Full Actions + Free Actions


Rules Questions

251 to 300 of 452 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

If they don't separate the free action from the full-round action, why does it yet separate the free action from the standard action? By your argument, it doesn't even say you separate the free action from the standard action of casting the spell; it just says you can take the move first if you want.

Logically, this would mean that you are, in fact, prevented from two-handing your weapon on the delivery of your standard action spell, assuming you needed a hand free for somatic components.

My personal stake in this part of the argument is focused on this distinction: Because the rules for touch spells make the delivery of the touch spell into a separate action, it is a separate action from the parent action by all definitions. If they wanted the delivery of the spell to be bound by the same restrictions of the parent action, they need not have made it into a free action at all, and they could have just said "As part of casting the spell, you may also touch(or attempt to touch). You may take your move between casting the spell and touching the target."


Ferious Thune wrote:

_Ozy_ what you have quoted is this:

Quote:

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.

Please explain this difference to me in the rules then:

Quote:

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.

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.

What does it mean that ranged touch spells do not require a separate action if normal touch spells also do not require a separate action?

Can you explain why this deliberately different wording exists, and what it means?


Ferious Thune wrote:


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?

I think he's presenting his argument in a "if this were true, then..." manner.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Ok, here that Darksol... That's the sound of the point I was making going right over your head.

The think your getting stuck on is the casting of the spell. If Spell Combat was not being used, why would we concentrate on it's particulars to parse out rules for something else?

"free actions can be used at any time." This has been quoted many times in both threads. Spell Combat does not change this, the spell is used as a part of this ability and the free action attack is a part of the whole attack that the character is doing, this does not change what you can do with free actions and a swift action in general.

You can full attack with a two handed sword, change your grip, and then cast a quickened spell, as a swift action!

Now, you are looking at both these situations the same, ignoring the casting time of the spell (1 standard action) because {reasons}

Having that standard action be an off hand casting instead does not change the spell, nor does it allow for an attack as if using a swift action casting time. The difference is the full round action, which Spell Combat ties the spell to as an off hand weapon.

If you have a weapon, you attack with it, yes? What is the difference between this and TWF? This is where the confusion lays in your reasoning, that somehow, everything works like so and the other rules that have been stated and referenced here are ignored.


Obviously it seems Spell Combat is far too complicated to use as a foundation for discussing how full actions work with free actions, so I move that we change the focus to TWF for now.


Quote:
Having that standard action be an off hand casting instead does not change the spell, nor does it allow for an attack as if using a swift action casting time. The difference is the full round action, which Spell Combat ties the spell to as an off hand weapon.

If you're going to keep bringing that up without addressing the point I made in the other thread, I'll bring up my point again.

If you insist that spell combat is treating the spell as some sort of off-hand weapon or off-hand "attack action", then you also must rule that spell combat does not work with dervish dance. If you agree that by those rules, dervish dance does not work, then we have a fundamental disagreement of the rules that can't be resolved except by FAQ.

Kinda my view of this whole thread, really.


Darksol has made a very good case of summarizing the arguments of those in support of the Full Round action taking the whole round (like I do). Doesn't mean he believes that's the correct one(hence the comment about magus being broken by the components requirements and all), but I think he understand the reasoning behind it.

Ozy has made a good description throughout this thread why he believes otherwise. I believe we need a specific FAQ for that as I understand both sides and like you indicated earlier, this thread is starting to turn in circle because people strongly believe in their arguments...

I think a Faq request or question to be Faqed should be created like:

Can you take Free actions and Swift actions before and after a Full round action, or you can't because by definition a full round action take the entire turns? (knowing that Free and swift actions can be taken within the Full round action)


Cuttler wrote:
Darksol has made a very good case of summarizing the arguments of those in support of the Full Round action taking the whole round (like I do). Doesn't mean he believes that's the correct one(hence the comment about magus being broken by the components requirements and all), but I think he understand the reasoning behind it.

Whether or not it 'takes the whole round' isn't really the question. It's whether or not you can use an action that takes 0 time before or after that action that 'takes the whole round'.

For example, a Sorcerer can cast a metamagic spell as a 'full-round' action. That sorcerer can also cast a quickened spell in the same round.

So, unless you're claiming the sorcerer is casting two spells at the same time, the quickened spell has to be cast either before or after the full-round action.

It can't be during.

How can you possibly argue otherwise?

Scarab Sages

_Ozy_ wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:

_Ozy_ what you have quoted is this:

Quote:

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.

Please explain this difference to me in the rules then:...

Because with a ranged touch spell you can't take your move between casting the spell and delivering it.

If you want to take Spell Combat out of the discussion, then concede that you cannot receive 1 1/2x STR on the free attack made from casting a spell in Spell Combat. Otherwise as long as your interpretation of the rules allows for that, the. Spell Combat is part of the discussion. Because you've made clear if the rule is the way you present it, then you should be allowed to two-hand for that free action.

I do not know whether or not a full round action was meant to take a full round or not. I do know that the rules say that it does take a full round. I also know there are some contradictions to that. So rather than trying to twist spell combat around even more than it already is, why don't you ask the simple question, what actions can be performed after a full round action? Or better yet, does a full-round action take a full round as stated in the core rule book, or may actions be performed on your round before the full-round action has started, or after it has ended?


Ferious Thune wrote:
Because with a ranged touch spell you can't take your move between casting the spell and delivering it.

Well yeah, because touch spells gives you a separate free action. So, now you agree? I mean, why were you asking for quotes then? This had already been pointed out.

Now, what words in Spell Combat say that you no longer receive a separate free action?

Quote:
If you want to take Spell Combat out of the discussion, then concede that you cannot receive 1 1/2x STR on the free attack made from casting a spell in Spell Combat. Otherwise as long as your interpretation of the rules allows for that, the. Spell Combat is part of the discussion. Because you've made clear if the rule is the way you present it, then you should be allowed to two-hand for that free action.

I want to take Spell Combat out of the equation because I think it is too complicated for people like you and Thax to discuss properly. So no, I'm not 'conceding' anything other than it's a waste of time to talk to you guys about it when the real focus of the thread was supposed to be how free actions interact with full round actions.

Quote:
I do not know whether or not a full round action was meant to take a full round or not. I do know that the rules say that it does take a full round. I also know there are some contradictions to that. So rather than trying to twist spell combat around even more than it already is, why don't you ask the simple question, what actions can be performed after a full round action? Or better yet, does a full-round action take a full round as stated in the core rule book, or may actions be performed on your round before the full-round action has started, or after it has ended?

The answer is free & swift actions. But the question goes further than that. Are the conditions applied during the full-round action 'in play' for the round outside of the action, or only during the full-round action in question.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It is not complicated, it is only being made to be that way.

Without Spell Combat, the only way to cast a spell during a full attack with weapons is via Swift action, either a spell that normally has a swift action to cast, or immediate, or using the metamagic feat Quicken Spell. (which I assumed, from responses, that the example caster is doing through an ability)

Someone said that they thought the round went through segments. That is how the book is written, through what actions you can take and how they are done. First, it goes through what the actions are.

It has this paragraph that explains a lot.

Core Rulebook wrote:

In a normal round, you can perform a standard action

and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action.
You can also perform one swift action and one or more
free actions. You can always take a move action in place of
a standard action.

So it is assumed that you replace the standard and move with the full-round action. A full Attack is one of those full-round actions that can be done.

So, a paladin can full attack with his greatsword, change his grip, then lay on hands to heal himself as a swift. Agreed?

So, a fighter/sorcerer can full attack with his greatsword, change his grip, then cast a quickened spell as a swift. Agreed?

So a magus uses Spell Combat as a full round action, takes his attacks (Weapon and Spell), then can cast a second Quickened spell as a swift. Agreed?

The discussion seems to focus on that "free action attack" that a spell gives to a character after the casting of the spell and what can be done with it. It is used as a part of the full round action, it isn't a swift or immediate casting time, so it is used as a part of the action that created it.

So, casting as a standard, you can still move before using the spell's effects through the attack, likely to get into range to deliver the effects. This never changes. What changes in Spell Combat is how the spell is cast, in the off hand, instead of a standard. This is why the use of the parallel of TWF is within the description of Spell Combat.


thaX wrote:

It is not complicated, it is only being made to be that way.

I'm convinced that you don't understand it. And I wouldn't be surprised if you felt the same about me.

So if either of us are correct, then my statement about it being too complicated stands. At least for this particular discussion.

A sorcerer can cast a full-round action metamagic spell + a quickened spell. Agreed?

Is he casting two spells at the same time, or one after the other?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Johnny_Devo wrote:
Quote:
Having that standard action be an off hand casting instead does not change the spell, nor does it allow for an attack as if using a swift action casting time. The difference is the full round action, which Spell Combat ties the spell to as an off hand weapon.

If you're going to keep bringing that up without addressing the point I made in the other thread, I'll bring up my point again.

If you insist that spell combat is treating the spell as some sort of off-hand weapon or off-hand "attack action", then you also must rule that spell combat does not work with dervish dance. If you agree that by those rules, dervish dance does not work, then we have a fundamental disagreement of the rules that can't be resolved except by FAQ.

Kinda my view of this whole thread, really.

Do you consider a held charge an occupied hand? The only thing about the held charge that the character is considered is "armed." It says nothing about occupying the hand. I don't think this changes with Spell Combat, the off hand casts the spell for a moment and it, as you said, has been agreed that Dervish Dance and Spell Combat work together.

I know of one feat that I don't think works with Spell Combat, but have deliberately avoided naming it in this thread.


If Dervish Dance works with Spell Combat, then the spell can't be 'an off-hand weapon'.


Ferious Thune wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
thaX wrote:
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?

Well, that's the stance I still take; that is, Full Round Actions don't take the entirety of your round, and that if you complete a Full Round Action, with the ability to take other actions, that you can take said other actions outside of the Full Round Action you took for your turn (and therefore don't suffer any restrictions or penalties associated).

But that doesn't mean that I can't follow the interpretation your stance takes, and extend that to thaX's argument, who likewise shares your stance and interpretation, and prove an irregularity amongst the interpretation that's being demonstrated. (That's basically what I've been doing this whole time, since we've otherwise met an impasse since the Full Round Action RAW was presented.)

The reason for that here, is to point out the hypocrisy of not allowing a Free Action outside of a Full Round Action in one instance, but allow it in another, which is precisely what thaX just did; by saying you can't deliver a Touch Spell (as a Free Action) outside of the action regarding Spell Combat, but you can two-hand a weapon (as a Free Action) outside of the action regarding Spell Combat.

@ thaX: Stating how you made a hypocritical analysis of your interpretation doesn't mean that I missed the point you were making. In fact, all that does is demonstrate how poorly of a point you made when, as it stands, you contradict the very argument you're making, and you don't even see what the contradiction is.

Let me take it from the top. You said that I can't deliver a Touch Spell as a Free Action outside of Spell Combat, because Spell Combat is still going for the entirety of my turn, right. You're still saying that, I presume.

You then say that I can switch grip as a Free Action outside of Spell Combat, even though Spell Combat (and by relation, its restrictions and penalties) are still going for the entirety of my turn.

Therefore, you can't two-hand the weapon until Spell Combat (and by relation, your turn) is done, because if you do, you invalidate the requirements set forth by Spell Combat in the same exact manner as trying to deliver a Free Touch Spell outside of Spell Combat.


_Ozy_ wrote:


Whether or not it 'takes the whole round' isn't really the question. It's whether or not you can use an action that takes 0 time before or after that action that 'takes the whole round'.

For example, a Sorcerer can cast a metamagic spell as a 'full-round' action. That sorcerer can also cast a quickened spell in the same round.

So, unless you're claiming the sorcerer is casting two spells at the same time, the quickened spell has to be cast either before or after the full-round action.

It can't be during.

How can you possibly argue otherwise?

good point Ozy... For the Free actions, since they are defined as taking no time, I recognize that it might be possible before or after the Full Round action.

(BTW, as a side note, it is interesting to see that on their website: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/combat.html
Paizo defines Free actions as also consuming a very small amount of time and not no time at all like in the books!!)

But for the Swift, they are defined as consuming a very small amount of time, therefore could not be taken before or after according to the definition of Full round action.

As for the metamagic spell, as a full round action you would make your metamagic spell, but since you are allowed a swift action in your round, then RAW would allow you to make a quickened spell before of after your metamagic spell within the Full round action, and thus within any confine that such an action would impose (in this case none, but for spellCombat it would...)


Quote:
It is used as a part of the full round action, it isn't a swift or immediate casting time, so it is used as a part of the action that created it.

What relevance does the casting time of the spell have on this? The spell is cast as part of spell combat, yes. Nobody is disagreeing with that.

However, the act of delivering the spell is a free action. Because it is its own action, it is by definition not "part of"(in terms of use limitations) the parent spell.

I re-iterate: To argue that the free action to deliver the spell is inherently still part of the action made to cast the spell is to argue that the free action suffers from all of the limitations of that action.

The repercussions are as follows:
1) You cannot two-hand the free action to deliver the spell when using spell combat because spell combat requires one hand free
2) You cannot two-hand the free action to deliver the spell when using a standard action to cast a spell because the spell requires a hand be free to provide somatic components.
3) The free action suffers all of the penalties and restrictions of the parent action without needing to specify that it does, because it is inherently part of the parent action.

Now, because there is precedent that actions do not normally suffer the penalties and restrictions of other actions, and because spell combat and spellstrike have to specify that the free action does suffer from the penalties of spell combat, it logically follows that it does not otherwise suffer from the restrictions of spell combat.

EDIT: Does it qualify for developer input when thread 1 + thread 2 = 1000+ posts?


No, I think Thax's point is that Spell Combat changes the mechanics of touch spells, such that your free action is no longer a 'separate' action, but is innately tied to your full round action.

Even though you still can use the free action if your full round action is interrupted and voided.

Yeah, I still can't make sense of the argument.

Scarab Sages

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
thaX wrote:
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?

Well, that's the stance I still take; that is, Full Round Actions don't take the entirety of your round, and that if you complete a Full Round Action, with the ability to take other actions, that you can take said other actions outside of the Full Round Action you took for your turn (and therefore don't suffer any restrictions or penalties associated).

But that doesn't mean that I can't follow the interpretation your stance takes, and extend that to thaX's argument, who likewise shares your stance and interpretation, and prove an irregularity amongst the interpretation that's being demonstrated. (That's basically what I've been doing this whole time, since we've otherwise met an impasse since the...

No. I am saying that you cannot two-hand a weapon for an attack made as a result of spell combat, because spell combat says that you can't. And because Jason Bulmahn has said that you can't. Those things are true regardless of whether or not you can take other actions after Spell Combat has ended. The free action is part of the spell. The spell is part of spell combat. You cannot use two hands while making that free attack. If you are making that free attack, then you are using spell combat.

I am separately saying that the core rulebook defines a full-round action as taking the entire round. It's not ambiguous in that definition. That affects other things, and that may not have been the intent (EDIT: And there are contradictory statements in other sections), but spell combat is spell combat, and you cannot use two hands with spell combat.


Ferious Thune wrote:
No. I am saying that you cannot two-hand a weapon for an attack made as a result of spell combat, because spell combat says that you can't.

You have failed to provide the RAW where Spell Combat changes the game mechanics of touch spells, so this statement is entirely your own invention.


Cuttler wrote:

As for the metamagic spell, as a full round action you would make your metamagic spell, but since you are allowed a swift action in your round, then RAW would allow you to make a quickened spell before of after your metamagic spell within the Full round action, and thus within any confine that such an action would impose (in this case none, but for spellCombat it would...)

You can't possibly cast a quickened spell 'within' a full-round action of casting a metamagic spell because that would be casting two spells at the same time. Either you're casting the quickened spell before, thus you haven't started the full-round action yet. Or you wait until after you're done casting the metamagic spell, and the full-round action is over.

Again, once the activity listed as a full-round action is complete (sorcerer casting a metamagic spell) the action is done.

Btw, you can use a swift action anytime you can use a free action, so effectively they both use 0 time.

Scarab Sages

_Ozy_ wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:
No. I am saying that you cannot two-hand a weapon for an attack made as a result of spell combat, because spell combat says that you can't.
You have failed to provide the RAW where Spell Combat changes the game mechanics of touch spells, so this statement is entirely your own invention.

And here we go again...

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.

I'm going to exit the conversation again, and probably hide this thread, so I'm not tempted to rejoin. Once more, if you believe that you can get 1 1/2x STR on the free attack from Spell Combat, then ask for the FAQ, and best of luck to you.


Ferious Thune wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:
No. I am saying that you cannot two-hand a weapon for an attack made as a result of spell combat, because spell combat says that you can't.
You have failed to provide the RAW where Spell Combat changes the game mechanics of touch spells, so this statement is entirely your own invention.

And here we go again...

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.
I'm going to exit the conversation again, and probably hide this thread, so I'm not tempted to rejoin. Once more, if you believe that you can get 1 1/2x STR on the free attack from Spell Combat, then ask for the FAQ, and best of luck to you.

Good, because dev commentary is not only not RAW, it's can actually be even wrong, as a 2H STR Magus primarily using Spellstrike is a valid option, especially at lower levels.

And if you think this is only, or even mostly about 1.5x STR on a single free action out of a full round of attacks and spell casting, then you've missed the entire point of the thread, so sticking around probably isn't going to help you any.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Stuff

Again, you are the one that is changing things, not I.

Can we get to the basics?

me! wrote:


So, a paladin can full attack with his greatsword, change his grip, then lay on hands to heal himself as a swift. Agreed?

So, a fighter/sorcerer can full attack with his greatsword, change his grip, then cast a quickened spell as a swift. Agreed?

So a magus uses Spell Combat as a full round action, takes his attacks (Weapon and Spell), then can cast a second Quickened spell as a swift. Agreed?

So, can we agree with this much? No? Yes? Lets move on...

The original quote is about using the spell in combat. Melee touch attacks (such as one provided by Shocking Grasp) are used to deliver the spell effects to a target. As stated in the rules, one can take the standard action, cast the spell, then move to the target and use the touch attack.

Is this being questioned? No.

In a full round action, the whole of the action is taken up the character's turn. (The Full Round) This includes attacks and other things done during that action/round.

This seems lost once we get into a free action use, such as Lay On Hands or switching the grip of a weapon.

Then we get into spell combat that changes the casting mechanics of the spell to being used as an off hand weapon. For those who came in on this, I will post this ability here.

Quote:

Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells

and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much
like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell
that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one
hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic
components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee
weapon in the other hand. As a full-round action, he can make
all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and
can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting
time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this
spell also takes this penalty). If he casts this spell defensively,
he can decide to take an additional penalty on his attack rolls,
up to his Intelligence bonus, and add the same amount as a
circumstance bonus on his concentration check. If the check
fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still take the penalty.
A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon
attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot
cast the spell between weapon attacks.

Now, TWF gives an extra attack from the off hand. This specifically says that the spell can be cast before or after the attacks, but not during. (for higher level play when the main weapon will have more than one attack) The time to cast the spell changes to the off hand use, and the ability takes the full round to complete. This make it so it doesn't matter when the free action attack is used, it is as a part of of the Spell Combat ability. Now, this usually is not a problem, as there is nothing really bothersome about this when the ability is used normally. Two things that have been discussed, and what you seem to contribute to every single action and instance to, is if the character wants to Two Handed the weapon, or use another feat that is dicussed in the other thread, to do something outside of the full round action.

The simple answer is no.

This is not acceptable in a rules forum, so we go through a discussion like we have here, nitpicking and putting words in our posts that are not there.

So. In a full round action, the relevant actions taken are during the full round. You can still use free actions and Swift actions after the attacks are done, or before them, but they are still considered to be within the full round action when you do so. When you declare the full round action after having done a swift action (perhaps you activated a swift runner's shirt), that swift action would be a part of that full round.

Now, in Spell Combat, if you use the Free Action Attack to deliver the spell cast from the off hand, you will do so in that full round action, this is independent of the timing, before or after the weapon attacks, or even using Spellstrike to do it with.

Is there something you can point to that says otherwise? You have not thus far.

Edit-- Almost forgot, the off hand is used as a part of the overall ability, so one can not switch to a two handed grip on the weapon until the attacks from that ability are done. You can not do it when TWF, the same applies here. Once the attacks are resolved, a free action can be used to change the grip of the weapon, doing two handed AoO's if provoked after the turn.


Quote:
Is there something you can point to that says otherwise? You have not thus far.

All I can offer, and have offered, is these points:

1) An action is normally not subject to penalties and limitations of another action, as evidenced by the TWF/AOO FAQ.
2) The touch attack to deliver the spell may be a direct consequence of, but is, in fact, a separate free action.
3) Spell combat specifically imparts the to-hit penalties to "any attack roll made as part of this spell", when this would otherwise not be imparted.

By your definition, can the magus two-hand the free attack after casting the spell as a standard action?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

3 -He can, though the only way to deliver the spell with the weapon in that way is through Spellstrike, as he already used his standard to cast the spell. I have see it done in this way, but you only get the one attack using it in this way, as some misunderstood what the magus does with his abilities.

The way a 2nd level magus gets two attacks with a weapon using spellstrike is combining it with Spell Combat. If used in this way, he can not two hand the weapon for the attack, he can only switch the grip of the weapon after the attacks are done, as we have been discussing in both threads.

The first point is about that FAQ is not something about what is going on during the full round action. We know that the penalties for Spell Combat are not going to carry over after the turn is over. The turn is not over when you use that free action attack from the spell, and is specifically cited in the ability itself to suffer the -2 penalty.

The second point is flawed in that the free action attack is still done during the full round action, from a spell that is cast from the off hand.

The casting time of the spell is still stated as 1 standard action. The ability changes that action to be able to do it from the off hand as the character effects attacks from a weapon in the main hand. This does not make the spell a swift action. I do not know why it is thought that it does.


Quote:
He can, though the only way to deliver the spell with the weapon in that way is through Spellstrike, as he already used his standard to cast the spell. I have see it done in this way, but you only get the one attack using it in this way, as some misunderstood what the magus does with his abilities.

So you're saying that the free action to deliver the touch spell is not part of the standard action to cast the touch spell?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

When using the standard action, that action ends after the spell is cast. The caster then can use the attack afforded by the spell, or move to get into range then use it. This isn't in dispute, right?

The difference is I have stated it above. A full Round Action that spell combat uses changes the standard action to an off hand use.


So the standard action (with its limitation of needing one hand free to provide somatic components) is finished when the spell is cast, and spell combat is finished when the spell is cast, the full-attack with one weapon is made... AND the free-attack granted by the spell is made?


*chews gum lazily*

Weren't they supposed to come out with a FAQ every month? Seems like they're a couple months behind. It'd be nice to get this one answered, especially since it has implications for other similar questions.


Byakko wrote:

*chews gum lazily*

Weren't they supposed to come out with a FAQ every month? Seems like they're a couple months behind. It'd be nice to get this one answered, especially since it has implications for other similar questions.

No.

They were supposed to come out with one every week.

Personally, I am still waiting for the Bardic Masterpieces FAQ. It still hasn't happened yet.


thaX wrote:

When using the standard action, that action ends after the spell is cast. The caster then can use the attack afforded by the spell, or move to get into range then use it. This isn't in dispute, right?

The difference is I have stated it above. A full Round Action that spell combat uses changes the standard action to an off hand use.

1) that makes no actual sense. It doesn't 'change' a standard action to an off-hand attack, it says that you get to cast a spell as part of a full-attack action 'as if' you're using the spell as an offhand weapon. It's not actually a weapon, and casting the spell isn't actually an off-hand attack.

2) none of that changes the game mechanics of touch spells and free action attacks

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Johnny_Devo wrote:
So the standard action (with its limitation of needing one hand free to provide somatic components) is finished when the spell is cast, and spell combat is finished when the spell is cast, the full-attack with one weapon is made... AND the free-attack granted by the spell is made?

The difference between the standard action and Spell Combat is the bolded part. Spell Combat does not "end" until you use all the attacks associated with it. If you do not use the spell's effects, you will hold the spell for the next round. The ability takes up the whole round, meaning the whole of the character turn as he uses that ability.

Now, you can do the actions you mentioned in that order, nothing is preventing you from doing so. The Free Attack Action from the spell is still used within the confines of the ability the spell is from.

Ozy...

1 It puts the spell into the offhand as the weapon. It is fully within the full round action that the Spell Combat ability is performed within. The focus of "attack" is something for the other thread.

2 and?

Nothing that has been stated or quoted from the rulebooks has changed the Full Round Action and how it is performed. Nothing has separated the spell from the ability, even if it does give means to deliver it's effects in the form of a Free Action Attack. The Spell Combat Ability does not happen in a void.


I think the divergence we're experiencing here is what we think the other is trying (or not trying) to separate.

Quote:
The difference between the standard action and Spell Combat is the bolded part. Spell Combat does not "end" until you use all the attacks associated with it. If you do not use the spell's effects, you will hold the spell for the next round. The ability takes up the whole round, meaning the whole of the character turn as he uses that ability.

Spell combat is made up of:

1)One full-attack with your weapon.
2)One spell.

So if you have, say, 6 BaB and haste, then all the attacks directly associated with spell combat would be your full attack at +6/+6/+1 (before other to-hit changes). Our argument is that if you can separate the free action from the standard action to cast the spell, then it must also be true that you can separate the free action from the full-round action that happened to involve casting the spell.

Quote:
The Free Attack Action from the spell is still used within the confines of the ability the spell is from.

So you DO say, then, that the free action is still used within the confines of the standard action of casting the spell normally? Because if you're making a free action attack, you're still "using" the standard action, and thus you need a hand free for somatic components, right?

I'm really not seeing where you can argue that it's separate for one thing and not for the other.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The question should not be if the Free Attack granted by the spell is separate, it should be on when it is used. If used during a full round action, it had been noted that it would be during that full round action.

A full round action replaces the standard and move action. I don't know where one would do a standard action and a Full Round Action in the same turn. To say one is this and so the other is under that also is not going to invalidate my stance, as your placing restrictions on the standard action that simply are not there.

You do think there is a difference between a Full Round Action and a Standard action, right? Or are you talking about something else?


So... What you're saying is that the free action is separate from the full-round action of spell combat, but the free action still must be made during the full-round action of spell combat?

Where has it been noted that it would be during the full-round action, even though it's considered separate?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The full round action takes up the whole round?

The attack still suffers the -2 penalty from Spell Combat?

The Spell is considered the Off Hand Weapon?

The Ability is much like TWF?

I mean, it isn't like the ability is intended to use the attack differently than TWF, except that it is a spell that is trying to work with martial. I have said it is a wonky fit before, but a combined one thousand posts that could have been lost somewhere.


Spell combat has a clause to the effect of to use this ability you must have a fee hand. You absolutely can take free actions during spell combat, but once you 2-hand your weapon you are no longer using spell combat and cannot take advantage of the free-cast spell.

Edited to actually make sense...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Ah, I did not read that closely enough. There are two situations where one can wield a two handed weapon and still Spellstrike, one is the Mind Blade archtype (at mid levels) and the other is a new Feat that allows the one handing of a reach weapon. (which spawned a thread of it's own)

Thank you, dragonhunterq.


dragonhunterq wrote:

Spell strike has a clause to the effect of to use this ability you must have a fee hand. You absolutely can take free actions during spell strike, but once you 2-hand your weapon you are no longer using spell strike and cannot take advantage of the free-cast spell.

Do you mean "spell combat"?

Because spellstrike has zero limitations on what kind of weapon delivers the spell, so long as it is a melee weapon.


thaX wrote:
The full round action takes up the whole round?

So why does this work?

thaX wrote:

So, a paladin can full attack with his greatsword, change his grip, then lay on hands to heal himself as a swift. Agreed?

So, a fighter/sorcerer can full attack with his greatsword, change his grip, then cast a quickened spell as a swift. Agreed?

So a magus uses Spell Combat as a full round action, takes his attacks (Weapon and Spell), then can cast a second Quickened spell as a swift. Agreed?

---

Quote:
The attack still suffers the -2 penalty from Spell Combat?

Because spell combat says so, not because of general rules of the free action being part of spell combat. Why doesn't spell combat instead say "the free action counts as part of the full attack" or even nothing at all instead?

Quote:

The Spell is considered the Off Hand Weapon?

The Ability is much like TWF?

This is either true and the ability does not work with dervish dance, or it is not and it does work with dervish dance. You can't have both.

Quote:
I mean, it isn't like the ability is intended to use the attack differently than TWF, except that it is a spell that is trying to work with martial. I have said it is a wonky fit before, but a combined one thousand posts that could have been lost somewhere.

It only becomes wonky when you start trying to enforce limitations of other abilities into another ability that simply mentions another ability as a comparison. When you discard the literal rules interpretation of the TWF comparison(because you HAVE to discard it if dervish dance is to work) and take spell combat exactly for how it works mechanically, then the principles I have presented are sound.


Johnny_Devo wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:

Spell strike has a clause to the effect of to use this ability you must have a fee hand. You absolutely can take free actions during spell strike, but once you 2-hand your weapon you are no longer using spell strike and cannot take advantage of the free-cast spell.

Do you mean "spell combat"?

Because spellstrike has zero limitations on what kind of weapon delivers the spell, so long as it is a melee weapon.

exactly right - edited to correct.


thaX wrote:

1 It puts the spell into the offhand as the weapon. It is fully within the full round action that the Spell Combat ability is performed within. The focus of "attack" is something for the other thread.

2 and?

Nothing that has been stated or quoted from the rulebooks has changed the Full Round Action and how it is performed. Nothing has separated the spell from the ability, even if it does give means to deliver it's effects in the form of a Free Action Attack. The Spell Combat Ability does not happen in a void.

You're right, Spell Combat happens within the context of the rules, which already has mechanics of how touch attacks work. Spell Combat does not change these mechanics. Those mechanics explicitly grant a free action attack, and implicitly call out that attack as separate from the casting action. It does not say 'only for standard action casting' anywhere.

If the spell is 'in the offhand as a weapon', then Dervish Dance explicitly doesn't work for a Magus.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
ozy wrote:
If the spell is 'in the offhand as a weapon', then Dervish Dance explicitly doesn't work for a Magus.

You keep saying this. Here, this is the first part of the ability.

Ultimate Magic wrote:

Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells

and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much
like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell
that is being cast.

So, what is Spell Combat not changing when it makes the spell the off hand weapon?

Here what it does change. It makes a spell normally cast as a Standard action and makes it a part of a Full-Round Action. Note, please, that it is not a Full Attack, which is a part of what Spell Combat allows for the Main Hand, but a Full-Round Action in of itself.

What is the action that the spell uses to be cast in this situation? It is cast as a part of a Full-Round Action, not a Swift action like you want it to be.


WTF are you even talking about? I said absolutely nothing about a swift action. All I said is that touch spells have rules. Those rules provide a free attack, those rules implicitly say that free attack is a separate action. Spell Combat does not change those rules.

Period.

It has nothing to do with main hand, off hand, or anything. It has to do with the rules governing touch spells. And those rules do not say anything about changing if the spell is a standard action or full-round action.

If a sorcerer casts a metamagic shocking grasp, that spell is a full-round action. He still gets a separate free action attack.

I have no idea what this nonsense is about a Swift Action that you're talking about.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Your using that free action in the same way as casting the spell as a swift, like using the Quickened spell metamagic feat. You are completely discounting how the spell is cast and what it entails.

So it has nothing to do with the off hand? When the ability says that it does? I quoted it in the post above yours, right there. There. See it. Right there. In the post. A quote.

Concentrating on one sentence within the combat rules that govern spell use is not helpful to the conversation. When you ignore all the other rules, it is meaningless to keep going back to it when it has been explained already in several different ways that the rules are being used in Spell Combat is using the spell differently than what is stated in that passage. That the free action attack happens as a part of the ability's performance.

The spell is no longer being cast as a Standard action, but is part of a Full-Round action, and it's effects are delivered within that scope. The way you are trying to parse the effects from the full-round action is counting the casting of that spell as a "Swift action" instead of a Standard one.


_Ozy_ wrote:

WTF are you even talking about? I said absolutely nothing about a swift action. All I said is that touch spells have rules. Those rules provide a free attack, those rules implicitly say that free attack is a separate action. Spell Combat does not change those rules.

Period.

It has nothing to do with main hand, off hand, or anything. It has to do with the rules governing touch spells. And those rules do not say anything about changing if the spell is a standard action or full-round action.

If a sorcerer casts a metamagic shocking grasp, that spell is a full-round action. He still gets a separate free action attack.

I have no idea what this nonsense is about a Swift Action that you're talking about.

Except, if you cast a Metamagic Touch Spell as a Full Round Action, you can't deliver the spell in the same round you cast it because the spell isn't finished casting until your turn is over (and therefore the Free Action to deliver it never takes place because your turn finishes just as you finish casting the spell). Likewise, if you cast a Metamagic Ranged Touch Spell as a Full Round Action, its effects don't take place until the following round on your turn, because its effects don't take place until the spell is cast.

Not that I agree with it, but that's precisely what their interpretation would suggest.

So, Intensified Shocking Grasps are actually worse than doing a regular Shocking Grasp because of the Full Round Action rules again, because it basically has the same mechanical function as True Strike when it's obviously intended not to require two rounds to discharge its effects.


Naturally. But their interpretation is bonkers.


thaX wrote:

Your using that free action in the same way as casting the spell as a swift, like using the Quickened spell metamagic feat. You are completely discounting how the spell is cast and what it entails.

So it has nothing to do with the off hand? When the ability says that it does? I quoted it in the post above yours, right there. There. See it. Right there. In the post. A quote.

Concentrating on one sentence within the combat rules that govern spell use is not helpful to the conversation. When you ignore all the other rules, it is meaningless to keep going back to it when it has been explained already in several different ways that the rules are being used in Spell Combat is using the spell differently than what is stated in that passage. That the free action attack happens as a part of the ability's performance.

The spell is no longer being cast as a Standard action, but is part of a Full-Round action, and it's effects are delivered within that scope. The way you are trying to parse the effects from the full-round action is counting the casting of that spell as a "Swift action" instead of a Standard one.

You are just making up nonsense now. The rules regarding melee touch spells are clear. You are changing the rules by yourself, just making up nonsense to support your bizarre interpretation. There is nothing, zip, nada in Spell Combat that changes how melee touch spells work.

It's not 'concentrating on one sentence', it's using the rules of melee touch spells, and ranged touch spells for contrast, to come to the proper conclusion that melee touch spells grant a separate free action to make a touch attack.

Spell Combat absolutely does not change that rule.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

"Spell Combat absolutely does not change that rule (of a Free Action Attack)."

Ok, look at me.... looooook... right here.... look at me.

A standard action is normally used to cast a spell.

With me so far, right?

Spell Combat changes that casting to become a part of a full round.

Keeping up?

A full round action is performed by using your Standard and Move in a combined effort.

Alright?

The Spell is used as a part of that Full Round Action, specifically, as a part of Spell Combat.

Now, stay with me... staaaay...

That includes the free action attack given by the spell's casting.

I am not changing anything, you are, by making the spell into a swift action, using it's attack out of turn.

251 to 300 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.