2. Yes you can. You can even take them during a full round action. As Lady-J points out, if you couldn't, taking multiple attacks with ranged weapons would be impossible. And that's clearly not the case.
The rules are actually quite explicit that you can take swift and free actions along with full round actions. See page 181 of the Core Rulebook.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean... the answer is yes, you can. I don't see much in the way of interpretation here. Unless you mean the very creative kind.
A full-round action only stops you from taking a move or standard with it, and they explicitly allow the use of free and swift actions in addition to them.
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. 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
In addition, you can also 5-foot step both before and after a full-round, so there is time in the round to preform actions before and after the full-round action. And even then, you don't even need 'time' to perform free actions strictly speaking.
Free actions don't take any time at all
And on top of that, you can take swift actions whenever you can take a free action, and swifts explicitly don't affect your ability to perform other actions in the round.
A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action.
There's also nothing that prevents you from ending or beginning a Standard Action+Move Action turn with a swift or free action.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some food for thought I just came up with:
A barbarian, that isn't raging yet, begins his turn next to something/one that he wants to attack. Following the logic of no actions before/after full-round actions, the barbarian cannot:
Enter Rage(as a free action) -> Full-Attack
Instead, the barbarian would have to either:
Enter Rage(as a free action) -> Standard Action attack -> whatever else -> then next turn Full-Attack
Begin Full-Attack -> Enter Rage(as a free action) after the first swing -> continue Full-Attack
Nor can he, against an enemy further away: Enter Rage(as a free action) -> Charge
Users of the Arcane Strike feat and Bards would see similar issues.
Which, frankly, is just a silly way to look at things.
|
It doesn't matter when you declare the full round action, the free action to Rage or Charge can be done before the attack and be considered a part of that action as well. This is something that has been done over and over again, not sure why our discussion on the other thread would change that.
If the full round action takes the whole round, then it stands to reason that we have been taking these free and swift actions during that full round.
I assume we want to avoid mentioning the previous subjects in this thread, but it is those situations that put the light on this issue, specifically trying to combine a magus ability with a feat that limits the attacks in a particular manner. This brought up the discussion of a spell granting a "free action attack." This out of place action combined with a very strict reading of one small passage of the combat spell use that gives this as part of a casting of a touch spell, makes for someone trying to gain an extra attack that would normally not be there.
So, we are here.
It is a full round action. It replaces the Standard and Move action to do it, and takes the full round to perform. This does not stop Free Actions or Swift actions from being used during the round, though with some abilities they need to be before or after the attack within that full round action. We have done this countless times, using quickdraw with a two handing Rogue, Raging with a Barbarian, and so on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Naturally. However, some people claim that the rules say there is no time to take free actions either before or after a full-round action. And that clearly breaks things.
That shouldn't be a problem, since "Free actions don't take any time at all." Free actions are like talking, you can do that before, during or after your full round actions. Like the princess bride duel.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reminder; Quick Draw lets you draw weapons as a free action. It also lets you throw those weapons at your normal rate of attack... which happens during a full round action. So the rules are specifically stating that you are making free actions in the middle of your iterative attacks.
fun fact monologing is a free action have all the BBEG give a 2 paragraph monolog b4 the fight
Well, you do get cut off eventually. Since: "Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action."
Reminder; Quick Draw lets you draw weapons as a free action. It also lets you throw those weapons at your normal rate of attack... which happens during a full round action. So the rules are specifically stating that you are making free actions in the middle of your iterative attacks.
The argument is against actions before/after, not during. They don't seem to have an issue with that, and have some convoluted logic that okays a 5-foot step before/after.
Though, if nothing else, it's pretty clear that the logic being used really breaks down when considering actions prior to a full-round action. The casting example by _Ozy_ is solid reason why.
And in addition: using a swift action explicitly does not affect one's ability to perform other actions on their turn. Ergo, if I start my turn with a swift, I can do whatever action thereafter with my turn (save another swift), including a full-round action. And since swift actions can be taken whenever a free action can, it follows that I can do the same with a free action. Therefore, you can perform other actions before a full-round action. And if that's true, well, that full-round action isn't somehow taking up all of your turn's time after all. So, you could perform actions after it as well.
This issue all boils down to someone trying to read more into the rules than there actually is. Thus, adding arbitrary restrictions that aren't actually there.
"A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round"/"A full-round action requires an entire round to complete" exist, yes. They are there in the rules. But, the rules explain what this means: "Thus, [a full-round action] can't be coupled with a standard or a move action." That's all there is to it. That's what it means by those quotes.
Let's be frank here. If the rules actually wanted to impose a limit on how you can use free/swift actions when you use a full-round action, don't you think they might, I don't know, say something about it?
|
|
Takin a swift or free action before and after a full round action? Absolutely legal.
Some full round action will prevent you from taking a swift or free action while performing the full round action, but that should be valued case by case.
To consider the most extreme examples:
1) between the attacks of a full attack you can take any swift or free action,
2) if you are casting a spell that require a full round or one round action you can't do most swift or free actions while casting the spell (to reiterate, you can do them before or after without any problem).
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.
Full-Round ActionsA 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.
|
|
fun fact monologing is a free action have all the BBEG give a 2 paragraph monolog b4 the fightWell, you do get cut off eventually. Since: "Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action."
My players generally stop the monologues before the second syllable is uttered.
Oh look at this. I didn't realize the whirlwind attack thread had a grandkid already.
@Yuri Sarreth
There's an ongoing debate spanning multiple threads now, and the issue outlined in this thread's topic isn't the only concern, so I'll summarize what questions are being, well, questioned. (assume magus character for all examples)
1) Can you use TWF(one-handed and unarmed), complete all your attacks, then as a free action switch your grip to two-hand your one-handed weapon?
2) As an extension, can you use TWF(one-handed and unarmed), complete all your attacks, then swift action cast shocking grasp, then free action deliver it?
3) Where the debate usually diverges: Can you TWF, then swiftcast a touch spell, then free action switch grip to two-handed, then free action deliver touch spell?
4) To the tough meat of the issue: Can you spell combat(full-attack then cast a touch spell), then free action switch grip to two-handed, free action deliver the touch spell, then free action switch grip to one-handed, swiftcast another touch spell, then free action switch grip back to two-handed, and another free action to deliver touch spell? Assuming that the GM does not object to this number of free actions.
|
|
Most times, as Cuttler has posted, it wouldn't matter that much. Free actions and swift actions are used all the time in conjunction with the Full Round Action. The Full Attack is made within the Full Round Action, typically is the main use of the Full Round Action for most characters.
As mentioned, the real issue came about when a spell with a Melee touch attack was being used with a Magus ability and the free action attack was said to happen outside the full round action. Normally not a problem, but the discussion happen to be, at the time, about combining the full round action with a feat that "is a part of a full attack action" that limits the attacks in a particular way. (The feat is mentioned above) Using the "free action attack" to impart the spells effects was stated to be outside the ability's Full Round Action and was declared to be an attack on top of what was allowed by the feat. I believe that stance is taking some liberties with the reading of the rules, and ignores some other qualities that would prevent such from occurring.
If you want to know more, please read all 700 plus posts Here
My overall take is that it doesn't matter how the player perceives the overall structure of the Full Round Action, as this one issue, based on a very unlikely build, is not the usual interaction and the overall structure of a Full Round Action doesn't do much either way otherwise.
So we likely have been taking our free/swift actions during the Full Round Action. Does it really make that much difference?
I feel like the "GM's should forbid anything that feels like excessive free actions" rule was added specifically to deal with things like issue 4 above. You don't need to ban rage-then-full-attack over it. (And any rule that states you have to go into rage between your first attack and your second attack means needless extra bookkeeping.)
|
|
I shall answer these with "yes" and "no"
I will also point out the other two threads instead of going through {reasons} here.
Yes@Yuri Sarreth
There's an ongoing debate spanning multiple threads now, and the issue outlined in this thread's topic isn't the only concern, so I'll summarize what questions are being, well, questioned. (assume magus character for all examples)
1) Can you use TWF(one-handed and unarmed), complete all your attacks, then as a free action switch your grip to two-hand your one-handed weapon?
yes. I will add that the free action is unnecessary to add here, as the casting of the spell is already a swift action.2) As an extension, can you use TWF(one-handed and unarmed), complete all your attacks, then swift action cast shocking grasp, then free action deliver it?
No, you would either hold the spell or use it before two handing the weapon. You can, however, use spellstrike to deliver the spell through one of the one handed weapons.3) Where the debate usually diverges: Can you TWF, then swiftcast a touch spell, then free action switch grip to two-handed, then free action deliver touch spell?
4) To the tough meat of the issue: Can you spell combat(full-attack then cast a touch spell), then free action switch grip to two-handed, free action deliver the touch spell, then free action switch grip to one-handed, swiftcast another touch spell, then free action switch grip back to two-handed, and another free action to deliver touch spell? Assuming that the GM does not object to this number of free actions.
No.
Spell Combat needs that hand free, it is the off hand using the spell as the weapon. I assume that the character is at least 2nd level magus to use the spellstrike ability, otherwise two handing the weapon would make touching the target with a free hand impossible. You can deliver your attacks, then swift action the second spell and do it's attack, then two hand the weapon, likely to do two handed AoO's at that point.
The Spell Combat is the crux of this issue. I linked the first thread in the previous post, Here is the second one.
I went a little more than Yes or No.
I will add that the free action is unnecessary to add here, as the casting of the spell is already a swift action.
It's still a free action though, regardless of if the spell is cast as a standard, swift, or 1 minute cast time spell, so long as it's a touch spell.
No, you would either hold the spell or use it before two handing the weapon. You can, however, use spellstrike to deliver the spell through one of the one handed weapons.3) Where the debate usually diverges: Can you TWF, then swiftcast a touch spell, then free action switch grip to two-handed, then free action deliver touch spell?
Wait, I'm a little lost. How is this situation different from this?
So you're saying that the free action to deliver the touch spell is not part of the standard action to cast the touch spell?By your definition, can the magus two-hand the free attack after casting the spell as a standard action?He can, though the only way to deliver the spell with the weapon in that way is through Spellstrike, as he already used his standard to cast the spell. I have see it done in this way, but you only get the one attack using it in this way, as some misunderstood what the magus does with his abilities.When using the standard action, that action ends after the spell is cast. The caster then can use the attack afforded by the spell, or move to get into range then use it. This isn't in dispute, right?
The difference is I have stated it above. A full Round Action that spell combat uses changes the standard action to an off hand use.
What does spell combat have to do with the answer I quoted?
|
|
Because I mention Spell Combat in my answer. TWF is the same, the off hand is being used in the attacks.
If you use both hands during a full round action with two different weapons, you are not going to be able to spellstrike through the weapon wielded with two hands. If you are not using spellstrike, you need the free hand to deliver that attack. (which an unarmed attack would provide)
Because I mention Spell Combat in my answer. TWF is the same, the off hand is being used in the attacks.
If you use both hands during a full round action with two different weapons, you are not going to be able to spellstrike through the weapon wielded with two hands. If you are not using spellstrike, you need the free hand to deliver that attack. (which an unarmed attack would provide)
So you're saying you can't even cast the swift action spell which requires somatic components?
Personal thoughts as a Frequent GM, occasional Player:
I think that if you do a full round action, all free/swift actions taken "before" or "after" roll into the full round action you took. So:
FA (Remove Grip) + SA (Cast Quickened Touch Spell) + FA (Touch from Spell) + FA (Re Grip) + First Attack + FA (Taunt Enemy) + Second Attack + FA (Laugh at Enemy)
is all part of a full round action even though the player didn't declare a full attack until after he touched with his quickened spell. This will leave some corner cases (such as does a magus who uses spell combat suffer the -2 on that first touch attack even though he didn't declare spell combat until after?) But those can be left up to the GM.
That's how I'd personally handle it, and I think that in the spirit of the game, none of this truly matters. At best a player is avoiding a small penalty on 1 attack, at worst they are suffering a small penalty on 1 attack.
Anyways, good luck with finding the "true answer".
I run it where swift/free actions can be done before, after, or/and during full round actions.
I don't really care if that's "right". It's at least simple and keeps the game moving.
|
|
You read that in my response?
No, it is what you do with that swift action that matters, not if your able to. Using Quickened Spell will enable the casting, but while using Spell Combat or Two Weapon Fighting (TWF) you are not going to be able to wield the weapon with Two Hands until after you either hold the spell or use the attack from it. The character would likely shift the grip of the weapon so that he can Two Hand Attack of Oppertunities (AoO)after the attacks are completed.
Now, if you cast it as a standard, then two hand the weapon, you can spellstrike through the weapon in this way. You can even move to the target before you take your attack. This has not changed nor have I ever said that it did.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People make my brain hurt.
You absolutely can take free actions either side of (and during) a full attack. Any attempt to rule otherwise is clearly wrong. To limit the more egregious issues you need to look at the specific rules. Some free actions taken during other actions will invalidate some aspect of specific full round actions - or vice versa.
For example spell combat specifically requires you to have a hand free when you make your attack, that expressly includes any attack roll required as part of the spell.
I can't see any reason you couldn't swift cast a spell free action 2 hand the weapon then attack.
If you are TWF you cannot make a two handed attack during any part of the round. You can free action two handed grip after you have made all your attacks, but not to make an attack, even a free one. While this is not expressly stated the hands of effort FAQ and nearly every ruling available makes the intention clear. I'll quite happily call shenanigans on anyone trying to pull that at any table I play at.
You read that in my response?
No, it is what you do with that swift action that matters, not if your able to. Using Quickened Spell will enable the casting, but while using Spell Combat or Two Weapon Fighting (TWF) you are not going to be able to wield the weapon with Two Hands until after you either hold the spell or use the attack from it. The character would likely shift the grip of the weapon so that he can Two Hand Attack of Oppertunities (AoO)after the attacks are completed.
Now, if you cast it as a standard, then two hand the weapon, you can spellstrike through the weapon in this way. You can even move to the target before you take your attack. This has not changed nor have I ever said that it did.
So why does the hand being occupied prevent two-handing the sword, but not prevent casting a spell with a somatic component? In addition, if the hand is occupied, why are you allowed to shift your grip to two-handed just before your turn ends?
What I'm trying to read into your responses is what you say is right or wrong, why you way it's right or wrong, and then I attempt to bring up another point that may follow those same principles.
|
|
My belief is that if you can't do it TWF, you can't do it with Spell Combat. You can still cast the Quickened spell and deliver it through a weapon wielded one handed during Spell Combat (Using Spellstrike).
I had thought this before this "issue" with a Full Round Action came to light. The reading of it only confirmed my stance.
|
|
In the example you stated, your using an unarmed attack to be able to have a free hand to do the other stated actions. Normally, one would either have to Quickdraw to sheaf the extra weapon (after the attacks) or drop it to have the free hand to be able to cast the Quickened spell.
You can shift your grip after the Full Attack is done, which happens within the Full Round Action.
I know you are being a stickler, but I go by the examples you gave.
The main point that needs to be clarified here is that the character is using all his hands of effort here, so using the weapon Two Handed after having done so is not normally allowed. I don't think the shenanigans with the free action attack going outside the Full Round Action will change that.
|
For example spell combat specifically requires you to have a hand free when you make your attack, that expressly includes any attack roll required as part of the spell.
You would think, but I made that argument for 6 pages in one of the previous threads only to be told repeatedly that I was wrong, and that the free action from the spell is completely separate from Spell Combat and is not limited to 1 hand (though Spell Combat does impose the -2 penalty to it).
For example spell combat specifically requires you to have a hand free when you make your attack, that expressly includes any attack roll required as part of the spell.You would think, but I made that argument for 6 pages in one of the previous threads only to be told repeatedly that I was wrong, and that the free action from the spell is completely separate from Spell Combat and is not limited to 1 hand (though Spell Combat does impose the -2 penalty to it).
Sometimes you just have to make your point about how to read class abilities and then let people believe what they want to believe.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
well in this case it's more than that....
Honestly, people have brought good arguments on both sides and reached a stalemate....
Any general argument that you cannot take free/swift actions either side or within a full action is inherently flawed. The rules are about as clear as they can possibly be - repeated clearly again and again and again. There cannot be ANY good argument in support of that.