Spell combat + Whirlwind Attack


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 735 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

26 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Can a magus combine spell combat with Whirlwind attack?


I say yes. Whirlwind Attack just requires that you use a full-attack action, and Spell Combat counts as making a full-attack action for haste and other effects.

FAQ wrote:

Magus, Spell Combat: Does spell combat count as making a full attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects?

Yes.

Edit 9/9/13: This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with effects that are essentially a full attack, even though the creature isn't specifically using the full attack action (as required by haste). The earlier ruling did not allow the extra attack from haste when using spell combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd say yes, but that you only have one spell charge and can only hit one enemy with a spellstrike


I would say no.

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

You can't get a bonus attack from two-weapon fighting, you definitely can't two-weapon fight, but with a spell.


Bob Bob Bob wrote:

I would say no.

You can't get a bonus attack from two-weapon fighting, you definitely can't two-weapon fight, but with a spell.

Well, I was looking at casting a buff, so that part doesn't really apply.

What I want to do is pick up sense vitals through Spell Blending and use a good reach weapon like a pole arm or whip. Then start combat doing a pile of sneak damage to everyone in reach.


Kifaru wrote:
Bob Bob Bob wrote:

I would say no.

You can't get a bonus attack from two-weapon fighting, you definitely can't two-weapon fight, but with a spell.

Well, I was looking at casting a buff, so that part doesn't really apply.

What I want to do is pick up sense vitals through Spell Blending and use a good reach weapon like a pole arm or whip. Then start combat doing a pile of sneak damage to everyone in reach.

Actually this is an interesting one. Even if the spell cast isn't an attack spell combat says:

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

LINK

Thoughts?

EDIT: Also remember that since it's like two-weapon fighting using a pole arm with reach might be tricky - you have to wield the pole arm in one hand (or somehow have an extra hand or whatever) ... maybe a whip or something?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There's a precedent with Vital Strike and Spring Attack:

Quote:
Can I use this with Spring Attack, or on a charge? No. Vital Strike can only be used as part of an attack action, which is a specific kind of standard action. Spring Attack is a special kind of full-round action that includes the ability to make one melee attack, not one attack action. Charging uses similar language and can also not be used in combination with Vital Strike.

Likewise you can Whirlwind Attack "When you use the full-attack action", which is a specific kind of full-round action. Spell Combat is used "As a full-round action", implying that it's its own specific type of full-round action.

You can use feats that aren't an action to use such as Power Attack, or ones that replace a melee attack such as Quick Dirty Trick.


Diminuendo wrote:
I'd say yes, but that you only have one spell charge and can only hit one enemy with a spellstrike

A spell like Frostbite would expend one charge for each target hit with Whirlwind. This has nothing to do with Spell Combat or Spellstrike.

Spell combat can be used with Whirlwind, but will not grant can extra attack due to the specific wording of Whirlwind.

Strike is simply a extra delivery option, Whirlwind does not limit the ability to deliver touch spells/target hit.


If whirlwind says you cannot gain extra attacks from two weapon fighting, and spell combat says its just like two weapon fighting, with a spell as the offhand, then it stands to reason that you can't use it.

If you're not allowed A, and B is just like A, then you're not allowed B either.


MrCharisma wrote:
EDIT: Also remember that since it's like two-weapon fighting using a pole arm with reach might be tricky - you have to wield the pole arm in one hand (or somehow have an extra hand or whatever) ... maybe a whip or something?

A Staff Magus with Spear Dancing Spiral


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weables wrote:

If whirlwind says you cannot gain extra attacks from two weapon fighting, and spell combat says its just like two weapon fighting, with a spell as the offhand, then it stands to reason that you can't use it.

If you're not allowed A, and B is just like A, then you're not allowed B either.

It does not say you cannot use TWF with whirlwind, it just says you don't gain any extra attacks for doing so. So feel free to add a -2 to your attacks for no reason at all.


Gjorbjond wrote:

There's a precedent with Vital Strike and Spring Attack:

Quote:
Can I use this with Spring Attack, or on a charge? No. Vital Strike can only be used as part of an attack action, which is a specific kind of standard action. Spring Attack is a special kind of full-round action that includes the ability to make one melee attack, not one attack action. Charging uses similar language and can also not be used in combination with Vital Strike.

Likewise you can Whirlwind Attack "When you use the full-attack action", which is a specific kind of full-round action. Spell Combat is used "As a full-round action", implying that it's its own specific type of full-round action.

You can use feats that aren't an action to use such as Power Attack, or ones that replace a melee attack such as Quick Dirty Trick.

I agree with this. Answer is no.


bbangerter wrote:
Weables wrote:

If whirlwind says you cannot gain extra attacks from two weapon fighting, and spell combat says its just like two weapon fighting, with a spell as the offhand, then it stands to reason that you can't use it.

If you're not allowed A, and B is just like A, then you're not allowed B either.

It does not say you cannot use TWF with whirlwind, it just says you don't gain any extra attacks for doing so. So feel free to add a -2 to your attacks for no reason at all.

Hah. Very true. I amend my previous post: You can use spell combat, but you can't cast a spell, and you get -2 to your attacks.


Weables wrote:

If whirlwind says you cannot gain extra attacks from two weapon fighting, and spell combat says its just like two weapon fighting, with a spell as the offhand, then it stands to reason that you can't use it.

If you're not allowed A, and B is just like A, then you're not allowed B either.

You cannot gain an extra attack ≠ cannot cast spells.

Example 1: quickened Frostbite
- legal with Whirlwind
- does not grant an extra attack if used in the same round as Whirlwind

Example 2: Spell Combat -> Shield
- no additional attack granted under any circumstances

Whilrwind can be used in conjunction with Spell Combat, but you are only going to roll 1 attack for the round regardless of spell cast.

An interesting interaction would be Bladed Dash, where the magus might choose the attack granted by the spell as his one attack, allowing movement and Int bonus to the attack roll with Whirlwind.


Gjorbjond wrote:

There's a precedent with Vital Strike and Spring Attack:

Quote:
Can I use this with Spring Attack, or on a charge? No. Vital Strike can only be used as part of an attack action, which is a specific kind of standard action. Spring Attack is a special kind of full-round action that includes the ability to make one melee attack, not one attack action. Charging uses similar language and can also not be used in combination with Vital Strike.

Likewise you can Whirlwind Attack "When you use the full-attack action", which is a specific kind of full-round action. Spell Combat is used "As a full-round action", implying that it's its own specific type of full-round action.

You can use feats that aren't an action to use such as Power Attack, or ones that replace a melee attack such as Quick Dirty Trick.

Whirlwind Attack wrote:


When you use the full-attack action...
FAQ wrote:


Magus, Spell Combat: Does spell combat count as making a full attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects?
Yes.

The FAQ seems to disagree with you.

FAQ says spell combat counts as making a full attack action. WW requires you to be making a full attack action. For this to be "no" you need to provide rules support that says for purposes of WW attack spell combat does not count as making a full attack action.

Weables wrote:


Hah. Very true. I amend my previous post: You can use spell combat, but you can't cast a spell, and you get -2 to your attacks.

WW attack only says you cannot get extra attacks. It does not say anything about other 'events' that may occur while making a full attack. Casting a spell would be fine. Casting a spell and then getting a free touch attack on top of that would not.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Count be on the list of those saying no.

WW is a special full attack action like vital strike is a special attack action.

So you can't take two separate full attack actions (WW and Spell Combat) in the same round.

The FAQ saying you gain the benefit of things like Haste is a special ruling for Spell Combat gaining haste attacks despite not being something haste could append to normally. Don't extend that to WW when you shouldn't extend the scope of a FAQ.


James Risner wrote:

Count be on the list of those saying no.

WW is a special full attack action like vital strike is a special attack action.

So you can't take two separate full attack actions (WW and Spell Combat) in the same round.

The FAQ saying you gain the benefit of things like Haste is a special ruling for Spell Combat gaining haste attacks despite not being something haste could append to normally. Don't extend that to WW when you shouldn't extend the scope of a FAQ.

What does "...and other effects" listed in the FAQ apply to then? Without an exclusive list, it applies to all things that are part of making a full attack action.

EDIT: When I first read the question posed, my initial reaction was no, it does not work with WW - so I would not fault a GM for ruling that way. But when I reread WW attack and the FAQ, I came to the conclusion that the rules allowed this.


James Risner wrote:

Count be on the list of those saying no.

WW is a special full attack action like vital strike is a special attack action.

So you can't take two separate full attack actions (WW and Spell Combat) in the same round.

The FAQ saying you gain the benefit of things like Haste is a special ruling for Spell Combat gaining haste attacks despite not being something haste could append to normally. Don't extend that to WW when you shouldn't extend the scope of a FAQ.

FAQ wrote:

Magus, Spell Combat: Does spell combat count as making a full attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects?

Yes.

Emphasis mine.

The FAQ is open ended. Spell combat works with anything that applies to a full attack action.

Vital Strike is part of a standard action attack, a completely different action type.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Snowlilly wrote:
Emphasis mine.

Ok Emphasis mine:

Quote:

you can give up your regular attacks and instead

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

Ok, let's assume you are right. You can combine Spell Combat and Whirlwind.

When doing so, you will be giving up your iterative, offhand, spell combat, haste, and other attacks for the whirlwind attacks. Explicitly.


As others have mentioned, no you cannot use spell combat and whirlwind in the same round.

If you cast a multitouch spell in the previous round and then used whirlwind you could attempt to deliver the held charges with each attack you make via Spell Strike.


James Risner wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Emphasis mine.

Ok Emphasis mine:

Quote:

you can give up your regular attacks and instead

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

Ok, let's assume you are right. You can combine Spell Combat and Whirlwind.

When doing so, you will be giving up your iterative, offhand, spell combat, haste, and other attacks for the whirlwind attacks. Explicitly.

Spell Combat is not an attack, it is the option to cast a spell.

Some spells may normally grant an extra attack.

See the examples I posted above.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Snowlilly wrote:
See the examples I posted above.

I did. We are at an impasse, if the last post I made didn't convince you. Nothing short of an FAQ will settle the two sides of this issue.


Claxon wrote:
As others have mentioned, no you cannot use spell combat and whirlwind in the same round.

Where would you stand on a quickened Frostbite?

Would you allow the extra attack?


James Risner wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
See the examples I posted above.
I did. We are at an impasse, if the last post I made didn't convince you. Nothing short of an FAQ will settle the two sides of this issue.

You see Spell Combat as an attack.

I see Spell Combat as spell casting (not an action barred by Whirlwind).

They are very different perceptions.


I find it always helps to have the relevant text in front of me.

Whirlwind Attack wrote:

Benefit: 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.

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

Magus, Spell Combat: Does spell combat count as making a full attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects?

Yes.

Edit 9/9/13: This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with effects that are essentially a full attack, even though the creature isn't specifically using the full attack action (as required by haste). The earlier ruling did not allow the extra attack from haste when using spell combat.

So, yes you can make a full-attack action for spell combat, and that counts for whirlwind attack. You get only the whirlwind attacks. You don't get any extra attacks for having cast a spell, and all your attacks would take the -2 from spell combat. At least, that's how it reads currently.

Personally, in my game, I would say that no, whirlwind is its own action, similar to vital strike. But that would be my houserule, not how the rules are currently.


Tarantula wrote:
Personally, in my game, I would say that no, whirlwind is its own action, similar to vital strike

Vital strike is not its own action.

Vital Strike wrote:


When you use the attack action...

Vital strike requires you be using the attack action, which from another FAQ we know is a specific kind of standard action to make an attack.

Vital strike cannot be combined with cleave because cleave requires "As a standard action...", cleave is its own kind of standard action that is not the attack action.

Vital strike cannot be combined with spring attack because "As a full-round action...". The attack action (which is a specific standard action) cannot be combined with the full round action of SA.

It likewise cannot be combined with WW attack, because WW attack requires a full attack.

But if something uses an attack action, vital strike can be combined with it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

It is true that Spell Combat can be used with full attacks and that Whirlwind Attack is a full attack.

However, that does NOT mean that Spell Combat can be used with Whirlwind Attack... any more than it would mean that you could use Spell Combat along with a full two-handed weapon attack.

WW specifically disallows anything other than one attack per target within reach. Ergo, it is not compatible with Spell Combat, despite being a type of full attack.

Basically, you can use Spell Combat with full attacks... unless doing so would violate some stricture of Spell Combat and/or the full attack action in question.

Better example: Whirling Dervish Swashbuckler's Whirlwind Dance should work with Spell Combat because it lets you get your full normal number of attacks rather than replacing them as per Whirlwind Attack.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The more I read this thread the more that I actually believe it might just be possible.


CBDunkerson wrote:

It is true that Spell Combat can be used with full attacks and that Whirlwind Attack is a full attack.

However, that does NOT mean that Spell Combat can be used with Whirlwind Attack... any more than it would mean that you could use Spell Combat along with a full two-handed weapon attack.

This is not an equivalent comparison.

Spell combat: Must have a weapon in one hand, the other hand must remain free for the entire duration of the action. That combination makes using a two handed weapon with spell combat incompatible. WW has no specifics on weapons, free hands, or anything, so there is no conflict between spell combat and WW attack in this regard.

CBDunkerson wrote:


WW specifically disallows anything other than one attack per target within reach. Ergo, it is not compatible with Spell Combat, despite being a type of full attack.

WW does not restrict anything except the number of attacks.

WW wrote:


... give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach.

Spell combat is not an attack in and of itself. It grants attacks as though making a full attack. WW attack requires you give up all your full attack attacks (plus any granted by feats, abilities, etc, such as casting a spell that grants a free attack), but does not require you give up any other aspects of anything else you may be doing as a part of your full attack. That is, all WW attack says is give up your attacks to get 1 attack per opponent in range. It makes no other restrictions of any kind.


Reading over this, I would say yes you can spell combat, but you'd only be taking a -2 to attacks and would be unable to cast the spell. The reason I believe this is from Spell Combat saying, "This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast."

If you aren't allowed the attack with an off hand weapon in TWFing, you wouldn't be allowed to cast the spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whirlwind has a very explicit do not pass go do not collect 200 gp no extra attacks for you clause.

No.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Whirlwind has a very explicit do not pass go do not collect 200 gp no extra attacks for you clause.

No.

Which won't stop you from casting shield on yourself. It also won't stop you from casting a touch spell. The only thing it stops is the extra attack touch spells normally grant you. You won't need it though if you cast first, at the start of spell combat, since you will have one or more charges stored up and the ability to strike each target once with whirlwind attack. By my reading, you have not violated any of the rule's restrictions.

It's not like its overpowered anyways. You still take a -2 to hit, will have to make concentration checks to pull it off, and you give up your extra attack. Also, the magus doesn't get many feats, and getting Whirlwind in the first place takes a whole lot of feats.

So if it doesn't appear to violate RAW or RAI, then what's keeping a GM from saying "yes" other than his highly arbitrary sense of cheese.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Which won't stop you from casting shield on yourself.

It would when you "shield" spell is your "off-hand" attack like it is in Spell Combat. No attack includes no "buffing yourself" that counts as an off-hand attack.


James Risner wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Which won't stop you from casting shield on yourself.
It would when you "shield" spell is your "off-hand" attack like it is in Spell Combat. No attack includes no "buffing yourself" that counts as an off-hand attack.

This may be an indication for RAI, but casting a shield spell is not an attack.


bbangerter wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Which won't stop you from casting shield on yourself.
It would when you "shield" spell is your "off-hand" attack like it is in Spell Combat. No attack includes no "buffing yourself" that counts as an off-hand attack.
This may be an indication for RAI, but casting a shield spell is not an attack.

It's not, but it is in place of your off hand attack which is lost. And my reading is that similar to when you use dex to damage. If you can't apply strength to your attack, you can't apply dex to your attack. If you can't make an attack with an offhand, you can't cast a spell with your offhand.


I think thats a reasonable reading into it. Casting the spell is in place of the off-hand attack. Whirlwind attack removes all attacks not given by whirlwind attack. Therefore, there is no off-hand attack to cast a spell with.


Ravingdork wrote:
So if it doesn't appear to violate RAW or RAI, then what's keeping a GM from saying "yes" other than his highly arbitrary sense of cheese.

Spell combat: This functions much like two-weapon fighting,

Benefit: 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've given up your ability to two weapon fight when you whirlwind. No two weapon fighting, no spell combat.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Both interpretations seem reasonable to me. Seeing as it is fun/cool for the player, requires a steep investment, and isn't necessarily unbalanced, I'm inclined towards the interpretation that allows my players to have their fun.

GMs who say "no" will have a hard time explaining their logic to me.


Yeah, it's definitely something you could see table variation on. I don't think either ruling is right or wrong, but it's just how I've read in on it. Basically, I'd suggest asking your GM, and if you are playing PFS, reach out to the GM before the game starts. Ask them how they'd rule it and show them this forum. Be kind and respectful, they might let you, they might not. But if you are kind, you got a better shot.

That's pretty much all I've got on this though.

Edit: Fixed a typo.


bbangerter wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Which won't stop you from casting shield on yourself.
It would when you "shield" spell is your "off-hand" attack like it is in Spell Combat. No attack includes no "buffing yourself" that counts as an off-hand attack.
This may be an indication for RAI, but casting a shield spell is not an attack.

Actually I completely disagree. I think the RAW of it is that the shield spell counts as your offhand attack (so can't be done), but the RAI is that it probably should work.

The idea behind Whirlwind Attack is that you get to attack every creature within range once and only once. Whirlwind Attack can potentially give you a huge number of attacks, and adding any extras on to that would just be super cheesy. If you're not adding attacks, but instead casting a spell, it doesn't seem to violate that. If you cast Shield all good. If you cast Shocking Grasp you could even get the extra damage on the first enemy you hit, but you'd forgo the free touch (/weapon) attack for casting a touch spell (so you're still only making 1 attack against each creature). The problem comes with ranged attack spells, you can't hold the charge so the spell would be wasted or the whirlwind attack wouldn't work.

As I said I think by RAW you can't use them together, and I'd definitely talk to my table about it beforehand. Magi can already mess with action economy like nobody's business, so adding to this could be totally game-breaking. I'll probably never build for it, but if another player wanted to try it I probably wouldn't have a problem unless it left other players feeling like they're on the sidelines.


I'm tending to agree with the sentiment that the combination does not work, but I do want to throw one other thought out there.

It has been ruled that fighting with a weapon in each hand does not necessarily constitute TWF. Using a rapier in one hand for a primary attack and a light pick in the other hand for the iterative is not classified as TWF. It is only TWF if it is used to get an extra attack.


Kifaru wrote:

I'm tending to agree with the sentiment that the combination does not work, but I do want to throw one other thought out there.

It has been ruled that fighting with a weapon in each hand does not necessarily constitute TWF. Using a rapier in one hand for a primary attack and a light pick in the other hand for the iterative is not classified as TWF. It is only TWF if it is used to get an extra attack.

All true.

The difference there is that if you're using different weapons for your iterative's you're not getting any extra actions. All you're doing is making the attacks that your character is allowed. With TWF or Spell-Combat or Flurry or whatever you're getting an extra action during your turn. On top of that the extra action in all these cases is actually called an attack in the descriptions for these abilities.

However as Ravingdork pointed out there is a rather steep investment (5 feats). It's also an action that probably wouldn't come into play all that often (it's going to be better to just full-attack a lot of the time) and it would come with a -2 penalty to all attacks (that's a part of spell-combat still). If one of your players invested that much into this I'd let them have their fun.

A Human Magus can have this up and running by level 6. It takes literally all their feats to do so. That means they don't have Intensified Shocking Grasp or Rime Frostbite or Dervish Dance or Preferred Spell or any of the other gimmicks that are going to be more game-breaking than this one.


Kifaru wrote:
Can a magus combine spell combat with Whirlwind attack?

No... both are full attack options, and you can only have one of such in a combat round.


Kifaru wrote:

I'm tending to agree with the sentiment that the combination does not work, but I do want to throw one other thought out there.

It has been ruled that fighting with a weapon in each hand does not necessarily constitute TWF. Using a rapier in one hand for a primary attack and a light pick in the other hand for the iterative is not classified as TWF. It is only TWF if it is used to get an extra attack.

Fighting with a weapon in each hand means that you don't have the free hand you need for either spell combat, or even casting a spell if it involves a somatic component.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Kifaru wrote:
Can a magus combine spell combat with Whirlwind attack?
No... both are full attack options, and you can only have one of such in a combat round.

As has been stated, Whirlwind Attack says "When you use the full-attack action..." meaning you can use it whenever you take A full-attack action. It is not necessarily a full-attack action in its own right.

Spell Combat definitely is though. Which is why I believe you can activate Whirlwind Attack with it.

Kind of like how spell strike isn't a standard action, but can be activated any time you cast a touch spell. It's more of a rider than its own action.


Note that this does not prevent a magus from casting chill touch (or some other spell that allows you to discharge once per level) with spell combat and spell strike one round, and then doing a whirlwind attack the following round delivering a whole bunch more chill touch strikes.

Dark Archive

I'll chime in and say that the answer is no for the reasons TrinitysEnd gave above. If a player came to my table and justified this with "Well technically it isn't an attack" I would immediately start suspecting that they were trying to rules-lawyer a beneficial reading. That isn't to say I wouldn't allow it if we talked about it first, but it definitely warrants a discussion.


Spell combat is clear that it works as two weapon fighting except with a spell.
Not "an offensive spell" or "an spell that is an attack".

Which is why you could use spell combat to cast shield.

You can't two weapon fight while whirl wind attacking. Therefore you can't use something that acts like two weapon fighting during a whirlwind.

RAW is the clear one here, and it's the RAI (and even then it isn't RAI because it's that clear) that is trying to say otherwise.

5 feat investment is a moot point
5 feats won't get you to two weapon fight either. So that doesn't matter.

Is there a feat that allows two weapon fighting in a whirlwind? Because that's the only way to get spell combat which is clear that it acts as two weapon fighting.

Hope that would need to be the only argument needed at your table, raving dork. That something that says it acts like something else can't be used when that something else can't either.


RAW for spells being attacks is indicated by CRB page 302, regarding Invisibility, that a spell is not an attack unless it targets an enemy or is AOE and includes them.

Whirlwind Attack: give up normal *attacks* and forfeit bonus *attacks*. So, you don't get your free touch attack for casting a spell with that type of target.

So, that's stuff like shield or dimension door right there, since they aren't attacks to be given up.

I'm uncertain about shocking grasp and chill touch (unless quickened), or fireball, so... given how many feats this requires, if you take it slower, you might just have Quickened versions of weak touches and that's good enough. If yes to these, there's a minimum of not getting the extra attack and taking the -2. If no to the attack spells... I could see that, too.


james014Aura wrote:


So, that's stuff like shield or dimension door right there, since they aren't attacks to be given up.

They require you to two weapon fight, which you can't do while using whirlwind.

1 to 50 of 735 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Spell combat + Whirlwind Attack All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.