Full Actions + Free Actions


Rules Questions

351 to 400 of 452 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Still don't see it. You can still perform the free/swift actions, at any time, within the full round action, as the rules state here...

Core Rulebook wrote:

Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all

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

...

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.

...

Free Actions
Free actions don’t take any time at all, though there may
be limits to the number of free actions you can perform
in a turn. Free actions rarely incur attacks of opportunity.

I have yet to see that you can not use a free or swift action as we have been doing in the past 8 years. Just because it is discovered that they are during the full round action does not invalidate everything we have done in the past and now everything is different because {reasons}.


Said intensified shocking grasp cast by a sorcerer is a full-round action, right?

What he's saying is, if it takes your full-round action to cast it, when do you deliver it?

Do you deliver it during the full-round action? But you're still casting the spell... Do you deliver it after the full-round action? But your turn is over...

Or are you trying to further suggest that full-round actions somehow simultaneously take up your whole turn AND not your whole turn?


Thanks, Johnny_Devo, for clarifying my point. (And no, that's not sarcasm.)

Welcome to what I propose is Schrodinger's Touch Spell.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Everyone seems to assume that as soon as your Full Round Action ends, so does your turn. If I full attack, after my last swing of my weapon the Full Round Action is over. I can still 5 foot step, or cast a quickened spell, or use my Lay on Hands on myself. You deliver the spell as part of the Full Round Action, it is not that complicated. Everyone is reading way too much into the fluff text at the start of the description to Full Round Action. It is meant to give you an idea as to why you do not get a Move or Standard action when performing a Full Round Action.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Thanks, Johnny_Devo, for clarifying my point. (And no, that's not sarcasm.)

Welcome to what I propose is Schrodinger's Touch Spell.

Most appropriate use of Schrodinger I've seen on the forum in years. Apparently according the ThaX the spell is both cast and not cast at the same time: whichever currently suits the rules he's making up out of thin air for a particular situation.


I thought of another reason why the sentence for full-round actions makes a little bit less sense when taken at face value. It states "Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action"

So I guess you can't use a quick runner's shirt after a full attack. Or use a readied action to target a creature that's using a full-round action with the bard spell heroic finale.


RSX Raver wrote:
Everyone seems to assume that as soon as your Full Round Action ends, so does your turn. If I full attack, after my last swing of my weapon the Full Round Action is over. I can still 5 foot step, or cast a quickened spell, or use my Lay on Hands on myself. You deliver the spell as part of the Full Round Action, it is not that complicated. Everyone is reading way too much into the fluff text at the start of the description to Full Round Action. It is meant to give you an idea as to why you do not get a Move or Standard action when performing a Full Round Action.

Because the RAW specifically says a Full Round Action takes your entire turn to complete. Therefore, if your turn isn't finished, likewise your Full Round Action also isn't finished, because their durations are both synchronized and simultaneous.

If an entire turn is equal to X (which is the amount of time a turn takes in the combat round), and a Full Round Action is equal to an entire turn, then a Full Round Action is equal to X in terms of how long it takes to complete it, based on the transitive property of A=B=C -> A=C.

Again, you need to understand my argument better. You made the same mistake Squiggit (and thaX) made, assuming that I'm disallowing actions based on them simply being actions. That's wrong, and that's never what I've said.

What I've said is certain actions, such as Lay On Hands and Quickened Spells, which have restrictions and limitations listed in their respective features, apply, and are independant from the Full Round Action you're undertaking. In other words, you need to fulfill the restrictions and limitations for options separately.

For example, in order to use both a Quickened Spell/Lay On Hands and a Metamagic Spell, you need two hands free, the ability to speak (in the case of a Quickened Spell, you'll need to speak two incantations at once, though again, in-tandem is fine in my books), and the components (for both spells if using Quickened) at the time of casting. If you can't meet those requirements, you can't take those actions together.

It's no different than somebody arguing that they can wield four weapons at once while only having two arms.

Sure, if they're using two one-handed weapons, an unarmed strike (which is a weapon in this case), and armor spikes, they're wielding four weapons at once, but if they wanted to wield four one-handed weapons in their hands at once, and only have two arms...well, there you go, you have somebody who wants to try and do something but doesn't meet the requirements to do so (in this case, lacking of four arms to actually wield said weapons).

The above scenario (using both a Metamagic and Quickened Spell/Lay On Hands at once) is absolutely no different.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
RSX Raver wrote:
Everyone seems to assume that as soon as your Full Round Action ends, so does your turn. If I full attack, after my last swing of my weapon the Full Round Action is over. I can still 5 foot step, or cast a quickened spell, or use my Lay on Hands on myself. You deliver the spell as part of the Full Round Action, it is not that complicated. Everyone is reading way too much into the fluff text at the start of the description to Full Round Action. It is meant to give you an idea as to why you do not get a Move or Standard action when performing a Full Round Action.

Because the RAW specifically says a Full Round Action takes your entire turn to complete. Therefore, if your turn isn't finished, likewise your Full Round Action also isn't finished, because their durations are both synchronized and simultaneous.

If an entire turn is equal to X (which is the amount of time a turn takes in the combat round), and a Full Round Action is equal to an entire turn, then a Full Round Action is equal to X in terms of how long it takes to complete it, based on the transitive property of A=B=C -> A=C.

Again, you need to understand my argument better. You made the same mistake Squiggit (and thaX) made, assuming that I'm disallowing actions based on them simply being actions. That's wrong, and that's never what I've said.

What I've said is certain actions, such as Lay On Hands and Quickened Spells, which have restrictions and limitations listed in their respective features, apply, and are independant from the Full Round Action you're undertaking. In other words, you need to fulfill the restrictions and limitations for options separately.

For example, in order to use both a Quickened Spell/Lay On Hands and a Metamagic Spell, you need two hands free, the ability to speak (in the case of a Quickened Spell, you'll need to speak two incantations at once, though again, in-tandem is fine in my books), and the components (for both spells if using Quickened) at the time of casting. If you...

Again, the purpose of that line is to give concept to the amount of effort a full round action takes. It has been that way since d20 system was born and it has not changed in Pathfinder. A full round action is fundamentally a Move+Standard. Your just overthinking it to the extreme with your beliefs and I pity your players a little.


You're talking like I'm a GM who is issuing this ruling, when I have posted that I'm merely providing Devil's Advocate to the side saying you can't take Free/Swift Actions before or after Full Round Actions, taking the RAW they're presenting as their proof, and providing examples as to why them taking it as proof is invalid. My stance has always been that you are able to perform Swift/Free Actions before or after Full Round Actions, and it still is.

Dark Archive

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

You're talking like I'm a GM who is issuing this ruling, when I have posted that I'm merely providing Devil's Advocate to the side saying you can't take Free/Swift Actions before or after Full Round Actions, taking the RAW they're presenting as their proof, and providing examples as to why them taking it as proof is invalid. My stance has always been that you are able to perform Swift/Free Actions before or after Full Round Actions, and it still is.

Fair enough. I can see where you are coming from then. My apologize for misunderstanding that as your stance on the subject versus offering the counter argument.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

You're talking like I'm a GM who is issuing this ruling, when I have posted that I'm merely providing Devil's Advocate to the side saying you can't take Free/Swift Actions before or after Full Round Actions, taking the RAW they're presenting as their proof, and providing examples as to why them taking it as proof is invalid. My stance has always been that you are able to perform Swift/Free Actions before or after Full Round Actions, and it still is.

It is when you are using it to circumvent a restriction otherwise in place where I draw the line, like the Spell Combat with Whirlwind Attack combo.

Yes, we have been parsing out the Full Round Action with Free/Swift actions happening before and after, most of the time, it is with the Full Attack, like TWF, and this is parsed within the Full Round Action.

Thing is, that isn't what is happening with the Full Round Action. When you do the Full Round Action, you finish it as you perform any Swift/Free actions you have at your disposal. Do the effects of a full cast spell, call the enemy a Republican, and swift cast a spell to finish him off. Nothing has changed in this regard, just the realization that it has been within that Full Round Action this whole time. Remember, Free/Swift actions can be done at anytime. Nothing is stopping the character from using them, not even your Strawman.


thaX wrote:
When you do the Full Round Action, you finish it as you perform any Swift/Free actions you have at your disposal.

Oh, really? That makes things so much clearer now!

[/sarcasm]

That's also not a rule, nor what the rules say. Your Full Round Action ends when your turn ends. That's what the rules say, and that's what has been quoted to us, repeatedly. You're otherwise making up conditions for your Full Round Action to end when the rules say differently. Moving goal posts, in other words.

If I took a simple Full Round Action, with no Free/Swift Actions, my turn would still end at the same time than if I didn't take those same actions, especially when we take the RAW for what it says, and not what you want it to say.

thaX wrote:
Remember, Free/Swift actions can be done at anytime.

No, they can't. If they truly could, then you could perform Free/Swift Actions outside of the results and ramifications of a Full Round Action, and you've already made yourself explicitly clear that Swift/Free Actions can't work that way, so no, they can't "be done at anytime."

With you making that statement, you're either conceding one of the largest tenants of your argument (in which case you have no reason to say 1.5x Strength Spellstrike is impossible), or being a hypocrite.

Or dare I say, inventing your own strawman for your own argument.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
thaX wrote:
When you do the Full Round Action, you finish it as you perform any Swift/Free actions you have at your disposal.
That's also not a rule, nor what the rules say.
Then exactly what do they say? It isn't mine, but it isn't yours either? This song is getting old as we do this tired dance.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

thaX wrote:
Remember, Free/Swift actions can be done at anytime.
No, they can't. If they truly could, then you could perform Free/Swift Actions outside of the results and ramifications of a Full Round Action

The rules say that they can, so when you use your whole round, you can still use those Free/Swift actions in that Full Round Action, just as we have done for the past 8 years.

The reason the one Free Attack Action is tied to the Full Round Action that we talk of is because of the Spell Combat ability that the spell is cast from.

Can you two hand a weapon to hit with it when you TWF? No. Why would this be different for Spell Combat? Why is this even an issue related to this subject, as it has nothing to do with off hand weapon use.

But then again, this is passed off as immaterial and not the same as TWF, when the Spell Combat ability says that it is.

I will say it again, your the one putting the restrictions on Full Round Actions, not me.


Quote:

Can you two hand a weapon to hit with it when you TWF? No. Why would this be different for Spell Combat? Why is this even an issue related to this subject, as it has nothing to do with off hand weapon use.

But then again, this is passed off as immaterial and not the same as TWF, when the Spell Combat ability says that it is.

Now that we're back to this subject...

Johnny_Devo wrote:
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?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Johny, the spell typically does not provide a means to add the str damage to the hit. (Shocking Grasp does it's set damage as specified to the spell)

When you use Spellstrike to deliver the attack through the weapon, it is then using your main hand to strike with the spell. (1.0 str damage, just as the other attacks would give) This isn't the spell giving this damage, it is the weapon.

[strawman]Now, if it is as Darksol (and Ozy) say, then the character couldn't even use Spellstrike, as they say they couldn't use the Free Action Attack anyways because the ability is taking the whole round[/strawman]

My overall point is, yes, you can use it during the Full Round Action, and have been doing so unknowingly for as long as the ability has been in print.


thaX wrote:

Johny, the spell typically does not provide a means to add the str damage to the hit. (Shocking Grasp does it's set damage as specified to the spell)

When you use Spellstrike to deliver the attack through the weapon, it is then using your main hand to strike with the spell. (1.0 str damage, just as the other attacks would give) This isn't the spell giving this damage, it is the weapon.

[strawman]Now, if it is as Darksol (and Ozy) say, then the character couldn't even use Spellstrike, as they say they couldn't use the Free Action Attack anyways because the ability is taking the whole round[/strawman]

My overall point is, yes, you can use it during the Full Round Action, and have been doing so unknowingly for as long as the ability has been in print.

Wait. That raises another question. How am I even delivering the spell through my main-hand weapon if that weapon is busy making a full-attack during the whole full-round action? Isn't that an extra hand being put into the equation already?


You should already know what they say, you've quoted the RAW to us half a dozen times. Nothing in that entry, or any other entry, says performing Swift/Free Actions completes your turn, and you of all people should know that.

But you can't use those Free/Swift Actions outside of that Full Round Action, which is what we're trying to say is possible. Nobody is saying you can't perform general Swift/Free Actions over the course of a general Full Round Action, what we're saying is that you should be able to perform Swift/Free Actions before or after undertaking/completing a Full Round Action, where the restrictions and limitations of that Full Round Action no longer apply. (What I'm saying are that specific Swift/Free Actions can't be done over the course of specific Full Round Actions, if it wasn't obvious enough.)

And you've originally said that it's not possible to do, and we were given the RAW as to the reason why.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The real issue is in the first thread, using a Free Action Attack while combining Whirlwind Attack with Spell Combat. The Free Action Attack is a part of Spell Combat (used during the Full Round Action) and is forfeited by Whirlwind Attack for the single attacks on each target.

The shenanigans was trying to go outside the Full Round Action to impart an extra attack outside of the Whirlwind Attack, using the Free Action Attack provided by the spell. There is several things that go against this theory.

  • The Full Round Action take the whole round to perform.
  • The spell counts as an attack (because it does damage), which is forfeit for the Whirlwind Attack effects.
  • The spell is cast from the off hand during the full round and is a part of the Spell Combat ability
  • The two abilities of Whirlwind Attack and Spell Combat both use a Full Round Action to complete (where the debate started)
  • Both are considered Full Attacks according to the often pointed to FAQ

Johny, a Full Attack is done within the Full Round Action. It is one of the actions listed under Full Round Action in the Core Rulebook. You can cast the spell before or after the weapon attacks, and if cast before, use Spellstrike to deliver the effects instead of using the touch attack. (This would be an extra attack with the weapon) Grick as an excellent guide on Spell Combat and Spellstrike here.


I know the mechanics of the magus, thanks.


here's a question along the same lines. Can the magus deliver the shocking grasp cast as part of spell combat at level 1? Why or why not?


Johnny_Devo wrote:
here's a question along the same lines. Can the magus deliver the shocking grasp cast as part of spell combat at level 1? Why or why not?

You can, since ''shocking grasp'' is part of a generic custom attack. It might sound fancy, but it's just like shooting an arrow or striking with your sword, for a lesser caster.


Sias wrote:
Johnny_Devo wrote:
here's a question along the same lines. Can the magus deliver the shocking grasp cast as part of spell combat at level 1? Why or why not?
You can, since ''shocking grasp'' is part of a generic custom attack. It might sound fancy, but it's just like shooting an arrow or striking with your sword, for a lesser caster.

But attacking with that hand violates the spell combat limitations that your hand must be free the entire time.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

*headslap*

where did that one come from? It is free specifically to cast the spell and impart it's effects. It replaces the the off hand attack of TWF as a casting of the spell. Again, please look at the guide, it will explain.


thaX wrote:

*headslap*

where did that one come from?

I'm merely taking the next logical step of your statements. I haven't seen you putting the same effort into picking apart our arguments, though, except to basically say "no that's wrong"

Quote:
It is free specifically to cast the spell and impart it's effects. It replaces the the off hand attack of TWF as a casting of the spell. Again, please look at the guide, it will explain.

Okay, so if it is free specifically(I don't see any specific>general for this case) to cast the spell and impart its effects, and the other hand is no longer occupied by making the attacks, then there should be no problem with using both at the same time, right?


thaX wrote:

*headslap*

where did that one come from? It is free specifically to cast the spell and impart it's effects. It replaces the the off hand attack of TWF as a casting of the spell. Again, please look at the guide, it will explain.

Free specifically in relation to what?

The Spell Combat ability doesn't say you can deliver the spell that you cast in the same action that you cast. And if I can't use that hand casting the spell to two-hand my weapon to deliver a cast spell via Spellstrike, then I sure as hell can't use it to attack or deliver the cast spell, because it is likewise busy casting the spell for Spell Combat.

And Grick's Guide says nothing like what you're saying. It never once refers to TWF or an off-hand attack, except in the case of using an unarmed strike to perform TWF to deliver an already-cast touch spell, which is a strawman. And speaking of strawmen, that would likewise mean your constant referral of TWF and off-hand attacks in relation to Spell Combat, according to what Grick's Guide says, is also a strawman.

Oh, the irony, I dare say.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So we are well outside of the subject of this thread and into the first.

Let's look at it again...

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. 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.

So, what part of "...the magus must have one hand free..." is not understood?

To discount the parallel of TWF when the ability itself says it is much like TWF is... really silly.

Now, why are you saying you can't use the spell? Because your separating the effects from the spell, putting into Magic the Gathering segments, or for reasons thus far not given to us?

Grick's guide does say how the ability works, but the overall relation to TWF is not mentioned because it is already a given when using the ability, he even quotes the entire ability in the guide, TWF and all. The spell is typically an extra attack along with the weapon attacks.

Now, why in the blue blazes would anyone think they can two hand the weapon while doing everything else with the Spell Combat ability to deliver the spell's effects with a Two Handed Wield? Once the attacks are done, the character can adjust his grip on his weapon to a two handed stance to effect AoO's in this way, as a free action.

Notice, please, that he does not mess with the free action attack in the guide. The character casts then attacks, either before or after the weapon attacks and can use Spellstrike to do so if cast before.

The spell is taking the place of the Off Hand weapon in TWF in the Spell Combat ability. How do I know this? Because the ability says "...the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast."

Johny, he is already using both hands, weapon attacks and spell cast.

I have mentioned this before, but it usually doesn't matter when the attack from the spell is made, as when the Magus is using Spell Combat, it is likely the only thing that he is doing at that time and it resolves without any problems with the Full Round Action parsing and how it can be done. It is the first thread's subject where the shenanigans of outside the Full Round Action use was, making an extra attack available despite Whirlwind Attack nixing it for the single attacks on each target.


I actually like that you mention Magic the Gathering, as that is a rules system that is driven entirely by logic, reason, and structured language. Something Pathfinder could stand to become.

thaX wrote:

So, what part of "...the magus must have one hand free..." is not understood?

Johny, he is already using both hands, weapon attacks and spell cast.

I'm understanding it perfectly. Simply put, to attack with that hand is to violate the "must have one hand free". Unless, of course, you're allowed to use that hand specifically for the purpose of delivering the spell. You've said this yourself, and it makes sense to me.

In addition, you've revealed that you can, without issue, use the other hand to deliver the spell through spellstrike. That makes perfect sense, and is what the magus has been doing since its conception.

So does it not stand to reason that, if either hand could legally make an attack with that spell at that exact time, you can simply use both at the same time? After all, the act of delivering the spell is specifically exempt from the "must have one hand free" limitation, no?

thaX wrote:

To discount the parallel of TWF when the ability itself says it is much like TWF is... really silly.

Grick's guide does say how the ability works, but the overall relation to TWF is not mentioned because it is already a given when using the ability, he even quotes the entire ability in the guide, TWF and all. The spell is typically an extra attack along with the weapon attacks.

The spell is taking the place of the Off Hand weapon in TWF in the Spell Combat ability. How do I know this? Because the ability says "...the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast."

Alright then. If you insist, I'll play this game. Let's treat spell combat as TWF, full stop.

Spoiler:
Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.

By raw, spell combat is TWF, so you count as having the feat. However, a spell is NOT a light weapon, nor is it an unarmed strike. Therefore, the magus must accept a -4 penalty on all his main-hand attacks and a -4 on all attacks made as part of the spell, on top of the -2 penalty spell combat separately declares. This is a hefty -6/-6 on all attacks.

In addition, you're wielding a weapon in your off-hand. This explicitly makes dervish dance an invalid choice for the magus.

combat section wrote:
If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one.

Look at this, the magus has the hidden class feature of being able to draw two weapons in the time it would regularly take someone else to draw one. unless you want to argue that the magus doesn't have the two-weapon fighting feat, but a -8/-12 penalty on spell combat is pretty hefty.

combat section wrote:
When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies.
once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn (which you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn), that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties."

Now we know quite clearly that the only hand capable of making any extra attacks gained via TWF is your off-hand. So no spellstriking with your right-hand weapon, guess you gotta deliver it with an unarmed strike if you want extra damage, or somehow toss the weapon from one hand to the other before you spellstrike. In addition, if you do somehow gain a strength bonus by using spellstrike with your off-hand, that hand is only going to add 0.5x strength bonus.

Other two-weapon fighting feats wrote:

In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty.

---

You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a –10 penalty.

Since spell combat is in all ways two-weapon fighting and treats the spell as the off-hand weapon, clearly you can take these extra feats to deliver more shocking grasps per casting.

Overall, I'm pretty depressed about this. The magus's viability as a class goes down the toilet because of those gigantic penalties. I don't know if I can ever run one again, and it's my favorite class.

OR.

Or, we can be reasonable, and take spell combat at face value, accept the TWF comparison as exactly that, and assume the ability does exactly what it says it does within the more mechanical meat of the paragraph. Far fewer things break when we do that, as has been demonstrated repeatedly while you continue to insist that it works your way. I do accept that you have some good points and good passages to back it up for other points, but I've demonstrated repeatedly that the TWF comparison just does not work.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The things it has in common with TWF is using both hands to effect the activity required, using the full round action to perform the ability and has the Magus gain an extra action (casting the spell, typically attacking with it in the same turn) along with his main hand weapon attacks.

The other things you mention are explained in the abilities' description. The restrictions you are putting on in your spoiler are not there, Spell Combat already gives it's own penalties (-2 for each hand's activities) and is particular on how it is effected once that parallel is understood/mentioned.

I have never said it is the same, but that it uses the same basic structure.

Combining Martial with spells is a wonky fit. The parallel with TWF is a reasonable way to effectively fit the two together, without having to take more page space to explain how to use that ability.


thaX wrote:

The things it has in common with TWF is using both hands to effect the activity required, using the full round action to perform the ability and has the Magus gain an extra action (casting the spell, typically attacking with it in the same turn) along with his main hand weapon attacks.

The other things you mention are explained in the abilities' description. The restrictions you are putting on in your spoiler are not there, Spell Combat already gives it's own penalties (-2 for each hand's activities) and is particular on how it is effected once that parallel is understood/mentioned.

But spell combat says a flat penalty, not "instead of the usual TWF penalties". In addition, it doesn't say "this does not follow the usual restrictions on which hand can make the attacks".

If you want to take the sentence comparing it to TWF as rules, you must accept all the ramifications of that. If those rules as a whole obviously break the ability, then you must accept that it is a comparison, written in the format of an english device known as "simile", that doesn't have any actual mechanical implications on how the ability works as a whole. And, for the record, the part that says "the off-hand weapon is a spell" is a part of that very same sentence.

Quote:
I have never said it is the same, but that it uses the same basic structure.

Where does this basic structure end and spell combat begins? How do you read between the lines to assign properties to an ability that would otherwise work perfectly fine exactly as written?

Quote:
Combining Martial with spells is a wonky fit. The parallel with TWF is a reasonable way to effectively fit the two together, without having to take more page space to explain how to use that ability.

Only as wonky as you make it. I totally invite you to read through spell combat as if the first two sentences didn't exist, parse it out, and tell me exactly what actually breaks when you read exactly what is written there. I have shown you what breaks when you read exactly what is written if you read it as if the second sentence is rules.

EDIT: You also didn't even address the first part of my previous post, before I got into the mechanical implications of the TWF comparison.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

"You also didn't even address the first part of my previous post, before I got into the mechanical implications of the TWF comparison."

"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."

It goes on to say the ability is used as a Full Round Action, which we have discussed before as taking the whole round.

So, where does it say that the hand is no longer required to be free? After it is cast, the character is considered armed, but that does not make the hand occupied, as if wielding a weapon. He can choose to use the effects of that spell, or hold the spell over to the next round. Now, I am sure there are some GM's that will allow the Two Handing of the weapon after the spell is cast to effect the attack two handed, but it is a house rule at that point.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Keep this in mind, Spellstrike is transferring the spell attack to the weapon. This is the reason it uses the main hand and the character gets the extra weapon attack with Spellstrike and Spell Combat used together. This doesn't invalidate the need for the hand to be free for Spell Combat performance.


thaX wrote:

"You also didn't even address the first part of my previous post, before I got into the mechanical implications of the TWF comparison."

"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."

It goes on to say the ability is used as a Full Round Action, which we have discussed before as taking the whole round.

So, where does it say that the hand is no longer required to be free? After it is cast, the character is considered armed, but that does not make the hand occupied, as if wielding a weapon. He can choose to use the effects of that spell, or hold the spell over to the next round.

Okay, cool, so there IS, in fact, no exceptions to the "must have one hand free" limitation. Which brings me back to my original point in this string. If the magus's off-hand MUST be free for the ENTIRE full-round action of spell combat, then that hand is never available to actually make an attack with which to deliver the spell.

It's too bad, but I guess the magus just has to wait until level 2, where spellstrike provides the exception that allows him to use the other hand with the weapon to deliver the spell.

Quote:
Now, I am sure there are some GM's that will allow the Two Handing of the weapon after the spell is cast to effect the attack two handed, but it is a house rule at that point.

This is just as meaningless and unhelpful to the conversation as if I were to say "now, I am sure there are some GM's who balk at the balance implications of this interaction and declare that it doesn't work, but it is a house rule at that point".

EDIT:

thaX wrote:
Keep this in mind, Spellstrike is transferring the spell attack to the weapon. This is the reason it uses the main hand and the character gets the extra weapon attack with Spellstrike and Spell Combat used together. This doesn't invalidate the need for the hand to be free for Spell Combat performance.

It's interesting you say this, because this statement is in direct opposition to a point the very guide you condescendingly linked to me stresses: Spellstrike is never giving you an extra attack.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

"Spellstrike is never giving you an extra attack."

No, it isn't, we are agreed on this point. Spell Combat is, Grick takes great pains to point this out. It is the combination of Spellstrike and Spell Combat that allows for the extra attack with the weapon (to impart the spell's effects), not Spellstrike on it's own.

"If the magus's off-hand MUST be free for the ENTIRE full-round action of spell combat, then that hand is never available to actually make an attack with which to deliver the spell. "

This is going back to Darksol's Strawman. Free Actions can be done at anytime. This particular one, given to the character through the casting of a spell that is a Melee Touch Attack, is done as a part of that spell's effects. It is no different than a Ray (ranged Touch Attack) except that a melee touch attack spell can be cast as a standard action and the character can move into range before using the melee attack. That the action is changed to a part of a full round action doesn't take away the option to attack with that spell after the casting. Being "armed" with a charge doesn't make that hand occupied anymore than it does without Spell Combat.


thaX wrote:
This is going back to Darksol's Strawman. Free Actions can be done at anytime. This particular one, given to the character through the casting of a spell that is a Melee Touch Attack, is done as a part of that spell's effects. It is no different than a Ray (ranged Touch Attack) except that a melee touch attack spell can be cast as a standard action and the character can move into range before using the melee attack.

It is very different. The attacks made as part of scorching ray are a non-action, just like the act of drawing an arrow when you make an attack with a bow, made specifically as part of the same action as is used to cast the spell. Spells with an actual range of touch, by comparison, are given(and require) an entirely separate free action with which to deliver the spell.

Quote:
That the action is changed to a part of a full round action doesn't take away the option to attack with that spell after the casting.

you literally stated, word for word, the entire basis for my argument. The attack happens after the casting. Not during. The casting happens during spell combat, and the full-attack with the weapon happen during spell combat, but the attack granted by the spell happens after.

Quote:
Being "armed" with a charge doesn't make that hand occupied anymore than it does without Spell Combat.

Well sure, but attacking with a hand sure does make that hand occupied.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

"Well sure, but Attacking with a hand sure does make that hand occupied."

With what? An attack?

Obviously, you are trying to make a point, but your skipping over the fundamental reason against two handing a weapon to Spellstrike with. The hand is already being used to cast and attack with the spell. It is the reason the free hand is needed, to cast and attack with the spell. If you can't attack with the spell, what is the point of using Spell Combat?

"you literally stated, word for word, the entire basis for my argument. The attack happens after the casting. Not during. The casting happens during spell combat, and the full-attack with the weapon happen during spell combat, but the attack granted by the spell happens after."

After what? Is there something here that make the Free Action have to wait until the turn is over? Or can it be used immediately after the spell is cast? Why would this have to wait until after the Full Round Action at all? I understand the Full Attack, as it is done within the Full Round action, but why limit free actions to be done until after a point of time that limits the character and makes the whole system break?

"It is very different."

In just the way I have described. The free action attack is confusing you, looking at the spell as a two pronged process instead of a basic attack spell that does damage to a target (via touch attack) Notice, the section does not differenciate between Melee and Ranged in the section, Ranged touch attack are described further down the page, the attack made as a part of the casting of the spell, not a Non Action.


So again, we're back to the fact that the hand is specifically allowed to attack with the spell.

What, then, is the problem with that hand being involved in the process of attacking with the spell?

Quote:
After what? Is there something here that make the Free Action have to wait until the turn is over? Or can it be used immediately after the spell is cast? Why would this have to wait until after the Full Round Action at all? I understand the Full Attack, as it is done within the Full Round action, but why limit free actions to be done until after a point of time that limits the character and makes the whole system break?

If you read my whole sentence in context, you would know that the answer to your first question in my quote is "after spell combat", or to translate "after the action used to cast the spell".

Now, it doesn't have to wait until after the full-round action, because it is a free action, which can explicitly be done at the same time as another action. However, the only timing that the rules for a touch spell gives you is "in the same round".

To go off on another tangent, if you used two-weapon fighting and had some swift action that allowed you to take an additional standard action, is that action subject to the limitations of that full-round action? This is the same answer as whether the free action to deliver a spell is. An action is it's own property in the action economy and is not subject to the rules and limitation of another action unless otherwise stated. Spell combat otherwise states that the penalties to-hit are applied. Spell combat does NOT otherwise state that you must take the action at a certain time, and it also does NOT otherwise state that it is subject to the handedness limitations that spell combat is.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Quote:
...does NOT otherwise state it is subject to the handedness limitations that Spell Combat is.

" the off-hand weapon is a spell

that is being cast." " while wielding a light or one-handed melee
weapon in the other hand."

It doesn't? Are you saying that the Free Attack Action has no connection to the spell at all? That it is used as a swift action casting?

The action to use that spell is contained within the Full Round Action. This means that if you use that Free Action Attack within the character's turn, it will be during Spell Combat, taking the -2 penalty to hit and that hand will still need to be free until all the attacks are complete. (Weapon and Spell)

Now, I know you disagree with this, that you believe that the Melee Touch Attack can be or is forced to be used outside of the Full Round Action. My overall confusion with this is where the base idea is that the Free Action needs to wait for anything or not be used right when the spell is cast. By itself, when a 1st level Magus uses Spell Combat, casting Shocking Grasp, both the weapon and spell attack happens and typically the turn ends with no trouble at all.


thaX wrote:
Quote:
...does NOT otherwise state it is subject to the handedness limitations that Spell Combat is.

" the off-hand weapon is a spell

that is being cast." " while wielding a light or one-handed melee
weapon in the other hand."

I have already stated my case regarding this. You can't cherry-pick parts of sentences to come to a conclusion that supports your particular viewpoint. You must accept all ramifications of that sentence if you're going to accept any of them.

Quote:


It doesn't? Are you saying that the Free Attack Action has no connection to the spell at all? That it is used as a swift action casting?

Stop saying that. Nobody has ever mentioned that it behaves as a swift action. Just that, being a free action, it follows different rules than it would if it were a "part-of-the-action non-action" type attack that ranged touch spells follow.

Quote:

The action to use that spell is contained within the Full Round Action.

Correct, excepting that using the spell is not an action. It is a component event of the full-round action. However, the rules of touch spells specifically grant you a free action that is not stated as part of the action used to cast the spell. Spell combat also similarly does not impose upon the freedom of that free action.

Quote:
This means that if you use that Free Action Attack within the character's turn, it will be during Spell Combat*, taking the -2 penalty to hit and that hand will still need to be free until all the attacks are complete. (Weapon and Spell)

*Citation needed

Quote:
Now, I know you disagree with this, that you believe that the Melee Touch Attack can be or is forced to be used outside of the Full Round Action. My overall confusion with this is where the base idea is that the Free Action needs to wait for anything or not be used right when the spell is cast. By itself, when a 1st level Magus uses Spell Combat, casting Shocking Grasp, both the weapon and spell attack happens and typically the turn ends with no trouble at all.

Emphasis on bolded part. My whole point is that a touch range spell is delivered as a free action, and the ONLY limitation stated in the touch spell rules is "In the same round that you cast the spell". note that it does not say "during the same action."

In addition, it is my continued belief that the end of a full-round action does NOT signify the end of your turn. if it did, then it would, in fact, be impossible to two-hand your weapon for the purpose of AOOs, because even that slight instant would violate spell combat's limitations, yet you insist this is still allowed, and this means you admit there is a time after full-round actions and before the end of your turn that you can, in fact, use other actions.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

"Citation Needed"

It was given six pages ago, by another poster.

"Full-Round Actions
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."

"Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all
your effort during a round."

From the Core Rulebook.

"My whole point is that a touch rage spell..." I think you meant a Melee touch spell, the range spells are used as a part of the casting,

My point was that there should be no difference between the two when using Spell Combat. You cast, attack, and are done. The Free Attack Action monkey wrench is just an extra step that is done as a part of casting that spell. If the character misses with Spellstrike and weapon hits, he will end up holding the spell instead for the next round anyways. He won't get infinite chances to hit until the charge is dispersed.


So it IS your position, then, that it is impossible to shift your grip to two-hand your weapon after you complete spell combat?


thaX wrote:
"My whole point is that a touch rage spell..." I think you meant a Melee touch spell, the range spells are used as a part of the casting
Shocking Grasp wrote:

Range: touch

Scorching Ray wrote:

Range: close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)

I meant what I said. "touch range spells" are not the same as spells that happen to include a ranged touch.


thaX wrote:

"Well sure, but Attacking with a hand sure does make that hand occupied."

With what? An attack?

Obviously, you are trying to make a point, but your skipping over the fundamental reason against two handing a weapon to Spellstrike with. The hand is already being used to cast and attack with the spell. It is the reason the free hand is needed, to cast and attack with the spell. If you can't attack with the spell, what is the point of using Spell Combat?

"you literally stated, word for word, the entire basis for my argument. The attack happens after the casting. Not during. The casting happens during spell combat, and the full-attack with the weapon happen during spell combat, but the attack granted by the spell happens after."

After what? Is there something here that make the Free Action have to wait until the turn is over? Or can it be used immediately after the spell is cast? Why would this have to wait until after the Full Round Action at all? I understand the Full Attack, as it is done within the Full Round action, but why limit free actions to be done until after a point of time that limits the character and makes the whole system break?

"It is very different."

In just the way I have described. The free action attack is confusing you, looking at the spell as a two pronged process instead of a basic attack spell that does damage to a target (via touch attack) Notice, the section does not differenciate between Melee and Ranged in the section, Ranged touch attack are described further down the page, the attack made as a part of the casting of the spell, not a Non Action.

If we're likening Spell Combat to TWF as the RAW says, and a relevant TWF FAQ says that using a two-handed weapon occupies both hands, meaning you can't use that hand to wield other weapons, such as a spiked gauntlet, then yes; attacking with that hand occupies that hand for the entirety of the action, which means you can't use that hand for anything other than the original acts in question.

This means if I was using TWF to throw two Javelins, I can't draw two more Javelins via Quick Draw and continue my TWF action with those, because my hands were already occupied making attacks. I have to attack with the two Javelins that I had already drew, and only those Javelins. If I attack with anything else, even an identical Javelin, with all of the same stats and everything, your activity won't work based on the FAQ, because the Javelin you draw, even if identical, are not the same entities as the ones you attacked with.

No, what he's saying is you already used the hand to cast the spell, which is the attack you're using for the TWF action that is Spell Combat. Unless the spell itself gives you an attack, like Scorching Ray, and not an option to attack, like Shocking Grasp, then you can't cast and attack in the same turn, even if you use Spell Combat. In fact, Spell Combat makes it worse because you're likening it to TWF, which has all of the restrictions, such as what I've listed above.

In terms of a Metamagic Spell that takes a Full Round Action, you can't because the spell isn't actually cast until the end of your turn, and the ability to deliver a spell as a Free Action doesn't occur until you successfully cast a spell, and you can only do so for as long as until the start of your next turn (as 1 round would have passed by then). Since you can't take actions outside your turn unless specified, and this Free Action lists no special exception, you can't take that Free Action at the time you would be granted the ability to, due to general combat rules.

In terms of Spell Combat, it creates a Schrodinger problem, because you aren't sure at what point exactly the spell is cast. It's not definitive that the spell you're casting in Spell Combat requires a Standard Action (or that it even takes a Standard Action to cast), nor is it definitive at what point you begin casting the spell either, as you can choose to either resolve the spell first, or resolve your attacks first. The only thing that's definitive is that Spell Combat, as an action, starts at the beginning of your turn, and ends at the end of your turn, and that the spell cast takes place somewhere during that action, so a GM is well within the rights to dismiss it on the same grounds as described above, since that's all the solid evidence they are left with.

For the record, the RAW you quoted actually says that it takes the entire "round," and not "turn," so the only reason a Metamagic Spell takes effect in the same round is because there is specifics that say so. Any other generic Full Round Action that you take (such as Spell Combat, or even a generic Full Attack Action) doesn't even take effect until the start of your turn in the next round. Ironic, isn't it?

With that being said, it's quite clear that the RAW does not match the intent of it taking your turn as you're arguing, which would impose that your argument in relation to the RAW is a strawman.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I know when the spell is cast. If your confused about that, please look at Grick's Guide for help.

The parallel to TWF is used to help acklemate the player to the purpose and use of the ability, not to hamstring the Magus into impossibilities such as the strawman you introduced.

Free Actions do not need to wait on the full round action to complete. Nothing in the rules quoted, FAQ's linked, or in the discussion as a whole has changed this. They simply can be done at any time the character can use them.

Can the Magus technically two hand a weapon after the full attack is over? Since the Spell Combat is a Full Round Action specifically, likely not. Would a GM allow for it to use for AoO's? I think so, though likely using the parsing commonly used by all of us.

You can finish the spell within your turn, the rules even say it.

Core Rulebook wrote:

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.

So this means that the spell takes effect before the turn is over, as a part of the full round casting. This is not turning the spell into a 1 round casting cost, just as Spell Combat does not turn a touch attack spell into a swift casting. The way you are parsing this is silly and extreme.


Quote:
If your confused about that, please look at Grick's Guide for help.

Grick's guide does not provide any sort of evidence against our point of view, neither does it count as an authoritative position.

Honestly, I'm pretty annoyed that you've taken to constantly referring us to it. It explains basic magus mechanics. This essentially means that you're dismissing our arguments out of hand while simultaneously declaring that we don't even know the basics what we're talking about. It's extremely rude. You don't see us pointing out your numerous basic grammar and spelling errors, do you?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yes, but it is the basics that you seem to be confused about. You even tried to tell me that Spellstrike doesn't give an extra attack, something I did not infer.

Thank you for not pointing them out, but I am trying to be better at forming sentences and correctly using phrases and word, I hope that I am improving with that at the very least.


Let me just present my arguments in order.

***

1) The end of a full-round action does not mark the end of your turn.
- Even though the raw of it states that a full-round action takes your entire turn, there are numerous examples that we have outlined where it breaks the game. One strong piece of evidence is that a sorcerer is capable of casting an intensified shocking grasp and delivering it in the same round; If the end of the action of casting the shocking grasp were to mark the end of the sorcerer's turn, it would be impossible to deliver the shocking grasp after the spell is finished casting. Another example, a magus is fully capable of casting a quickened shocking grasp, deliver it two-handed, take a hand off the weapon, and then start spell combat. Despite the flavor of full-round actions and the unclear text, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of the timing of an action being mechanically separate from the flow of the turn. Too much breaks otherwise.

2) Spell combat's first two sentences might as well not exist, in terms of mechanics.
- As I've demonstrated, if you take that sentence for anything more than what it is (A comparison to help people understand the basic idea of what it behaves like), then the spell combat implodes upon itself. You take massive stacked penalties, become incapable of using the main-hand weapon for spellstrike, and you remove access to a feat that has long since been agreed upon as Legal, which I have pointed out in dervish dance. At its core, spell combat works perfectly fine without any issues at all when you just delete the first two sentences. There are many abilities that have this same issue, as pathfinder is a very casually written rules system that likes to "fluff up" their writing to be more interesting.

3) Unless otherwise stated, an action's penalties, limitations, bonuses, rules, etc. are applied only to that action.
- There's a FAQ that basically spells this out. Power attack is an example of penalties and bonuses that apply beyond the action(s) it is used with. Spell combat is an example of an ability that specifically imparts a penalty to a separate action.

4) A spell with a range of "touch" very clearly separates the delivery method into a separate action.
- This is in comparison to the similar ranged spells that include a ranged touch attack. Spells with a range of "touch" have their own rules, and they state "In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action." Notice that it doesn't say "during the same action" or "follows the restrictions of the action used to cast the spell" or any such limiting language. This is clearly different from the ranged touch spell rules which state "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." Because spell combat doesn't change the basic mechanics of touch spells, we know that they remain an entirely separate action.

5) combining points 3 and 4 means that unless otherwise stated, the penalties, limitations, bonuses, rules, etc. of the action used to cast a spell with the range of touch do not apply to the free action used to deliver the spell, which is made as a separate action.

6) Spell combat does not change the mechanics of touch spells in any way.
- The only way it or spellstrike changes the touch range spell's extra free action is to impose a the to-hit penalties related to spell combat. It does not impose the "must have one-hand free" limitation. It does not impose the "a light or one-handed weapon in the other hand" limitation. It does not impose any "timing of use" limitation on the free action. Therefore we know it still follows the basic rules of "in the same round" and "as a free action".

7) Combining points 1, 5, and 6 means that you can wait until spell combat is completely resolved before you choose to make your free action melee touch attack.

8) Shifting your the grip on your weapon is a free action.

9) combining points 1 and 8 means you can shift your grip to two-handed after the completion of spell combat.

10) combining points 1, 7, and 9 means you can wait for spell combat to complete, shift your grip to two-handed, then take your free action attack to deliver the spell.

***

And that's how it all parses out. I invite you to engage with it the same way I've been engaging with your arguments, and apply it to other situations to see if anything breaks.


thaX wrote:

I know when the spell is cast. If your confused about that, please look at Grick's Guide for help.

The parallel to TWF is used to help acklemate the player to the purpose and use of the ability, not to hamstring the Magus into impossibilities such as the strawman you introduced.

Free Actions do not need to wait on the full round action to complete. Nothing in the rules quoted, FAQ's linked, or in the discussion as a whole has changed this. They simply can be done at any time the character can use them.

Can the Magus technically two hand a weapon after the full attack is over? Since the Spell Combat is a Full Round Action specifically, likely not. Would a GM allow for it to use for AoO's? I think so, though likely using the parsing commonly used by all of us.

You can finish the spell within your turn, the rules even say it.

Core Rulebook wrote:

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.
So this means that the spell takes effect before the turn is over, as a part of the full round casting. This is not turning the spell into a 1 round casting cost, just as Spell Combat does not turn a touch attack spell into a swift casting. The way you are parsing this is silly and extreme.

Grick's Guide has nothing to say besides what I've already mentioned, which is that the spell is only confirmed to be cast when the Full Round Action is completed, since A. the casting time of the spell is not specifically mentioned, and B. the time at which you start casting the spell is variant, and likewise is dependant upon the answer to point A, which you cannot confirm with absolute certainty.

The term is "acclimate," for your information. Acklemate just sounds like a misspelled word of something that's highly irrelevant. Anyway...If it's a parallel, then anything that Spell Combat does not change or alter in any way, means you revert to the TWF rules. Spell Combat does not replace the TWF penalties, which means you suffer regular TWF penalties in addition to the specified -2, and your penalties are increased significantly due to not possessing the TWF feat. Any other restrictions specified by TWF that Spell Combat does not change or clarify would, as I've said before, become enforced.

Of course, this would most likely result in Spell Combat being an absolute pile of trash until the late game, where you actually have so many bonuses to your attacks that you can spare to lose some to-hit and still hit reliably, which is most likely not intended. And if that's the case, then really, the "TWF parallel" makes things more complicated and confusing than what they need to be. As I've stated previously, Spell Combat is already fully quantified, the extraneous mention of TWF is filler text that can be cut out, and Spell Combat's function would not change from how Grick's Guide would run the feature.

You're right, general Free Actions don't have to, and that's not what I'm getting at. But you're talking about a specific Free Action that requires a specific condition to be able to do so for that action type.

You think I can take a Free Action to deliver a spell any time I want? No. No, you can't. You never could. You can ONLY, AND EVER ONCE, take a Free Action to deliver a spell, AFTER THAT SPELL HAS BEEN CAST in that round. If you have not cast a spell, you do not get the ability to deliver a spell for free for that round. That's it. Full stop.

By your insane logic, even in rounds after I've cast a Touch Spell, but failed to deliver it, I can take a Free Action to deliver it again, and can do so until I deliver that spell. Do the rules allow that? No. They don't. They never did. But according to you, I can, right?

Do you finally understand the argument I'm making in relation to this subject? The Free Action to deliver the spell AND ONLY the Free Action to deliver the spell, has to wait for the Full Round Action spell to complete, in order to do so. Nothing else has to, unless it likewise has conditional modifiers such as Free Actions to deliver Touch Spells.

You can't grip-shift outside of your turn for AoOs. It's a Free Action to do so. So, unless you can do so outside your turn (such as via a Readied Action, which is quite a waste), it's impossible by the rules. If you're going to rule that you can't grip-shift after Spell Combat, then I can't grip-shift after any Full Round Action.

You don't seem to understand the point that I made there; I said that the rules you quoted are the only reason a Full Round Action spell takes place in the same round that you're casting, and that by RAW, anything that is a Full Round Action has its effects delayed by 1 round. But again, that's what the RAW says. Call it a strawman if you want, but if you're going to use RAW to serve your argument, then quite frankly it's baggage that comes with your argument's package, and you either accept the package, or send it back to whatever crazy company you got it from.

I also never said that the spell cast by Spell Combat is a Swift Action. What I've said is that you can't cast both a regular spell (through Spell Combat) and a Swift Action spell at the same time, because you cannot fulfill somatic components for that Swift Action spell. But that's not the same thing.

You need to understand my arguments better, because if you're getting "Can't Quickened + Spell Combat because somatic component problems" to equate to "Spell Combat casts a Quickened Spell," then I don't know what the point of arguing this further becomes, since all it amounts to is my argument becoming strawmanned.


@ Johnny_Devo: Some addendums to your points.

1. The RAW actually says it takes an entire "round," not "turn," an oversight on my behalf I might add.

The argument is that it should be turn, and not round, but due to mechanical (and purposefully written) game terms, the RAW would actually suggest that a Full Round Action takes an entire round (meaning its effects wouldn't take place until the start of your next turn) to complete, meaning, for example, a Full Attack Action's results would not take place until the start of your next turn (since one round has not passed until then). Just food for thought.

2. Spell Combat would only take massive penalties if you lacked the TWF feats. At best, you're at -4/-4, but per the FAQ regarding special abilities, since you cannot finesse with Touch Spells (as they are not considered light weapons), it's -6/-6. Still hefty, but massive would be the -8/-12 you would have without the TWF feats. It'd also make the Magus more feat-reliant, which is probably not intended.

Of course, this would also mean that ITWF and GTWF (if the Magus was so inclined to take those feats) would break as well, since your off-hand weapon becomes a spell, and that means you would have multiple opportunities to either cast spells (or deliver a spell that you've cast with those extra attacks). In other words, feast (3+ spells with standard action casting time in a round) or famine (1 spell ever, and the feats do nothing since once the spell is discharged, you can't attack unless the spell is something like Chill Touch).

3. Expanding on this with point #1, if we took the RAW that it takes an entire round for the effects of a Full Round Action (barring exceptions like Full Round Action spells), this means that the restrictions of an action would extend until the start of your next turn. So, those Spell Combat/TWF/Flurry of Blows penalties? Would apply to any AoOs you make as well. Heck, it can even be argued that, because your hands are busy, you can't make AoOs with weapons in your hands, so unless you have natural weapons (like a Bite/Gore attack) or an Unarmed Strike, or non-hand weapon, you can't make AoOs. More food for thought.

4. If the intent is that they are supposed to be done as part of casting the spell, the line regarding Free Actions would be omitted entirely, and you likewise wouldn't be able to move before, during, or after casting, in the same vein you couldn't move before, during, or after attacking. (Spring Spell Metamagic feat, anyone?)

5. Again, the fact that Spell Combat specifically mentions that its penalties apply to any attacks made from the spell means that spells aren't inherently attacks, and that any attacks provided from the spell you cast aren't part of the normal Spell Combat routine that would normally suffer the penalties. Otherwise, the associated line would be omitted due to redundancy, since the base assumption is that the spell you cast from Spell Combat is an Attack (and suffers the issues mentioned in my point #4), and Spell Combat's penalties apply to all associated attacks you make through Spell Combat, spell or not.

6. A RAW argument against this would be that it specifically requires a hand free, even though the spell you cast may not have somatic components. To that point, I would argue that if the free hand required is for simply fulfilling the conditions required for Spell Combat, how are you fulfilling any somatic components for the associated spell you're casting during the Spell Combat action?

Other than that, I have nothing to add to (and otherwise agree with) the synopsis posted.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Darksol, the strawman you introduced is the insistence that spells can't be completed in the same full round action as they are started, using the Spontaneous Casting of Metamagic feats as your (flawed) basis.

I have quoted the section of the rules that note this is not the case three separate times, and still you have either ignored it or said it is irreverent. You can complete the spell, use the free action attack during spell combat, and any other instance that you insist on hamstringing, during the Full Round Action.

To say you need to do Free/Swift actions outside of the Full Round Action is saying that Free and Swift actions need to wait for it to complete, which has never been, nor should not be, the case.

And, yes, of course you need to gain the spell's ability before you can use it. The character can't use a free action he does not yet have, can he?

ok, lets put the OP up so we can look at this.

Quote:

In order to clarify some issues, I thought I would get opinions as to what the rules say regarding the use of free actions (and swift actions) after full attack actions.

According to the rules, as I understand them, free actions can be taken before, during, or after other actions, including full attack actions.

Which of the following examples, if any, would be illegal, and why?

Let's assume the DM doesn't impose a restriction on the number of FA (free actions). Assume a Magus character. In each case, the FA, or SW (swift action) is supposed to take place after the designated full-attack action.

1) TWF(unarmed strike + longsword) + FA(change grip to 2-hand longsword)

2) TWF(unarmed strike + longsword) + SW(quickened shocking grasp) + FA(change grip to 2-hand longsword) + FA(spellstrike attack)

3) Spell Combat(shield + longsword) + FA(change grip to 2-hand longsword)

4) Spell Combat(shield + longsword) + SW(quickened shocking grasp) + FA(change grip to 2-hand longsword) + FA(spellstrike attack)

5) Spell Combat(shocking grasp + longsword) + FA(spellstrike attack)

6) Spell Combat(shocking grasp + longsword) + FA(change grip to 2-hand longsword) + FA(spellstrike attack)

7) Spell Combat(shocking grasp + longsword) + FA(change grip to 2-hand longsword) + FA(spellstrike attack) + FA(change grip to 1-hand longsword) + SW(quickened shocking grasp) + FA(change grip to 2-hand longsword) + FA(spellstrike attack)

Thanks.

SO, what we know, we can do number 1

2. TWF is already used your hands of effort here, but the swift action is it's own attack. I believe with TWF, one would be able to Two Hand the sword after casting. There could be an argument that one would not be able to do this, though it is unusual for a character to TWF with an unarmed strike. Using spellstrike through the two handed wielded weapon is possible if two handing the weapon is.

3 Spell Combat would need the hand free, so as pointed out by another poster, it would not be feasible. I would like to add a note that it is the spell shield being cast, not a shield being wielded in this scenario.

4. because of the same reason as 3, you would not be able to two hand the longsword, though you can swiftcast the spell and spellstrike with the already wielded weapon.

5. This is putting an extra action (FA) on the stack, as Spellstrike is a non-action that is used with the spell. (it is done as a part of the spell's resolution) This is what the Magus was designed to do and should be no question that this can be done.

6. This is the crux of the issue in the other thread, as using the FA outside of the full round action is the shenanigan used to effect an extra attack when using the combo mentioned in the first thread. You would use the FA as a part of Spell Combat during the Full Round Action.

7. This is the accumulation of an assumption with a known quality. You would be able to use Spell Combat, getting the weapon attack(s) and the spell use, then use the Swift Action to cast the Quickened spell. Two Handing the weapon is not possible because of the reason listed in number 3.

Regarding TWF and Spell Combat, it has been pointed out several times that the penalties overall of used in the manner suggested (by whom, I have no idea) is ridiculous. The parallel between the two does not incur the normal TWF particulars in that way. The penalties used by Spell Combat is listed in the ability itself, and the extreme addition of TWF penalties on top of that is silly and not at all how the ability is stated to work.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Johnny_Devo wrote:

Let me just present my arguments in order.

***

Spoiler:

1) The end of a full-round action does not mark the end of your turn.
- Even though the raw of it states that a full-round action takes your entire turn, there are numerous examples that we have outlined where it breaks the game. One strong piece of evidence is that a sorcerer is capable of casting an intensified shocking grasp and delivering it in the same round; If the end of the action of casting the shocking grasp were to mark the end of the sorcerer's turn, it would be impossible to deliver the shocking grasp after the spell is finished casting. Another example, a magus is fully capable of casting a quickened shocking grasp, deliver it two-handed, take a hand off the weapon, and then start spell combat. Despite the flavor of full-round actions and the unclear text, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of the timing of an action being mechanically separate from the flow of the turn. Too much breaks otherwise.

2) Spell combat's first two sentences might as well not exist, in terms of mechanics.
- As I've demonstrated, if you take that sentence for anything more than what it is (A comparison to help people understand the basic idea of what it behaves like), then the spell combat implodes upon itself. You take massive stacked penalties, become incapable of using the main-hand weapon for spellstrike, and you remove access to a feat that has long since been agreed upon as Legal, which I have pointed out in dervish dance. At its core, spell combat works perfectly fine without any issues at all when you just delete the first two sentences. There are many abilities that have this same issue, as pathfinder is a very casually written rules system that likes to "fluff up" their writing to be more interesting.

3) Unless otherwise stated, an action's penalties, limitations, bonuses, rules, etc. are applied only to that action.
- There's a FAQ that basically spells this out. Power attack is an example of penalties and bonuses that apply beyond the action(s) it is used with. Spell combat is an example of an ability that specifically imparts a penalty to a separate action.

4) A spell with a range of "touch" very clearly separates the delivery method into a separate action.
- This is in comparison to the similar ranged spells that include a ranged touch attack. Spells with a range of "touch" have their own rules, and they state "In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action." Notice that it doesn't say "during the same action" or "follows the restrictions of the action used to cast the spell" or any such limiting language. This is clearly different from the ranged touch spell rules which state "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." Because spell combat doesn't change the basic mechanics of touch spells, we know that they remain an entirely separate action.

5) combining points 3 and 4 means that unless otherwise stated, the penalties, limitations, bonuses, rules, etc. of the action used to cast a spell with the range of touch do not apply to the free action used to deliver the spell, which is made as a separate action.

6) Spell combat does not change the mechanics of touch spells in any way.
- The only way it or spellstrike changes the touch range spell's extra free action is to impose a the to-hit penalties related to spell combat. It does not impose the "must have one-hand free" limitation. It does not impose the "a light or one-handed weapon in the other hand" limitation. It does not impose any "timing of use" limitation on the free action. Therefore we know it still follows the basic rules of "in the same round" and "as a free action".

7) Combining points 1, 5, and 6 means that you can wait until spell combat is completely resolved before you choose to make your free action melee touch attack.

8) Shifting your the grip on your weapon is a free action.

9) combining points 1 and 8 means you can shift your grip to two-handed after the completion of spell combat.

10) combining points 1, 7, and 9 means you can wait for spell combat to complete, shift your grip to two-handed, then take your free action attack to deliver the spell.

***

And that's how it all parses out. I invite you to engage with it the same way I've been engaging with your arguments, and apply it to other situations to see if anything breaks.

1- A full round action is your entire turn. What marks the end of a characters turn is a player saying "ok, that's all I can do, that is the end of my turn..." The only thing that is mention as being outside of the Full Round Action is the 5ft step. Free and Swift actions can be performed as normal.

2-

Quote:

Spell Combat (Ex): 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.

Seems that a little is lost here, such as having this ability at 1st level, having the spell count as the off hand weapon, and that it is using weapons and casting spells in the same turn.

Dervish Dance is not prevented by having the parallel to TWF, the hand is still free, even if it counts as being armed (as a Monk will tell you when snatching arrows)

3. This is understood, though why it is something of contention is more than bonuses and penalties. The issue in the first thread had a feat that limited attacks, and this would also limit the attack granted by spell combat if the two were to be used together.

4- Please keep in mind, this is when the spell is cast as a Standard action. When the spell is cast in a different manner, the free action attack would be used in conjunction with the spell within the manner it was cast. During Spell Combat when cast in that way, and during the full round action for the spontaneous caster using metamagic feats in that way, used as a part of the effects of the spell cast.

5- it is otherwise stated, as a part of Spell Combat. "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)" Notice the first part, as a full round action. Even if you have Free Actions happening after a Full Round Action, this would prevent this particular one from being used in such a way.

6- It changes the casting time of the spell to an Off Hand use, as a part of a Full Round Action.

7- It has the spell effects be imparted as a part of that ability, as I pointed out in 6. Being a Full Round Action is more than just having it take up the full turn, it is how the spell is used.

8- yep

9- "the magus must have one hand free"

10- As the ability is self contained, the free action will have been used before the ability to shift the grip on the weapon, but, as has been mentioned before, the shift to grip the weapon into a two handed wield is not feasible while using Spell Combat. This is something I was wrong about when using a swift action casting.

Just to be clear, the point when the FA is used outside of the Full Round Action that is Spell Combat, this is when you are changing the casting time from 1 standard action to a swift cast. The reason the spell takes the -2 penalty is because it is used during the Spell Combat ability. This would include the FA to impart the effects of that spell.

351 to 400 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.