The character can't use a free action he does not yet have...
This is precisely what I am saying in relation to a Full Round Action Touch Spell. The caster does not have (more accurately, he does not fulfill the condition required to take) the Free Action to deliver the spell until the Full Round Action is complete. The Full Round Action isn't complete until his turn is complete.
That's all I'm saying.
And you're saying that waiting until the spell is cast shouldn't be the case for Free/Swift Actions? For real?
Then why the hell do we have rules text that says waiting until the spell is cast is exactly the case, with the Touch Spell in Combat entry effectively stating A->B, and Ranged Touch Spells in Combat providing a specific exception to the general rule of A->B, the Concentration rules requiring you to maintain concentration until the spell completes, and so on?
You have OVER THREE rules sources that tell us otherwise, and they are quite consistent and coherent to most everybody else on these boards, so I suggest you re-evaluate that philosophy, because if you present it to most anyone else, they're going to give you a strange look and throw the book at you to read it again until you get it right.
Response to Johnny_Devo's Post
1. Clearly, you forget what happens when you try and enforce Full Round Action RAW as-is. You get "interpretations" like mine where you sit there and call it a strawman, even though that's exactly what the RAW says would happen in accordance to the defined game terms being used.
2. Having the ability at first level is clarified by the Magus table entry. Several 1st level features don't state that so-and-so class gets so-and-so feature at 1st level, so saying it's a problem in this case is irrelevant.
Off-hand is practically pointless to keep because TWF isn't mentioned either, which is the only place where an Off-hand matters (in the context of TWF).
The last is flavor text, which is about as flavor text as the Reactionary trait stating you were bullied as a kid. Quite frankly, a lot of flavor text can go out the window, especially when describing a given subject's game mechanics.
You're right, TWF itself doesn't disallow Dervish Dance anymore than Flurry of Blows does. Dervish Dance is disallowed because the spell (which is wielded in your hand) is specifically stated to be a weapon. It's not an unarmed "natural" weapon made armed through features, which is what an Unarmed Strike is, and doesn't shut down Dervish Dance.
Nice try, though.
3. It's a contention because Full Round Action RAW strawmen, as described in point #1. I'm surprised you even had to ask why it is.
4. That's bulls#!^ and you know it. Full Round Action spells don't change the A->B function any more than a Standard Action spell does, and you're just trying to make it work because you can't face the strawmen that were created with the Full Round Action RAW.
5. Speaking of strawmen, here's one now. Notice the stuff after the first part, as a full-round action, none of which says anything along the lines of "Which must be done as part of Spell Combat." Lacking such verbiage means you can't connect this any more than Spell-Like Abilities to Spells for requirements of feats, prestige classes, and so on (which required a FAQ to do so), and likewise means that it's a strawman interpretation until further clarification is granted. Which is unlikely to happen.
6. There's no such casting time or action as "Off-hand use," either in the Actions in Combat table, the Combat chapter as a whole, or even the Magic chapter. Strawman alert, burn it with fire.
7. First off, you contradicted yourself by saying the spell use is transformed to a Full Round Action by Spell Combat, as that implies the spell itself takes a Full Round Action to cast, when you've just said before that its casting time is "Off-hand use." (And before that, you've stated that it's a different casting time, though I forget what it was, exactly. Make up your mind, seriously.) Second off, imparting its abilities doesn't mean you have to use the Free Action to deliver it in the same action associated with the spell being cast.
(Skipping 8, as nothing to say there)
9. Clearly, Point #3 isn't as understood as you're suggesting, as the "The magus must have one hand free" restriction only applies for the duration of Spell Combat, which is a Full Round Action. The argument being made with this addendum is that "If a Full Round Action doesn't take your entire turn to complete (1), and shifting grip is a Free Action (8), then I can grip-shift outside of Spell Combat (the resulting point #9).
10. "Self-contained" in what manner, exactly? Also, nothing in Spell Combat says or even implies that the components of the ability (the spell or the attacks) have to be self-contained, which means that this is also a strawman argument.
---
And now you're the one proposing that the spell cast within Spell Combat is a Swift Action, which you called before to be a strawman argument that we created. Look who's the strawman now!
No, the spell suffers the -2 penalty because Spell Combat specifically says the spell suffers the -2 penalty, not because it's done as part of Spell Combat like you're saying. In fact, any attack you make with that spell (such as multiple attacks with Chill Touch) suffers the -2 penalty, even if it's made as a Free Action, as a Standard Action, as part of a Full Attack in the following round, whatever.
According to you, the -2 penalty would apply regardless of Spell Combat specifically stating so, which means the text is as redundant and pointless as the TWF text, and therefore shouldn't even be there, especially with the interpretation that you must deliver the Touch Spell during Spell Combat.
|
The character can't use a free action he does not yet have...This is precisely what I am saying in relation to a Full Round Action Touch Spell. The caster does not have (more accurately, he does not fulfill the condition required to take) the Free Action to deliver the spell until the Full Round Action is complete. The Full Round Action isn't complete until his turn is complete.
That's all I'm saying.
And you're saying that waiting until the spell is cast shouldn't be the case for Free/Swift Actions? For real?
Then why the hell do we have rules text that says waiting until the spell is cast is exactly the case, with the Touch Spell in Combat entry effectively stating A->B, and Ranged Touch Spells in Combat providing a specific exception to the general rule of A->B, the Concentration rules requiring you to maintain concentration until the spell completes, and so on?
You have OVER THREE rules sources that tell us otherwise, and they are quite consistent and coherent to most everybody else on these boards, so I suggest you re-evaluate that philosophy, because if you present it to most anyone else, they're going to give you a strange look and throw the book at you to read it again until you get it right.
It is you saying that the spell won't complete when it is cast differently than the normal standard action, NOT ME. A full round action is needed in those circumstances, but the rules do not say that the spell is never completed in a full round action, that is all you and your Strawman. All I have said is that the spell is used in the same turn as it is cast in those cases, even quoted the rule that say so. This includes using the Free Attack Action to impart Shocking Grasp's effects. The insistence that free actions are limited in this way goes against every aspect of how free and Swift action work.
1. Clearly, you forget what happens when you try and enforce Full Round Action RAW as-is.
Clearly, you have not been listening. Pointing out your own Strawman is not helping. That you repeated it and call it a RAW strawman is... silly.
4 - You disagree that the entry in the Core Rulebook is when the spell is cast as a Standard action, or that Spell Combat makes that spell a part of Spell Combat? You are unclear on this point.
5- It shouldn't have to state it as a part of Spell Combat. That is how you are using the spell, as stated, as a part of a Full Round Action. (Weapon attacks and spell)
6- It is a unique instance created by this ability, as stated in the ability itself, having the spell being used in place of the off hand weapon. Why are you looking for charts from a previous book for an ability that already explains it's use and purpose?
7- It is a part of a full round action, as stated in number six. As it is used in such a way, the effects come into being during that full round action. (being the whole round, it does so anyways) The spell itself is not transformed, it is how the caster is allowed to cast a Standard action spell within a Full Round Action that the ability allows.
9- "...which is a Full-Round Action." Which takes up the whole round. The main point is that the hand should remain free for the whole round. It was even pointed out to me by another poster.
10- The ability is done as a full-round action, using the weapon attacks and the spell effects in the same turn. Are you saying it isn't?
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.
And now you're the one proposing that the spell cast within Spell Combat is a Swift Action, which you called before to be a strawman argument that we created. Look who's the strawman now!
No, I am clarifying what I consider what was tried in the first thread as the want to transform the spell from a Standard Action casting within Spell Combat to a Swift action outside it. I have never proposed doing so intentionally as a way to make it so.
If you hold the spell or have extra hits (like chill touch), the penalties go away after the turn is over. You are no longer performing the Spell Combat ability. I am surprised that you would impose this.
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.
==Begin Turn==
--Cast intensified shocking grasp----Complete casting of intensified shocking grasp--
==End Turn==
At what point does the sorcerer use the free action to deliver the intensified shocking grasp?
2-
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.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.
Okay, you got me there. The first sentence can stay. You and I both know it's about the second sentence, though. Without the second sentence, you only lose a simile. You still know that you're casting a spell and making a full-attack, you still know the penalties, the action type, the limitations, et-cetera.
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)
"You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand."
"but the off-hand weapon is a spell"Please explain in detail how the two above passages can be resolved in a way that allows dervish dance to work when using spell combat, without incidentally allowing the well known illegal interaction of fencing grace and slashing grace with spell combat. I'd love to hear it.
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.
While that discussion did admittedly lead to this, it is also irrelevant to this point. My stance on whirlwind attack also relies on the use of certain definitions, and I admit that we each are using two entirely valid definitions that, when applied, lead to separate answers.
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.
Where in any book in existence does it state that touch range spells behave differently depending on the action used to cast them? Where are you reading that it suddenly has to be used in conjunction with a different type of action? Does this mean I can't do a swift action shocking grasp, then move to my opponent, free action attack, standard action attack?
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.
Correct. It otherwise states that the free action to deliver the spell also takes the penalty. It does NOT otherwise state that you must have one hand free and a light or one-handed weapon in the other hand for the free action. It does NOT otherwise state that you must perform the free action at any specific time. Yes, I do notice the full-round action, but as I demonstrate with point #1, that has no bearings on your ability to perform any free actions afterwards.
6- It changes the casting time of the spell to an Off Hand use, as a part of a Full Round Action.
"Off Hand use" does not exist anywhere. In addition, the casting time of a touch spell still has no bearings on the mechanics of its delivery. The casting of the spell has no specific action economy, and is instead attached to the full-round action of spell combat. None of this changes the way touch spells work.
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.
This also hinges on your ability to provide evidence that the action a touch spell happens to be a part of somehow changes the rules governing the delivery of it.
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.
Interesting.
So, back to situation presented in #1, except the sorcerer is wielding a quarterstaff.
==Begin turn==
--FA change grip--
--Begin casting intensified shocking grasp--
--Complete casting of intensified shocking grasp--
--5ft step--
--FA deliver intensified shocking grasp--
--FA change grip--
==End turn==
Is this legal?
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.
- Again, what does making it outside the full-round action have to do with changing the cast time? In any case, can't free actions be used at any time a swift action could?
- Or, because spell combat specifically says the penalty applies. If it was assumed to be used during spell combat, why would spell combat say the penalty is applied, if we already know that? Likewise, if it's not normally assumed that the free action to deliver the spell is used during the parent action, why wouldn't they specifically point that out if they wanted it to work that way?
I said the spell completes when your turn completes. That's quite a ways different from saying the spell never completes, which is honestly quite silly. I can see why you'd call it a strawman if that's what you gathered, but you weren't even getting the counter-argument down, and then that means you're being a strawman to the strawman, and two strawmen don't cancel each other out to create a correct argument.
Again, the RAW says round, not turn. They're specific game terms, and should not be confused or interchanged. This is like the Spell Combat entry all over again, with people saying attack, not weapon. They're not the same term, they're not interchangable, and they never will be.
Even with RAI conveying the "turn" terminology, you're still trying to deliver a spell before it's complete, which is impossible to do, both as a Free Action, and as an activity in general. You've even said so yourself, by saying you can't take a Free Action for something you can't normally perform.
1. I call it a "RAW Strawman" because you call it a strawman, and it's the conclusion I come to based purely on RAW. Hence, "RAW Strawman." I don't agree with it, nor do I value the rules any more than them being RAW, which is why I'm categorizing it as a RAW "strawman", because it's the argument I make with the RAW presented to me.
4. Wrong, and wrong. My point there is that changing the action type required to cast a spell (Full Round, Swift, Immediate, Part of X Action, whatever), does nothing to alter the Touch Spell rules, which all Touch Spells adhere to, regardless of how they're cast. If I cast a spell, I deliver that spell after the action is resolved, no matter how that spell is cast, whether it's a Standard, Full Round, Swift, or part of another action entirely (hint hint, Spell Combat). Unless you have some ability that alters how Touch Spells function (in relation to the action you're casting, which Spell Combat doesn't do), I will always deliver that spell after it's cast, either as a Free Action if it's in the same round, NOT turn, or in place of an Attack if it's not in the same round(, NOT turn).
5. Yes, it does have to say it. It has to in order for it to become an exception to the general rule that Touch Spells are delivered outside of the action associated with the spell (because if they're delivered as part of the action associated with the spell, Free Action clause and ability to move clause is pointless and does nothing, because it's superseded by the exception imposed).
The burden of proof resides with those who are saying the exception is there. Am I one of those people? No. But you are. So I suggest you point to me what sentence in Spell Combat tells me that the Touch Spell you cast must be delivered right after you cast the spell associated with the ability, because me (and several others) aren't seeing it.
6. The ability doesn't say "off-hand use" though. It says "off-hand weapon," but even that makes no sense. You're the one who's saying it's an "off-hand use", so that means it's one of your strawman arguments.
7. Not disputing it's part of the Full Round Action. What's disputed in #6 is the fact that "off-hand use" is even said and can be taken as a valid answer. The only thing you can say for sure is that it's part of a Full Round Action, because the casting time or even duration required for casting that spell is not listed. Saying that it's a Standard Action also isn't technically correct, because the only limitation is that the spell cast within Spell Combat is normally 1 Standard Action.
9. No, no, no. F%!@ing hell, NO. You're contradicting yourself by saying this crap, both on saying you understand point #3, and by other things you've said. You can't let a character grip-shift to count as two-handed for AoOs (which you have specifically stated multiple times to allow), and then deny a character to grip-shift to two-hand a Spellstrike delivery because Spell combat. They're mutually exclusive events that take place within the same limitations. If I can't grip-shift to two-hand Spellstrike a spell cast through Spell Combat, whether it's outside my turn, or within Spell Combat, then I can't grip-shift to two-hand for the purposes of AoOs under the same conditions, because both are identical Free Actions (grip-shifting) that are occurring within the Full Round Action being taken (Spell Combat). The only difference is the reason for doing so (Spellstrike V.S. AoOs), which is irrelevant in the case of performing a Full Round Action like Spell Combat.
10. I asked what you meant by "self-contained," because that is neither a game term, nor a gamer term. That definition is flawed in relation to Touch Spells, because Touch Spells can be held, and you've stated repeatedly that they're a part of Spell Combat. Therefore, a held Touch Spell that isn't discharged in the same round means that Spell Combat, in that case, isn't resolved, because the spell effects haven't transpired.
Unless you're suggesting that merely casting the spell is part of it, in which case you're only proving my point that the Free Action to deliver the spell that was cast both A. Doesn't have to be taken, and B. Is irrelevant to Spell Combat's function and requirements (whereas you've stated before that delivering the spell is, in fact, part of Spell Combat).
-Once again, nobody's saying the spell cast from Spell Combat is a Quickened Spell except you. That's a strawman, created from a theoretical strawman, inadvertantly disguised as another strawman. (The Tropic Thunder Strawman, I call it.)
I'll also point out that if it is, then that's yet another condition as to why I can't cast a Quickened Spell in the same round I perform Spell Combat (as you can only do one Quickened Spell per round, both because Swift Action limitations, and by specific Quickened Spell limitations), an argument that I've never used (because it's a strawman).
|
|
Not going over the full round actions particulars, but that off hand weapon thing....
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell
is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does
not provoke attacks of opportunity.Holding the Charge: If you don’t discharge the spell
in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the
charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch
attacks round after round.
So, even though you have a 'charge' held for a spell, that hand is not occupied even when you considered armed when attacking with the touch attack.
To equate the TWF parallel with having the hand 'Occupied' is not keeping with how the ability works, and having a free hand is needed through both abilities you talk of, that of Spell Combat and Dervish Dance.
My main point with the off hand casting of the spell is having that spell as a part of the Spell Combat ability. Inferring that having the spell be a part of this ability in this way would impose TWF penalties (as Darksol implied) or mess up some interaction elsewhere already agreed upon is stretching.
|
|
Nobody is saying they want to change the spell from Spell Combat into a Quickened Spell, that is only how it is wanted to be used as. That is my point.
Let's look at this contented content...
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of
touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch
the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you
may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You
may take your move before casting the spell, after touching
the target, or between casting the spell and touching the
target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the
spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must
succeed on an attack roll.
So, you can touch someone as a free action.
Where does it say it is a separate action from the spell? You can move into range (when it is cast as a standard action) before attacking, but the separation is only implied between casting and touching.
So, if you can't move, or have forfeited you move for the Full Round Action, why would the spell have to wait to impart it's effects?
Your reading to much into things when everything is just fine as it was before. The revelation of a Full Round Action taking up the Whole Round should not change how you have done these actions before. Just don't try doing shenanigans like in the first thread and we will all be fine.
I don't see "the hand is not occupied" anywhere in your quoted text.
Where does it say it is a separate action from the spell?
as a free action
also:
These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action.
Why would ranged touch spells say that, if it weren't a separate action for melee touch range spells?
The spell hand isn't occupied because it's holding the charge, it's occupied because it's using that hand to fulfill Spell Combat requirements. You don't even fulfill the free hand required for Somatic components in the case of Spell Combat, so how are you casting the spell from Spell Combat?
Again, no, they're implying that they can deliver the spell outside of the Full Round Action. If a Swift Action can be taken anytime you can take a Free Action, and you're saying I can take a Swift Action outside of a Full Round Action to cast a Quickened Spell, and a Free Action to deliver said Quickened Spel then I can take a Free Action outside of a Full Round Action to deliver a spell cast by that Full Round Action by the transitive property between the two action types.
So, you can touch someone as a free action.
Where does it say it is a separate action from the spell?
...You CANNOT be f%!@ing serious with that statement.
And you have the indecency of calling OUR arguments "Strawmen," and saying that we have no idea about the fundamentals of Touch Spells?
|
|
The spell hand isn't occupied because it's holding the charge, it's occupied because it's using that hand to fulfill Spell Combat requirements. You don't even fulfill the free hand required for Somatic components in the case of Spell Combat, so how are you casting the spell from Spell Combat?
Again, no, they're implying that they can deliver the spell outside of the Full Round Action. If a Swift Action can be taken anytime you can take a Free Action, and you're saying I can take a Swift Action outside of a Full Round Action to cast a Quickened Spell, and a Free Action to deliver said Quickened Spel then I can take a Free Action outside of a Full Round Action to deliver a spell cast by that Full Round Action by the transitive property between the two action types.
So, you can touch someone as a free action.
Where does it say it is a separate action from the spell?
...You CANNOT be serious with that statement.
It is fulfilling the Spell Combat requirements by being a free hand. The implication of casting the spell outside of Spell Combat is not really there for me. Can you show it to me?
The entry says I can touch to impart the effects of the spell. Does that mean the spell is suddenly gone? No. it is a charge that is imparted by touch. The spell never goes away until such time that the attack is made and the effects are put to use.
Now, the question is does the Free Action to use that touch get separated into something other than completing the spell's effects. It should be something about how that touch can be used in relation to the spell's overall casting.
So, can one wait until three round later to use the touch? They can, but need to hold the charge and use a standard action to attack with that touch.
So, can one wait until after the full round action is complete before using the touch? When you use Spell Combat, you would use it in concert with that ability, would you not? If you wait, the turn is over.
So, if a spontaneous caster is using a metamagic feat and takes a full round action cast, can it be used in that same round? Of course it can, otherwise, Sorcerer's would never use Metamagic feats.
To put it clearly, Free Actions are done within the confines of Full Round Actions. Always has been, we just never knew it.
I don't see "the hand is not occupied" anywhere in your quoted text.You actually see that it is occupied from those quotes? Most of the rules in the Pathfinder game is telling you what you can do, not what you can't.
Show me, then, where it says, anywhere in the rules, that holding a weapon means your hand is occupied.
|
|
You are Wielding the weapons, holding them in such a way as to effect damage with attacks. You cast the spell in comparison, and that needs the hand to be free, not wielding any weapon, to do so.
The argument about occupied hands goes back to several faq's that mentions such and is "unwritten" basis for the background development of the rules. I suspect that you already knew this, wanting me to show you something in the Core Rulebook.
Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get
one extra attack per round with that weapon.
If your wielding the weapon, your hand is holding something and is occupied. This is the same as when you have a wand held in the hand, a potion, or a shield (that isn't strapped on the arm).
There is no such occupation with a spell, either casting it or when it is ready to be discharged. The hand must be free to do so in Spell Combat.
You are Wielding the weapons, holding them in such a way as to effect damage with attacks. You cast the spell in comparison, and that needs the hand to be free, not wielding any weapon, to do so.
The argument about occupied hands goes back to several faq's that mentions such and is "unwritten" basis for the background development of the rules. I suspect that you already knew this, wanting me to show you something in the Core Rulebook.
Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get
one extra attack per round with that weapon.If your wielding the weapon, your hand is holding something and is occupied. This is the same as when you have a wand held in the hand, a potion, or a shield (that isn't strapped on the arm).
There is no such occupation with a spell, either casting it or when it is ready to be discharged. The hand must be free to do so in Spell Combat.
If it wasn't obvious enough, the request he made was rhetorical.
Wield isn't properly defined (as it shouldn't be). At best, you can say that the Defending Weapon property FAQ is the closest RAW example to follow, and even that doesn't work for certain weapons (like spiked gauntlets, cestii, and so on), since you can't "hold" them to constitute "wielding" them. You also run into problems where wielding in certain instances have different implications in other instances (such as your TWF citation in comparison to the Defending Weapon property FAQ), making it an inconsistent term whose definition changes on a case-by-case basis.
I'll also point out that the only reason the Spell in Spell Combat being treated as an off-hand weapon is a problem is because Spell Combat refers to TWF, and the Armor Spikes FAQ says the hand is occupied for the entirety of the action. If it didn't have the TWF correlation, you wouldn't have that RAW issue (that it appears you're trying to circumvent, even though you're ironclad in sticking to the TWF RAW).
You actually see that it is occupied from those quotes? Most of the rules in the Pathfinder game is telling you what you can do, not what you can't.
and is "unwritten" basis for the background development of the rules.
Just saying, this is awfully convenient.
|
|
So, darksol, your contention is that the TWF parallel for Spell Combat makes the hand "occupied?" This while the description of the ability says that the hand must be free to use it. Is there something you see that I missed, because having that hand free is a major part of the ability.
Johny, you already knew that. I sprung that trap on purpose because you sure was going to mention it otherwise. You want to show me that something breaks if the rules run as written, and the shortcuts we have been using all these years was the real intent.
I sprung that trap on purpose because you sure was going to mention it otherwise.
A glaring inconsistency between your reading of the rules and the rules as generally understood by the community does not constitute a trap. You haven't even addressed my last big post, either, you've just dismissed it with a wave of your hand. That hardly convinces anyone of your position.
---
So it is your contention, then, that the hand does not count as occupied, in any way, during spell combat?
Which would mean that spell combat, does, in fact, work with slashing grace?
You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied.
|
|
I'm sorry, what is Slashing Grace? When was it introduced?
Slashing Grace (Combat)
You can stab your enemies with slashing weapons.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus
with chosen weapon.
Benefit: When you take this feat, choose one kind of light
or one-handed slashing weapon (such as the longsword).
When wielding your chosen weapon one-handed, you can
treat it as a one-handed piercing melee weapon for all
feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such
as a swashbuckler’s or a duelist’s precise strike), and you
can add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength
modifier to that weapon’s damage. The weapon must be
one appropriate for your size. You do not gain this benefit
while fighting with two weapons or using f lurry of blows,
or any time another hand is otherwise occupied.
Hmmm... If Dervish Dance would work, and is generally agreed upon, why wouldn't this feat work with Spell Combat as well?
I mean, is there a reason it would not work?
I'm sorry, what is Slashing Grace? When was it introduced?
Slashing Grace (Combat)
You can stab your enemies with slashing weapons.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus
with chosen weapon.
Benefit: When you take this feat, choose one kind of light
or one-handed slashing weapon (such as the longsword).
When wielding your chosen weapon one-handed, you can
treat it as a one-handed piercing melee weapon for all
feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such
as a swashbuckler’s or a duelist’s precise strike), and you
can add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength
modifier to that weapon’s damage. The weapon must be
one appropriate for your size. You do not gain this benefit
while fighting with two weapons or using f lurry of blows,
or any time another hand is otherwise occupied.Hmmm... If Dervish Dance would work, and is generally agreed upon, why wouldn't this feat work with Spell Combat as well?
I mean, is there a reason it would not work?
I've mentioned slashing grace and fencing grace at least 3 previous times now.
The commonly accepted interpretation pretty much anywhere on the forums is that the differences in the wordings of dervish dance and slashing grace means that dervish dance DOES work because spell combat does not count as having a weapon in your off-hand, and slashing grace does not work because spell combat occupies the hand that it needs to work.
|
|
So, the difference is whether your using the hand or not? Dervish Dance works, but Slashing Grace does not.
So what have I been saying that puts this out of wack? Why would a Full Round Action taking the whole round to perform mess with these things already known?
You go on about an occupied hand, as if Dervish Dance would be effected by it, then say it already does for Slashing Grace.
Yes, the spell counts as the off hand weapon for Spell Combat, we all already knew this. It is in the description of the ability. The hand must be free to use the spell, and it is as a part of a full round action.
But if your saying that I am changing the rules to make everything break, your looking in the wrong direction. I am using the rules as they are. Free and Swift actions can be used during the Full Round Action, and there is no reason for them to wait for it to be "over" before using them.
Why would we want to use Free/Swift actions outside of a Full Round Action in the first place? Is there a reason not involving cheese?
Do you have a reason not to like it other than lactose intolerance?
|
|
I want to play the game.
To do so, we agree with the rules which are inside the product that is sold to us. A part of that is not doing parlor tricks with those rules such as gaining an advantage from using a Free Action (from a spell) outside of it's place in a turn.
I have said before that most of this would not matter in typical play. You take the full round, use your actions, turn is done. How the player comes to the conclusion of how those actions are played is mostly immaterial as a Full Attack is completed and the other "little" actions are taken.
The issue came to bear because of the cheesy shenanigan of gaining an extra attack outside of the full round action because of a combo that is likely not going to be used by most of the players of this game. Several posters like myself said "Uh... no." We looked at what was there, came up with three reasons why not, and each was either dismissed or ignored.
Then the second thread came up, and a new poster pointed out this very thing, that a Full Round Action takes up the whole round.
I ask this question just to be clear. Is there any reason to use the Free/Swift action outside of a Full Round Action?
None thus far has provided any valid reason to do so.
I ask this question just to be clear. Is there any reason to use the Free/Swift action outside of a Full Round Action?
None thus far has provided any valid reason to do so.
I'll repeat myself, then:
==Begin Turn==
--Cast intensified shocking grasp--
--Complete casting of intensified shocking grasp--
==End Turn==At what point does the sorcerer use the free action to deliver the intensified shocking grasp?
Interesting.
So, back to situation presented in #1, except the sorcerer is wielding a quarterstaff.
==Begin turn==
--FA change grip--
--Begin casting intensified shocking grasp--
--Complete casting of intensified shocking grasp--
--5ft step--
--FA deliver intensified shocking grasp--
--FA change grip--
==End turn==Is this legal?
|
|
"At what point does a sorcerer use the free action to deliver..."
Spells that take
a full-round action to cast take effect in the same round that
you begin casting
It is used in the same turn as the spell is cast, nothing is preventing the character from using that free action.
"is this legal?"
Yes. Understand, the character is holding the quarterstaff until such time that the spell's effects are delivered (or the spell is held if it misses) and the character changes the grip to wield it again. Though it does all happen within the full round action, we normally have seen it parsed as we do the Full Attack, with actions being on either side of the attacks afforded.
Remember, the round isn't simply the character's turn, it is a full six seconds that all the participants are using at the same time, every participant get a turn during that six seconds until the next round starts.
It was pointed out before that the full round takes up the Standard and Move action, and this is what it concentrates on as we take our turn.
It is used in the same turn as the spell is cast, nothing is preventing the character from using that free action.
Note that the rules on casting spontaneous metamagic only says "Spells that take a full-round action to cast take effect in the same round that you begin casting". The actual effects of a touch range spell are that you are now holding a charge and you have gained a free action that you can use this round to attempt to deliver the spell. These are events that happen after the spell is cast, but if the casting of the spell is a full-round action, then you're now holding a charge and you gain a free action, then your turn immediately ends. If you want to actually use that spell on the same round, then there must therefore exist a period of time between the end of a full-round action (the point when the spell has finished casting and the effects have resolved) and when the turn ends. A touch range spell can only ever be delivered after the spell is cast, because the free action is only ever granted after the resolution of the spell. That's my point for the mechanical necessity of an existence of a time between the end of a full-round action and the end of your turn.
"At what point does a sorcerer use the free action to deliver..."
Spells that take
a full-round action to cast take effect in the same round that
you begin casting"is this legal?"
Yes. Understand, the character is holding the quarterstaff until such time that the spell's effects are delivered (or the spell is held if it misses) and the character changes the grip to wield it again. Though it does all happen within the full round action
Let me point you to the entry on somatic components:
A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.
Does this intensified shocking grasp not mimic spell combat in that it's a full-round action which requires one hand to be free? How, then, is the sorcerer gripping the quarterstaff again if the hand must be free for the entirety of the full-round action? Unless, of course, there exists a time between the end of a full-round action and the end of your turn where you're no longer subject to the full-round action's limitations of "must have one hand free"?
EDIT: P.S.: What you call "cheese", I call "an intelligent use of resources". If precedents within the mechanics allow something that lets you eke out a little more damage, I say "why not". Especially in a game where the ultimate goal is for everyone to have fun. At my home table, my GM and I have this understanding; I'll do whatever I want so long as we can come to an agreement on the rules of it, and then if I'm too powerful compared to my party, I'll tone it down myself or even volunteer to make a new character. This interaction is far less powerful than other builds I've come up with that aren't even of questionable legality.
|
|
Again, the strawman darksol introduced.
listen, this is not any different than what we have done before, the only thing that is different is the revelation of a Full Round Action being used for the whole round. The hand is free for the casting of the spell, then after the attack is done, the sorcerer could regrip her quarterstaff. Where do you read that this is not possible?
The other combo in the first thread is an obvious try to loophole the rules into gaining an extra attack (from the spell) that would otherwise be prevented by the other ability. Other things prevent it than this simple issue, but this was factored to be the one obvious stopping block to using it.
Let's look at it like this. The casting of the spell is taking effort, and the free actions taken before and after are as that effort completes or has been used.
Is it easier to parse it out to the end of the Full Round Action, doing the free actions afterward? Knock yourself out, it is how most of us do it anyways. The point has been that the cheese from the other thread doesn't work in that manner, that is why I have been so adamant about this issue. The Free Action happens during the full round action anyways, no matter how the player parses it out. Any self respecting GM will look at the Whirlwind Attack/Spell Combat combo, and tell the player immediately that the two abilities do not work together, and the spell counts as an extra attack that is nixed by Whirlwind attack.
Again, the strawman darksol introduced.
listen, this is not any different than what we have done before, the only thing that is different is the revelation of a Full Round Action being used for the whole round.
You are taking legitimate logic and reasoning for a point I put thorough and structured thought into and dismissing it as a "strawman" argument. In fact for this particular argument, you have done nothing but dismiss it out of hand and call it a strawman. I know what a strawman is, I took a whole course on the philosophy of logic, and let me tell you, the constant declaration of logical fallacies is in itself a common logical fallacy.
A strawman is when I address an argument that was not presented by you, claiming it as the argument you presented, and refuting that. I am not doing that. I am taking your argument that the full-round action takes your entire turn and taking logical conclusions based upon that information.
Please put the same effort into addressing my arguments as I have been towards your arguments. I'm quickly growing tired of your outright thoughtless dismissal of my side of the discussion.
I respect your point of view enough to apply it and extrapolate, test it, and ask questions where something doesn't add up to me. I have been doing so for the duration of this conversation. Please show me the same respect.
Is it easier to parse it out to the end of the Full Round Action, doing the free actions afterward? Knock yourself out, it is how most of us do it anyways. The point has been that the cheese from the other thread doesn't work in that manner, that is why I have been so adamant about this issue. The Free Action happens during the full round action anyways, no matter how the player parses it out. Any self respecting GM will look at the Whirlwind Attack/Spell Combat combo, and tell the player immediately that the two abilities do not work together, and the spell counts as an extra attack that is nixed by Whirlwind attack.
It's easier for me to parse it out that way because it is only when I parse it out that way that the ability even works in my mind. I come to this conclusion when taking every rule of handedness, actions, action interaction, et cetera into account.
The hand is free for the casting of the spell, then after the attack is done, the sorcerer could regrip her quarterstaff. Where do you read that this is not possible?
Let's look at it like this. The casting of the spell is taking effort, and the free actions taken before and after are as that effort completes or has been used.
If you can violate the handedness of casting a spell "as it completes", why can't you do so for the handedness of spell combat as it completes? Remember that the casting time of the metamagic spell is a full-round action, so the entire time you're taking that full-round action, you're casting the spell and thus subject to the requirement of needing one hand free for somatic components. This is not strawman, this is logical progression.
The other combo in the first thread is an obvious try to loophole the rules into gaining an extra attack (from the spell) that would otherwise be prevented by the other ability. Other things prevent it than this simple issue, but this was factored to be the one obvious stopping block to using it.
Again, the discussion on the whirlwind attack thread should have no bearing on this discussion. Cast that from your mind, and remember that we're trying to establish with what timing you can use free and swift actions in relation to your other actions. And, again, who cares about cheese in a cooperative game?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, the strawman darksol introduced.
listen, this is not any different than what we have done before, the only thing that is different is the revelation of a Full Round Action being used for the whole round. The hand is free for the casting of the spell, then after the attack is done, the sorcerer could regrip her quarterstaff. Where do you read that this is not possible?
The other combo in the first thread is an obvious try to loophole the rules into gaining an extra attack (from the spell) that would otherwise be prevented by the other ability. Other things prevent it than this simple issue, but this was factored to be the one obvious stopping block to using it.
Let's look at it like this. The casting of the spell is taking effort, and the free actions taken before and after are as that effort completes or has been used.
Is it easier to parse it out to the end of the Full Round Action, doing the free actions afterward? Knock yourself out, it is how most of us do it anyways. The point has been that the cheese from the other thread doesn't work in that manner, that is why I have been so adamant about this issue. The Free Action happens during the full round action anyways, no matter how the player parses it out. Any self respecting GM will look at the Whirlwind Attack/Spell Combat combo, and tell the player immediately that the two abilities do not work together, and the spell counts as an extra attack that is nixed by Whirlwind attack.
It's not a strawman if you can't grasp that the Free Action is taken separately from the action required to cast the spell. You've already demonstrated that you can't grasp that ideal, which is imperative for Johnny_Devo coming to the same conclusion I made, and is the sole reason you're calling the counterargument a strawman.
And you know what the point of the two relating threads are? To see what happens when you ditch the combination (because it was somehow confusing), and guess what? The problem isn't with the combination, it's with the fact you can't grasp how two specific Free/Swift Actions work in relation to the combination at hand. And yet, here we are, calling Magic the Gathering logic "strawman arguments," when we can use said logic to identify what single piece (or pieces) of the puzzle is causing the puzzle itself to implode.
Well, the thing is WE ARE looking at things like that. You aren't. Because you feel like you have to magically let Full Round Action spells work, even though the RAW, which you use to support your main argument, says the exact opposite. And then, when I point it out, you say I'm posing a strawman, or that it's irrelevant, or even not what the rules say even though A. I'm not the goofball who can't parse Touch Spell rules properly, B. I don't confuse game terms like "turn" and "round," or "weapon" and attack," and C. Eldritch Scion Magi cast spells spontaneously like a Sorcerer, so Full Round Action spells are in-fact relevant to the discussion of these sub-threads.
See, that's what is called "moving goalposts" in my book, and that's bulls#!^. We can't ever have proper debating if we have participants who refuse to accept the flaws in their rulings. I already accept that my RAW interpretation is wrong, because I don't agree with it. I NEVER agreed with it. It's stupid, it's nonsensible, and it's also not how the rules were intended, or assumed to be ran on these boards. But because you want to play in the RAW playground, I'm stuck using it, and then when I do use it (because you claim that my argument lacked evidence and didn't adhere to RAW, such as Spell Combat functioning like TWF), you call what I gathered a strawman, even though your interpretation likewise doesn't add up with how over 90% of the members on these boards run it, which means my interpretation is just as much a strawman as your interpretation. Two strawmen don't make either interpretation correct, which means we're back to square 1.
Calling it cheese requires proving that it's going against the intent of the subject in question. You can't prove that Whirlwind Attack was written to exclude spells as a whole, or that Whirlwind Attack excludes anything that can be even construed as remotely hostile. At best it's conjecture based on your own personal opinion. At worst, you're just flat-out wrong (and aren't willing to accept it).
|
|
The difference between the full round casting and Spell Combat is that the ability is using the off hand to cast the spell as one of the actions within the abilities usage. The ability says that the hand must be free to use the spell in conjunction to the weapon attacks in that full round action. Spell Combat is not complete without either holding the spell or using it's effects. Now, it is easier to say that a full round action takes up the whole round rather than connect the dots to how the spell interacts with the ability. It isn't an actual weapon that it replaces in the TWF parallel, and casting a spell isn't an attack if the spell is a buff or healing spell.
The Full Round Casting of a spell is able to fire off the effects because the quote from the Core Rulebook says that it does, right there, in print, in the same round.
The strawman that Darksol is using is the insistence that Free Actions and Swift Actions can not be used at all if the whole round is used up by a Full Round Action. If that is the case, the game would stop.
Johny, I would invite you to read through some of the first thread again. There is the fact that most spells that the Magus would use would be considered attacks, which Whirlwind would Nix, and other points that have been brought up that have been ignored to the point where two new thread were introduced because the Full Round Action became a focal point.
I see that he is posting something again. He has gone to the phrase "moving Goalposts" as if my position has changed or shifted.
I will say it again, nothing is preventing the character from using free/swift actions during the full round action.
|
|
Rant
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.
Is there something you don't understand in this passage that says "...take effect in the same round that you begin casting..." where one would have to wait until the round is over? Do you not see the contradiction in your argument?
Or do you believe that there is no room for Free Actions and Swift actions inside of another action, despite the rules saying that they can?
Special Spell Effects
Many special spell effects are handled according to the
school of the spells in question. Certain other special
spell features are found across spell schools.
Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All
offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage
opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel
energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures
in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving
throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or
hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters
or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves
don’t harm anyone.
Is there something here you don't grasp? That spells are considered attacks when they do damage? They are not attack spells, they are considered an attack when they are used.
You accuse me of turning the argument into some pointing fingers and scarecrows when it is you that is not budging.
The Full Round Casting of a spell is able to fire off the effects because the quote from the Core Rulebook says that it does, right there, in print, in the same round.
Yeah, and what I'm saying is that "firing the effects", for the case of touch spells, is different from actually delivering the touch spell.
In the general rules of targeting for spells, we can see:
Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
Therefore, the logical conclusion we can draw is that a spell does not come into effect until after you finish casting it, no?
Therefore the flow of casting a spell is:
---Begin action: cast spell---
---Complete action: cast spell; apply effects---
---Do other things in turn---
A touch spell's effects are nothing more than gaining a charge of magical energy, and gaining the option to use an action during that turn to deliver said charge of magical energy. This is a documented and spelled out mechanical separation of effect and delivery in the rules. Therefore, this delivery can only ever happen after the spell itself is completely resolved.
Which brings me back to the argument that therefore, the assertion that the end of a full-round action marks the end of your turn is demonstrably false. The sorcerer's turn HAS to become this in order to work:
===Begin Turn===
---FA: Change grip on quarterstaff---
---F-RA: Cast intensified shocking grasp---
---Casting finishes, effects are applied; gain a magical charge, gain a free action option. Full-round action is over---
---FA: Deliver touch spell---
---FA: Change grip on quarterstaff---
===End Turn===
|
|
So, I would like to do a little exercise.
Let's look at the Full Round Action, which take up the character's Standard and Move action to perform an ability or activity that will take up much of the character's time. Let us say that the Full Round Action takes up the whole round, as it say in the book.
Now, lets look at what happens inside of the Full Round Action. Those things that are being performed that necessitated the use of the Full Round Action.
Full Attack
Casting a spell that is longer than a standard action (1 round casting time)
Casting a spell with a metamagic feat for a spontaneous caster
Moving 5 ft through difficult Terrain
Running
Withdraw
and using abilities like Spell Combat.
With how most of us parse out turns, the Full Attack happens within the Full Round Action, you make your attacks, then the full attack is done.
Free actions and Swift action then can be used after the Full Attack, Lay on Hands, dropping prone, and so on.
Now, as we get into the meat of this discussion, the extreme "RAW" is that the Full Attack is it, and nothing can be done after the last attack lands. This is obviously not the case.
So, here is how it goes. Start turn, do a free action to point to a distant figure and say "there, in the tree, an evil orc!!", warning your comrades (free action), then do a full round action metamagic casting of a awesome spell that is maxed out, then use the effects to shoot down the orc with lightning and fire, then say "nevermind." after the spell is done. End turn. All within the full round action.
Start
Free Action
Declare Full Round Action
Cast Spell and use it
Free Action
End.
edit... you ninja'd me...
===Begin Turn===
---FA: Change grip on quarterstaff---
---F-RA: Cast intensified shocking grasp---
---Casting finishes, effects are applied; gain a magical charge, gain a free action option. Full-round action is over---
---FA: Deliver touch spell---
---FA: Change grip on quarterstaff---
===End Turn===
My question is why would one need to end the full round action? Nothing is preventing the character from using the actions needed before the round ends. I quoted the "note" from the Core Rulebook above, saying so.
Yeah that's mostly fine... for a spell that is not a touch spell.
Remember that a sorcerer's metamagic spell has a casting time of one full-round action. Not any less. Therefore, for the entirity of that full-round action, you're casting the spell. Full stop.
Expand upon that; The targets of a spell are chosen at the end of the casting time for a spell. Therefore, the targets and effects and results all happen at the end, not before. If the duration of the casting of the spell is equivalent of the duration of a full-round action, then we know that the effects of said spell happen at the end of the full-round action. not before.
And, again, going back to touch spells; this means that the only time you can possibly deliver a spell with a range of touch is AFTER the completion of the full-round action, because that is the only point in time when you have the option to do so by the rules of touch spells. Ergo, in order for a sorcerer to properly utilize touch spells, there must exist a point in time between the completion of a full-round action and the end of your turn in which you can take other actions, should you have the action economy available to do it.
|
|
The touch is done as a part of the spell's completion, as a free action. There is no need to separate the action during the full round action as there is no need to move before imparting the spell's effects.
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of
touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch
the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you
may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action.
As I have mentioned before, the Touch as a Free Action is confusing some, thinking that it is the only way it can be used instead of having Melee Touch Spells have some leeway to enable the character to move and get to the target without having to roll concentration all the time. (something that is a bear at low levels) The attack can be made as a part of the spell, just as it would be for a Ranged Touch Attack, or Burning Hands.
The touch isn't some stopgag that prevents one from doing one thing and allowing for another. It is a means to impart the effects of the spell. If you cast the spell and it's effects come into being during that turn, you use the means it has to impart those effects.
RantNote 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.Is there something you don't understand in this passage that says "...take effect in the same round that you begin casting..." where one would have to wait until the round is over? Do you not see the contradiction in your argument?
Or do you believe that there is no room for Free Actions and Swift actions inside of another action, despite the rules saying that they can?
Special Spell Effects
Many special spell effects are handled according to the
school of the spells in question. Certain other special
spell features are found across spell schools.
Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All
offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage
opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel
energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures
in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving
throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or
hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters
or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves
don’t harm anyone.Is there something here you don't grasp? That spells are considered attacks when they do damage? They are not attack spells, they are considered an attack when they are used.
You accuse me of turning the argument into some pointing fingers and scarecrows when it is you that is not budging.
Taking effect in the same round =/= taking effect in the same turn.
Once again, you think turn and round are the same term, AND THEY'RE NOT.
I've said, repeatedly, that a Full Round Action spell takes effect AFTER YOUR TURN IS DONE, BEFORE THE START OF THE NEXT COMBATANT'S TURN. That doesn't mean it takes effect AFTER THE ROUND IS DONE, AT THE START OF YOUR NEXT TURN. BIG DIFFERENCE in results there. In fact, a KEY big difference between Full Round and 1 Round casting time, which you can't seem to comprehend, which is why there is no contradiction to be seen on my end, because the spell is still taking place within the ROUND that you cast. It's just not taking place within the TURN that you cast, which is physically impossible since you're trying to say Full Round Action Spells don't take your entire turn, but Spell Combat, which is also a Full Round Action, does. Do you not see the contradiction in that argument, which is (inadvertantly) yours?
I know what the RAW says. I also know what happens when you take the RAW for what it is; equating Spells to Attacks, like ones you make in Attack Actions, Full Attacks, or even AoOs. Which is precisely what you're doing with that equivalency argument, since A. That's what Whirlwind Attack is originally written to dismiss (Attacks you make in Attack Actions, Full Attacks, and AoOs), and B. You're extending that original dismissal to things outside of what is originally written within Whirlwind Attack (Spells that can be used to Attack with, but aren't in-and-of-themselves attacks you make within an Attack Action, Full Attack, or AoO).
---
Just for fun, let me ask you a simple question, and just forget all about Spell Combat, Whirlwind Attack, and any other fancy rules regarding spells, like Metamagics, Quickened Spells, and so on.
I am an Arcane Spellcaster, and I am in two different instances (not simultaneously, mind you). I have my hands free and am under the effects of the Invisibility spell in both instances. In one instance, I cast Shocking Grasp and hold the charge until my next turn, making no attempt to attack with that spell whatsoever. In the other instance, I cast Shocking Grasp, and (successfully) deliver the charge onto a creature.
Now, between those two instances, how many times have I potentially broken Invisibility (if at all), and where exactly does the breaking of Invisibility occur (if at all)?
(Think carefully now, because I'm only tracking how many times it's possible I've broken Invisibility, now how many times those scenarios would actually break Invisibility before I have to cast it again to regain its effects.)
The touch is done as a part of the spell's completion, as a free action.
Given that a spell's effects take place after the full-round action casting time, is this not taking a free action after a full-round action?
As I have mentioned before, the Touch as a Free Action is confusing some, thinking that it is the only way it can be used instead of having Melee Touch Spells have some leeway to enable the character to move and get to the target without having to roll concentration all the time. (something that is a bear at low levels) The attack can be made as a part of the spell, just as it would be for a Ranged Touch Attack, or Burning Hands.
According to what? I see no language that allows this. Even the second sentence in the passage you quoted follows an "event then event" format, showing that one thing happens AFTER the other. Then the third sentence says "in the same round that you cast", not "as part of the completion of" the spell. The text of allowing the move even separates the acts of "casting the spell" and "touching the target" into two distinct events. The only touch attacks that are ever made as part of the spell are ranged touch attacks.
|
|
Each turn is a character taking his actions for that round. Every turn that happens in that round happens at the same moment in time.
The character gets that round of actions for his turn, once that is done you go to the next in the init order.
You want to separate the round into segments, when it already has actions and usages within the full round action already. The difference between your parsing of the Full Round and how the rules resolve it is that it has been getting resolved within the confines of the Full Round Action the whole time.
Yes, casting that spell would drop you out of invis. A kind GM would let you hold the charge and not drop your invisibility until you actually make the attack. A hard nose GM would drop it and explain why, then say "to late" when the player changes his mind when it happens. I hate hard nosed GM's.
Some would explain the interaction, that the spell would normally break Invis, let the player off for that moment and go on.
It is simple.
you start the turn, use some free action at the beginning, declare a full round action (like full attack), do the action, take your free and swift actions at the end and then end your round. Full Round Action done.
Yet your putting limitations on things that simply are not there. How long have we been playing the game? I believe we all are finding this out for the first time now, and it doesn't change anything, except the cheese attempted in the first thread.
Once again you dismiss my argument and evidence out of hand without backing up your claims with evidence of your own, and without providing examples that refute my evidence.
|
|
I am not seeing any language to disallow it, and a specific "note" that say exactly what I have been saying. It is up there, in Darksol's quote of my post, which is above that. Paste -- 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.--endpaste.
"...take effect in the same round..."
Have you looked at the spell entry? "To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject." It goes on to explain that this touch is a free action, and the interaction between the touch and using move actions before or after. Does that mean that the spell is separate from the effect? No, it means the character has more options on how to effect it's discharge. He gets more options on down the page, by holding the spell for the next round (or later). In a full round casting, you cast and touch. Nothing is preventing you from doing so.
Then our disagreement comes down to a fundamental difference in how we understand touch range spells. I don't see any way to convince you other than what I've already shown you, and that the rules and examples maintain.
And again, you talk as if I haven't just quoted the same thing you're quoting ad nauseum and shown how that very passage you believe to support your argument actually supports my argument.
I no longer see any reason to engage with you if you're going to continue to outright dismiss any and every thing I can possibly say with a repeated "no. [original argument as if it had never been countered]". I will no longer repeat myself, and will instead only say "I have already addressed that exact point, please address my rebuttal."
|
|
I am responding to more than one person here in the above post where you say I ignored your basis.
See, Johny, this issue overall isn't about what this thread is focused on. It is a continuation of the want to make a spell into something it is not. Are the rules nailed down to point by point basis on every aspect of this game? How many tomes do we need?
We parse it out by the actions we take, full attack, spell combat, free, swift, standard, move, Whirlwind Attack, cast a spell, use a wand, draw a weapon and so on. My overall point with all this is that it has always been taking place in a full round of actions, and within the full round action when it is used, after it is declared.
Parse it out as you like, it isn't going to make a difference 99 percent of the time. Start, full round action, swifts and frees, or start, full round action with the swift and frees. It is when a given quality, used as a free action, is being regulated outside of a particular to give an advantage otherwise not afforded, that this makes a difference.
edit.. I believe you meant Melee touch spells. Ranged goes off as a part of the casting, while the melee uses the touch to effect the charge.
edit.. I believe you meant Melee touch spells. Ranged goes off as a part of the casting, while the melee uses the touch to effect the charge.
I have already addressed that exact point
"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 castingRange: touch
I meant what I said. "touch range spells" are not the same as spells that happen to include a ranged touch.Range: close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
|
|
I believe I did make the assertion that the entry above Ranged Touch Spells does not specify Ranged or Melee. Ranged Touch has it's own particulars further down the page.
My point is that the Free Action to touch with the spell is still using the spell's effects and should not be hindered during a Full Round Action because of the ability to move between casting and touching when cast as a standard action.
Each turn is a character taking his actions for that round. Every turn that happens in that round happens at the same moment in time.
The character gets that round of actions for his turn, once that is done you go to the next in the init order.
You want to separate the round into segments, when it already has actions and usages within the full round action already. The difference between your parsing of the Full Round and how the rules resolve it is that it has been getting resolved within the confines of the Full Round Action the whole time.
Yes, casting that spell would drop you out of invis. A kind GM would let you hold the charge and not drop your invisibility until you actually make the attack. A hard nose GM would drop it and explain why, then say "to late" when the player changes his mind when it happens. I hate hard nosed GM's.
Some would explain the interaction, that the spell would normally break Invis, let the player off for that moment and go on.
It is simple.
you start the turn, use some free action at the beginning, declare a full round action (like full attack), do the action, take your free and swift actions at the end and then end your round. Full Round Action done.
Yet your putting limitations on things that simply are not there. How long have we been playing the game? I believe we all are finding this out for the first time now, and it doesn't change anything, except the cheese attempted in the first thread.
So then why do you keep using the term "turn" when it says "round," and the term "round" when it says "turn"? (Though ironically enough, I don't think the latter issue has actually come up yet.) My point is that they're not synonymous. Linked, yes, but they aren't the same thing, and the rules use game terms like those deliberately. Same goes for Casting Touch Spells and Delivering Touch Spells.
The rules already separate the round of 6 seconds into segments, based on how The Combat Round with Initiative works, whether I want to do that or not is irrelevant and pointless to discuss. If it doesn't do that, then there's no difference between 1 Round and Full Round casting times, for one example, and I imagine I can list tons more if I decided to give a damn about listing more. Which I don't.
It would make sense if the spell made an attack or even hostile activity. But it doesn't. It's a charge that's on your hand. It's not a Fireball, where it deals damage upon casting. It deals damage upon touching, which requires action on the caster's part independant from the act of casting the spell.
But who am I kidding here? You can't possibly understand what that means! You've already demonstrated that you can't differentiate between casting the spell and touching with a cast spell, because you label them as the same activity! So OF COURSE you're going to say casting that spell breaks Invisibility, because you link an activity that doesn't break Invisibility (casting a spell) with one that does break Invisibility (delivering a spell's effects through hostile action), and associate them as the same activity.
It also explains why you think you can deliver a Full Round Action spell in the same turn you cast it, even though the Full Round Action spell isn't complete until your turn completes. But then you would say "Well, my Full Round Action spell finishes after my turn finishes, so I get my Touch Attack now," and then you'd do so before the next combatant in the Initiative order acts, even though you can't take Free Actions outside your turn unless it says otherwise (see "Speak" in the Free Action section). But as I said above, you say casting and delivering is the same activity, so it makes sense in that light.
Or at least, I imagine it would, because that's the only excusable thing I can come to expect from an interpretation like that, because saying anything else is outright bulls#!^.
...I mean, I did say it was a fun exercise, because it tells me exactly what your stance is in comparison to the RAW, and now that I know what that is, there's no need for me to discuss on the thread trilogy any further.
|
|
I understand how you come to the conclusion that a spell is done in the manner you put forth. It is using this touch from the spell in the manner described to gain an advantage not normally allowed that bugs me.
A casting time of 1 round has the caster use the spell at the beginning of his next turn. A casting that takes a full round casting(Sorcerer using a Metamagic feat with a Standard cast spell, as an example) is used the turn it is cast. It is you that is saying that it changes because the rules do not agree with some obscure combo that no one would consider using.
The free action to touch to impart the effects of the spell being "separate" should not matter with the full round action, the spell is cast and used in that round, and Free Actions can be used at anytime.
Now, the core rulebook says..."Each round represents 6 seconds in the game world; there are 10 rounds in a minute of combat. A round normally allows each character involved in a combat situation to act." ... so no matter how many participants are in the battle, one round of combat is 6 seconds long. (6 times 10 is 60, for 10 rounds in a minute)
This is a lot better than it was in previous editions, where a minute was an odd number of rounds, and there was weapon speeds to mess with.
So, the breaking of invisibility thing. If the character casts and holds a spell like Shocking Grasp, it has gone either way when I have seen it done. It comes up more often than what I thought it would in PFS. The player can stealth before casting, gaining the bonus from invisibility, and that stealth in the 6 printing will not end until you either end the turn out of cover, or attack the target with the spell. This would be true no matter if the character breaks invis with the spell at casting or not.
One thing a GM has said that the crackle of the electricity and the incantation of the spell made the invis break for the offensive casting.
The mis-understanding here is that the spell with the touch attack need not be a separated entity, the player is given options here with the standard casting, nothing should be taken away from a normal casting of the spell because of some rule dispute.