|
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.
Note that this isn’t the
same as a spell with a 1-round casting time. Spells that take
a full-round action to cast take effect in the same round that
you begin casting, and you are not required to continue the
invocations, gestures, and concentration until your next
turn. For spells with a longer casting time, it takes an extra
full-round action to cast the metamagic spell.
Nothing has changed, you can cast the spell and use it like normal. When a sorcerer uses a Metamagic feat, she does so as a full round action and attacks (assuming we are still talking about an attack spell, at least) with it before her turn ends.
"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.
You lost me at "full round action is performed by using your Standard and Move in a combined effort." That's not RAW, and probably not RAI either. The rules simply say you cannot use a Full Round Action in the same round you use a Standard or Move Action. That's it. If I had an ability that says "You may take one Standard or Move Action any time you take a Full Round Action," that doesn't all-of-a-sudden consume that Standard or Move Action because I decided to take a Full Round Action first.
You then picked it back up with the next point. And then lost it again because you're once again combining the Free Action with the action required to cast the spell. It's mutually exclusive; if you attack as part of casting the spell, then the ability to deliver as a Free Action becomes pointless because you already delivered the spell (assuming you actually discharge it).
Except in rare cases where you miss, or cast a spell like Chill Touch, that rule makes no sense. Even in those rare cases, your interpretation would let me deliver two free Touch Attacks instead of one, which is broken and obviously not intended (and an interpretation that I'm certain you wouldn't support).
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.
Nothing has changed, you can cast the spell and use it like normal. When a sorcerer uses a Metamagic feat, she does so as a full round action and attacks (assuming we are still talking about an attack spell, at least) with it before her turn ends.Note that this isn’t the
same as a spell with a 1-round casting time. Spells that take
a full-round action to cast take effect in the same round that
you begin casting, and you are not required to continue the
invocations, gestures, and concentration until your next
turn. For spells with a longer casting time, it takes an extra
full-round action to cast the metamagic spell.
No, you can't attack with a Touch Spell in that same round, because the spell isn't cast until your turn ends per the RAW regarding Full Round Actions, and once your turn ends, you can't take the Free Action to deliver that spell (or a Swift Action to cast another spell, and yet another Free Action to deliver if necessary).
We've already discussed that all Free/Swift Actions done within the same round as a Full Round Action are considered to be done as part of the Full Round Action, so suggesting that you can do a Free/Swift Action when a Full Round Action spell hasn't completed until your turn is finished is incorrect, and you've even argued this very point, to this same exact interpretation.
|
|
In a normal round, you can perform a standard action
and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action.Multiple Attacks: A character who can make more
than one attack per round must use the full-attack
action
(see Full-Round Actions) in order to get more
than one attack.
A full-round action requires an entire round to complete.
Thus, it can’t be coupled with a standard or a move action
The spell's effects are being used in the same round it was cast. I do hope we are at least agreed on that point, otherwise you wouldn't have that Free Action Attack and the spell would be held.
If it is used in that same round, it is as part of the Full-Round Action that it takes to perform Spell Combat. Why is there a need to restrict Free Actions to not be able to use the spell's effects after it is cast? Why would you want to do that?
Yes, the spell's effects transpire just after your turn ends, because the rules say that a Full Round Action Spell's effects take place within the same round.
But that is the only difference between a Full Round Action cast time and a 1 Round Action cast time (besides the other obvious "concentrating for the entire round" schtick).
And you still can't take a Free Action to deliver the Touch Spell you cast as a Full Round Action, because your turn is over and you can't take that Free Action outside your turn.
It's not a need, it's just what the rules say.
|
|
Is there something I am missing? I mean, is there somewhere within the disconnect between Full-Round Actions and Free Actions that make it so that spells are somehow crippled by the introduction of Spell Combat? Was the Core Rulebook re-written and I only have.... No, wait, your looking at PF 2nd edition, aren't you? Something that is changed between 3.5 and the new system? Right? No?
"Spells that take
a full-round action to cast take effect in the same round that
you begin casting"
Does that mean wait until next round to use the effects? No. It means you use the effects in that round, during the character's turn.
Nothing in that text says it occurs during your turn. So yes, there is something you're missing, you just don't realize it's gone.
To wit, there is a big difference between round and turn.
The round encompasses the 6 second time table of combat, where all combatants involved take their turn in sequential order based on Initiative.
If the rules said that it takes place in the same turn you'd have a point, and that'd be a case of specific Spell rules trumping general Combat rules.
But it doesn't say turn. It says round. And as I've demonstrated above (and as the rules say), they are different terms referring to different (even if related) things.
To be fair, if there was a PF 2.0, it'd probably still be as disjarred and glaringly broken as it is currently, so saying I was looking at a PF 2.0 book doesn't help your case very much.
So you making a wrong assumption on purpose to break the rule for the sake of the debate.
That is a strawman, sire.
The rule says Round. Not Turn.
Just like how Spell Combat says Weapon. Not Attack.
There are mechanical implications for terms like these, and you're not applying them correctly. Round and Turn don't have the same mechanical implications. Just like Attack and Weapon don't have the same mechanical implications.
I may not use "strawman" correctly, but I can assure you that my argument is by no means a strawman, nor is it insincere (even if I don't personally agree with it; it is, at the very least, corollary to RAW).
I thought each round was the collections of everyone's turn until everyone's turn had happened?
I thought each round was the collections of everyone's turn until everyone's turn had happened?
It's a good thing the rules are abstract and aren't meant to properly mimic real life, eh?
Because if they weren't, the game would fail upon itself with all of the time paradoxes it would create due to how a given combat round works.
|
|
So you making a wrong assumption on purpose to break the rule for the sake of the debate.
That is a strawman, sire.
The rule says Round. Not Turn.
Just like how Spell Combat says Weapon. Not Attack.
I may not use "strawman" correctly, but I can assure you that my argument is by no means a strawman, nor is it insincere (even if I don't personally agree with it; it is, at the very least, corollary to RAW).
It is an Extreme example of rules interaction to fit your own stance which would not hold up otherwise. STRAWMAN.
So, should it be a Full Round Turn instead? Full Weapon Attack? Should we bring back Weapon Speeds from 1st edition, see how they fit into all this? Would a heavy Two Handed Weapon take three turns to swing?
Should spells have their own action economy, with charts in the back of the book, so we don't get confused?
forget all that, just play the game as it is supposed to be played instead of nit picking specific rules and trying to pick fruit from a tree that produces nuts.
It's not extreme, it's taking things how they are, and realizing that it's not unreasonable to interpret them as to how things are. Conversely, taking Full Round Actions to mean "takes your entire round," as the RAW says, is plenty unreasonable, as I've demonstrated with examples (and by appearing to get under your skin).
I didn't say Turns are Actions, I said Turns aren't Rounds (though based on RAW equivalency being demonstrated, a Full Turn Action and a Full Round Action are functionally similar). I said the duration of a Full Round Action, per RAW, is equal to the duration of your Turn. That doesn't mean they're the same terminology, but merely that for the purposes of calculating duration, they're the same.
Same goes for Weapons being Actions/Attacks (or whatever you had Weapon substitute for, I'm confused on that). I said Weapons aren't Attacks, because I don't draw Attacks from my bags/inventory, and I don't Weapon enemies as a Standard Action.
Bringing up 1st edition and weapon speeds is likewise a strawman (I think), so I don't know what makes you think that fighting fire with fire is going to get anywhere here. (Or maybe you've ran out of options and that's all your left to throw into the discussion. I don't know.)
Except that's where we differ; we can't agree on how the game is "supposed to be played". I can tell you what I think the game should be played as, but I can assure you that it would differ greatly from the Book as it's currently written, and from how you think the game is "supposed to be played". And because we differ, the discussion is going to keep going until either:
-We get banned for arguing too much. (I believe this is a thing.)
-The Devs come in and decide to a 2.0 (unlikely) or issue a FAQ regarding Full Round Actions (more likely, but still unlikely)
-We get sick and tired of arguing the same thing for so long and just say "F!@# it."
Until that happens? Let's do the dance, my friend...
And what's the "actual subject" we're discussing? Full Actions and Free Actions being used together. That's what the thread title is, right?
To which, the RAW says "Sure, if whatever you want to do can be feasibly done inside the Full Round Action."
Problem is, I can't prove that Swift/Free Actions can be done outside of a Full Round Action, and effects which rely on functioning after a Full Round Action is complete (such as grip-shifting, delivering spells, and so on) are impossible to do, since the conditions to actually do said Swift/Free Actions aren't being met.
And I've explored the ramifications of that ruling. It fixes some things (People can't Two-hand weapons and benefit from Crane Wing anymore), but breaks other (Full Round Action/Metamagic spellcasting is broken), if allowed to function as the RAW says.
And your side (inadvertantly, I presume,) sparked this by providing the RAW that results in contradiction. But then you're going on to say "No, it's not a contradiction," when I (and a couple others) have given several examples where it results in contradictions of the rules.
|
|
Casting Time 1 standard actionOzy, the strawman was introduced by Darksol, talk with him.
The change is the spell being an off hand weapon in a full round. The casting time of that spell didn't change, how the character can cast it did. He can cast it as a part of a full round action. Spell Combat is the ability that allow the Magus to do this.
Here, let me quote the spell "Shocking Grasp."
Now, let me quote the combat rules concerning spell actionsCasting Time 1 standard action
Cast a Spell
Most spells require 1 standard action to cast. You can cast
such a spell either before or after you take a move action.
You didn't see it.
Obviously, you didn't look.
Actually, it does change, because the spell you're casting isn't being done as a Standard Action anymore. It's done as part of a Full Round Action, with the caveat that you can only cast spells that normally have a 1 standard action cast time (which means Metamagic spells, and spells with Full Round Action/1 Round casting times or longer, are out the window). Saying that it didn't change, and then saying that it's cast as something other than what it is being originally cast as, is the precise meaning of changing.
I mean, that's a big difference, and leaves ambiguity in whether you can even deliver the spell, because it's not confirmed as to which point the spell is completed, which means we default to "at the end of the Full Round Action," because that's the only time we can definitively confirm that the action associated with the spell being cast is completed. You're otherwise playing a game of Schrodinger's Spellcast, creating an uncertainty principle that cannot be proven one way or the other.
And that's just with the casting time.
We haven't even gotten down to how you're fulfilling somatic components when both of your hands are being occupied with Spell Combat. In fact, per RAW, the only way you can perform Spell Combat to cast a spell is with 3 or more hands, or by using spells without somatic components (Still spells, and so on), which is practically impossible because that then invalidates the "1 standard action" requirement that the spell normally has to undertake, or it creates a very limited selection of spells you can actually cast if a spell normally doesn't require somatic components (there are some, but very few).
Or, how you're able to deliver a spell within the same round of a Full Round Action, because you're not able to take a Free Action until the spell is complete (as until that happens, you haven't cast a spell within that round), and if the spell isn't complete until your turn is over, then you're never able to take a Free Action in the first place.
Or, how even if you can deliver a spell as a Free Action, its effects haven't taken place until the end of your turn, which means any Free Actions you take before the end of your turn do nothing, since the spell hasn't taken effect, and any attempt to take a Free Action after your turn is impossible and forbidden by the general rules regarding actions.
Or, how you can't cast a Quickened Spell for the same reasons I've given in relation to somatic components for Spell Combat.
Or, how if you're wielding/holding an item in one hand (a wand, staff, or what have you), that you can't cast both a Metamagic/Full Round/1 Round/1 Minute/whatever Casting Time spell and a Quickened Spell at the same time because you need two hands for the somatic components of each spell.
It is allowing you to cast the spell in a different way, that is the change. The casting time did not, however, turn into a swift action. Ozy and Darksol keep thinking that it does.
You didn't read what I said.
I said it turns it into an indeterminate amount of time to cast, as we're left with Schrodinger's Spellcast. I only reference Swift Action because if you ever tried to cast a Quickened Spell in addition to Spell Combat, the ability to do so works only with a very select amount of spells, most of which are only available to specialized/niche slots, or if you're a multi-armed race due to requiring multiple hands for somatic components (as well as drawing components for spells as well).
The only time you can definitively say that the spell from Spell Combat is cast, is when Spell Combat finishes, and that's only under normal circumstances.
Taking Ozy's Stagger example into consideration, if you had a spell left undischarged from the previous round, and decided to take your attacks first, you wouldn't have even cast a spell at all when Spell Combat is forcibly ended, and you'd likewise be unable to take a Free Action to deliver the spell, and that's only determined when your Spell Combat action ends.
I don't even think you could take a Swift or Free Action after the fact, since you took a Full Round Action with special limitations (that last your entire turn), and got Staggered. I mean, if we go with the RAW argument that Full Round Actions take your entire turn, and your Full Round Action is forcibly ended, then that means your turn is, likewise, forcibly ended, meaning any ability to take those Swift/Free Actions are forcibly ended as well.
|
|
I do not think an Off Hand use of a spell takes up the entire round. It is still considered a Standard action casting as far as the spell is concerned, Spell Combat only places it in the off hand, replacing the weapon in the parallel TWF.
"if you had a spell (held) from the previous round"
A magus would likey use Spellstrike to use the spell through the weapon, a single attack. If he has more than one attack, like having +6 bab, then he can use the other attack(s), using Spellstrike if the first attack missed.
If he casts a spell while holding the charge, the previous held charge is lost. (If he misses his full attack in Spell combat, for example, and didn't get to use Spellstrike to use it)
Being Staggered has it's own particulars.
Staggered: A staggered creature may take a single move
action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can
he take full-round actions). A staggered creature can still
take free, swift, and immediate actions. A creature with
nonlethal damage exactly equal to its current hit points
gains the staggered condition.
Now, A readied action is performed before the character starts his Full Round Action. If the character gains the staggered condition from a readied action of an enemy, then he can not go into the Full Round Action. He can, however, perform all the Swift and Free actions he wants.
|
|
"We're talking about taking the separate free action that you get whether or not your spell is a full-round action to cast or a standard action."
So, you agree that one is unable to take a move action when performing a Full Round Action, right? The reason the Move Action is mentioned is because it is the main reason that Melee Touch Attack spells have the particular that allow the move action between casting and imparting the effects. It doesn't separate the effects from the spell, it only allows for the caster to get to the target.
In a full round action, there is no move action to use. You cast the spell, then use it, or "lose" it. (holding the spell instead) The character can not wait until the Full-Round action is completed, it is a part of that performance.
The overall effect that is wanted when using the effects as you discribe would have the spell cast as if it was a swift action, something not intended at all.
Normally, it doesn't come into play at all, since the character is just doing Spell Combat then the turn typically ends. A magus can cast a quickened spell after the other attacks have resolved, but we already knew that.
The reason this came to light is the combination of Spell Combat and Whirlwind Attack was asked about. The spell would be an extra attack and Whirlwind Attack would prohibit that attack in favor of it's own effects, even if these two abilities could be used together. Trying to circumvent this with the Cast A Spell subsection of the Standard Action heading is, at best, a misunderstanding of rules interactions and how they resolve.
At worst, it is trying to turn the spell into a swift action in Spell Combat.
So, you agree that one is unable to take a move action when performing a Full Round Action, right? The reason the Move Action is mentioned is because it is the main reason that Melee Touch Attack spells have the particular that allow the move action between casting and imparting the effects. It doesn't separate the effects from the spell, it only allows for the caster to get to the target.
In a full round action, there is no move action to use. You cast the spell, then use it, or "lose" it. (holding the spell instead) The character can not wait until the Full-Round action is completed, it is a part of that performance.
I would personally think that if they meant it to work this way, they would classify it as a non-action and not as a free action, and they would simply say "you can take your move action before attacking". Then it would work exactly how you're saying and I'm pretty sure everyone here would be in (mostly) full agreement.
But it doesn't say that, and it IS a free action. So now we're left with this attack that is made as a free action, no exception stated in spell combat to the effect that it isn't a free action, a line in spell combat that specifically imparts the penalties but not the limitations, and a vague reference to TWF that would break dervish dance when taken seriously.
|
But it doesn't say that, and it IS a free action. So now we're left with this attack that is made as a free action, no exception stated in spell combat to the effect that it isn't a free action, a line in spell combat that specifically imparts the penalties but not the limitations, and a vague reference to TWF that would break dervish dance when taken seriously.
Thankfully the ability says that it functions like TWF but the off hand is a spell being cast and not that the spell being cast counts as a weapon, therefore it does not break Dervish Dance. There is no doubt that spell combat should have been written with better wording, but at this point it should be fairly clear what can and cannot be used with it. Until they errata something or release some new feat/ability/class feature at least.
So I had a thought regarding the "intended reading" argument for strength bonuses and two-weapon fighting comparison.
Does the free attack granted by touch spell rules, when the touch spell is granted as a free action by the spell cast as part of spell combat, only apply half of the magus's strength bonus?
If the answer is no, then the ability already breaks out of the TWF mold/comparison, and why would you suddenly enforce that strength limitation when you try to two-hand it, which seems to work mechanically?
If the answer is yes, then I'm almost certain that most magi have been doing a little bit more damage than they should for quite a while.
|
|
The spells normally wouldn't have the Str mod damage added when cast with a standard action so they would not get it during Spell Combat. It is a spell.
The TWF parallel is used to make it so the magus is able to do the ability within the framework of the rules already existing instead of trying to do the same thing in a more complicated way. The particulars is spelled out (sorry for the pun) in the Spell Combat ability.
Breaking from the mold of TWF is only done when the attacks from the weapon and the attack from the spells are done in either order, though when the weapon attacks are done, they need to be done at the same time before or after the spell is cast. Typically, the spell is cast first then used through the weapon via Spellstike.
The spells normally wouldn't have the Str mod damage added when cast with a standard action so they would not get it during Spell Combat. It is a spell.
What does this have to do with the question I asked? Of course the magus gets to apply some form of strength bonus to his spellstrike attack.
Breaking from the mold of TWF is only done when the attacks from the weapon and the attack from the spells are done in either order, though when the weapon attacks are done, they need to be done at the same time before or after the spell is cast. Typically, the spell is cast first then used through the weapon via Spellstike.
Does the spell delivered through the weapon via spellstrike apply 1x strength or 0.5x strength?
|
|
No, it is not the 'main' reason why touch spells grant a free action attack, it is a 'side effect'. Because you get a separate free action attack, you are allowed to use a move action between a standard action cast and the free action attack."We're talking about taking the separate free action that you get whether or not your spell is a full-round action to cast or a standard action."
So, you agree that one is unable to take a move action when performing a Full Round Action, right? The reason the Move Action is mentioned is because it is the main reason that Melee Touch Attack spells have the particular that allow the move action between casting and imparting the effects. It doesn't separate the effects from the spell, it only allows for the caster to get to the target.
So we are saying the same thing.
If you are interrupted, you are no longer in a full-round action. (I assume you are using the "Staggered" example) Here, look at this again...In a full round action, there is no move action to use. You cast the spell, then use it, or "lose" it. (holding the spell instead) The character can not wait until the Full-Round action is completed, it is a part of that performance.Actually, once again you are 100% wrong. As I've pointed out on many occasions, if your full-round Spell Combat is interrupted before you make your attack. You still have your free action attack. Why? Because it is a separate free action.
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After
your first attack, you can decide to take a move action
instead of making your remaining attacks, depending
on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have
not already taken a move action this round. If you’ve
already taken a 5-foot step, you can’t use your move action
to move any distance, but you could still use a different
kind of move action.
So, you drop the full attack and do what you normally can do instead.
This isn't about if you have the free action attack or not, it is about what happens when you use it and rather or not it is a part of the Full Round Action.
The overall effect that is wanted when using the effects as you discribe would have the spell cast as if it was a swift action, something not intended at all.Stop. Lying.
So you disagree that using a spell as a swift action isn't what normally happens. Interesting. Should we just allow the caster to cast all his spells in one round when he uses Spell Combat? I don't think that is the intended use.
The overall effect that is wanted when using the effects as you discribe would have the spell cast as if it was a swift action, something not intended at all.
I'm honestly confused as to how you gathered from their posts that they think the spell is a swift action.
|
|
They want to use the effects of the spell outside of Spell Combat. This was the explanation they used to get an extra attack outside of Whirlwind attack from Spell Combat, Via the Free Action Attack. This would use the spell like a swift action cast.
This is assuming that Spell Combat can even be used within a Whirlwind Attack.
|
|
Then tell, Ozy, why else would this matter? In normal use, Spell Combat wouldn't be such a hard concept to grasp and the turn is done after all the attacks are completed. Whether or not that Free Action Attack is used before, with, or after the weapon attacks would not matter. It is when that spell/attack is being excluded by a feat in favor of it's own attacks gained in a specific way (one single attack on each target) that the Free Action Attack is being used in a manner not intended, that of gaining an extra attack after the Attack Action is completed.
When your told in THREE THREADs that it doesn't work that way, by more posters than just me, your still calling me names.
When your told in THREE THREADs that it doesn't work that way
There have been more than just a few people posting on both sides of the matter, and the new threads have even drawn in people with different takes on it. In any case, the number of threads isn't significant, especially when they're pretty much made up of the same people.
That said, _Ozy_, you're letting your frustration get the better of you, I think.
|
|
What I am saying is that you can take a swift action during a full-round action. Not after. You can also take a 5-foot step during a full-round action. And you can take a free action during a full-round action. Even if those things happen after all of the attacks from a full attack are resolved, they are still happening during your round, and so they are still happening during the full round action.To put it another way:
A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step.You are making a full-round action in using Spell Combat. That action lasts your entire round. Whenever you take the free action, it is still during your round, so you are still performing the Spell Combat Full-Round Action. There's no way around that. Even when you perform a swift action, you are still in your combat round and still performing the Spell Combat action. I'm not sure where that leaves the other numbers on the list, but I'm fairly sure 6 and 7 do not work.Wait, so you're saying you can't do a swift action after a full-round action? Or a free action?
A full-attack action is also a full-round action. So after a full-attack you can't change grips? Cast a quickened spell?
I don't think anyone agrees with that limitation. Are you sure that's your argument? Pretty sure that invalidates the entire list.
Yeah that's allowed. Doesn't matter if you want to count it as part of your full action, you can take 3-6(as determined feasible by gm) free actions right before you cast a full action spell. Then after that's done you can take a few more if you left a few open. You can count that as part of your full action or outside of your full action, it doesn't matter. It's allowed.
Btw immediate actions are swift actions that happen out of your turn. Those are allowed too. They still happen within the 6 seconds that the round occurs in. You just have to make sure not to have used your swift action for the round.
Btw immediate actions are swift actions that happen out of your turn. Those are allowed too. They still happen within the 6 seconds that the round occurs in. You just have to make sure not to have used your swift action for the round.
Slight nitpick: using an immediate action consumes the swift action of your next turn. So you can do a swift action on your turn and then an immediate action right after your turn.
|
|
You are telling me that what I have quoted, written and posted has no merit because of one little passage in a section of Casting Spells that is under the section of Standard Actions.
That anything that goes against your unicorn rainbow is immaterial because it doesn't fit your narrative.
It works as it always has, it is just that most players look at Full Attack instead of the whole Full-Round Action. It replaces the Standard and Move Action to perform, and Free/Swift actions can be performed before your turn ends. The only reason it matters about being within the Full-Round Actions is situations such as what the first thread was about, Spell Combat within Whirlwind Attack.
No matter how you go about it, you should not be able to gain that extra attack from the spell, as Whirlwind Attack will have the player forfeit it in favor of getting a single attack on each target.
It matters not when that Free Action Attack is used, it will be a part of Spell Combat and nixed by Whirlwind Attack.
Now the examples you set up here with the Two Handing of a weapon is a good reference call to not have the complication of using two Full Round Actions at the same time come into play on this specific issue.
You still will not be able to do the last three choices. When you are TWF, your not going to be able to use any of the attacks with both hands on the weapon. (Two handing the weapon for 1.5 str mod damage bonus)
Same with Spell Combat.
You can, however, two hand the weapon after all the attacks are done. (when the Full Attack is over)
Because you parroted the strawman that Darksol introduced, that a spell could not be completed in a full round action because it's effects needs to be done after the full round is over. The rules never say this.
Yes they do. You just can't admit what horrible RAW monster you've created.
Full Round Actions take your entire turn to complete. This is what the RAW says.
A Spell isn't complete until the action being spent to cast the spell is complete; in the case of a Metamagic spell, a Full Round Action. Based on the current rules, I don't see anything that would indicate otherwise. If you do, feel free to point it out, but you and I both agreed on this point before, so if you do point anything out, that tells me your stance on this matter changed.
You can only deliver a Touch Spell as a Free Action in the same round you complete casting it. This is what the RAW says.
You can't take actions outside of your turn unless an action (or action type) specifically says otherwise. This is what the RAW says.
So, let's add all that up into a nice little (sensible) loopy circle.
An Intensified Shocking Grasp takes a Full Round Action to cast. The Full Round Action takes your entire turn to complete. This means the spell isn't complete until your turn is likewise completed. This means that the conditions to deliver the spell as a Free Action only exist after your turn is done (as your turn is finished, but the round isn't, unless you're the last in Initiative, but even then). The ability to deliver the spell as a Free Action cannot be done outside your turn, as there is no explicit mention of being able to do so, meaning you're forced to hold the charge as your turn ends, because you have no spell that is cast until your turn ends, meaning the conditions to make a Free Action Touch never appear until your turn ends.
|
|
Ok. Let us take a look at Free Action, as I quoted in the other thread.
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of
time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions
while taking another action normally. However, there are
reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as
decided by the GM.
So, where does it say I need to wait for the other action to complete? I don't see it. I see that a Free Action can be taken while taking another action, exactly the opposite of what you just expanded on. So, why can't I take a Free Action again?
Ok. Let us take a look at Free Action, as I quoted in the other thread.So, where does it say I need to wait for the other action to complete? I don't see it. I see that a Free Action can be taken while taking another action, exactly the opposite of what you just expanded on. So, why can't I take a Free Action again?Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of
time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions
while taking another action normally. However, there are
reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as
decided by the GM.
Except, the Free Action to deliver the spell can't be done until the spell is cast. It's a specific restriction imposed on that type of Free Action that trumps the general limitations (or lack thereof) of Free Actions.
Read the RAW again:
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.
So, time for some Reading Comprehension 101. Take the bolded portion. Note that it's separated by commas. The first section's content denotes a condition, the second section's content denotes an activity you can perform in relation to fulfilling the first section's listed condition. Switching the two sections around, we get this sentence:
You may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action in the same round that you cast the spell.
This means that you may only be able to Touch a Target as a Free Action in the same round that you cast the spell. If you don't cast a spell within a given round, you can't touch as a Free Action.
Otherwise, delivering a spell is making a Touch Attack, which is a Standard Action to make the Attack Action (or done as part of a Full Attack Action), as is the general rule for delivering Touch Spells.