@ Johnny_Devo: So you're saying that they need a rulebook for a rulebook? Is Rulebook-ception really what you're suggesting here? (I'm not saying no, but that there are better ways to accomplish what you want without basically making a manual to read a manual, so I'd rather not resort to that unless we really have to.)well... actually, yes. I think I'm now firmly in the camp of "pathfinder 2.0 needs to happen", but only if they write the rules in a clearly defined manner. What we're seeing here is a lot of "not clearly defined" stuff.
My understanding as to why they haven't gone into an exclusive "This must be done in so-and-so manner using so-and-so terms," is because even if they tried their damnedest to make a flowing and understanding game, they'd still run into the issues we've having. Of course, the more standardly-coherent a game is, the less situations like these pop up, which is always good for product-appreciation, and makes it so that we don't have these core-identity questions come up, but every game will have these issues, and Paizo probably decided "Eh, if it happens, it happens, just write something that looks and sounds cool; the players can sort the bad stuff out for themselves if they don't like it." (Then PFS was invented, and that's when that idealism hit the S#!^-Brick House.)
It's just that a new edition doesn't solve issues like this perfectly, and to be honest, a 2.0 of Pathfinder would still result in identical issues simply because ambiguity is anything and everywhere, in every game, and based on Paizo's rules-writing decisions, those issues will still be present.
I mean, issues like this have cropped up in every version of D&D, and in Pathfinder. So the ideal that a 2.0 will fix it is just flat-out wrong, because 2nd Edition AD&D, 3rd Edition, and 3.X, all tried that, even with changing the system, and it's still resulted in identical problems, either because the system they used has its own problems, or because problems from the old system weren't fixed (or created new problems with the editations and adjustments being made).
So, we can ask for a Pathfinder 2.0 all we want, but is it going to do all of the things we think it will do? It can do some of them, but as far as eliminating the big problems? Doubtful, and unless change is done to either the idealisms of the writers, or simply the writing itself, it's not going to happen, nor would it happen the way we'd intend it to.
|
So, Your contention is that delivering the spell is done as part of the spell (and by presumption, the action required to) being cast. I'll tell you the same thing I told thaX: If the free attack is "part of the spell" in that sense, then my argument of the "Free Action to deliver a Touch spell in the same round" clause still stands, in that it's pointless and does nothing, regardless of Spell Combat being used or not.Delivery of a touch spell is not part of the act of casting the touch spell. Taking the free action resulting from the casting of a touch spell as part of Spell Combat is resolved within the scope of the full-round action during which the spell was cast.
You understand what is being said and are trying to find fault by dissecting semantics of the poster.
Basically this.
So, Your contention is that delivering the spell is done as part of the spell (and by presumption, the action required to) being cast. I'll tell you the same thing I told thaX: If the free attack is "part of the spell" in that sense, then my argument of the "Free Action to deliver a Touch spell in the same round" clause still stands, in that it's pointless and does nothing, regardless of Spell Combat being used or not.Delivery of a touch spell is not part of the act of casting the touch spell. Taking the free action resulting from the casting of a touch spell as part of Spell Combat is resolved within the scope of the full-round action during which the spell was cast.
You understand what is being said and are trying to find fault by dissecting semantics of the poster.
Well, you could've fooled me. The bolded part is a separate idea than "You deliver the spell as part of casting it," which is what I originally gathered from his point. If that wasn't the point being made, then I apologize.
Even so, the restriction itself wouldn't be a point that I have contention with; I already stated in my synopsis post that, if you attempted to deliver a spell during Spell Combat, that the restrictions of Spell Combat (one hand only) would apply. I've never argued this point (though I've argued that applying Spell Combat's restriction to outside of Spell Combat, which can easily be misconstrued in this sense).
The issue right now is proving that Spell Combat lasts for the entirety of your turn. While we have RAW that says so, it does create a lot of awkward rules interactions with questionable intent, meaning the rule itself is questionable at best in its function. Quickened Spells and 5-Foot Steps towards/away from enemies are just two of several that I (and probably several others) can find with the enforcement being contested thus far.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So close... The free action to deliver a touch spell cast with spell combat on the round that spell combat is used will always be part of spell combat no matter when in the round it is delivered. You cannot say "I end spell combat" then "I use the free action to swing my sword with two hands and deliver the touch spell." If you are using the free action in the same round that you cast the spell using spell combat, then you are using spell combat. Whether the free action is done immediately after the spell, after all of your normal attacks, after a swift action, or after a bonus standard action from spending a hero point doesn't matter. Spell Combat is what is responsible for giving you the spell, and the spell is responsible for giving you the free attack, so the free attack cannot exist outside of the context and limitations of spell combat.
No, the reason you (allegedly) can't Free Attack outside of Spell Combat's limitations is because Spell Combat is a Full Round Action, which supposedly lasts for the entirety of your turn, and therefore its restrictions likewise last for the entirety of your turn. That's the reason you originally gave for disallowing it.
That, by extension, also means you can't Quicken Cast (and deliver) a spell on the same round that Spell Combat takes place, nor can you take a 5-foot step towards an enemy or away from an enemy either, since that would invalidate the ability to deliver and make attacks against an enemy throughout the course of your Spell Combat action.
So if you cast a touch spell as a standard action, would that mean that you can't then deliver the free attack two-handed, because the free action still suffers from the limitations of the parent standard action(needing a free hand to provide somatic components)?
So if you cast a touch spell as a standard action, would that mean that you can't then deliver the free attack two-handed, because the free action still suffers from the limitations of the parent standard action(needing a free hand to provide somatic components)?
If he says yes, I'm reposting my argument again...
|
|
Both of those points have been covered by designer comments that I have quoted multiple times in this thread. A magus cannot use two hands to attack in a round in which they use spell combat. If they are not using spell combat, then they can use two hands. There should not be any debate on either of those points. Quote me something, anything, that says otherwise.
Both of those points have been covered by designer comments that I have quoted multiple times in this thread. A magus cannot use two hands to attack in a round in which they use spell combat. If they are not using spell combat, then they can use two hands. There should not be any debate on either of those points. Quote me something, anything, that says otherwise.
We already have (and now the cycle begins anew)!
TWF FAQ says its penalties and restrictions apply for the duration of the action, and doesn't extend to anything beyond the action being taken. This provides the precedent that restrictions of an action apply for the entirety of that action. Case in point, Spell Combat's "free hand" clause.
We said that, if you can use actions outside of the Full Round Action spent for Spell Combat, then you can grip-change and deliver a touch spell cast via Spell Combat as a two-handed Spellstrike.
You then went on with "Because Full Round Action RAW says it takes the entire turn, then it lasts the entire turn, and therefore you can't take actions outside of Spell Combat because of that."
Even if a designer comment says so, it's not official rules. The only thing that is official rules are PDT posts, and FAQ/Errata of existing rules. That's it. Anything else? Not official. Therefore not to be treated as proof of rules.
While designer comments do give us some insight into the intent of how an ability is supposed to function, something more than you or I could offer, a lot of times that intent isn't necessarily reflected in the rules, and when we do bring it to light, it won't be supported simply because the rules say so. Case in point, Bodyguard feat design intent V.S. The FAQ that ruined the feat's intended purpose (into uselessness).
|
|
The TWF FAQ does not say a Magus may use two hands in the same round in which they use spell combat. It also only refers to AoOs. A valid question is whether or not it also applies to swift actions. But neither of those things remove the free action from the context of spell combat. The only thing right now that possibly would do that is the absence of language within spell combat inside a parenthetical that is clarifying that the -2 penalty applies. The absence of language is not proof that the rest of the language of the ability does not apply.
Your argument comes down to they weren't specific enough in their clarifying parenthetical and some other thing in the game (AoOs) does not suffer the restriction. That is not enough compared to the actual text of spell combat, Spellstrike, and multiple designer posts. You can choose to ignore the designer posts for your game if you like. It doesn't change the intent of the rule or that they exist. This is not a freelancer clarifying what they meant. This is the lead designer for the game explaining how the class works.
So I'll leave it the same place I did with _Ozy_. If you honestly believe that you'll ever get an official stance that the free attack is not part of spell combat, then ask for an FAQ and best of luck to you.
I didn't say it did. All I said was that it sets a precedent for an action's restrictions and effects to apply only while the action is being taken, and Spell Combat says nothing to break that precedent.
See, that would be a valid question, except the interpretation for Full Round Actions taking up your entire round means it's not a question. You can't use a Quickened Spell in the same round you TWF unless you have 3 or more hands (or you TWF while having a free hand to fulfill somatic components), and in Spell Combat, you don't get that option, since one hand must be holding a one-handed/light weapon, and the other must be free, doing nothing.
You would need two free hands, one for the feature, and one to fulfill the Quickened Spell. Heck, I could even argue that it would need three free hands if you wanted to Quicken + Spell Combat, since the free hand restriction has nothing to do with fulfilling somatic components for the spell you're proceeding to cast during Spell Combat's spell, and that results in Spell Combat failing upon itself because you can't cast a spell that requires Somatic Components due to the free hand you would use to cast the spell, being occupied for the entirety of Spell Combat (which you've ruled to function for the entire turn, start to finish).
The Free Action context in relation to...what, exactly? The penalty? That's a penalty in relation to an attack allotted by the spell, which may or may not require a Free Action on the caster's part to deliver (see Scorching Ray for one that doesn't require activity on the caster's part to deliver), and as a result is not a restriction of the Free Action to deliver a spell only being usable within Spell Combat. The Spell Combat feature text doesn't say anything else in relation to Free Action Touch Spells, and neither does Spellstrike (except by reaffirming the penalties apply even if you Spellstrike the spell cast via Spell Combat).
Not exactly, my argument comes down to not adhering to the factor that the Full Round Action description is a "start to finish" activity that the RAW says it is. Because, if I did adhere to that, you couldn't deliver Metamagick'd Touch Spells (Intensified Shocking Grasp for one example) in the same round that you cast them, you wouldn't be able to take 5-foot steps in certain situations, and so on.
Let me remind you that the lead designer also stated at some point that Vital Strike was intended to be able to allow characters who make single attacks more powerful, meaning things like Charge, Spring Attack, and similar abilities, would be able to benefit from it. But as written, does it currently do that? No. His intent behind Vital Strike doesn't reflect the way it's written, or how players run it to this day.
Same goes for Shield Master. He stated that the intent behind the feat is that you only add your shield's original bonus as an Enhancement Bonus to Attack and Damage rolls. But as written, does it currently do that? Again, the answer is no, even when he said that it should be errata'd to function as such, and again, to this day, it's still being ran out of the intent he's provided in favor of the RAW that's present.
So, you can spout the Lead Designer quotes all you want. But A. He's been wrong about intent before, and B. he's not the PDT. He's part of it, true. But the PDT isn't just one designer, just like how the Supreme Court isn't one judge.
As for a FAQ, we should make a FAQ thread specially for it, because this makes a large change in the scope of the rules.
Let's assume the DM doesn't impose a restriction on the number of FA (free actions). Assume a Magus character. In each case, the FA, or SW (swift action) is supposed to take place after the designated full-attack action.
Your sentence should read, lets suppose that the DM doesn't impose a limit on free actions, because they don't give a damm about versimilitude, balance, or rules coherence. DMs SHOULD impose limits on a case by case basis.
|
Why isn't this true of delivering a free action touch attack as part of a standard action casting of shocking grasp?So, Your contention is that delivering the spell is done as part of the spell (and by presumption, the action required to) being cast. I'll tell you the same thing I told thaX: If the free attack is "part of the spell" in that sense, then my argument of the "Free Action to deliver a Touch spell in the same round" clause still stands, in that it's pointless and does nothing, regardless of Spell Combat being used or not.Delivery of a touch spell is not part of the act of casting the touch spell. Taking the free action resulting from the casting of a touch spell as part of Spell Combat is resolved within the scope of the full-round action during which the spell was cast.
Because a standard action does not take up the entire round.
You have pointed out the ability to do the standard action casting, move, then deliver in both threads of this subject. You made this thread to separate the main issue in the other, using a free action to change a grip on a weapon to two handed stance to replace the main subject in the other thread. As we have discussed this subject, nothing we have talked about changes this. What we are talking about is using a spell during a full round action, as Spell Combat allows the Magus to do. This is not the usual state of the rules interaction as the Core Rulebook was not written with this type of use in mind. This is why it parallels TWF, replacing the off hand weapon with the spell.
Spell combat is a full round action (aka FULL round)
The free action u get to deliver the spell can only happen WITHIN the same round.
So full round and having to be within the same round, means it's gonna be part of spell combat if that spell ur getting the free action that has to take place within the round of the spell being cast. If u take it outside spell combat of the same round, then it's no longer a free action since spell combat is a FULL round.
So if you cast a touch spell as a standard action, would that mean that you can't then deliver the free attack two-handed, because the free action still suffers from the limitations of the parent standard action(needing a free hand to provide somatic components)?
No
The standard action used to cast the spell ends with the spell being cast and, unlike spell combat, places no limits on what the caster can do for the remainder of the round.
TWF FAQ says its penalties and restrictions apply for the duration of the action, and doesn't extend to anything beyond the action being taken. This provides the precedent that restrictions of an action apply for the entirety of that action. Case in point, Spell Combat's "free hand" clause.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
We have a FAQ that say TWF works in X manner and Spell Combat works in Y manner.
Citing the FAQ for TWF when discussing Spell Combat is pointless. The FAQ for Spell Combat is more specific to the rules question, i.e. it does not matter what the TWF FAQ says when we have FAQs specific to Spell Combat that resolve the issue.
TLDR: specific > general
I've been following these threads for a while now, and I guess I find myself even more confused about what can and can't be done. This is particularly pertinent as my latest character is a sorcerer/DD who uses a bastard sword as his main weapon. I had assumed that I could do a full attack action, and use his quicken/empowered/intensified shocking grasp (spell perfection is a wonderful thing) after releasing his two handed grip on the sword to a) cast the spell and b) deliver the attack. And assuming he hit to once again resume his two handed grip on the sword. No spell combat, no two weapon fighting. But it seems like some are clearly in the camp that since the full attack last the entirety of the round and is being done with a two handed weapon stance then he can't actually do this because he has no free hand.
So does even this simplified sequence fail as well?
I've been following these threads for a while now, and I guess I find myself even more confused about what can and can't be done. This is particularly pertinent as my latest character is a sorcerer/DD who uses a bastard sword as his main weapon. I had assumed that I could do a full attack action, and use his quicken/empowered/intensified shocking grasp (spell perfection is a wonderful thing) after releasing his two handed grip on the sword to a) cast the spell and b) deliver the attack. And assuming he hit to once again resume his two handed grip on the sword. No spell combat, no two weapon fighting. But it seems like some are clearly in the camp that since the full attack last the entirety of the round and is being done with a two handed weapon stance then he can't actually do this because he has no free hand.
So does even this simplified sequence fail as well?
Since the spell is quickened, and you're not doing spell combat, you can pull this off. You can do your full attack sequence and either before or after cast your spell and use your free touch attack. (since you don't have the spell strike feature you can not channel this through a free sword attack.)
|
|
The casting time of a swift action allows you to do what you are doing, Agodeshalf, during the full round action to take your attacks. The main focus on this issue comes from Spell Combat, which has actions (attacks) that use both hands.
The other thread adds the (debated allowed) use of a feat to the equation.
No, he's correct that that sequence would also be illegal by your examples. Because he is making a full attack (full-round action) that uses both hands (two-hander), it's the exact same situation.
We have a FAQ that say TWF works in X manner and Spell Combat works in Y manner.
Can I get a link to that? I did a real quick search of the word "spell combat" and only found a bunch of FAQs that basically break spell combat down into "Full-Attack + a spell", which doesn't say anything one way or the other.
@thaX - But if the conditions of a full-round action persist for the duration of my turn, then I have no hand to cast the spell. If you allow free/swift actions to change the conditions of the full-round action then it seems to me that you could state that the free action granted by the spell in spell combat could be acted on after spell combat "finished" with a different set of conditions.
|
|
In your example above, you are not using Spell Combat with your Sorcerer/DD. Spell Combst is the specific ability possessed by the Magus. There is no restriction when making a full-attack that you need to keep both hands on your weapon at all times. You can, in fact, actually use two different weapons, one of which requires two hands and one of which doesn't (EDIT: for iterative attacks, not for Two-Weapon Fighting). Nothing that Thax has said (in this thread, don't know about others) changes anything about how the example you provided works.
Spell Combat, the Magus ability, has additional language above and beyond that of a full-attack, which requires you to have a hand free.
|
|
No, he's correct that that sequence would also be illegal by your examples. Because he is making a full attack (full-round action) that uses both hands (two-hander), it's the exact same situation.
The difference between Spell Combat and a Quickened spell is the point, here. You can take the swift action after you use your attacks within that full round action to attack with the spell. Changing the grip on a weapon isn't prevented once the attacks are done.
Spell Combat casts the spell as an off hand use, just as the extra attack uses the off hand weapon in TWF. Quicken Spell is cast as a swift action and can be used as such.
The situation is an extra attack that is gained. Spell Combat is as part of a Full Round Action, Quickened as a swift.
A part of the confusion here comes from the casting time of the spell, a difference between spell uses a standard action (becoming a part of a Full Round Action in Spell Combat) from one that is cast as a swift or immediate action. Because of the Melee touch attack that is focused on here, that difference is being forgotten.
|
|
To all those who insist that actions can not be taken 'outside' of a full-round action because a full round 'takes up your whole round'...
You do realize that you can cast a quickened spell before you even decide what you want to do for your full round action.
Right?
Sure, then you can declare a full round action that would take up the rest of the round, such as Spell Combat. That doesn't change anything.
Spell Combat is not changing anything, they are tying the mechanics of TWF to the ability to specifically not to. The spell is being used in a way that it normally not available to the spell caster. Changing the casting time of the spell from standard to off hand use is clearly the intent of how the spell interacts in the Spell Combat ability. To separate the casting from the effects of the spell is splitting hairs, purposefully trying to gain a benefit not otherwise available. Now, that advantage would be more toward the situation in the other thread than here, as this only is concerned (mostly) with the sequence of actions with the Free Action Attack gained from the spell.
But how is suffering from the requirements of spell combat (need a hand free, one weapon in other hand) fundamentally different from the requirements of casting a spell(need a hand free to provide somatic components) in the first place?
If you don't normally have to observe all the requirements of the spell's action for the sake of all the spell's effects, why do you have to observe all the requirements for spell combat for the sake of the spell's effects?
Yes, I changed the scenario but it was in some sense an attempt at simplifying the question of how the action economy actually works. I had always assumed that there was a theoretical gap during and after the full round actions that permitted the use of swift/free actions. Notably swift actions take <some> amount of time, more than free but less than a standard. Given that there is such a gap, and that it can exist in one of three times (before, during and after) in a full round action, it seems odd to state that the restrictions triggered by the full round action effects those actions occurring in those gaps.
If you state that there is no such gap, and that those swift/free actions are occurring *during* that full round action then maybe it all ties up neatly in a bow but I suspect that there are issues with that interpretation as well.
|
|
But how is suffering from the requirements of spell combat (need a hand free, one weapon in other hand) fundamentally different from the requirements of casting a spell(need a hand free to provide somatic components) in the first place?
If you don't normally have to observe all the requirements of the spell's action for the sake of all the spell's effects, why do you have to observe all the requirements for spell combat for the sake of the spell's effects?
Because casting a spell only requires a free hand while casting the spell. Spell Combat requires a free hand for all actions performed as part of Spell Combat.
We're really going in circles on this, so I'm going to drop out of the conversation. If someone wants to create a FAQ worthy post I'll click for the FAQ.
But how is suffering from the requirements of spell combat (need a hand free, one weapon in other hand) fundamentally different from the requirements of casting a spell(need a hand free to provide somatic components) in the first place?
If you don't normally have to observe all the requirements of the spell's action for the sake of all the spell's effects, why do you have to observe all the requirements for spell combat for the sake of the spell's effects?
Because casting a spell only requires a free hand while casting the spell. Spell Combat requires a free hand for all actions performed as part of Spell Combat.
We're really going in circles on this, so I'm going to drop out of the conversation. If someone wants to create a FAQ worthy post I'll click for the FAQ.
That's a good point, but this raises another question for me.
How is the free action fundamentally separate from the standard action to cast the spell, but not from the full-action spell combat?
|
|
But how is suffering from the requirements of spell combat (need a hand free, one weapon in other hand) fundamentally different from the requirements of casting a spell(need a hand free to provide somatic components) in the first place?
If you don't normally have to observe all the requirements of the spell's action for the sake of all the spell's effects, why do you have to observe all the requirements for spell combat for the sake of the spell's effects?
From what your trying to say here, there is a disconnect between our views. Both situations (two handed a weapon then casting a Quickened spell or using Spell Combat with a weapon and an off hand spell) are not the same, one is using a swift action casting time that can be used before or after the attack while the other is using a part of the Full Round action to cast the spell in the off hand, this being replaced by the standard action normally used by the ability.
The Free Action to shift the grip of the weapon can be taken after the attacks are over, within the confines of the Full Round Action, and the freed up hand can cast the (Swift Action) Quickened spell. Spell Combat, however, has that off hand being used to cast that spell. It has been noted earlier by me and others that after the attacks are done (Weapon and Spell), the free action to two hand the weapon can be done, still a part of the full round action, to effect Two Handed AoO's after the turn completes.
|
|
But how is suffering from the requirements of spell combat (need a hand free, one weapon in other hand) fundamentally different from the requirements of casting a spell(need a hand free to provide somatic components) in the first place?
If you don't normally have to observe all the requirements of the spell's action for the sake of all the spell's effects, why do you have to observe all the requirements for spell combat for the sake of the spell's effects?
Because casting a spell only requires a free hand while casting the spell. Spell Combat requires a free hand for all actions performed as part of Spell Combat.
We're really going in circles on this, so I'm going to drop out of the conversation. If someone wants to create a FAQ worthy post I'll click for the FAQ.
That's a good point, but this raises another question for me.
How is the free action fundamentally separate from the standard action to cast the spell, but not from the full-action spell combat?
I keep getting drawn back into this conversation, but you've asked a new question, so I'll give it another try.
You can separate the free attack from the standard action to cast the spell because the rules specifically say that you can. But the free action is still granted by the spell. It is still part of the spell, even if it is not part of the standard action to cast the spell.
When you are performing Spell Combat, you are a) casting a spell and b) making a full-attack. Those two things occur as part of spell combat. You cannot separate the spell from spell combat, and you cannot separate the full-attack from spell combat. You cannot do either of those things, because there is no specific rule telling you that you can. They are being done as part of Spell Combat. And when you make that free attack, you are delivering the spell. It is part of the spell.
So you can separate the free attack from the casting of the spell, but you can't separate the actual spell from spell combat. You are using spell combat when you make the free attack, and while using spell combat you must have one hand free and be wielding a light or one-handed weapon in the other hand.
I know the counter is going to be someone claiming that you can separate the free attack from spell combat and that the free attack is not part of the spell. That's happened a half dozen times at least in this thread. I'd ask the next person to do so to cite an actual rule supporting that claim that actually mentions Spell Combat would be nice.
More busy bees. Time to respond...
@ Agodeshalf: Per RAW, the Full Attack Action takes place for the entirety of your turn, but within a generic Full Attack sequence, you can perform Swift and Free actions as you wish. The argument that everyone makes for TWF/Spell Combat is that those Full Round Actions have special restrictions that apply for the entirety of your turn, and anything that breaks those restrictions can't be done.
If it were at my table, I'd allow it, either for TWF, Spell Combat, or whatever. All I'll tell you right now is that at most tables, people are going to look at you funny and throw the book at you because [reasons].
@ Drahlianna Moonrunner: That makes no sense. If a Full Round Action, per RAW, has a duration equal to the round's duration (which is stated to be 6 seconds), then at no point during that round (or to be more precise, your turn) are you able to make a Swift/Free Action outside of the Full Round Action. That being said, there's no issue to do so during a regular Full Attack Action, since no restrictions are being applied there (well, outside of an enemy being within your melee reach for the entire round, but that's a whole other can of worms).
The only language that Spell Combat has pertinent in relation to hands needed is one free hand, and one wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon. That's it. No other language in the ability gives the issue that's being discussed. In fact, the issue mostly stems from the general rules regarding Full Round Actions taking the entire round (AKA your turn) to accomplish, therefore allowing things even as simple as shifting grip when performing things like TWF or Spell Combat to be impossible.
@ Snowlilly: Hear that? That's the sound of the point I was making going right over your head.
The point of me mentioning that FAQ isn't to liken TWF to Spell Combat. (At least, not directly).
The FAQ states that TWF's penalties and restrictions apply for as long as you are performing TWF. That sort of logic can likewise be applied to all other actions, in that any penalties or restrictions of a given action last for as long as the action is being taken (unless specified otherwise).
The thing is, TWF is a Full Round Action. Therefore, its penalties and restrictions apply for the entirety of your turn. If you're allotted attacks through other methods (such as the Hurtful combination, for example), those likewise suffer the same penalties and restrictions, because those subjects are taking place within the same duration as the Full Round Action.
In this case, Spell Combat is likewise a Full Round Action, has penalties (-2 to all your attacks, even ones granted through spells), and restrictions (one-handed/light melee weapon and free hand only), and based on the arguments everyone has given so far (and what the RAW says), those last for the entirety of your turn. Therefore, the restrictions of Free/Swift Actions taking during your turn suffer the same restrictions and penalties (meaning no two-handing a free Hurtful attack, or being able to Quicken Cast a spell, as your free hand is being used for Spell Combat).
I'll gladly point out that in order for a Magus to use Spell Combat, per RAW, he'd have to cast a spell without somatic components, because nothing in Spell Combat says the free hand required fulfills somatic components for spells required, and because that hand is occupied for the entirety of the round for performing Spell Combat...
The same argument can be made for someone who wants to do both Metamagic and Quicken a spell; they'd require two hands to fulfill the components for each spell (assuming somatic is required, which it usually is), because the Metamagic spell (a Full Round Action) requires your hand to be free for the entire round, and the Quicken spell can only ever be cast during the casting of your Metamagic spell.
Conjoining the Quicken Spell with Spell Combat, you'd need three free hands (and one wielding a light/one-handed melee weapon). One for fulfilling Spell Combat's requirements. One for the somatic components of the spell you cast with Spell Combat. One for the somatic components of the Quicken spell you want to cast.
Unintended or not, based on the ruling provided, that's what I come up with. Congratulations, the Magus is a class that can't function and fails upon itself when we take the rules into that context, which is precisely why I'm against the whole "Full Round Actions take your entire turn to complete" argument. Even if it's RAW, it's questionable RAI.
@ thaX: No, what's allowing him to do it in the context of a regular Full Attack Action is that he has no restrictions to follow, meaning he can switch grips on his sword to cast and deliver spells without issue. If it was TWF or Spell Combat, he'd be violating those restrictions and therefore wouldn't be able to do it.
Also, are you REALLY suggesting that a generic Full Attack Action lets a character cast and deliver a Quickened Spell AFTER the events of a Full Round Action, but letting a character deliver a spell cast from Spell Combat, which is likewise a Full Round Action (and considered a Full Attack Action) is something that the rules would consider taboo? If you are, that's quite the hypocritical statement to say.
@ _Ozy_: To answer the question you posed in their interpretation - No, he can't two-hand the Bastard Sword per the unwritten rule regarding TWF, for starters. In addition, the Sorcerer/DD can't Spellstrike the spell in question, so that's outright discounted. Of course, he does suffer TWF penalties, because delivering the spell takes place during TWF (and can't be delivered outside of TWF per the Full Round Action RAW), and therefore its penalties apply.
@ Ferious Thune: Except nothing in the Spell Combat text says that the Free Hand fulfills the activities needed, such as fulfilling somatic components for the spell you cast in Spell Combat. It's well assumed, that much is true, but per RAW, you'd need two free hands; one for fulfilling somatic components, and one for fulfilling Spell Combat's requirements, unless you cast a spell that doesn't require somatic components (or employ Still spells, but that's impossible for Spell Combat unless through Arcanas).
The Free Action to shift the grip of the weapon can be taken after the attacks are over, within the confines of the Full Round Action, and the freed up hand can cast the (Swift Action) Quickened spell. Spell Combat, however, has that off hand being used to cast that spell. It has been noted earlier by me and others that after the attacks are done (Weapon and Spell), the free action to two hand the weapon can be done, still a part of the full round action, to effect Two Handed AoO's after the turn completes.
Um, no. Just, no.
You can't two-hand a weapon with Spell Combat or TWF until your turn is over, as their restrictions still apply until your turn is finished per RAW, and once your turn is over, you can't do anything except actions that say you can do so outside your turn (of which grip-switching isn't listed as being one of them), or Immediate Actions. (Readied Actions too, but that's beside the point.)
So no, you can't grip-switch after your action's effects are resolved, because your action's effects aren't considered resolved (and their restrictions/penalties lifted) until your turn is over.
Sure, Full Attack Actions in general can do this, but only during the Full Attack Action, and it's absolutely not possible for things like TWF or Spell Combat. So, during? Sure. But after or before? No f!@#ing way.
I'd ban a player from my game if he pulled this kind of contradicting munchkining shenanigans.
|
|
_Ozy_ what you have quoted is this:
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn (see FAQ below for more information.)
Nowhere in that rule does it say that you may separate the free action from the full-round action of spell combat. Nowhere in that rule does it state that you may separate a spell cast as part of spell combat from spell combat. And nowhere in that rule does it state that you are not using spell combat when you are delivering a spell cast during spel combat. What it does say is that you can "take your move" in between the standard to cast and delivering the spell. "Take your move" does not equal "end spell combat." What it also says is that you get the free action to deliver the spell in the same round that you cast it. Those two things do not add up to the free action being separate from spell combat.
So again, if that is true, find me something, anywhere, with spell combat being discussed where either a rule, a developer, or a designer states that the free action to deliver the touch spell can be taken outside of spell combat.
|
|
The Free Action to shift the grip of the weapon can be taken after the attacks are over, within the confines of the Full Round Action, and the freed up hand can cast the (Swift Action) Quickened spell. Spell Combat, however, has that off hand being used to cast that spell. It has been noted earlier by me and others that after the attacks are done (Weapon and Spell), the free action to two hand the weapon can be done, still a part of the full round action, to effect Two Handed AoO's after the turn completes.Um, no. Just, no.
You can't two-hand a weapon with Spell Combat or TWF until your turn is over, as their restrictions still apply until your turn is finished per RAW, and once your turn is over, you can't do anything except actions that say you can do so outside your turn (of which grip-switching isn't listed as being one of them), or Immediate Actions. (Readied Actions too, but that's beside the point.)
Wait... This is what I have been saying the entire thread and you have been arguing against. All that I have been saying is that you cannot two hand a weapon with spell combat. What have we been arguing about? You understand that this is exactly what _Ozy_ is claiming can be done, right?