead of a mechanic.
Of course it's not a mechanic! All of the relevant mechanics Spell Combat are actually defined for you. There are zero mechanics defined in TWF that are relevant for Spell Combat that are not also explicitly called out in Spell Combat.
Ultimate Magic wrote:
"(Spell Combat) functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast."

So, saying that it functions like two weapon fighting is alright within the pages of the book, but not for me to post on this board?

[quote-"Ozy"]

The comment about TWF could be excised completely from the definition of Spell Combat without losing any mechanical rules. In fact, it obviously should be considering how it is confusing people.

I am looking at this in a straightforward manner. Extra attack - Whirlwind bypasses it for it's own ability. To discount it by calling the action something else is where the confusion is sewn. If you took away the parallel, the explanation of the ability would take up a whole page, and include the explanation that the spell is an extra attack on top of the weapon attack used in the round. It is shorter and using existing rules to reference a mechanic already in place rather than try writing a new mechanic that is already like what is there.

Excising it from the ability is to completely change what the ability would do, and likely be more limiting than what is now.


Johnny_Devo wrote:

Do you claim that, therefore, spell combat does not work with Dervish Dance?

Quote:
No, your saying that, not me.

So, then, are you saying that for dervish dance, the "off-hand spell is a weapon" comparison means nothing, but for whirlwind attack it's suddenly opening a can of worms?

.


I'm with thaX on this, you don't get an extra attack from anything that directly interacts with your full attack action. You can only gain attacks from things external to the full attack (like attacks of opportunity). Whirlwind puts on a limit on the number of times you can attack and you can't exceed it with that full attack action.

Whirlwind doesn't prevent you from casting the spell. It does stop you from gaining an attack over the number provided by whirlwind though.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

It's pretty clear to me that the FAQ on Spell Combat working like a normal Full Attack is heavily misinterpreted. At least if I'm wrong, it will be a surprise to me.


Irontruth wrote:

I'm with thaX on this, you don't get an extra attack from anything that directly interacts with your full attack action. You can only gain attacks from things external to the full attack (like attacks of opportunity). Whirlwind puts on a limit on the number of times you can attack and you can't exceed it with that full attack action.

Whirlwind doesn't prevent you from casting the spell. It does stop you from gaining an attack over the number provided by whirlwind though.

The free action attack is outside of the full attack action. They are separate actions, independent.


James Risner wrote:
It's pretty clear to me that the FAQ on Spell Combat working like a normal Full Attack is heavily misinterpreted. At least if I'm wrong, it will be a surprise to me.

What rules make it 'clear' to you?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The Free Action attack is not a separate action itself, though, it is an event that happens because of the casting of a spell, it happens as a part of that spell's resolution, as a free action. Much like drawing an arrow before shooting a bow, as the link I have above made the example.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Johnny_Devo wrote:
Johnny_Devo wrote:

Do you claim that, therefore, spell combat does not work with Dervish Dance?

Quote:
No, your saying that, not me.

So, then, are you saying that for dervish dance, the "off-hand spell is a weapon" comparison means nothing, but for whirlwind attack it's suddenly opening a can of worms?

.

The can of worms is allowing an attack be changed into something else. Dervish Dance and Whirlwind Attack are looking for different things, the comparison between the two using Spell Combat is looking into the wrong aspect of this issue.


thaX wrote:
The Free Action attack is not a separate action itself, though, it is an event that happens because of the casting of a spell, it happens as a part of that spell's resolution, as a free action. Much like drawing an arrow before shooting a bow, as the link I have above made the example.

Completely wrong. The free action IS a separate action from casting the spell. In fact, when casting a spell as a standard action that gives you a free action attack, you can even use it after an unrelated move action.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Yeah, you guys have convinced me that the free action attack granted from spells like shocking grasp are not lost with Whirlwind. It's clear that bonus and extra attacks refer to attacks made as part of the full-attack action. Free action attacks are separate entities, distinct from the full-attack whirlwind.
Quote:
When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities

I don't know what convinced you, or if you convinced yourself... but that seems to be literally the opposite of what the feat says.

That would be a bonus attack. So you'd be wrong. As would the people that convinced you of it..

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Cast a spell, resolve effects. This is the same action, including any attack resulting from the spells. Targets have to roll saving throws as a reaction to the spells, taking damage and effects as the spell resolves.

You can hold a spell to move closer to the target, though you lose the free action attack if you don't use it before the end of the turn.

once the Whirlwind attack is over, the character has either attacked with the spell, or is holding it for the next turn. If he chooses to attack with the spell, it is as a part of the casting of that spell and interacts with Whirlwind.

At best, one would be able to cast the spell and hold it for the next turn, or use the attack as one of the single hits to one of the targets. (with or without using Spellstrike)

Saying again, this is assuming one can actual do these two abilities at the same time, which is sketchy to me at this point.


I know I said that I'd no longer partake in the discussion of Whirlwind Attack + Spell Combat (and I'm still not), but this is a (for the most part) unrelated point, and I'd like to step in here as it breaks the foundation of Touch Spells as a whole, since it appears that's where the discussion migrated towards, and I've noticed a very large misnomer. (And perhaps the cause as to why this discussion keeps spiraling!)

thaX wrote:
Cast a spell, resolve effects. This is the same action, including any attack resulting from the spells.
thaX wrote:
The Free Action attack is not a separate action itself, though, it is an event that happens because of the casting of a spell, it happens as a part of that spell's resolution, as a free action.

You contradicted yourself here, by saying that any attacks from a spell are triggered with the same activity of casting the spell, and that it takes a Free Action to deliver a touch spell when you cast it (within the first round of combat). The former is true in a ranged sense, a la Scorching Ray, but not the case with melee touch spells, such as Shocking Grasp, Chill Touch, and so on.

The thing is, if I took your first quote for granted, you cast a spell and resolve its effects (including taking the attack when you cast the spell), then it's all done as part of casting the spell, right? (Which is already defined as simply requiring a Standard Action, similar to how an Alchemist's Bomb requires a Standard Action to draw the relevant components, concoct the bomb, and throw it.) I mean, that is what you said, isn't it?

Now, your second quote is mentioning a Free Action to deliver the spell, which makes no sense since, according to you, that's already done as a part of casting the spell, right? At least, that's what you originally said, meaning that any extraneous mention of actions outside of what's needed for the spell is irrelevant, because according to you, the spell is resolved as soon as the spell is cast (within the action it took to cast the spell).

So, how can using a Free Action to deliver a spell be possible when you already stated yourself, that casting the spell, resolving its effects (AKA delivering the touch spell), is all done with the same action (the Standard Action you already spent to cast the spell)?


Cavall wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Yeah, you guys have convinced me that the free action attack granted from spells like shocking grasp are not lost with Whirlwind. It's clear that bonus and extra attacks refer to attacks made as part of the full-attack action. Free action attacks are separate entities, distinct from the full-attack whirlwind.
Quote:
When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities

I don't know what convinced you, or if you convinced yourself... but that seems to be literally the opposite of what the feat says.

That would be a bonus attack. So you'd be wrong. As would the people that convinced you of it..

An attack during a free action is not a 'bonus attack'. It is an action that is just as completely and utterly separate from a full-attack-action as an Attack of Opportunity because neither are part of the full-attack-action that is governed by the rules contained in Whirlwind attack.

Unless it is your contention that you also lose any Attacks of Opportunities that may be provoked...

This is distinct from extra and bonus attacks that are granted as PART of a full-attack-action, such as haste, TWF feats, speed weapons, etc...

But hey, if you can come up with an interpretation that allows AoOs, but disallows free action attacks, I would love to see it.


Quote:
the comparison between the two using Spell Combat is looking into the wrong aspect of this issue.

I disagree.

My point is that dervish dance working with spell combat means exactly one thing; the sentence "This functions much like(note: simile) two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast" must be a comparison meant to help readers wrap their minds around how it works, instead of a translation.

If you want to argue that this is actually a rule, then you must accept all of this rule and treat the spell as a weapon. And if you want to treat the spell as a weapon, you must prevent spell combat from working with dervish dance.

Which brings me to this:

Quote:
The can of worms is allowing an attack be changed into something else.

Because of the well-accepted interpretation that dervish dance does, in fact, work with spell combat, I submit that the sentence comparing spell combat to TWF is indeed just a comparison. If it is just a comparison, then there is exactly zero "allowing an attack be changed into something else" happening. Because of this, and how I outlined it earlier, spell combat is made up of exactly one spell and one full-attack. Whirlwind attack only cares about one of those things.

Quote:
To discount it by calling the action something else is where the confusion is sewn. If you took away the parallel, the explanation of the ability would take up a whole page, and include the explanation that the spell is an extra attack on top of the weapon attack used in the round.

I submit the opposite. If the game was literally saying that it was two-weapon fighting but with the spell, it would read exactly like I'm about to write below and would then work how you think it does.

"At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions as two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must be wielding a light or one-handed weapon in one hand. When making his full-attack action, he 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 the standard 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."

In this case, it needs not mention the "one hand free" requirement because of working like two-weapon fighting; if your other hand was occupied, it could not wield the weapon of spell combat. In this case, it also does not need to mention the -2 penalty to all attacks. By existing rules of two-weapon fighting, you already know that you take the -2 penalties. In addition, it doesn't even mention an action cost; This is special magus-mode two-weapon fighting, so all you need to know is what also happens when you're making your full-attack.

The first thing I want to point out is that this is actually shorter then the existing writing of spell combat. If spell combat worked as you think it does, why then would they write so much unnecessary information that we would already know? Instead, I say we should apply Occam's razor, and assume that everything written into the ability is what governs how it works, instead of rules drawn from a parallel ability.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I'm with thaX on this, you don't get an extra attack from anything that directly interacts with your full attack action. You can only gain attacks from things external to the full attack (like attacks of opportunity). Whirlwind puts on a limit on the number of times you can attack and you can't exceed it with that full attack action.

Whirlwind doesn't prevent you from casting the spell. It does stop you from gaining an attack over the number provided by whirlwind though.

The free action attack is outside of the full attack action. They are separate actions, independent.

It isn't separate or distinct, it's part of the full attack. The trigger for the attack is the full attack (which includes the spell).


So if I've heard this right, the breakdown is as follows:

Spell Combat is "like two-weapon fighting".

Two-Weapon Fighting grants a bonus attack on a full attack.

Whirlwind Attack allows you, when making a full attack, to forfeit your normal attacks to attack each enemy within reach once. You also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.

This prevents Two-Weapon Fighting from granting extra attacks while using Whirlwind Attack.

But...Spell Combat states that the spell takes the place of an off-hand weapon, not an attack. In fact, you can use a weapon in your off-hand while making a Whirlwind Attack if you so choose, you just don't get any extra attacks while doing so.

So the crux of the argument is basically "is casting a spell during Whirlwind Attack considered an extra attack?".

So what about casting a Quickened Spell in the same round as Whirlwind Attack, if casting a spell is "an attack"?

Or a 10th-level Eldritch Knight who scores a critical hit during his Whirlwind Attack?

"At 10th level, whenever an eldritch knight successfully confirms a critical hit, he can cast a spell as a swift action. The spell must include the target of the attack as one of its targets or in its area of effect. Casting this spell does not provoke an attack of opportunity. The caster must still meet all of the spell's components and must roll for arcane spell failure if necessary."

Or how about casting a swift or immediate action spell in the turn you use Whirlwind Attack? You'll note all four of these questions reflect something that can occur in the core rules. If Whirlwind Attack was meant to say "also, you can't cast a spell as a swift action because that's an attack", they really could have said so.

Again, this goes back to comparing Spell Combat and Two-Weapon Fighting. You can't use the bonus attack of Two-Weapon Fighting with Whirlwind. Spell Combat is similar to TWF, but you can cast a standard action spell instead of gaining a bonus attack.

But to infer that you can't use Spell Combat to cast a spell while using Whirlwind Attack requires a leap of logic, since it's never stated the spell counts as an extra attack. The only evidence that points to such is the sentence "This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast."

Much like. To what degree? The only time the word "attack" appears in the text for Spell Combat never refers to the spell itself. Only in reference to how and when you can make attacks using Spell Combat.

Since we're never told how much Spell Combat is like TWF other than the sentence in Spell Combat, and Spell Combat never refers to the spell as an extra attack, it's pure conjecture to say that it is an extra attack, as opposed to what it functions as- an ability that allows you to cast a spell with a different action than normal.

No different than casting a spell as a swift action, really.

Now, it is highly likely that the good people at Paizo, if/when they add their input to this question, will say that the SPIRIT of Whirlwind Attack precludes the casting of spells.

They may cite balance reasons we're not seeing. They may state that Spell Combat isn't a full attack for this purpose.

In fact, we may be inferring too much from the Spell Combat/Haste FAQ. But as the rules are written at this moment, it does appear that this could function, and there is more text to assert this is the case than the opposite.


Irontruth wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I'm with thaX on this, you don't get an extra attack from anything that directly interacts with your full attack action. You can only gain attacks from things external to the full attack (like attacks of opportunity). Whirlwind puts on a limit on the number of times you can attack and you can't exceed it with that full attack action.

Whirlwind doesn't prevent you from casting the spell. It does stop you from gaining an attack over the number provided by whirlwind though.

The free action attack is outside of the full attack action. They are separate actions, independent.
It isn't separate or distinct, it's part of the full attack. The trigger for the attack is the full attack (which includes the spell).

I'll pose the same question I made to thaX in relation to your statement; if delivering the touch spell is part of casting the spell, then why do you need an action separate from casting the spell, to deliver the spell?

Heck, AoOs aren't even an action (and the likelihood of triggering them on your own turn is pretty slim), and you say that it's external to the act of making a full attack and therefore works, which is true.

But how is delivering a Touch Spell, as a Free Action, which is external and taken separately to whatever action you're taking to cast the spell (as you can take that Free Action before, during, or after movement, which is likewise independent and external from simply casting the spell), not compatible in the same vein?


Exactly. Saying that free actions are 'part of' a full attack action is not only incorrect, but likely breaks the game in ways you haven't considered. If you look through the rules, all of the extra and bonus attacks called out in whirlwind specifically are part of the full attack action.

This should be a strong clue.

But again, what's your opinion regarding AoOs? Allowed? Even if they occur 'during' the whirlwind?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Darksol, to deliver the effects of the spell, as a part of casting it.

If you hold it until you finish Whirlwind, it is held until you take your next turn. You gain this free action as a part of casting a spell, and lose it if you do not use it, holding the spell instead.

To answer above, a quickened spell can be cast at anytime, so it is well outside the full combat action, as all swift actions can be done.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Like tripping targets and using viscous stomp, Ozy? It is a good question, but I think Whirlwind Attack covered it for during. Once the attack is over, though, I am sure one can still take AoOs afterward.

Now, it isn't free attacks universally, just those gained from the casting of spells. It is two separate events in one action, like drawing an arrow from a quiver, then shooting it.


Quote:
If you hold it until you finish Whirlwind, it is held until you take your next turn.

Where in any of the books does it say that completing a full round action ends your turn?


I fail to see how a free attack with a spell isn't a bonus attack with a spell. Which is not allowed by the feat.

Free or not it isn't allowed because the feat explicitly states it.


Cavall wrote:

I fail to see how a free attack with a spell isn't a bonus attack with a spell. Which is not allowed by the feat.

Free or not it isn't allowed because the feat explicitly states it.

As I've pointed out, it's a free action that you may take during the same turn and is granted by the overarching rules of touch spells. It's not granted by the spell itself.

In addition, I'm pretty that when the last line of whirlwind attack says "extra attacks", it literally means any extra attacks you make as part of a normal full-attack action.

Haste(spell) grants an extra attack to your full-attack
Two-weapon fighting(core rule) + friends(feats) grant extra attacks to your full-attack
the "speed" weapon property(ability) grants an extra attack to your full-attack
Rapid shot(feat) grants an extra attack to your full-attack

As opposed to:

Scorching ray makes an attack roll as part of delivering the effects
Shocking grasp creates a touch attack charge that may be delivered as a separate action

That's the distinction I'm working with, and I'm nearly certain it's the distinction that whirlwind attack was written with, because whirlwind attack was written in the core rule book, before the magus existed and before a full-attack meant anything more than just making a full attack.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So your saying that anyone can attack with a spell without casting it?

If your going to attack with the spell, it will use the free action in combat when it was cast. Casting that spell is a part of the full round action that the character is taking. If you hold that spell until after you finish combat, you lose the free action attack as the turn ends. If you use the free action attack, it is as a part of the full round action that made it possible by the casting of the spell.


thaX wrote:

So your saying that anyone can attack with a spell without casting it?

... what? Where did that come from?

Quote:


If your going to attack with the spell, it will use the free action in combat when it was cast. Casting that spell is a part of the full round action that the character is taking. If you hold that spell until after you finish combat, you lose the free action attack as the turn ends. If you use the free action attack, it is as a part of the full round action that made it possible by the casting of the spell.

An action is never part of another action, though.

To back up a bit, spell combat as a whole. You get to make a full-attack and you get to cast a spell. That is NOT a full-round action plus a standard action, they're just things that happen during the main action of spell combat.

In fact, because it is a free action, you can coincidentally do it during the resolution of the separate and loosely related full-round action of spell combat.

For example, it's totally legal to declare spell combat, then cast shocking grasp, then take your free action to deliver the touch spell, then make your full-attack. This free action was made during but not as a part of spell combat.

In general, it seems like you're just tossing all the rules into this amorphous blob of interactions, when I'm taking a different approach and treating everything as much more modular which makes more sense for a permissive rules set.


thaX wrote:

Darksol, to deliver the effects of the spell, as a part of casting it.

If you hold it until you finish Whirlwind, it is held until you take your next turn. You gain this free action as a part of casting a spell, and lose it if you do not use it, holding the spell instead.

To answer above, a quickened spell can be cast at anytime, so it is well outside the full combat action, as all swift actions can be done.

That can't be right.

If you deliver the spell's effects as a part of casting the spell, then the reference to it requiring a Free Action is pointless and does nothing. In fact, by your interpretation, I never have to spend a Free Action to deliver a spell, because the delivery of the spell is done as part of casting it (i.e. the standard/full round action), every time you cast a touch spell.

This also means that you can't hold the charge except in cases of multi-touch effects like Chill Touch, because likewise according to your interpretation, the spell's effects are delivered as part of casting it, which means you must deliver the spell when you cast it.


People seem to be really misinformed when it comes to the free action touch attack granted by casting a spell such as shocking grasp.

If cast as a standard action, you can do a complete move action BEFORE using the free action to use the touch attack. So what makes people think that this free action is 'part' of the full-attack action Spell Combat when it is obviously NOT part of the action used to cast the spell?

I think what we need to have here is people start actually quoting rules when they come up with comments like this, so lets see it.


Cavall wrote:

I fail to see how a free attack with a spell isn't a bonus attack with a spell. Which is not allowed by the feat.

Free or not it isn't allowed because the feat explicitly states it.

What about attacks of opportunity?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The free action attack is used to deliver the effects of the spell. If you didn't cast the spell, you don't have the attack that it gives you.

Are you saying that the free action attack and the spell are completely unconnected? Can I shoot a bow without an arrow?


thaX wrote:

The free action attack is used to deliver the effects of the spell. If you didn't cast the spell, you don't have the attack that it gives you.

Are you saying that the free action attack and the spell are completely unconnected? Can I shoot a bow without an arrow?

Dude, you are making no sense. This is what I said:

The free action attack is not PART of the full-attack-action. Actions are not 'part' of other actions, actions are separate from each other.

For example, let's say you start your Spell Combat full-attack action. You cast your spell and are getting ready to start your iteratives. Someone uses a readied action to stagger you, so you no longer are able to complete your full-attack-action. Do you still get your free action attack?

Of course! Because your free action is not 'part' of your full-attack-action that was voided.

Now, can you please use rules instead of just making stuff up? Being somewhat 'connected' has no relevance to the rules.

Again, what about AoOs?


thaX wrote:

The free action attack is used to deliver the effects of the spell. If you didn't cast the spell, you don't have the attack that it gives you.

Are you saying that the free action attack and the spell are completely unconnected? Can I shoot a bow without an arrow?

What I'm saying is that conditional requirements do not make them synonymous among the associated factors. Function in tandem, most likely (A -> B). But not synonymous (A = B).

It's the same argument behind a weapon not being an attack in and of itself. How that relates in regards to this topic is a little unclear, so it's explanation time. Let's take our Shocking Grasp spell again.

If I proceed to cast that spell, what are all of the possibilities that can happen when I do?

-I fail to cast the spell due to being counterspelled, failing a concentration check, and so on.
-I do not discharge the cast spell in the time allotted.
-I successfully discharge the spell onto a target creature or object.
-I discharge the spell harmlessly onto a stone floor or wall, or similar non-conducive material surface or plane.
-I (later) dismiss the spell effect.

In the first possibility, nothing happens before you can do anything with the spell you wanted to cast.

In the second, you do not take any sort of activity to discharge the spell in your hand for the duration that the spell is active, and therefore (eventually) nothing happens due to lack of participation.

In the third possibility (the one we most contest), the spell requires some activity on the caster's behalf, usually performing a Touch Attack (though certain regular attacks also work).

In the fourth instance, the same conditions in the third instance are required, but have a different result.

In the fifth instance, you take a Standard Action to cancel the spell effect, and (eventually) no (desired) result occurs.

Whether you agree with that being all of those plausible scenarios is irrelevant. The point is that, simply casting the spell in question doesn't trigger the (desired) effect (in the case of Touch Spells) until you, the caster, perform some sort of activity, OUTSIDE of casting the spell, before(/after) its (desired) effects take place.

This is what I call "Working in Tandem." In other words, in order to perform B (deliver a touch spell that you've cast), you must perform A first (cast a touch spell). Or as I referenced above, A -> B.

What you're proposing, on the other hand, is A = B, or as I call it, "Synonymity". That is, once you perform A (cast a touch spell), that automatically equates to and performs B (deliver the cast touch spell) for you, with no further effort or application on your part, which is what you are saying happens.

Spells like Scorching Ray, function synonymously. Once you cast Scorching Ray, you make the attacks associated with no further effort or action on your part. Spells like Shocking Grasp, function in tandem, resulting in the character requiring further effort or action to achieve the (desired) spell effect.

Keep in mind that this is all working toward the desired effect of the spell in question. Nothing in Shocking Grasp requires that you deliver the spell. In fact, I've demonstrated it's entirely plausible to not deliver the spell, to instead dismiss or discharge it, either inadvertantly, or harmlessly; but its intended usage, is to deliver the spell onto a target that the spellcaster wishes to affect with said spell, which I think is where a bit of the confusion comes from in terms of understanding each side's perspective.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Darksol, to keep going on that, when you do the third option with this combination of Spell Combat and Whirlwind, it would still be used during the combat action. If the character waits until the combat is done, he has missed his opportunity to use that free action attack, his turn is effectively over.

The only question should be if that attack is on top of the Whirlwind Attack or be used as one of the targeted attacks that it provides. Not if the free action attack is somehow disjointed from the spell, but if it is considered an extra attack when used.

To be very basic, it is a spell providing an extra attack when used with Spell Combat, getting the weapon attack and the spell attack in the same turn. Whirlwind would forgo the Spell Attack (free action or not) in the same way it would for Haste and TWF. If these two abilities can be used together, the spell attack can replace one of the single target attacks that Whirlwind has, or be used with a Spellstrike on one of those attacks.


_Ozy_ wrote:

People seem to be really misinformed when it comes to the free action touch attack granted by casting a spell such as shocking grasp.

If cast as a standard action, you can do a complete move action BEFORE using the free action to use the touch attack. So what makes people think that this free action is 'part' of the full-attack action Spell Combat when it is obviously NOT part of the action used to cast the spell?

I think what we need to have here is people start actually quoting rules when they come up with comments like this, so lets see it.

Is the spell part of the full attack action (Spell Combat)?


Irontruth wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

People seem to be really misinformed when it comes to the free action touch attack granted by casting a spell such as shocking grasp.

If cast as a standard action, you can do a complete move action BEFORE using the free action to use the touch attack. So what makes people think that this free action is 'part' of the full-attack action Spell Combat when it is obviously NOT part of the action used to cast the spell?

I think what we need to have here is people start actually quoting rules when they come up with comments like this, so lets see it.

Is the spell part of the full attack action (Spell Combat)?

The spell is. The free action attack is not. Just like if you trip someone with an attack during the Whirlwind, the AoO you get when they stand up is also not part of your full attack action.


thaX wrote:
If the character waits until the combat is done, he has missed his opportunity to use that free action attack, his turn is effectively over.

B%!+&$%$. There is nothing about full actions, or full-attack actions that say your turn is immediately ended when they are complete. For example, you can drop a weapon after a full-attack, or change your grip.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Cavall wrote:

I fail to see how a free attack with a spell isn't a bonus attack with a spell. Which is not allowed by the feat.

Free or not it isn't allowed because the feat explicitly states it.

What about attacks of opportunity?

Aren't granted by feats spells and ability so therefore not part of this conversation. If you had a free one from a feat spell or ability then it wouldn't be allowed unless outside of your turn.

401 to 450 of 735 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Spell combat + Whirlwind Attack All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.