|
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?
Just to give some perspective into this discussion. This didn't come up with someone trying to read more into the rules like you are saying. It came up in the other thread because people were arguing about the impact of a full round action on potential other actions in the rounds. Someone then came up with this explanation/defintion in the books and it raised questions that I thought interesting.
MOre specifically, if you take a spellcombat Full Round Action (FRA)or take the full attack action while fighting with two weapons, both action types impose a restriction (one hand free for spellcombat and a penalty to hit for TWF).
Now if someone take take a swift action (casting a touch spell) after completing the main actions associated with the full round action, are they still under the restriction of the Full Round action?
Side 1 said: Yes. FRA consumes the entire round (from 0 to 6 seconds), therefore you still take -2 to hit for your attack or you can't switch grip to two-handed on your touch attack with the swift spell since you are required to have a free hand for the entire FRA with spellcombat.
Side 2 said: No. Once you complete a FRA, you still have time to do swift and Free and since the FRA is completed, you don't have any restriction/penalties...
For both those actions you must read the action description carefully. spell combat is easy: it say that the penalty is applied to the attacks you make as part of the spell combat action, included the spell you cast, nothing outside the action, for Two weapon comba tthe text is a bit less clear, but the intent seem blear: itt applies only to the attacks that are part of that specific action. Not to other 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?
Spell Combat (Ex): ... 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).
so:
If the spell that give you the touch attack is part of spell combat, you get the -2 to hit;If it is a quickened spell outside of spell combat, you you don't suffer the penalty.
|
So you are saying that you cast Shocking Grasp during the full action Spell Combat, but don't attack with it at all during the full attack. Then, after the full attack, you say "now I use my Shocking Grasp attack" but use two hands and take no penalty from Spell Combat. Is that right?
Perhaps...
A. Attack 1: -2 from Spell Combat
B. Attack 2: -7 iterative with Spell Combat
C. Spell Cast: Shocking Grasp (probably defensively cast but whatever) but no attack.
D. full attack action ends
E. free action to switch your grip to two-handed
F. Use the touch attack wording to justify making your Shocking Grasp attack NOW instead of between C and D. No -2 from Spell Combat and with 1.5 strength damage from two-handing your weapon
I see the argument for how this is possible by RAW. If you tried this in my home game, I would hit you with my GM-grade Stupid Bat though. That Shocking Grasp attack needs to be made during Spell Combat. I don't have strong RAW support for that ruling, but that's how I would rule. Or simply ban the Magus class, which is riding the edge in my book and doesn't need to be cheesed more than RAW clearly allows for.
But yeah, otherwise...sure. The people that are saying you couldn't switch your grip at E don't have a leg to stand on in my view.
|
|
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?
Yes and yes.
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?
Swiftcast? If you mean "cast a quickened spell", use the right terminology.
Without spellstrike, you can't.
With spellstrike, it depend on how you "interpret" the unwritten rule about hands of effort.
As it is unwritten, that isn't clear and has no RAW reply.
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.
The first spell is part of spell combat, so it suffer from the -2 penalty and you can't use it while using a two handed grip on your sword.
After you have made the attack granted by spell combat you can cast a quickened spell, attack without a penalty and (maybe) use a 2 handed grip (there is the some problem with "hand use" limit, but it can be read both way) .
|
|
So you are saying that you cast Shocking Grasp during the full action Spell Combat, but don't attack with it at all during the full attack. Then, after the full attack, you say "now I use my Shocking Grasp attack" but use two hands and take no penalty from Spell Combat. Is that right?
Perhaps...
A. Attack 1: -2 from Spell Combat
B. Attack 2: -7 iterative with Spell Combat
C. Spell Cast: Shocking Grasp (probably defensively cast but whatever) but no attack.
D. full attack action ends
E. free action to switch your grip to two-handed
F. Use the touch attack wording to justify making your Shocking Grasp attack NOW instead of between C and D. No -2 from Spell Combat and with 1.5 strength damage from two-handing your weaponI see the argument for how this is possible by RAW. If you tried this in my home game, I would hit you with my GM-grade Stupid Bat though. That Shocking Grasp attack needs to be made during Spell Combat. I don't have strong RAW support for that ruling, but that's how I would rule. Or simply ban the Magus class, which is riding the edge in my book and doesn't need to be cheesed more than RAW clearly allows for.
But yeah, otherwise...sure. The people that are saying you couldn't switch your grip at E don't have a leg to stand on in my view.
D. is wrong. As quoted the spell you cast as part os spell combat, and the relative attack roll, are still part of spell combat, so you apply the penalty for spell combat.
|
|
Sooo, you can't cast, say, an Intensified Shocking Grasp, and deliver the spell within the same round of casting, because you're spending that entire turn casting the spell, and you can't deliver the spell until you finish casting.
I'm sorry, but this is not what the rules say, and I never said it. This is what you got out of the post, this? Really?
This had not been disputed, though it has been indicated that it has.
What happens when you take them in conjunction to what the character is doing is what this discussion is about. If you are in Spell Combat, you are using an attack spell (Shocking Grasp is the example given most times) that is cast as a part of a Full-Round Action, using the character's off hand use as a means to do so. What you do with that spell to impart it's effects will happen during that performance of that ability.
On top of that, one can cast a memorized quickened spell and attack with it after the Full Attack is over. It is also cast within the full round action, otherwise, if the character waits until the Full Round Action is complete, the turn is over. (the quickened spell is not cast)
It is when the spell has a 1 round casting time that the caster is spending the full round action to begin his spell, completing it at the beginning of the next turn. Did you read this at all concerning Metamagic use for Sorcerer's and et all?
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.
Why are you asking me when I posted the rule right there, explaining the difference?
Except that is, EXACTLY what the rules are written as, and you've even said yourself that you can't deliver a spell until that spell is cast.
A Metamagic'd Touch Spell takes a Full Round Action to cast, and isn't finished casting until the end of your turn. We've already discussed that delivering a Touch Spell outside of a Full Round Action, per RAW, is impossible, because that Full Round Action starts from 0 to 6 seconds. **EDIT** It's also likewise impossible to take your bolded portion for granted, because it creates a scenario of mutual exclusiveness between the ramifications of a Full Round Action requiring your whole turn and the idea that a spell's effects don't take place until the spell you cast (which only happens after you finish casting the spell) is completed.
Therefore, trying to deliver a Touch Spell is impossible until your turn is done if you take more than a Full Round Action to cast it, because your spell isn't cast until the end of your turn (per the RAW of Full Round Actions), and attempting to deliver a spell before it is cast, does nothing, as the spell's effects haven't taken place. It also means that the only difference between a Full Round Action spell and a 1 Round Action spell is that your spell cannot be disrupted except by triggering/readied actions, as that's the only difference specifically spelled out.
Likewise, you can't even say or prove that the spell you cast within Spell Combat doesn't take the entire round to cast, since, as you've said for the Nth time, the spell you cast is done as a part of Spell Combat, which is a Full Round Action, and Spell Combat simply says you can only cast a spell that normally has a casting time of 1 Standard Action.
I'll say it again: Congratulations, you broke Spell Combat.
|
|
Except that is, EXACTLY what the rules are written as, and you've even said yourself that you can't deliver a spell until that spell is cast.
I'll say it again: Congratulations, you broke Spell Combat.
Wait, what?
Are we even on the same page. Are you still talking about the Free Action Attacks here or something else? Your saying you would prevent spells from being completed because the rules don't go your way?
You can take a free action and swift action at anytime during the round. This had not been disputed, though it has been indicated that it has.
Please read the above post again, it seems the meaning of what I posted slipped past you. Spell Combat is just fine, thank you, despite your best efforts.
Except that is, EXACTLY what the rules are written as, and you've even said yourself that you can't deliver a spell until that spell is cast.
I'll say it again: Congratulations, you broke Spell Combat.
Wait, what?
Are we even on the same page. Are you still talking about the Free Action Attacks here or something else? Your saying you would prevent spells from being completed because the rules don't go your way?
You can take a free action and swift action at anytime during the round. This had not been disputed, though it has been indicated that it has.
Please read the above post again, it seems the meaning of what I posted slipped past you. Spell Combat is just fine, thank you, despite your best efforts.
I'm saying Full Round Action spells (yes, even those granted by Spell Combat) and Free Action attacks are mutually exclusive per the rules. You do one or the other, but you can't do both in any given round.
That's what I'm saying.
You can't take a Free Action to deliver a spell that hasn't been cast yet. That spell is not cast until the action you take is completed, and Full Round Actions require your entire turn to complete per RAW. Once the action is completed, then the spell is cast, and its effects take place. However, in the case of a Full Round Action, the Action (in terms of duration) equals your turn, which means the action being completed translates to your turn also being completed.
Likewise, because your turn is completed, you can't take a Swift Action to cast a spell (unless you also have a free hand for it to fulfill its own somatic components), or a Free Action to deliver a spell (either the Full Round Action spell or the Swift spell), because your turn is done, and those actions cannot be taken outside your turn. (That's what Immediate Actions are for.)
So, you could take a Swift Action to cast a spell, but that has its own restrictions, and can't share any of the restrictions of other actions (for example, you can't use the free hand from Spell Combat to fulfill the somatic components for the Quickened Spell, because that hand is busy performing Spell Combat). Same goes for the Free Action to deliver the spell (either one).
Darksol , what would prevent you from doing your free attack once your metamagic spell is completed ?
The rules say that you can take a free action inside your full round action,. So whether a full round action takes the whole round or not, in either case you would have a chance to deliver it?
Also, @ Andy Brown:
Your Metamagic'd Spell isn't complete until the action you use to cast the spell is resolved. A metamagic spell takes a Full Round Action to complete (barring Quickened spells). Full Round Actions take the entirety of your turn.
A Touch Spell cannot be delivered until it is cast. The metamagic spell isn't cast until the Full Round Action is complete (and by relation, your turn).
Once your action (and by relation your turn) is complete, you cannot take the Free Action to deliver the spell, because that is occurring outside your turn, which you cannot do unless you have a special ability saying otherwise.
So no, you can't touch a target in the same action of casting the spell, because the spell isn't cast yet. I mean, you could try, but nothing would happen, because the spell's effects haven't come to fruition.
|
|
Please look at the note above that I quoted. It is directly from the Core Rulebook.
Is there something confusing you, perhaps? The difference between a full round casting of a spell and a spell with 1 round casting time?
Here, let me quote the text again...
A spell that takes one round to cast is a full-round action.
It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn
in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act
normally after the spell is completed.
A spell that takes 1 minute to cast comes into effect just
before your turn 1 minute later (and for each of those 10
rounds, you are casting a spell as a full-round action).
These actions must be consecutive and uninterrupted, or
the spell automatically fails.
When you begin a spell that takes 1 round or longer to
cast, you must continue the invocations, gestures, and
concentration from 1 round to just before your turn in the
next round (at least). If you lose concentration after starting
the spell and before it is complete, you lose the spell.
You only provoke attacks of opportunity when you begin
casting a spell, even though you might continue casting
for at least 1 full round. While casting a spell, you don’t
threaten any squares around you.
This action is otherwise identical to the cast a spell
action described under Standard Actions.
Casting a Metamagic Spell: Sorcerers and bards must
take more time to cast a metamagic spell (one enhanced by
a metamagic feat) than a regular spell. If a spell’s normal
casting time is 1 standard action, casting a metamagic
version of the spell is a full-round action for a sorcerer or
bard (except for spells modified by the Quicken Spell feat,
which take 1 swift action to cast). 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.
Clerics and druids must take more time to spontaneously
cast a metamagic version of a cure, inf lict, or summon spell.
Spontaneously casting a metamagic version of a spell with a
casting time of 1 standard action is a full-round action, and
spells with longer casting times take an extra full-round
action to cast.
This has been in the book since it was published. Are you just now reading it for the first time?
But darksol , what do you make of the rules that say that you can make a free action inside a full round action?? If I understand correctly what you say, no other action ( free or swift) is allowed within a full round action ( no matter the specific type of full action you selected)
What I'm saying is that the Free Action being done inside of the Full Round Action accomplishes nothing, because the spell's effects haven't come to fruition until the Full Round Action required to cast the spell is completed.
So, if I cast an Intensified Shocking Grasp, which requires a Full Round Action, I cannot deliver that spell within my turn because casting the spell takes my entire turn to do, and attempting to deliver the spell is impossible.
In fact, you probably can't even take the Free Action to deliver before you cast the spell, because the Free Action to deliver the spell isn't allowed until you cast a spell, which isn't accomplished until you complete the action associated with that spellcast.
That's what I'm saying based on RAW.
@ thaX: There are only two differences between a Full Round casting time and a 1 Round casting time. I'll list them.
1. Full Round casting time spell effects take place within the same round you cast them. (Most likely just after your turn, since that is when your Full Round Action completes.) 1 Round casting time spell effects take place at the start of your turn in the following round (but still consume a Full Round Action on your turn in the round prior to the spell taking effect).
2. 1 Round casting times require that you concentrate from until the round you started casting the spell to the start of your next turn, meaning if you are hit (or otherwise affected) at any point of that specified duration, you must make Concentration checks or the spell fizzles and nothing happens. Full Round casting times do not have this restriction.
Other than those two differences, 1 Round cast times and Full Round cast times are exactly the same, and follow the same rules and restrictions as each other.
I've always had swifts with full-rounds. Paladins specifically Lay On Hands themselves/declare smites before they full attack in pretty much every game I've played and I've never seen it done differently.
This also applies to monks and using their ki abilities which are mostly free or swift actions- otherwise the qinggong monk would be useless.
I've always had swifts with full-rounds. Paladins specifically Lay On Hands themselves/declare smites before they full attack in pretty much every game I've played and I've never seen it done differently.
This also applies to monks and using their ki abilities which are mostly free or swift actions- otherwise the qinggong monk would be useless.
See, I would too.
But the rules don't say that. And this is a rules discussion. Therefore, your Paladin has made illegal acts (which are Chaotic), meaning he falls, and the Monk isn't disciplined enough to know how his actions work, so he loses his Lawful alignment and can't ascend to higher levels of power. At least, that's what the rules say.
All I'm really doing is taking what the rules say and pointing out how broken or stupid they really are when we take them for what they actually say, and not what they're trying to say.
All you've done is provide me with two other examples of how the Full Round Action rules are broken.
|
|
Not RAW. Doesn't even come close to RAI. What you are saying is that because the Spell Combat ability changes the normal standard action of a spell into an Off Hand weapon used in a Full-Round action, that all the other rules concerning this should be misconstrued to exclude the use of actions used to effect the spell's effects. That it doesn't matter if the Free Action Attack given by the spell is there or not, that all spells are broken and Metamagic Feats would break because of {reasons}.
I already pointed out the rules passage that refutes this claim, and you just said "irrelevant." Passing it off as a contradiction instead of a clarifying statement.
Not RAW. Doesn't even come close to RAI. What you are saying is that because the Spell Combat ability changes the normal standard action of a spell into an Off Hand weapon used in a Full-Round action, that all the other rules concerning this should be misconstrued to exclude the use of actions used to effect the spell's effects. That it doesn't matter if the Free Action Attack given by the spell is there or not, that all spells are broken and Metamagic Feats would break because of {reasons}.
I already pointed out the rules passage that refutes this claim, and you just said "irrelevant." Passing it off as a contradiction instead of a clarifying statement.
I did?
Where?
What I said was that there were only two differences (looking it over again, I can count 3, since I forgot the Attacks of Opportunity clause, but not a big deal), between a Full Round casting time and a 1 Round casting time, and that the rules only clarified those differences, meaning in every other respect, they're the same. That's not saying the rules you cited are "irrelevant." If I wanted to say that, I'd come out and say it.
But I didn't, did I? I instead glossed over what you said, and tackled it head-on like a good little soldier (in this case, debater) would.
And no, this actually isn't a result of Spell Combat. (The threads are, but not the point.)
This is a result of people saying "Well, a Full Round Action takes your entire turn to complete," and me simply extending the Full Round Action rules to all Full Round Actions, as one logically should, because there's nothing in any rules that says Full Round Actions aren't Full Round Actions.
Are all spells Full Round Actions? No. But most Metamagic spells are. And that's what I'm saying is broken; Metamagic spells.
I even gave a direct example, saying that Intensified Shocking Grasps are worse than regular Shocking Grasps, because Full Round Action rules are broken and stupid and function no better than trying to cast True Strike and attack in the same round.
|
|
@ thaX: There are only two differences between a Full Round casting time and a 1 Round casting time. I'll list them.
1. Full Round casting time spell effects take place within the same round you cast them. (Most likely just after your turn, since that is when your Full Round Action completes.) 1 Round casting time spell effects take place at the start of your turn in the following round (but still consume a Full Round Action on your turn in the round prior to the spell taking effect).
2. 1 Round casting times require that you concentrate from until the round you started casting the spell to the start of your next turn, meaning if you are hit (or otherwise affected) at any point of that specified duration, you must make Concentration checks or the spell fizzles and nothing happens. Full Round casting times do not have this restriction.
Other than those two differences, 1 Round cast times and Full Round cast times are exactly the same, and follow the same rules and restrictions as each other.
And? Where is Free Actions restricted from being used?
If you know this difference, then why are Free Actions and Spell Effects not able to be done when it is the reason for casting the spell in the first place? Are you saying that the beginning of the next turn is two turns away, one for concentrating, the other to finish? That the spell somehow takes four rounds, no, lets say five, right? How ridiculous do you want this to get?
edit
I did? Where?
[quote=Core Rulebook} Note that this isn’t the
same as a spell with a 1-round casting time. Spells that takea 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.
Here ya go. You going for eight rounds now?
@ thaX: There are only two differences between a Full Round casting time and a 1 Round casting time. I'll list them.
1. Full Round casting time spell effects take place within the same round you cast them. (Most likely just after your turn, since that is when your Full Round Action completes.) 1 Round casting time spell effects take place at the start of your turn in the following round (but still consume a Full Round Action on your turn in the round prior to the spell taking effect).
2. 1 Round casting times require that you concentrate from until the round you started casting the spell to the start of your next turn, meaning if you are hit (or otherwise affected) at any point of that specified duration, you must make Concentration checks or the spell fizzles and nothing happens. Full Round casting times do not have this restriction.
Other than those two differences, 1 Round cast times and Full Round cast times are exactly the same, and follow the same rules and restrictions as each other.
And? Where is Free Actions restricted from being used?
If you know this difference, then why are Free Actions and Spell Effects not able to be done when it is the reason for casting the spell in the first place? Are you saying that the beginning of the next turn is two turns away, one for concentrating, the other to finish? That the spell somehow takes four rounds, no, lets say five, right? How ridiculous do you want this to get?
Well, it's not so much "restricted," as it is "not feasible," in accordance with the RAW of Full Round Actions.
I'll tell you the same thing I told Cuttler, because I can't get it any clearer than that:
What I'm saying is that the Free Action being done inside of the Full Round Action accomplishes nothing, because the spell's effects haven't come to fruition until the Full Round Action required to cast the spell is completed.
So, if I cast an Intensified Shocking Grasp, which requires a Full Round Action, I cannot deliver that spell within my turn because casting the spell takes my entire turn to do, and attempting to deliver the spell is impossible.
In fact, you probably can't even take the Free Action to deliver before you cast the spell, because the Free Action to deliver the spell isn't allowed until you cast a spell, which isn't accomplished until you complete the action associated with that spellcast.
That's what I'm saying based on RAW.
After the spell resolves, you can still impart the effect within the full round action. We have been doing it for 8 plus years.
Again, you can't, because the spell resolves once your Full Round Action is done, and your Full Round Action isn't done until your turn is done (because Full Round Actions take your entire turn to complete).
That's what the rules say. I personally disagree, since it's clearly not RAI, but as this is a rules discussion, I'm going to go with it since it's made as an argument for not allowing a character to deliver a spell outside of Spell Combat.
What is the difference between these situations?
1) Declare full round action: Metamagic applied shocking grasp. Metamagic shocking grasp requires one hand free to provide somatic components, and the other hand happens to be occupied by a dagger/sword/whip/whatever. The spell finishes casting. The full-round action that needed one hand free is now over. As per rules of touch attacks, I am granted a free action "this round" to deliver the touch attack spell, and I may do this because my hand is no longer occupied by the action that gave me this attack in the first place.
2) Declare full round action: Spell combat. Spell combat requires one hand free and a light or one-handed weapon in the other hand. I make a full attack with the weapon. The spell finishes casting. The full-round action that needed one hand free and a specific weapon is now over. As per the rules of touch attacks, I am granted a free action "this round" to deliver the touch attack spell. Because my hand is no longer occupied by the action that gave me this attack in the first place, I may shift my grip to two-hand the weapon first, then I use my free action to deliver the touch spell via spellstrike.
EDIT: I wanted to point out that I'm actually fully convinced that by RAI this does not work, even if it's workable by RAW. If this were allowed at a table, then a level 2 magus would have the equivalent of one strength bonus advantage over a martial, when he already has a 0.5 strength bonus since both his attacks get 1x strength. However, this thought also lends credence to the idea that spell combat isn't to be compared to TWF in the first place; all his attacks get 1x strength, instead of "off-hand spell" getting 0.5x strength.
|
|
Darksol , what would prevent you from doing your free attack once your metamagic spell is completed ?
The rules say that you can take a free action inside your full round action,. So whether a full round action takes the whole round or not, in either case you would have a chance to deliver it?Also, @ Andy Brown:
Your Metamagic'd Spell isn't complete until the action you use to cast the spell is resolved. A metamagic spell takes a Full Round Action to complete (barring Quickened spells). Full Round Actions take the entirety of your turn.
A Touch Spell cannot be delivered until it is cast. The metamagic spell isn't cast until the Full Round Action is complete (and by relation, your turn).
Once your action (and by relation your turn) is complete, you cannot take the Free Action to deliver the spell, because that is occurring outside your turn, which you cannot do unless you have a special ability saying otherwise.
So no, you can't touch a target in the same action of casting the spell, because the spell isn't cast yet. I mean, you could try, but nothing would happen, because the spell's effects haven't come to fruition.
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn.
Touch: You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch up to 6 willing targets as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell. If the spell allows you to touch targets over multiple rounds, touching 6 creatures is a full-round action.
Yours is a valiant attempt to break touch and ranged touch spell when used by a spontaneous spellcaster using metamagics, but it don't work as you say. The touch or ranged touch attack is part of the casting.
And a full round action don't prevent you from taking free actions after you have completed it.
|
|
D. is wrong. As quoted the spell you cast as part os spell combat, and the relative attack roll, are still part of spell combat, so you apply the penalty for spell combat.
The free action touch is not part of the same action as Spell Combat. It follows the standard rules for touch attacks. The only thing Spell Combat does is make sure it obtains the -2 penalty.
Apparently you missed the bolded part the first time I bolded it, so I will cite it again:
Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty). If he casts this spell defensively, he can decide to take an additional penalty on his attack rolls, up to his Intelligence bonus, and add the same amount as a circumstance bonus on his concentration check. If the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still take the penalty. A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks.
To repeat: " (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty)". Clear and precise.
You're making the same mistake as Thax.Consider:
1) Start full action spell combat
2) Cast Shocking grasp
3) get staggered -> full-round action is ended, Spell Combat is endedDo you still have your free action attack? Of course you do, because unlike attacks granted by Haste and the like, the free action attack is not part of the full-action attack sequence.
Now what are you dreaming up? Get staggered? By what?
|
|
What is the difference between these situations?
1) Declare full round action: Metamagic applied shocking grasp. Metamagic shocking grasp requires one hand free to provide somatic components, and the other hand happens to be occupied by a dagger/sword/whip/whatever. The spell finishes casting. The full-round action that needed one hand free is now over. As per rules of touch attacks, I am granted a free action "this round" to deliver the touch attack spell, and I may do this because my hand is no longer occupied by the action that gave me this attack in the first place.
2) Declare full round action: Spell combat. Spell combat requires one hand free and a light or one-handed weapon in the other hand. I make a full attack with the weapon. The spell finishes casting. The full-round action that needed one hand free and a specific weapon is now over. As per the rules of touch attacks, I am granted a free action "this round" to deliver the touch attack spell. Because my hand is no longer occupied by the action that gave me this attack in the first place, I may shift my grip to two-hand the weapon first, then I use my free action to deliver the touch spell via spellstrike.
EDIT: I wanted to point out that I'm actually fully convinced that by RAI this does not work, even if it's workable by RAW. If this were allowed at a table, then a level 2 magus would have the equivalent of one strength bonus advantage over a martial, when he already has a 0.5 strength bonus since both his attacks get 1x strength. However, this thought also lends credence to the idea that spell combat isn't to be compared to TWF in the first place; all his attacks get 1x strength, instead of "off-hand spell" getting 0.5x strength.
The attack that you get from casting a spell during spell combat is still part of spell combat, not a separate ation. Read the piece I cited in the post above and the bolded part.
Darksol , what would prevent you from doing your free attack once your metamagic spell is completed ?
The rules say that you can take a free action inside your full round action,. So whether a full round action takes the whole round or not, in either case you would have a chance to deliver it?Also, @ Andy Brown:
Your Metamagic'd Spell isn't complete until the action you use to cast the spell is resolved. A metamagic spell takes a Full Round Action to complete (barring Quickened spells). Full Round Actions take the entirety of your turn.
A Touch Spell cannot be delivered until it is cast. The metamagic spell isn't cast until the Full Round Action is complete (and by relation, your turn).
Once your action (and by relation your turn) is complete, you cannot take the Free Action to deliver the spell, because that is occurring outside your turn, which you cannot do unless you have a special ability saying otherwise.
So no, you can't touch a target in the same action of casting the spell, because the spell isn't cast yet. I mean, you could try, but nothing would happen, because the spell's effects haven't come to fruition.
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that...
Misnomers all around.
For starters, the Touch Spells in Combat section says in the round, not in the turn. You just pulled a thaX by trying to say rounds and turns are the same. They're not. They're different, and have different definitions in regards to the game, and trying to say that they're the same is a laughable argument against one made of pure RAW.
In addition, the entry says "you cast the spell, and then touch the subject," and then goes on to say that touching the subject is a Free Action in the same round you cast the spell. Thing is, the spell doesn't take effect until the action related to its casting time is completed, as evidenced by 1 Round casting time spells, or spells with longer than 1 Round casting time, and the concentration rules, and because the spell isn't complete until your turn ends...
Ranged Touch Spells, and spells in general, only take effect when the action required to cast that spell is completed, following the same evidence as listed above. Therefore, you can't attack with something that's not there. It's like telling a character to draw and attack with a Longsword that's not in their inventory; it's impossible. It can't be done. They'd have to either be given a Longsword, or find one to put in their inventory before they can draw and use it.
You cutting out a crucial portion of your bolding in the Touch entry is likewise a silly argument, since the ability to touch creatures as part of casting only applies to willing targets.
Spells like Scorching Ray and Shocking Grasp, which are the key spells being up for discussion, are almost never affecting willing targets (unless they have some ability to absorb and heal from those damage types), and also impossible if done with a spell that already takes a Full Round Action to cast due to how the Full Round Action rules function, since touching multiple creatures as part of a regular Standard Action spell becomes a Full Round Action, and you've already spent a Full Round Action just to cast the spell.
Also, the bolded part about Spell Combat's spell receiving a penalty would be if the spell is hostile and requires an attack roll, and is specific to that instance. Some spells don't; Shield, Mage Armor, Haste...all of these aren't attacks, and don't require an attack roll.
It has little else to do with attaching the spell, hostile or not, to Spell Combat at the hip.
|
|
Again with the "attack roll."
here is a section you seem to disregard concerning issues with the other thread.
Special Spell Effects
...
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.
So, those spells that do damage and/or have the other situations mentioned are considered "attack" spells, making them attacks in that off hand in Spell Combat. These spells are the one used most by the Magus.
This comes into play more when trying to do the feat in the other thread with Spell Combat, the feat limiting the attacks and specifically taking away extra attacks from abilities and spells for it's own particulars.
If that's truly the case, then why does the parenthetical even exist if all spells that are hostile are attacks, and Spell Combat applies a -2 penalty to all attacks you make?
I've always had swifts with full-rounds.See, I would too.
Okay great just making sure we're all on the same page. :)
All you've done is provide me with two other examples of how the Full Round Action rules are broken.
I think broken is the wrong way of explaining it. Maybe 'Unclearly defined' or 'not considering niche cases'.
Remember, Greatswords can't be mythril or adamantine- the rules don't say they're metal anywhere. #irrefutabletruthfactRAWbombs
Oh well, Pathfinder 2.0- save us! Save us from ourselves!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If that's truly the case, then why does the parenthetical even exist if all spells that are hostile are attacks, and Spell Combat applies a -2 penalty to all attacks you make?All spell that target an enemy are an attack, even beneficial ones.
Way to dodge my question. I'll repeat it again:
What's the point of the parenthetical if the -2 penalty to attack rolls you make apply to all attacks you make anyway?
It's a waste of text space, because if the penalty applies to all attacks you make, that would include spells as a whole, as well as spells that have an attack roll, like Scorching Ray.
@ Jader7777: They can't be wood either, because the rules don't say they're wood.
Congratulations, weapons that don't specify their material can't be made out of special materials. In fact, they're made out of no materials at all? (So why do they cost so much? Marketing Scheme, that's how...)
|
|
If that's truly the case, then why does the parenthetical even exist if all spells that are hostile are attacks, and Spell Combat applies a -2 penalty to all attacks you make?All spell that target an enemy are an attack, even beneficial ones.
Way to dodge my question. I'll repeat it again:
What's the point of the parenthetical if the -2 penalty to attack rolls you make apply to all attacks you make anyway?
It's a waste of text space, because if the penalty applies to all attacks you make, that would include spells as a whole, as well as spells that have an attack roll, like Scorching Ray.
@ Jader7777: They can't be wood either, because the rules don't say they're wood.
Congratulations, weapons that don't specify their material can't be made out of special materials. In fact, they're made out of no materials at all? (So why do they cost so much? Marketing Scheme, that's how...)
It applies to all spells that are cast aas part of spell combat and to none that are cast outside of it, even if they are cast in the same turn, i.e. if they are quickened spells.
I don't know if you are a troll or you really don't get some fo the basic rules of the game, but, as it has been already pointed out several times in this therap, the rules explicitly allow you to use free and swift actions in the same round in which you use aa full round action.
The simplest example is the "Prepare spell components to cast a spell" free action.
By your reading of the rules that free action would have to be performed in a different round from the one in which you are casting, but that is not what they say.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Congratulations, weapons that don't specify their material can't be made out of special materials. In fact, they're made out of no materials at all? (So why do they cost so much? Marketing Scheme, that's how...)
They have to be made of something- it's just undefined.
He hits you with a ____ you take 2d6 damage!
Hits me with what? What did he hit me with?
I don't know, it just does 2d6 damage ok?
Again, the parenthetical is pointless because the Spell Combat general text already tells us that. We've already argued that the restrictions of an action apply for as long as the action takes unless it specifies otherwise. A Full Round Action takes your entire turn to complete. Therefore, all of its restrictions and penalties apply for the entirety of your turn, meaning any spell you cast within your turn, suffers the penalties (and the restrictions).
Tell me, how are you fulfilling the somatic components for the spell you cast during Spell Combat? With that free hand that Spell Combat says you need to have? Too bad that hand is busy performing Spell Combat to fulfill somatic components.
**EDIT** I take that back; I relooked over what you think I'm saying, and I'll have to concede, that is exactly what I'm saying. At least, in order for a Touch Spell to take its desired effect. Anyway...
What I've said, three times now, is that if you attempt to deliver a spell before it is cast (AKA, before you resolve the action, which, for a Full Round Action, is impossible to do before, because a Full Round Action takes your entire turn, start to finish, to complete), it does nothing. Because the spell's effects haven't taken place, you have nothing to deliver, which means your touch attack, does nothing.
You likewise haven't fulfilled the "cast a spell within the round" requirement to deliver a Touch Spell as a Free Action until the Full Round Action, required to cast the spell (in terms of a Metamagic Spell) is complete, so suggesting you can spend the Free Action to deliver a spell before you've met the requirements of being able to do so (which is casting the spell within that round), is impossible.
In short, the chain of events don't add up to what people are expecting to happen, even if I would agree with them. That's what I gather from the RAW.
Hell, I'd even argue that you can't draw the components for a Full Round Action spell, because before you can cast the spell, from 0 seconds, to 6 seconds, you need to have the spell components ready to use, but that's not exactly necessary for me to argue. (And I suggest you don't make me have to make it necessary for me to argue, or we'll descend into madness.
Also, if you think taking RAW for what it means is trolling, that's cute. Munchkining, maybe. But I'm not the one who is for letting Metamagic Spells break themselves (much less Spell Combat break itself).
I'm just exposing and playing along with the fact that it's possible due to how the RAW currently stands; the fact that people are gawking at the RAW interpretation and are going "Is this really what the rules are telling you?" should give a clear indicator as to how stupid and nonsensical it is to take the Full Round Action rules RAW as an authentic argument.
(Again, I'm saying this just to be clear, I do not endorse or agree with the argument I was just posing. I'm merely presenting it as Devil's Advocate for those who keep saying it's a rule to enforce.)
Congratulations, weapons that don't specify their material can't be made out of special materials. In fact, they're made out of no materials at all? (So why do they cost so much? Marketing Scheme, that's how...)They have to be made of something- it's just undefined.
He hits you with a ____ you take 2d6 damage!
Hits me with what? What did he hit me with?
I don't know, it just does 2d6 damage ok?
Maybe some s#!^ they found off the street or in their toilet/dugout? I don't know...
Or even Bread...like a giant, breadstick.
Now Bakers can be Weaponsmithies! Sweet!
I just need to enhance it with some yeast or even some salt, sugar, jelly...make it nice and delicious, so that I can both eat it, and attack with it, all at the same time!
See? Exercises like these can be fun...
Congratulations, weapons that don't specify their material can't be made out of special materials. In fact, they're made out of no materials at all? (So why do they cost so much? Marketing Scheme, that's how...)They have to be made of something- it's just undefined.
He hits you with a ____ you take 2d6 damage!
Hits me with what? What did he hit me with?
I don't know, it just does 2d6 damage ok?
Maybe some s#!^ they found off the street or in their toilet/dugout? I don't know...
Or even Bread...like a giant, breadstick.
Now Bakers can be Weaponsmithies! Sweet!
I just need to enhance it with some yeast or even some salt, sugar, jelly...make it nice and delicious, so that I can both eat it, and attack with it, all at the same time!
See? Exercises like these can be fun...
Do you think it's coincidence that one of the winners of the hunger games was both a baker AND named after bread?
|
No TWF penalties apply to an attack if that attack is neither primary or offhand. As per the core rules and as per the clarification FAQ on TWF. An AoO is explicitly a single attack outside of the normal happenings of the turn. The AoO is not counted as part of the full attack action. Thus, could not possibly be a primary or offhand attack. Primary and offhand only exist during an action where you are gaining an extra attack due to TWFing. Thus, as AoOs are separate actions that interupt normal actions, you would not suffer TWF penalties as you are not currently TWFing.It would matter which hand, to me, because the FAQ regarding it says AOO and other attacks outside your full attack turn are not penalized generally speaking. I think that it's the generally that should be focused on as it seems to indicate some exceptions will apply. Extra attacks would be those exceptions then.
So yes it would matter which hand, because certain hands may carry a different penalty based on weapon in the hand.
The FAQ states that AoO are "generally" not "explicitly" outside of that. Because usually, yes. They are. They are made once a turn is over when people are moving around or casting in range or using ranged weapons near you.
Exceptions, like abilities and feats that allow them to be taken inside of a turn would go against the general. So I feel that is what that FAQ refers to and as such would have a player modify the rolls.
None of that matters. You are not twf during the aoo so no penalty. You are speaking on the wrong faq and not paying attention to the very specific faq on twf which states if you do not get an extra attack from using twf then you get no penalty. And the fact that an aoo is also explicitly interuptive.
|
|
If that's truly the case, then why does the parenthetical even exist if all spells that are hostile are attacks, and Spell Combat applies a -2 penalty to all attacks you make?All spell that target an enemy are an attack, even beneficial ones.
This is only considered true if you are invisible and then it breaks invisibility. Now, if you try to touch an unwilling creature, then it is a touch attack. But an enemy can be willing. Also, hate would not be considered an attack as there is no touch or ranged touch on its targeting.