Full Actions + Free Actions


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 452 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Ferious Thune wrote:
What I am saying is that you can take a swift action during a full-round action. Not after. You can also take a 5-foot step during a full-round action. And you can take a free action during a full-round action. Even if those things happen after all of the attacks from a full attack are resolved, they are still happening during your round, and so they are still happening during the full round action.

So, while I'm TWF, I can change my grip to use two hands on my weapon, and it's still during TWF?

I don't see how that's possible, since TWF specifically requires a different weapon in each hand. You can't both be TWF and not TWF at the same time. Clearly any change in grip must be after TWF has completed, which is, of course, after the last attack of the full-attack action.

I see nothing in Pathfinder that says a full-attack action lasts longer than the last attack during the action.


Ferious Thune wrote:

#5, #6, and #7 do not work, because the free attack is granted as part of casting the spell. It can't be taken outside of the Spell Combat Full Round Action. Spellstrike is not what is granting the free attack. It is only allowing you to make the free attack that the spell grants using your weapon.

Spellstrike wrote:
Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell.

Once your full-round action has ended, the Magus is no longer casting the spell. so you can't take the free attack granted by the spell outside of the full-round action of Spell Combat, and you can't two-hand a weapon during the full-round action of Spell Combat.

#5 is trickier than 6 and 7, because of the normal rules about being able to move in between casting the spell and making the touch attack. But I think there's enough there to support the idea that with Spell Combat, you must choose either to make your normal attacks first, then cast the spell (and resolve everything associated with it, including the free attack), or cast the spell first (and resolve everything associated with it, including the free attack), then make your normal attacks.

That being said, I'm trying to think of a situation where it makes a difference. Possibly in the choice of which opponent to attack. Take, for example, an 8th level Magus casting Shocking Grasp. +6/+1 BAB, so two attacks normally. If #5 is allowed, you could end up with something like this:

** spoiler omitted **...

Yeah, I demand a very specific rules citation that says the spell you cast for Spell Combat must be resolved within Spell Combat, because if that really is the case, then you can't Hold the Charge on Spell Combat, since you must resolve the spell within Spell Combat, and if a spell isn't discharged within of Spell Combat, the spell dissipates (since it's not resolved). Same goes for spells that aren't Instantaneous, and we all know that's a bunch of crap.

Let me bring up a very relevant quote that Johnny_Devo forgot to put emphasis on in regards to the Spellstrike FAQ:

FAQ wrote:
Basically, the spellstrike gives the magus more options when it comes to delivering touch spells; it’s not supposed to make it more difficult for the magus to use touch spells.

In other words, you're imposing a limitation on Spellstrike (when you say that you must make the attack as part of casting the spell) that makes it more difficult to deliver a Touch Spell than otherwise delivering a Touch Spell normally (which, in the case of Melee Touch Spells, can be delivered between movement, after the spell is cast, and so on).

Even if you're correct on RAW, I can assure you that it's most certainly not RAI, and any sane GM would throw their Ultimate Magic book at you (if they owned it).


I think the issue is that while you quoted the words from full-round actions, you forgot these words from Free Actions:

Quote:
Free actions don't take any time at all

So it's quite feasible to take free actions after a full-round's worth of actions before your turn is up.

Scarab Sages

Yes you can change your grip during TWF. You just can't get the 1 1/2x STR bonus. That's what the whole hands of effort FAQ was about.

While TWF, if you have Quick Draw, you can start the round with a weapon in one hand, attack with that weapon, quick draw a second weapon and attack with that weapon, drop both weapons, quick draw a third weapon and take your main hand iterative. (pending GM allowing that many free actions). At no point do you stop making your full-round action, because as I quoted above, a Full Round Action takes your entire round.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Yeah, I demand a very specific rules citation that says the spell you cast for Spell Combat must be resolved within Spell Combat, because if that really is the case, then you can't Hold the Charge on Spell Combat, since you must resolve the spell within Spell Combat, and if the spell lasts outside of Spell Combat, the spell dissipates (since it's not resolved).

A better argument than mine. Thanks.


Ferious Thune wrote:

Yes you can change your grip during TWF. You just can't get the 1 1/2x STR bonus. That's what the whole hands of effort FAQ was about.

While TWF, if you have Quick Draw, you can start the round with a weapon in one hand, attack with that weapon, quick draw a second weapon and attack with that weapon, drop both weapons, quick draw a third weapon and take your main hand iterative. (pending GM allowing that many free actions). At no point do you stop making your full-round action, because as I quoted above, a Full Round Action takes your entire round.

If you use your off-hand to attack, you can't use it to wield a 2H weapon. And yet, after I'm done with all of my TWF attacks, I can indeed wield a 2H weapon because I'm changing my grip after the TWF full-attack action.

Again, Free Actions take zero time, so you can fit them in between the end of a full round action and the end of your turn. Explicitly so.

Scarab Sages

_Ozy_ wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Yeah, I demand a very specific rules citation that says the spell you cast for Spell Combat must be resolved within Spell Combat, because if that really is the case, then you can't Hold the Charge on Spell Combat, since you must resolve the spell within Spell Combat, and if the spell lasts outside of Spell Combat, the spell dissipates (since it's not resolved).
A better argument than mine. Thanks.

I've already cited the rule. It's the Full-Round Action rule. You are performing a Full-Round Action for your entire round, and Spell Combat is a Full-Round Action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ferious Thune wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Yeah, I demand a very specific rules citation that says the spell you cast for Spell Combat must be resolved within Spell Combat, because if that really is the case, then you can't Hold the Charge on Spell Combat, since you must resolve the spell within Spell Combat, and if the spell lasts outside of Spell Combat, the spell dissipates (since it's not resolved).
A better argument than mine. Thanks.
I've already cited the rule. It's the Full-Round Action rule. You are performing a Full-Round Action for your entire round, and Spell Combat is a Full-Round Action.

There is no rule that prevents free/swift actions after a full-round action.

Scarab Sages

_Ozy_ wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:

Yes you can change your grip during TWF. You just can't get the 1 1/2x STR bonus. That's what the whole hands of effort FAQ was about.

While TWF, if you have Quick Draw, you can start the round with a weapon in one hand, attack with that weapon, quick draw a second weapon and attack with that weapon, drop both weapons, quick draw a third weapon and take your main hand iterative. (pending GM allowing that many free actions). At no point do you stop making your full-round action, because as I quoted above, a Full Round Action takes your entire round.

If you use your off-hand to attack, you can't use it to wield a 2H weapon. And yet, after I'm done with all of my TWF attacks, I can indeed wield a 2H weapon because I'm changing my grip after the TWF full-attack action.

Again, Free Actions take zero time, so you can fit them in between the end of a full round action and the end of your turn. Explicitly so.

Ok, I misread the TWF FAQ, so you can't make an attack with a THW, but that doesn't keep you from altering your grip on the weapon.

But most free actions can only be performed on your turn. And the Full-Round Action lasts your entire turn, so they are being performed during the Full-Round Action.


Ferious Thune wrote:

Ok, I misread the TWF FAQ, so you can't make an attack with a THW, but that doesn't keep you from altering your grip on the weapon.

But most free actions can only be performed on your turn. And the Full-Round Action lasts your entire turn, so they are being performed during the Full-Round Action.

Again, because free actions take 0 time, it doesn't matter if full-round actions last your entire turn. You can still do free actions before or after without changing the math.

Think of it this way, let's say I want to cast a spell with a casting time of a full-round action, so I will be casting for 'my entire turn'. Let's say this spell gives me a free attack action.

Am I 'still casting' when I make the free action attack? If someone had a readied action to attack me once I made my attack, would they disrupt the spell even though it had been finished? I say no to both. The 'spell casting' full-round action has finished.


Ferious Thune wrote:

Yes you can change your grip during TWF. You just can't get the 1 1/2x STR bonus. That's what the whole hands of effort FAQ was about.

While TWF, if you have Quick Draw, you can start the round with a weapon in one hand, attack with that weapon, quick draw a second weapon and attack with that weapon, drop both weapons, quick draw a third weapon and take your main hand iterative. (pending GM allowing that many free actions). At no point do you stop making your full-round action, because as I quoted above, a Full Round Action takes your entire round.

Good god; no, it wasn't.

The "Hands of Effort," which is an unwritten rule (and not a FAQ), was about characters attempting to TWF with a Two-handed Weapon while wielding a One-handed/Light weapon that didn't require hands to use in an attempt to gain more Strength modifiers to damage (and/or perform TWF in a more unorthodox fashion), and was given as an explanation to the answer behind a FAQ involving Armor Spikes with a Two-Handed Weapon that simply said "No," meaning you couldn't do it because "No," which, to a lot of people, just wasn't good enough. (I'm sure they still think the FAQ should actually simply state the unwritten rule.)

That same FAQ effectively went on to say that, hands that are using weapons for the TWF action are used for the entirety of the action, using a Greatsword and Spiked Gauntlet as an example of something that couldn't combine for the reason that both hands were wielding your Greatsword, so you couldn't remove a hand to execute Spiked Gauntlet attacks.

We also have a separate FAQ regarding TWF, which is a full round action, JUST LIKE SPELL COMBAT, that explicitly says the penalties and attacks and such, granted from TWF, apply only for the entirety of the TWF action, and by relation, any attacks done during the TWF action. Any attacks outside of the TWF action, do not suffer the attack penalty, such as Attacks of Opportunity, or effects which let you make attacks as a Free Action (there aren't many, but I imagine some exist, such as delivering Touch Spells as a Free Action).


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Any attacks outside of the TWF action, do not suffer the attack penalty, such as Attacks of Opportunity, or effects which let you make attacks as a Free Action (there aren't many, but I imagine some exist, such as delivering Touch Spells as a Free Action).

Corrnugon Smash + Hurtful is one I can think of, though that's free + swift.


But, if we're not going to convince you, we should just mark you down for:

no free/swift outside of full-attack actions

and move on.


Ferious Thune wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Yeah, I demand a very specific rules citation that says the spell you cast for Spell Combat must be resolved within Spell Combat, because if that really is the case, then you can't Hold the Charge on Spell Combat, since you must resolve the spell within Spell Combat, and if the spell lasts outside of Spell Combat, the spell dissipates (since it's not resolved).
A better argument than mine. Thanks.
I've already cited the rule. It's the Full-Round Action rule. You are performing a Full-Round Action for your entire round, and Spell Combat is a Full-Round Action.

I must have missed it, because I don't remember you citing it. (No, this isn't sarcasm, I seriously think I missed the citation you gave.)

Full Round Actions wrote:
A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions and swift actions (see below).

**EDIT**

Well, I suppose it doesn't explicitly say it. (Just me being cocky again...)

I will go ahead and say that by the logic you're presenting, any Metamagic spell would require a spellcaster concentrating until the start of their next turn (since you're claiming it takes an entire round to complete), which is obviously not intended, so I'd be careful with taking that wording at face value.

Scarab Sages

I've never said that you can't take a free or swift action, only that they happen during the full-round action.

However, I was missing the full text of Full-Round Action. It does refer to the 5-foot step as being before, during, or after the action.

I still do not think that you can circumvent the TWFing restrictions that Spell Combat creates by waiting until after you are done TWFing to deliver the free attack and two handing the weapon, and that's what you're both claiming. I'm going to go dig around in the Spells and Magic section.

The Armor Spike FAQ does say that you can't make an off-hand attack in the same round that you use a Two-Handed Weapon. It does not explicitly limit that to two-weapon fighting, so there is an interpretation there that if you make an attack, any attack, with a two-handed weapon during your round, you can't make an off-hand attack as part of Two-Weapon Fighting. That is... less explicitly the correct interpretation, and it would limit the swift action spell attack from using two hands as well if it's the correct interpretation.

Anyway, I'm going to do some more digging, but I'll concede that I was missing part of the rule.


Ferious Thune wrote:

The Armor Spike FAQ does say that you can't make an off-hand attack in the same round that you use a Two-Handed Weapon. It does not explicitly limit that to two-weapon fighting, so there is an interpretation there that if you make an attack, any attack, with a two-handed weapon during your round, you can't make an off-hand attack as part of Two-Weapon Fighting. That is... less explicitly the correct interpretation, and it would limit the swift action spell attack from using two hands as well if it's the correct interpretation.

Anyway, I'm going to do some more digging, but I'll concede that I was missing part of the rule.

That FAQ is likely wrong, in a strict sense, because it doesn't consider corner cases where you can make attacks outside of a full-attack action, such as AoOs on your turn, and free/swift action attacks.

Especially since they have a FAQ (referenced above) where they specifically note that TWF penalties apply only during the TWF full-attack action, and not to AoOs or attacks outside the full-attack action.

This is part of the reason why there are a lot of differing opinions on the matter.

Thanks for participating.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

Dotting.

I figure at this rate it's only a matter of time until at least 50% of the rules forum is "questions about what the magus is doing with his hands".

Exactly what his girlfriend's father wants to know.

~~~
Seriously, is it so hard to say that a character with an awesome class has dedicated one of his hands to his art? I mean, just can't perform shenanigans with it? Let's look at an 8th-level magus using Chill Touch.

1st round >> I shift my grip if necessary to one-handed; I cast Chill Touch; I close; I deliver the free charge one-handed (at -2); then I attack again one-handed as my standard attack (at -2), using up a charge; then I change my grip to two-handed.
(Spell combat & spellstrike; changing my grip only affects AoO's.)

2nd, 3rd, & 4th rounds >> I attack two-handed as a +6/+1 full-attack, delivering an additional charge of Chill Touch per successful attack (no attack penalties & 1-1/2 STR bonus to damage).
(Spellstrike for the additional charges but NOT spell combat.)

Assuming, of course, that I'm fighting a BBEG who's even still standing by the 4th round of such punishment.

Is this such a terribly sad restriction?


Figuring out how free actions work with respect to full round actions has a lot more implications than just the balance of the Magus class.

For example, is this legal:

TWF(longsword power attack + unarmed strike power attack + FA Corrnugon Smash) + FA(switch grip 2H longsword) + SW(hurtful attack)

That is, can you free action switch grip and swift action attack with a two handed weapon in the same round that you execute a TWF full-attack action?

My read on how actions work is 'yes', and this has nothing to do with the Magus, and everything to do with restrictions on full-attack actions and how they interact with free and swift actions.

Cheers.

Edit: also, some here would say that you couldn't do the 1st round actions in your example.


_Ozy_ wrote:

Figuring out how free actions work with respect to full round actions has a lot more implications than just the balance of the Magus class.

For example, is this legal:

TWF(longsword power attack + unarmed strike power attack + FA Corrnugon Smash) + FA(switch grip 2H longsword) + SW(hurtful attack)

That is, can you free action switch grip and swift action attack with a two handed weapon in the same round that you execute a TWF full-attack action?

My read on how actions work is 'yes', and this has nothing to do with the Magus, and everything to do with restrictions on full-attack actions and how they interact with free and swift actions.

Cheers.

Edit: also, some here would say that you couldn't do the 1st round actions in your example.

Can you link Hurtful Attack for me?

As for my 1st round actions, I went back and edited the text for clarity. Did this help? If not, what's the potential problem?


bitter lily wrote:

Can you link Hurtful Attack for me?

As for my 1st round actions, I went back and edited the text for clarity. Did this help? If not, what's the potential problem?

Hurtful

As far as your 1st round actions, it has been argued by some that since Spell Combat is a full round action, you can't use free actions before or after.

Thus, if you started the round with both hands on your weapon, you would automatically invalidate Spell Combat before you had a chance to switch grips with a free action. Furthermore, after Spell Combat you can't switch grips without also violating the Spell Combat restrictions (because you're doing it 'during' the Spell Combat full round action).

Again, I disagree, but it's apparently not a settled question.

Scarab Sages

Ok, best I can do right now is going all the way back to the Magus playtest and two posts from Jason Bulmahn.

Post 1

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
No two handed weapons for the magus. Just like with two weapon fighting, using a two handed weapon is not going to work. This was a very intentional design choice.

Post 2

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Zen79 wrote:
But a Magus could still wield his one-handed weapon with two hands in a round when he doesn't want to use Spell Combat, couldn't he?
Of course.

It's pretty easy to read those two posts and come away thinking a Magus can't use his one-handed weapon with two hands in a round that he uses Spell Combat, at least in terms of RAI. It is, after all, the guy who is in charge of the rules for the game making the statements. It's possible the wording on the rule or something else has changed with the ability since the playtest, but I haven't found it yet.

_Ozy_ wrote:

Figuring out how free actions work with respect to full round actions has a lot more implications than just the balance of the Magus class.

For example, is this legal:

TWF(longsword power attack + unarmed strike power attack + FA Corrnugon Smash) + FA(switch grip 2H longsword) + SW(hurtful attack)

That is, can you free action switch grip and swift action attack with a two handed weapon in the same round that you execute a TWF full-attack action?

My read on how actions work is 'yes', and this has nothing to do with the Magus, and everything to do with restrictions on full-attack actions and how they interact with free and swift actions.

Cheers.

Edit: also, some here would say that you couldn't do the 1st round actions in your example.

The example you have here comes back to the Armor Spikes FAQ. It's not really proper to say that the FAQ is probably wrong and use that as a rules argument. The FAQ is part of the rules. It currently states that your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks in a round that you use a two-handed weapon. That would seem to rule out your example here and your Magus swift action examples. What's not certain is if that's what they meant to say with the FAQ, and it's entirely possible they did mean to limit it to TWFing and not other abilities like Hurtful or quickened spells/spellstrike. But without a post speaking to the intent of the rule, that's left up to GM interpretation, and the FAQ shouldn't be ignored.

For the AoO and TWF FAQ, it states that the penalties end when you complete the action, but as was pointed out to me upthread, the penalties are the -2 to-hit, not the restriction on using two hands. So I don't see that FAQ as being in conflict with the Armor Spikes FAQ.

Scarab Sages

_Ozy_ wrote:
bitter lily wrote:

Can you link Hurtful Attack for me?

As for my 1st round actions, I went back and edited the text for clarity. Did this help? If not, what's the potential problem?

Hurtful

As far as your 1st round actions, it has been argued by some that since Spell Combat is a full round action, you can't use free actions before or after.

Thus, if you started the round with both hands on your weapon, you would automatically invalidate Spell Combat before you had a chance to switch grips with a free action. Furthermore, after Spell Combat you can't switch grips without also violating the Spell Combat restrictions (because you're doing it 'during' the Spell Combat full round action).

Again, I disagree, but it's apparently not a settled question.

If you're referring to me with this, you're twisting my words, as again, I never said that you could not take the free action to make the attack or that you could not shift your grip, and I've already conceded to missing the line about 5-foot steps happening before, during, or after. If you're not referring to me, then no harm no foul.


It might be good for everyone to take a step back and think about game design for a bit. While it's easy to dismiss speculation of designer intent with a flippant "Who knows? We can't make rulings based on guesses.", I think in many cases veterans really should know what the spirit of the game is, beyond the written legalese.

With that in mind, let me present a few assumptions based on the history of D&D/Pathfinder and general game design:

1) Combatants using weapons were expected to use a single "style" of combat for fighting (ie ranged, TWF, Two-Handed, etc).

2) Rules exist for changing from one style to another, but these were intended to be for convenience and flexibility, and not as methods for merging different fighting styles in a single round for an advantage.

3) FAQs and rules clarifications invariably try to address these rules gap by eliminating potential advantages a character can gain by trying to flip between styles during a single round.

4) Hence, if you ever find a situation where changing between styles grants a notable advantage over simply staying in a single style, there's a high change that it was unintended.

5) Some of these situations can be veto-ed by reasonable readings of the rules, stretching the interpretation of a relevant rules block, or by simply saying "no". The last of these options is naturally the least desirable, especially in a rules-enforced setting/forum, and it is in these cases that a FAQ/errata is most needed.

6) Thus, I suggest this thread, and similar ones, should fore-mostly be asking the following questions:
"Is these any benefit the combatant is gaining from switching styles mid-round over a similar one who switched at the end of their round?"
and if so:
"Can we find rules to disallow this and bring it back in line?"
and if not, finally:
"Can we acquire a FAQ to fix this issue, and if so, what should it be?"


Ferious Thune wrote:

The example you have here comes back to the Armor Spikes FAQ. It's not really proper to say that the FAQ is probably wrong and use that as a rules argument. The FAQ is part of the rules. It currently states that your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks in a round that you use a two-handed weapon. That would seem to rule out your example here and your Magus swift action examples. What's not certain is if that's what they meant to say with the FAQ, and it's entirely possible they did mean to limit it to TWFing and not other abilities like Hurtful or quickened spells/spellstrike. But without a post speaking to the intent of the rule, that's left up to GM interpretation, and the FAQ shouldn't be ignored.

For the AoO and TWF FAQ, it states that the penalties end when you complete the action, but as was pointed out to me upthread, the penalties are the -2 to-hit, not the restriction on using two hands. So I don't see that FAQ as being in conflict with the Armor Spikes FAQ.

You are confusing two different things. The Spell Combat ability refers to the -2 penalty specifically when it talks about making the attack provided by the spell.

The TWF FAQ is different. It says that the TWF penalties only occur during the TWF full-attack action. So any attacks (like the Hurtful attack) would not incur TWF penalties. And I think most would agree with that.

I think it is this FAQ that conflicts with the Armor Spikes FAQ, and yes, I do think the armor spikes FAQ is too restrictive and wrong for the corner cases under discussion.


Ferious Thune wrote:
If you're referring to me with this, you're twisting my words, as again, I never said that you could not take the free action to make the attack or that you could not shift your grip, and I've already conceded to missing the line about 5-foot steps happening before, during, or after. If you're not referring to me, then no harm no foul.

Nah, there's another guy in another thread. Don't worry about it. ;)

Scarab Sages

_Ozy_ wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:

The example you have here comes back to the Armor Spikes FAQ. It's not really proper to say that the FAQ is probably wrong and use that as a rules argument. The FAQ is part of the rules. It currently states that your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks in a round that you use a two-handed weapon. That would seem to rule out your example here and your Magus swift action examples. What's not certain is if that's what they meant to say with the FAQ, and it's entirely possible they did mean to limit it to TWFing and not other abilities like Hurtful or quickened spells/spellstrike. But without a post speaking to the intent of the rule, that's left up to GM interpretation, and the FAQ shouldn't be ignored.

For the AoO and TWF FAQ, it states that the penalties end when you complete the action, but as was pointed out to me upthread, the penalties are the -2 to-hit, not the restriction on using two hands. So I don't see that FAQ as being in conflict with the Armor Spikes FAQ.

You are confusing two different things. The Spell Combat ability refers to the -2 penalty specifically when it talks about making the attack provided by the spell.

The TWF FAQ is different. It says that the TWF penalties only occur during the TWF full-attack action. So any attacks (like the Hurtful attack) would not incur TWF penalties. And I think most would agree with that.

I think it is this FAQ that conflicts with the Armor Spikes FAQ, and yes, I do think the armor spikes FAQ is too restrictive and wrong for the corner cases under discussion.

I'm not confusing the penalties from Spell Combat and the Penalties from TWFing. I'm saying, as was pointed out to me upthread, being restricted to only using one hand is not a penalty. The AoO FAQ states that the penalties from TWFing don't apply, and I don't think they apply to Hurtful, either. But the Armor Spikes FAQ states that you can't TWF in the same round that you make an attack with a two-handed weapon. That's not a penalty, that's a restriction created by the FAQ on TWF. That you think it doesn't apply to the corner cases is your interpretation of the FAQ. Another interpretation is that it does. I don't know which is correct, because I haven't yet found anything discussing the intent of the FAQ.


Byakko wrote:

It might be good for everyone to take a step back and think about game design for a bit. While it's easy to dismiss speculation of designer intent with a flippant "Who knows? We can't make rulings based on guesses.", I think in many cases veterans really should know what the spirit of the game is, beyond the written legalese.

Some good suggestions.

I think part of the problem is that as the game has evolved more options have popped up to take significant actions outside of the normal standard, move, or full-round actions, or singular fighting style that you mention.

So ultimately the rules question is how do the limitations and bonuses (or penalties) that govern the standard/move/full interact with these other significant actions that can occur using free/swift/AoOs?

For example, AoOs are usually not on your turn, and most penalties and limitations from your full-attack action are no longer in play (other than Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and similar).

Now, taking AoOs are becoming a lot more common during your turn. How does that interact with TWF penalties? Whirlwind? Spell Combat? Are they completely disconnected so you get attacks at full BAB without any limitations imposed by the full-attack action, as you would for AoOs not on your turn?

What about granted free/swift attacks occurring outside of your full-attack? during?

So I do think it goes quite a bit beyond the question about 'switching styles' and 'benefits', and I think a FAQ is definitely needed. If not more than one.


Ferious Thune wrote:
I'm not confusing the penalties from Spell Combat and the Penalties from TWFing. I'm saying, as was pointed out to me upthread, being restricted to only using one hand is not a penalty. The AoO FAQ states that the penalties from TWFing don't apply, and I don't think they apply to Hurtful, either. But the Armor Spikes FAQ states that you can't TWF in the same round that you make an attack with a two-handed weapon. That's not a penalty, that's a restriction created by the FAQ on TWF. That you think it doesn't apply to the corner cases is your interpretation of the FAQ. Another interpretation is that it does. I don't know which is correct, because I haven't yet found anything discussing the intent of the FAQ.

A Byakko said. That's what we're trying to figure out. Obviously it isn't cut and dried, but I'm using the TWF as an 'indicator' for what would have been decided had they thought about these corner cases.

Let's say this is your plan:
5' step + FA(release grip) + TWF(longsword + unarmed strike)

and someone provokes an AoO from you right after your 5' step so you do this:

5' step + AoO(2H longsword) + FA(release grip) + TWF(longsword + unarmed strike)

Armor FAQ says illegal. I say it's an unconsidered corner case that should be legal as if the AoO was not on your turn.

What say you? I'm not asking for what you 'know to be true'. I'm asking you to apply some of the logic that Byakko mentioned and give your best guess.


Based upon the wording of the TWF/armor spikes FAQ (not sure if it's already been linked), I can see a reasonable interpretation for the following:

The FAQ says "no" to violating the handedness in the same round... by using TWF specifically. Because for TWF, you're limited to one "hand" worth of effort for each attack, and trying to switch your grip to a two-hander would violate that hand limitation... within TWF.

What I mean is, the question that was answered was "Can I use Two-Weapon Fighting to (do the thing)" not "can I make two-handed attacks in the same round as I use two-weapon fighting".

I personally believe that because of the other FAQ stating that an action's penalties are limited to the action itself unless otherwise stated, it should logically extend to the limitations of use, up to and including handedness.

And, again, since a free action is a separate action, it would not be subject to the penalties or limitations of the full-round action, unless otherwise stated, like how spellstrike and spell combat specifically include the penalty.

It still raises questions though. Like I'm still on the fence about whether a penatly is equivalent to a handedness restriction, but it's an interesting exercise. I, personally, prefer to err on the side of "rule of cool" and I think it's more cool to switch the grip once the hand did its job weaving the spell.


I didn't read through the whole thread, btu just wanted to add all the examples that involved wielding the weapon two-handed while TWF are not possible.

As people mentioned, thats what the whole "hands of effort" thing was about. To specifically stop TWF with armor spike, off-hand weapons, etc while wielding a weapon two-handed. It's strictly not possible.


Claxon wrote:

I didn't read through the whole thread, btu just wanted to add all the examples that involved wielding the weapon two-handed while TWF are not possible.

As people mentioned, thats what the whole "hands of effort" thing was about. To specifically stop TWF with armor spike, off-hand weapons, etc while wielding a weapon two-handed. It's strictly not possible.

You should read the thread then. Nobody is suggesting violating the hands of effort during TWF. The whole point is whether these actions are taking place outside of the TWF full-attack action.

If you want to indicate which of the scenarios you think is violating the TWF hands of effort, perhaps we can discuss the issue.


In that case, it's unclear whether the restriction imposed by TWF (or Spell Combat) would apply outside of the direct time in which it is being used (such as to the rest of your turn during that round). Sorry, I misread your initial post and thought you were trying to combine TWF with two-handing.

It's definitely possible to end your turn by gripping the weapon two-handed so any AoO you might take can be done two-handed. It's unclear whether this restriction applies to all actions within your turn though.

I think it would require clarification, but I would lean to having the restriction apply to your entire turn. I don't think there is evidence to support either side though.


Claxon wrote:

In that case, it's unclear whether the restriction imposed by TWF (or Spell Combat) would apply outside of the direct time in which it is being used (such as to the rest of your turn during that round). Sorry, I misread your initial post and thought you were trying to combine TWF with two-handing.

It's definitely possible to end your turn by gripping the weapon two-handed so any AoO you might take can be done two-handed. It's unclear whether this restriction applies to all actions within your turn though.

I think it would require clarification, but I would lean to having the restriction apply to your entire turn. I don't think there is evidence to support either side though.

Thanks for weighing in!

Scarab Sages

Here's what I think, and these are not things that I necessarily have rules or forum posts to back up, but they make sense to me based on the rules and forum posts that I am aware of.

You've got several different situations, and I don't think the answer is the same for all of them.

1) Spell Combat - I think that Spell Combat was very clearly intended to be limited to one hand casting the spell, one hand on the weapon, and that trying to separate and take the free action to deliver the spell outside of Spell Combat is incorrect at best, purposefully twisting the rules at worst. Spell Combat has been compared to TWF with the Spell being the off-hand weapon, and the most direct interpretation is to consider the free attack granted as part of casting the spell to be part of the Spell Combat Full-Round Action.

2) Hurtful - I think that Hurtful and abilities like it that give you the option to take an action when you do something else are triggered by the something else, and you have to make the decision about whether or not to take that action when the triggering event happens. So, for Hurtful, "When you successfully demoralize an opponent within your melee reach with an Intimidate check, you can make a single melee attack against that creature as a swift action." I make an attack using power attack. I hit. That triggers Cornugon Smash. I have the option to perform an Intimidate check as a free action. I must make that choice before I perform any other actions. I decide to make the check, and I successfully demoralize my opponent. That triggers Hurtful. I have the option to use a swift action to make an additional attack. I cannot take any actions in between, like using a free action to change grips, because Hurtful was triggered by another action. I decide to use my swift action, and I make the attack. After I've made that attack, I could then choose to place a second hand on my weapon. I feel like that interpretation is consistent with AoOs, where another action triggers the AoO and you either take it or you don't. You can't change your grip on your weapon once the AoO is triggered. You have to have done it before the triggering event has occurred. The exception would be something that can be done as an immediate action, because that can be done at any time. Meaning you could spend an immediate action in between hitting and making the intimidate check. Obviously that doesn't work with Hurtful unless you've got some way to get two swift actions on the same round.

3) TWFing and THW on the same turn - I think the the Armor Spikes FAQ was a change in thought and direction, as previously it was thought that you could TWF with a Two-handed Sword and Armor Spikes (something I didn't realize had been so directly changed by the FAQ). I think that it does currently limit you to either getting the benefits of TWF or the benefits of a THW in the same round. Somewhere there's a post from either Sean K Reynolds or Jason Bulmahn stating that you have to commit to TWF or a THW before you make any attacks for the round, so once you've elected to use TWF, you can't use a THW during your turn. The AoO FAQ is not in conflict with that, because AoOs, even when they happen during your turn, aren't actually part of your turn. They are a separate event occurring whenever they are triggered. A swift action, on the other hand, is still part of your turn, and should be limited by the restrictions put in place by the other actions you've taken that turn.

So for your example: 5' step + AoO(2H longsword) + FA(release grip) + TWF(longsword + unarmed strike), I think that works fine, because while the Armor Spikes FAQ says that you can't TWF and use a THW in the same turn, the TWF and AoO FAQ states that AoOs are something different. Effectively, they happen outside of turns and just reset at the start of your turn.

What I don't think would work is using a swift action to gain an attack with a two-handed weapon and then using two-weapon fighting on the same turn. So, swift(quickened shocking grasp) + FA(2H spellstrike) + FA(release grip) + Spell Combat would not work, because you have already committed to Two Handed fighting for your turn.

4) Changing your grip - I think that you can absolutely do this anytime you're able to take an action, provided you are not interrupting another action. So, as mentioned above, Hurtful is the opportunity to use a swift action triggered by making the intimidate check. However you are gripping your weapon when you make the Intimidate check is however you are gripping your weapon when you make the attack from Hurtful. Once Hurtful is resolved, you can switch your grip. You can also definitely shift your grip at the end of your turn, and however you are gripping your weapon at the end of the turn is how you are gripping it for anything triggered after your turn (AoOs, and immediate actions, etc.) Only if you have an immediate action that lets you change your grip on your weapon can you do so when it is not your turn.

Basically, the whole hands of effort thread was saying that you can't benefit from 1 1/2 STR on the same round that you two-weapon fight. You have 1.5 STR to allot for the round. That can either go to using a THW or 1.0 STR to main hand, .5 STR to off-hand. Obviously things like Double Slice and Dragon Style change that.

Did I miss anything?


Nope, I think that covers it. I would note that free actions can be taken during other free and swift actions, so according to the rules, switching grips during a swift action Hurtful should be A-OK.

Unless you are prevented because of TWF during that turn...

It's my opinion that the 1.5 hands of effort only applies to the typical full-attack action, and not to any attacks taken outside of it.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Scarab Sages

_Ozy_ wrote:
Nope, I think that covers it. I would note that free actions can be taken during other free and swift actions, so according to the rules, switching grips during a swift action Hurtful should be A-OK.

It's allowed by the rules, but it's also up to GM interpretation (EDIT: by this I mean what free actions can be performed when). For example, if you could somehow trigger Hurtful with a bow, I wouldn't have a problem with you drawing and knocking an arrow as free actions made as part of the attack. But for a melee weapon, Hurtful does not say that until the end of your turn, you can make an attack as a swift action. So I wouldn't allow changing grips or making a 5-foot step to get a flank on the Hurtful attack. The choice is made when the action that triggers it happens, and that's what I feel is reasonable without something explicitly stating one way or the other.

_Ozy_ wrote:

Unless you are prevented because of TWF during that turn...

It's my opinion that the 1.5 hands of effort only applies to the typical full-attack action, and not to any attacks taken outside of it.

Thanks for your thoughts.

You might be right about the hands of effort. That's the part that I'm least sure about. But I am very strong in my belief that the attack made as part of the casting of a spell during Spell Combat must be made as part of the Spell Combat Full-Round Action and can't apply two hands of effort. A swift spell after the fact combined with Spellstrike... that's a possibility... but not for any attacks that are directly related to Spell Combat itself. I just can't imagine any ruling by the design team that would allow that based on how every other ruling concerning Spell Combat has gone.

Scarab Sages

HERE is one of the posts I'm thinking of. I can't find SKR's original, but it's quoted in the linked post.

Sean K. Reynolds wrote:

Nope. By putting two hands on your 1H or 2H weapon, you're giving up any extra attacks you'd get if you were using a 1H weapon and using two-weapon fighting. Doesn't matter if you're trying to make punches, kicks, headbutts, knees, or whatever, the game is giving you a choice:

• fully commit to one attack with two hands for extra damage, or
• make an extra attack with TWF at the cost of not getting the extra damage from using two hands on one attack.

That was posted as part of the discussion following issuing of the Armor Spikes FAQ. Somewhere there's a different post talking about making the choice before making an attack in the round, but I can't find it again.

Anyway, I need to sign off for the night. Good luck sorting it all out.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Andy Brown wrote:

Spell Combat doesn't occupy the hand, it requires an unoccupied hand. So I don't really see a problem with the spellcasting, but it would stop the use of both hands on the weapon.

I don't see any problem with starting the round with a free to let go of the sword with one hand so you can then use spell combat.

It's likely spell combat also stops you ending your turn with a free to grab the sword to use 2-handed for AoOs

Wait a minute. Either it invalidates that hand for your entire turn, or it doesn't. Otherwise it should only last for the full-attack action, and a swift action spell + spellstrike should be allowable after the full-attack action. I can't find anything in Spell Combat that uses words like Power Attack or Combat Expertise to extend the restrictions beyond the full-attack action.

This is how it works for TWF, I'm surprised that people think Spell Combat is fundamentally different.

But I guess you're saying that you could do a Quickened Spell + 2-H Spellstrike before Spell Combat, but not after?

Nope. I'm saying that I'd allow Spell Combat if the first thing you did on your turn was use a free action to release your 2-handed grip, and kept your hand free for the full round. Swift-casting and 1-handed spellstrike is OK either before or after, 2-handing the spellstrike attack isn't. I think I'm also OK with your last action being putting your hand back on your sword for 2-handed AoOs.

I think I can probably summarise my position as being that the Magus flavour is that you only use your weapon one-handed during your turn where you use spell combat, this includes swift-action spells using spellstrike. AoOs generally occur outside your turn, so they aren't included in this.

As I said previously, this isn't likely to come up before 10th level (unless you've got some way of reducing the metamagic cost), and the Magus doesn't get that many spells per day anyway.

As for TWF, that's similar - you can't TWF with a 2-handed weapon and something else, but you're probably OK with 2-handed AoOs.


Well, we had some busy bees here today. Let me get my input in for everybody:

@ Ferious Thune:
I disagree with the JB posts outright saying that you can't two-hand a weapon during Spell Combat would, by relation, extend its restrictions to events outside of Spell Combat. We have the TWF FAQ that says, once your TWF action is completed, none of the penalties or restrictions of TWF apply to you.

While it's TWF, if the intent is that the restrictions of an activity (in this case, TWF) apply for the entirety of the activity (and only the entirety of the activity), that it doesn't hinder anything else you can do within the turn/round.

Also, the Armor Spike FAQ specifically mentions if you can TWF with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes, which simply says "No," but then says you can't TWF with a Greatsword and a Spiked Gauntlet, because during the course of TWF, both hands (technically both metaphorical and literal, but more literal) are being used to wield the Greatsword for the TWF action, meaning you can't take the Free Action to grip-change the Greatsword to one hand after you take the associated attacks with it, to carry out attacks made with the off-hand Spiked Gauntlet.

As a fun little exercise, would you argue that a character could TWF with a Longbow and, say, either, an Unarmed Strike, Natural Weapon, or other sort of weapon that doesn't require a literal hand to use, or would you disagree?

@ Byakko:
Pathfinder has only been out for several years now, and has demonstrated time and time again to have mechanics, flavor, and intent far different from 1st Edition, 2nd Edition AD&D, 3rd Edition, and even its predecessor, 3.5/3.75, all of which (near as I can tell) have been released far earlier and far longer than Pathfinder has. The assumption that Pathfinder adheres to these "styles" having no flexibility is just that; an assumption, with little to no basis to go on due to the fledgling-ness of Pathfinder and the significant differences it has from its predecessors.

And to be honest, I disagree with that assumption, solely based on the inclusion of the Ranger's Combat Style feature, Style Feats (and how they function as a whole), and several FAQs allowing grip-switching, wielding, and so on. The versions of D&D that came before Pathfinder had little to none of these features or mechanics, and in my opinion, the creation and inclusion of such mechanics, as well as how they function (switching/applying styles as merely a Swift Action for one example), more than easily demonstrates that the line of "cheesing fighting styles" has both been moved, and has gotten thinner, and continues to do so as more and more Pathfinder content gets released.

@ Claxon:
Relevant FAQ clearly states that anything that takes place outside of the Action involved (FAQ mentions TWF as an example, but it's safe to extend it to all actions) does not suffer the restrictions or limitations of the Action/activity that was taken during your turn, unless the Action/activity in question specifically says so.

I decided to apply a band-aid to the potential Wall of Text syndrome that followed. You're more than welcome to peel it off to see the wound for yourself, but only at your own risk...

**EDIT** Engrish is hard...


Some of this comes down to what sort of actions you can take when.

Full-Round Action:
A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions and swift actions (see below). See Table: Actions in Combat for a list of full-round actions.

Some full-round actions do not allow you to take a 5-foot step.

Some full-round actions can be taken as standard actions, but only in situations when you are limited to performing only a standard action during your round. The descriptions of specific actions detail which actions allow this option.


Free Action:
Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.

Swift Action:
A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform only a single swift action per turn.

Swift Actions:
A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Swift actions usually involve spellcasting, activating a feat, or the activation of magic items.

So:
A swift action takes a bit longer than a free action, and you can take one when you would normally be able to take a free action.
A free action can be performed while taking another action.
(Only) A 5' step can be taken before, during or after a full round action.

Which leads me to interpret this as a Quickened Spell can be cast while taking a full round action to TWF or Spell Combat, but not before or after. Therefore, no 2-handed spellstrike with the quickened spell.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

This has been a very interesting read.

This confirms my stance in the other thread, here, and makes the Mind Blade ability that much more pleasing when he gets it. (Two Handing a weapon while in Spell Combat)

To go over the point,

A full round action takes up the entire turn, so any swift and Free actions taken are done during that full round action (including the Full Attack)

A swift action can be done after all the attacks are completed, but is still during the full round action. Would it still be under the -2 penalty imposed by Spell Combat? I wouldn't think so, but...

Scarab Sages

@Darksol - No, you can't Two-Weapon Fight with a Longbow and an Unarmed Strike. See the message from SKR that I quoted. "Doesn't matter if you're trying to make punches, kicks, headbutts, knees"

The TWF and AoO FAQ is referring to AoOs. You're wanting to limit the Armor Spikes FAQ to only the Armor Spikes and Gauntlet, because that's all that is mentioned in the FAQ, but apply the TWF and AoO FAQ to all actions, even though only AoOs are mentioned in it, but you aren't explaining why you think that's the case.

Yes, it says that attacks made after TWF ends don't suffer the penalties, but it stops short of saying you can take swift and free actions on your turn after TWF ends. It's calling out Attacks of Opportunity as something different than the actions on your turn. The only thing so far that suggests that a full-round action does not last for (EDIT: your full turn) is the line about being able to take a 5-foot step before, after, or during the full-round action.

In the Armor Spikes FAQ, the gauntlet is an example, not something that is called out as a special thing like AoOs are in the TWF FAQ. It's unique only in that it's possible to be wearing a gauntlet and holding a THW at the same time. But the justification given for why it cannot make an attack is "as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks." We already know that "off-hand" is a game term, and that it only applies when two-weapon fighting. It is not a literal hand, but rather a hand of effort, and the FAQ tells us that it is occupied when you are wielding a two-handed weapon. Therefore you cannot make an off-hand attack, any off-hand attack, with any weapon. That is consistent with the post from SKR.

Also, in glancing back through the thread, I do want to address one of your other responses. By saying everything with a spell must be resolved within Spell Combat, I don't mean that you can't hold a charge. Choosing to hold the charge is a valid resolution for the spell. You can elect to hold the charge just fine. What you can't do is elect to wait to take the free action granted by the spell until after the restrictions from Spell Combat are over. Either you take the free action as part of casting the spell, which happens sometime while Spell Combat is still in effect, or you don't. If you elect not to take the free action and to instead hold the charge until after Spell Combat ends, then you lose that free action attack.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Going further with Ferious Thune's post, you can do AoO's with the held spell after the turn is over as the character is considered "armed" with that held spell.


thaX wrote:

A full round action takes up the entire turn, so any swift and Free actions taken are done during that full round action (including the Full Attack)

A swift action can be done after all the attacks are completed, but is still during the full round action. Would it still be under the -2 penalty imposed by Spell Combat? I wouldn't think so, but...

Actions are over when you've completed them. If you've finished your movement for your move action, your move action is over. If you've finished your TWF attacks, your full-attack action is over.

There are no rules that extend actions beyond the activity that they govern. For example, let's look at Spell Combat:

Quote:
As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty).

So, as a full-round action, you are allowed to make 'all of your attacks' and these attacks incur a -2 penalty. What does 'all of your attacks refer to? Your usual iteratives+extra (from twf, haste, etc...) 'all of your attacks' in this context does NOT refer to any attacks granted by free or swift actions because how could it? You could be taking a swift/free action attack even BEFORE you started Spell Combat, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't get the -2 before you even started.

I see no reason why the situation changes if you decide to take those swift/free attacks after Spell Combat instead of before.

In short, because you can perform swift/free actions even before you declare what you're doing for your full-action attack, there's no way they can be 'part' of, or done 'during' the full-attack action.


Ferious Thune wrote:
The only thing so far that suggests that a full-round action does not last for (EDIT: your full turn) is the line about being able to take a 5-foot step before, after, or during the full-round action.

Unless your claim is that you can't take free/swift actions after that 5 foot step (or before at the beginning of the round) the fact that you can take 5' steps before, during, or after a full-round action absolutely confirms that you can do the same with free/swift actions.

So, Spell Combat(longsword + shocking grasp) + 5' step + FA(attack)

is perfectly legal, and both the 5' step and the free action attack occur after the full round action.


quotes:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:
I'm not confusing the penalties from Spell Combat and the Penalties from TWFing. I'm saying, as was pointed out to me upthread, being restricted to only using one hand is not a penalty. The AoO FAQ states that the penalties from TWFing don't apply, and I don't think they apply to Hurtful, either. But the Armor Spikes FAQ states that you can't TWF in the same round that you make an attack with a two-handed weapon. That's not a penalty, that's a restriction created by the FAQ on TWF. That you think it doesn't apply to the corner cases is your interpretation of the FAQ. Another interpretation is that it does. I don't know which is correct, because I haven't yet found anything discussing the intent of the FAQ.

A Byakko said. That's what we're trying to figure out. Obviously it isn't cut and dried, but I'm using the TWF as an 'indicator' for what would have been decided had they thought about these corner cases.

Let's say this is your plan:
5' step + FA(release grip) + TWF(longsword + unarmed strike)

and someone provokes an AoO from you right after your 5' step so you do this:

5' step + AoO(2H longsword) + FA(release grip) + TWF(longsword + unarmed strike)

Armor FAQ says illegal. I say it's an unconsidered corner case that should be legal as if the AoO was not on your turn.

What say you? I'm not asking for what you 'know to be true'. I'm asking you to apply some of the logic that Byakko mentioned and give your best guess.

I think that your plan needs to be:
FA(release grip) + 5' step + TWF(longsword + unarmed strike)
-- that is, that free actions to change grip need to be first or last in the turn.

Then, after the AoO is provoked, you end up with:
FA(release grip) + 5' step + AoO(1H longsword) + TWF(1H longsword + unarmed strike)

You can say that we need a FAQ for this, that the rules don't require it! But given that a GM requiring a first/last restriction on grip changes is simply enforcing all the rules & FAQs while having no effect on the (relatively) simple turn you planned, I'm not convinced it's necessary.

In short, I've now figured out my answer (as a GM) to your other question:

_Ozy_ wrote:

For example, is this legal:

TWF(longsword power attack + unarmed strike power attack + FA Corrnugon Smash) + FA(switch grip 2H longsword) + SW(hurtful attack)

That is, can you free action switch grip and swift action attack with a two handed weapon in the same round that you execute a TWF full-attack action?

No.

Until a FAQ tells me that your sequence is NOT an illegal shenanigan, I'm interpreting the rules/FAQs as saying it would have to go:
TWF(1H longsword power attack + unarmed strike power attack + FA Corrnugon Smash) + SW(1H hurtful attack) + FA(switch grip 2H longsword)

{EtA: Occam's Razor: pick one -- a 1H grip for one kind of advantage, or a 2H grip for a different kind -- for the length of your round. Feel free to change for the out-of-turn AoOs.}

Scarab Sages

_Ozy_ wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:
The only thing so far that suggests that a full-round action does not last for (EDIT: your full turn) is the line about being able to take a 5-foot step before, after, or during the full-round action.

Unless your claim is that you can't take free/swift actions after that 5 foot step (or before at the beginning of the round) the fact that you can take 5' steps before, during, or after a full-round action absolutely confirms that you can do the same with free/swift actions.

So, Spell Combat(longsword + shocking grasp) + 5' step + FA(attack)

is perfectly legal, and both the 5' step and the free action attack occur after the full round action.

My claim with regards to the free attack from casting a spell is that it is part of casting the spell. Spell Combat does not end until casting the spell is resolved. If you take the free action attack from casting a spell, then Spell Combat is not over. If Spell Combat is over, then you have already elected to not take the free action attack from casting the spell.

Spellstrike tells us that the free action attack is part of casting the spell.

Spell Combat tells us that casting the spell is part of Spell Combat, which is a full-round action.

So what I am saying is that you cannot take that specific free action after Spell Combat is over, because that specific free action is part of Spell Combat.

Whether or not other free actions and swift actions can be taken after a full-round action is a different question without a clear answer, with the 5-foot step rule being the thing supporting it as possible.


Btw, this came up with a different flavor in the game I'm GMing, where the magus player asked me about using a Glove of Storing to access a metamagic rod, along with his beloved katana, for spell combat. I nixed it. Free hand needed.

I don't even want to see diagrams of FA's and whatnot.

Scarab Sages

You can do this:

Spell Combat (longsword + shocking grasp + 5' step + FA(attack) )

You can do this:

Spell Combat (longsword + shocking grasp + FA (attack) ) + 5' step

You cannot do this:

Spell Combat (longsword + shocking grasp) + 5' step + FA(attack)

And that has nothing to do with whether or not free actions are allowed after a full-round action. It has to do with the free action attack being part of the spell, and the spell being part of spell combat. You can't separate part of the spell from spell combat.


Ferious Thune wrote:

Spellstrike tells us that the free action attack is part of casting the spell.

Spell Combat tells us that casting the spell is part of Spell Combat, which is a full-round action.

So what I am saying is that you cannot take that specific free action after Spell Combat is over, because that specific free action is part of Spell Combat.

Demonstrably false. Spell Combat can be interrupted and ended by getting staggered after you cast the spell. You still have the free action attack even though you are staggered and have no full/standard/move action left during the round.

You are putting far too much weight on what 'part of casting the spell' means. You obtain a 'charged hand/fist' as part of casting the spell, and you can hold this charge indefinitely. That doesn't mean Spell Combat is operational indefinitely. Spell Combat finishes as soon as you finish the full-attack actions included within...casting the spell and making your iteratives.

Quote:
Whether or not other free actions and swift actions can be taken after a full-round action is a different question without a clear answer, with the 5-foot step rule being the thing supporting it as possible.

Um, pretty sure the clear answer is yes. Have you ever been at a table where they prevented a free action after a 5' step following a full round action? I sure haven't.

51 to 100 of 452 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Full Actions + Free Actions All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.