Can you take Free and swift actions before and after a Full Round actions?


Rules Questions

201 to 250 of 290 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Rulebook Subscriber

It seems to me that the crux of the problem is that some view that there is a linearity of the time line where we have <gap> <full round action> <gap>, and others see it as <full round action>. My view has always been that there a gap, and that there is the verbiage talking about before, and after when taking about taking a 5 foot step, making use of swift/free actions makes me think that. How can there be a before and after (in which I can do something) if that action covers the full round and you have nothing left. Further I've always viewed it that free was 0, and swift was some small epsilon of time/effor but not 0. So given that, I see it that there must be a gap. This leads me to the view that the actions taken after the full round action are no longer under the penalties associated with that action unless it states other wise e.g. power attack.

With regards to the free attack action from a melee touch spell cast during spell combat, if I forgo the free attack and hold the charge does it still retain the penalty from spell combat? Ie if I get a AoO and use a touch attack is it at -2? How long does the penalty last?

I can see how others see it that the full round is just that and as such forces you to take any and all penalties from the full round action. But if that is the case if I have a swift action attack that can occur "before" my full round action how can it retroactively be penalized, since I might not take that full round action until I actual complete the swift action. Now I don't know if there is such a swift attack that I can take to set up that scenario so I'll leave it as a hypothetical but it would help to clarify how it should be handled.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

See other thread, this Response applies here.

Dark Archive

thaX wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Indeed. You can take swift and free actions before you even decide what full round action you might end up taking.

Yes, it is even mentioned in the section we have been quoting. As you do declare the full round action, those Free/Swift actions taken before become a part of that full round.

I really don't see why your being such a stick in the mud about this. This is the entry for Free Action.

Quote:

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.

You can use free actions while you are using a Full-Round Action. Why would it be outside of an action that takes up the whole round? Why would it need to be?

Ozy is correct that the Swift action can take place outside the Full Round Action. You are adding wording to the Full Round Action rules treating it like it says "A Full Round Action requires your entire turn and any Free and Swift Actions taken will occur during it". Even though it clearly states that the 5-foot step can occur before, during, or after.

I can cast a Quickened Blindness at the start of my turn and then decide what I am going to do based off if the monster is now blind or not, such as deciding to Withdraw if the spell fails. That does not mean I cast it during my Withdraw action, it means I tried it and then made a decision.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Agodeshalf, It is how most players view it, though it is the Full Attack (a part of the Full Round Action) that is being used most of the time, hence the "gaps."

The Free/Swift actions can be done as they have before. The issue came up when trying to combine Spell Combat with Whirlwind Attack, and the spell's Free Action Attack being separate from the spell (like Shocking Grasp) Using it outside of the Full Round Action would allow an extra attack normally nixed by Whirlwind Attack, or so a couple of posters say, with a third on the fence.

The reason that would not work is more than this particular issue, but having the Free Action be a part of the Full-Round Action puts a nail in the coffin of that shenanigan.

Dark Archive

thaX wrote:

Agodeshalf, It is how most players view it, though it is the Full Attack (a part of the Full Round Action) that is being used most of the time, hence the "gaps."

The Free/Swift actions can be done as they have before. The issue came up when trying to combine Spell Combat with Whirlwind Attack, and the spell's Free Action Attack being separate from the spell (like Shocking Grasp) Using it outside of the Full Round Action would allow an extra attack normally nixed by Whirlwind Attack, or so a couple of posters say, with a third on the fence.

The reason that would not work is more than this particular issue, but having the Free Action be a part of the Full-Round Action puts a nail in the coffin of that shenanigan.

The FAQ about Spell Combat and Haste mentions the Spell Combat interacts with effects that grant additional attacks, not feats. Spell Combat is not the Full Attack Action and therefore is not eligible for Whirlwind Attack. Unless you can show a post where they clarified it, but I have no seen it anywhere. So that is not a valid scenario to even have a debate about.


RSX Raver wrote:
The FAQ about Spell Combat and Haste mentions the Spell Combat interacts with effects that grant additional attacks, not feats. Spell Combat is not the Full Attack Action and therefore is not eligible for Whirlwind Attack. Unless you can show a post where they clarified it, but I have no seen it anywhere. So that is not a valid scenario to even have a debate about.

The question answered was "Magus, Spell Combat: Does spell combat count as making a full attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects?"

And the answer given is a flat "Yes."

You have to admit that this is pretty convincing evidence, as whirlwind attack states "When you use the full-attack action".

I personally maintain that "feats" counts as "other effects", otherwise rapid shot would not work with ranged spell combat on the eldritch archer magus.

The further questions, like "how much do you actually benefit" and "do you even benefit at all" are questions I think deserve a FAQ, because the feat uses language that appears to be referring to differently used but undefined game terms.

Dark Archive

Johnny_Devo wrote:
RSX Raver wrote:
The FAQ about Spell Combat and Haste mentions the Spell Combat interacts with effects that grant additional attacks, not feats. Spell Combat is not the Full Attack Action and therefore is not eligible for Whirlwind Attack. Unless you can show a post where they clarified it, but I have no seen it anywhere. So that is not a valid scenario to even have a debate about.

The question answered was "Magus, Spell Combat: Does spell combat count as making a full attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects?"

And the answer given is a flat "Yes."

You have to admit that this is pretty convincing evidence, as whirlwind attack states "When you use the full-attack action".

I personally maintain that "feats" counts as "other effects", otherwise rapid shot would not work with ranged spell combat on the eldritch archer magus.

The further questions, like "how much do you actually benefit" and "do you even benefit at all" are questions I think deserve a FAQ, because the feat uses language that appears to be referring to differently used but undefined game terms.

You need to read the entire FAQ then.

FAQ wrote:
Edit 9/9/13: This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with effects that are essentially a full attack, even though the creature isn't specifically using the full attack action (as required by haste). The earlier ruling did not allow the extra attack from haste when using spell combat.

This ruling is for Haste and Haste-like effects, not Whirlwind. Feats are feats, not "other effects" because they consistently say the word feat when they mean them.


I agree that there is another valid interpretation for that.


RSX Raver wrote:
Johnny_Devo wrote:
RSX Raver wrote:
The FAQ about Spell Combat and Haste mentions the Spell Combat interacts with effects that grant additional attacks, not feats. Spell Combat is not the Full Attack Action and therefore is not eligible for Whirlwind Attack. Unless you can show a post where they clarified it, but I have no seen it anywhere. So that is not a valid scenario to even have a debate about.

The question answered was "Magus, Spell Combat: Does spell combat count as making a full attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects?"

And the answer given is a flat "Yes."

You have to admit that this is pretty convincing evidence, as whirlwind attack states "When you use the full-attack action".

I personally maintain that "feats" counts as "other effects", otherwise rapid shot would not work with ranged spell combat on the eldritch archer magus.

The further questions, like "how much do you actually benefit" and "do you even benefit at all" are questions I think deserve a FAQ, because the feat uses language that appears to be referring to differently used but undefined game terms.

You need to read the entire FAQ then.

FAQ wrote:
Edit 9/9/13: This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with effects that are essentially a full attack, even though the creature isn't specifically using the full attack action (as required by haste). The earlier ruling did not allow the extra attack from haste when using spell combat.
This ruling is for Haste and Haste-like effects, not Whirlwind. Feats are feats, not "other effects" because they consistently say the word feat when they mean them.

Assuming that the FAQ refers only and specifically to Haste, there would be no reason to add "and other effects" to the FAQ question then, since everything that grants any abilities like the Haste Spell would otherwise refer to (and say it doesn't stack with) the Haste Spell.

Even if it was addressed specifically for Haste, this is the inverted equivalent of saying that the Effective/Actual Size FAQ doesn't apply to Shield Spikes because the rules didn't say that it applied to Shield Spikes, despite containing content that would (and should) pertain to it.

Whirlwind Attack isn't the only thing that refers to taking a Full Attack Action. Let's say I'm an Eldritch Archer Magus, and I take Rapid Shot, are you telling me that if I Spell Combat I don't get the extra attack from Rapid Shot? What about Hammer the Gap, are you saying if I Spell Combat, I can't benefit from that feat either? I also imagine there are others, but those are some big ones.


"Other effects" is a pretty open-ended term that probably should've been nailed down a bit more.


Squiggit wrote:

What about a skirmisher ranger? I use surprise shift to move adjacent to an opponent as a swift action and then make a full attack against them.

Under the assumption that I must begin my turn with a full attack, this interaction becomes impossible as I cannot initiate the full attack from my starting position.

This leads to the even more bizarre result of ending up adjacent to a target with both my standard and move actions available and yet somehow unable to initiate a full attack.

I'm sorry I just can't buy that.

Who's selling that?

Your surprise shift is part of your full attack. Its part of the first millisecond. You are looking for an attack opening as you move. There is no seam in which your opponent can launch a defensive measure.


Goth Guru wrote:


Who's selling that?
Your surprise shift is part of your full attack. Its part of the first millisecond. You are looking for an attack opening as you move. There is no seam in which your opponent can launch a defensive measure.

So I can start a full attack without actually being able to attack anything, then initiate a swift action before the full attack actually happens? I suppose that's an interesting interpretation to make it work.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

"Whirlwind Attack isn't the only thing that refers to taking a Full Attack Action. Let's say I'm an Eldritch Archer Magus, and I take Rapid Shot, are you telling me that if I Spell Combat I don't get the extra attack from Rapid Shot? What about Hammer the Gap, are you saying if I Spell Combat, I can't benefit from that feat either? I also imagine there are others, but those are some big ones."

I am sorry, are you still trying to use Whirlwind Attack as you do this? It is this feat that forfeits extra attacks, not Spell Combat.


The rules don't say insert reality. With the quicken spell feat you get a special shorthand letting you cast 2 spells at once. If you are doing 2 things at once, you can put a zero time action anywhere. On top of a full round action. In the seem between the start of your action round and the beginning of your full round action.

It's like having a dishwasher fit snug between a fridge and a cabinet. Strawman the Gnome hangs a sign on the front of it that says empty on one side and loaded on the other. It obviously does not have to be on the left or right side.

Dark Archive

This is stupid. If you agree that you can take certain free actions before making your first attack during a full attack then the implication is that you can start taking free actions after you announce you will be taking a full attack action. In that case, merely announce the full-attack action and then use any free- or swift-action abilities you want before taking the first attack. If we are to remain internally consistent your turn doesn't end the moment you take your final attack but rather "once the full-attack action ends", and you can then take any swift/free actions as normal. Nothing changes, the distinction is meaningless and arbitrary.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The Full Attack happens within the Full Round Action, as mentioned in the Core Rulebook.


Okay. This is getting just silly. Full-Round Actions can be shown to not take up the full round in multiple ways. The "interpretation" of other actions magically becoming part of them has next to no basis in the rules, and actually has more meaningful text going against it. It is, at best, meaningless and arbitrary, but it is certainly not at its best all of the time.

The interpretation stumbles when taking a Swift/Free/5-Foot Step before taking a Full Attack that is broken off after the first attack. (The action magically attaches and then detaches from the action.) If one tries to 5-Foot Step and then cast a Full-Round casting time spell. (They provoke because they started casting and the 5-Foot is part of it.) If one wants to cast a Full-Round casting time spell, but has their hands full. Any kind of Readied Actions involving 5-Foot Step, Free Action, or Swift Action triggers. (Oh, their readied action gave me a penalty on attack rolls? That sucks, guess I get to tank that since my full attack was already declared and my triggering action happened as part of it.)

The interpretation admittedly doesn't really have trouble with Swift/Free/5-Foot Step before Full Attacks. But, even that's just due to that you don't have to declare targets to attack immediately.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

You need not declare a Full Round Action right away, and can drop out of it after the first attack if need be. But since the Full Round Action takes the whole round to do, it is otherwise the full round.

If it is easier for the player to parse it out as before/after, it is fine to do so. We have likely been doing it for the past 20 years in this game. The only particular to keep in mind is trying to do shenanigans outside of the full round action to gain an advantage, which is what was wanted when this issue came up.

Common Sense should come into play here, most feats/abilities/actions spell out what can or can not be done, and how various things are parsed out within the activities performed. Whirlwind Attack, for example, states that any extra attacks are forfeit for a single attack on each target in range. If there are six targets, a free action is not going to enable a seventh. (A swift action will, if it results in an attack, such as Quickened spell being cast)


Even if a Full Round Action takes 100% of your round, a free action takes 0% of your round, so there's time to do both.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

They wanted to use Spell Combat with Whirlwind and use the Free Action Attack from the spell to gain an extra attack when doing so. This would not fly.


thaX wrote:

They wanted to use Spell Combat with Whirlwind and use the Free Action Attack from the spell to gain an extra attack when doing so. (In my opinion,) This would not fly.

.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

With the spell being considered an attack, with that particular combo the timing of the Free Attack Action is moot.

Edit - - I should add that the Full Round Action taking the whole round to perform is another strike against using the spell in this way, though it isn't the only reason why the combination of Spell Combat and Whirlwind Attack would not allow for the extra action (of the spell being cast).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Apparently you missed the bolded part the first time I bolded it, so I will cite it again:

PRD wrote:
Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty). If he casts this spell defensively, he can decide to take an additional penalty on his attack rolls, up to his Intelligence bonus, and add the same amount as a circumstance bonus on his concentration check. If the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still take the penalty. A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks.
To repeat: " (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty)". Clear and precise.

Yeah, clear and precise. It gets the -2 even if it's not part of the same action.

Quote:
Now what are you dreaming up? Get staggered? By what?

Does it matter? A readied action, how about.

I'm surprised you're still getting this wrong considering you actually quoted both touch and ranged touch spells. It's right there:

Quote:
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
...

Staggered is a game term. So supposed you where using it as that.

By your reply I get that you mean that there is a time delay between the two actions. It is not a good idea to use something that has a specific meaning in the game in a so different way without being extremly clear.


thaX wrote:

You need not declare a Full Round Action right away, and can drop out of it after the first attack if need be. But since the Full Round Action takes the whole round to do, it is otherwise the full round.

If it is easier for the player to parse it out as before/after, it is fine to do so. We have likely been doing it for the past 20 years in this game. The only particular to keep in mind is trying to do shenanigans outside of the full round action to gain an advantage, which is what was wanted when this issue came up.

Common Sense should come into play here, most feats/abilities/actions spell out what can or can not be done, and how various things are parsed out within the activities performed. Whirlwind Attack, for example, states that any extra attacks are forfeit for a single attack on each target in range. If there are six targets, a free action is not going to enable a seventh. (A swift action will, if it results in an attack, such as Quickened spell being cast)

Going to agree you could cast a spell with a swift action but using whirlwind attack plainly prohibits getting an extra attack. however you could cast it mid whirlwind attack and use one of those attacks to deliver the spell.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Rulebook Subscriber

Since we keep circling back to spell combat...

If the spell combat take my entire round, and it's penalties and restrictions are in effect during that timeframe, then does that mean that I can't cast a quickened spell during spell combat because I have no free hand as spell combat is using both hands?

or can I cast the quickened spell *before* or *after* spell combat, and have a free hand that will be used in for spell combat?

I don't see how *both* can be true


The Magus has Spell Combat as a class ability.

I'm still reading the book, so I will tentatively go with maybe they can if both spells are one handed.

The Mangus seems tailor made for solo play. There are no rules yet for trying to do too many things at once. Is there?


Agodeshalf wrote:

Since we keep circling back to spell combat...

If the spell combat take my entire round, and it's penalties and restrictions are in effect during that timeframe, then does that mean that I can't cast a quickened spell during spell combat because I have no free hand as spell combat is using both hands?

or can I cast the quickened spell *before* or *after* spell combat, and have a free hand that will be used in for spell combat?

I don't see how *both* can be true

The bolded portion is precisely what I've been saying this whole time. Of course this is actually harder to personally refute due to a FAQ and Spell Combat inadvertantly likening itself to the content within that FAQ. I don't think I can ever refute it, but if you cast a Quickened spell that doesn't possess somatic components (maybe a Quickened Still Shocking Grasp?), then it's plausible, but if the spell isn't discharged before you cast the other (regular) spell, then it dissipates as normal.


thaX wrote:

You need not declare a Full Round Action right away, and can drop out of it after the first attack if need be. But since the Full Round Action takes the whole round to do, it is otherwise the full round.

If it is easier for the player to parse it out as before/after, it is fine to do so. We have likely been doing it for the past 20 years in this game. The only particular to keep in mind is trying to do shenanigans outside of the full round action to gain an advantage, which is what was wanted when this issue came up.

Common Sense should come into play here, most feats/abilities/actions spell out what can or can not be done, and how various things are parsed out within the activities performed. Whirlwind Attack, for example, states that any extra attacks are forfeit for a single attack on each target in range. If there are six targets, a free action is not going to enable a seventh. (A swift action will, if it results in an attack, such as Quickened spell being cast)

That's a specific exception to the general rule. If you declare anything other than the Full Round Action first, then you're forfeit from taking a Full Round Action per RAW, since that means your Full Round Action isn't taking the entire round as it's supposed to.

Shenanigans is doing something that is obviously not intended. Denying a spell is not shenanigans, because the intent that Whirlwind Attack prevents spells is not only not RAW, but because it was written well before things like Spell Combat came to be (though Quickened Spells were still a thing), is highly unlikely to be enforced. It's the same reasoning why, for example, a Fighter wearing a Sash of the War Champion doesn't all-of-a-sudden get a free "flexible" Advanced Armor Training ability.

The argument is even more ironic when you say that you can use a Quickened Spell, but you can't use a regular spell allotted through Spell Combat, even though per RAW, the Quickened Spell suffers all of the same restrictions and limitations as the spell you normally cast, since the Quickened Spell takes place within the action that is restricting the regular spell, and cannot take place in any other point in time.

And that's assuming you can provide the somatic components provided for that Quickened Spell; which, based on the FAQ and restrictions associated with Spell Combat, you can't.


In spell combat, the quickened cheese spell is still -2 to hit. This is not the place to suggest -2 to the save DC for spells cast during spell combat, by the Mangus.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Rulebook Subscriber

@Darksol - I know that has been your position, and I personally agree with it. To me, the restrictions from spell combat ends when I finish my full action attacks and as such I can use my free hand again. The counter position that there is no such endpoint means that the quicken spell can't happen afterwards, which in turn means no free hand and I have to quicken and still it to get my shocking grasp off.


Could someone refresh me on how you are combining SC with WA?


Diego Rossi wrote:

Staggered is a game term. So supposed you where using it as that.

By your reply I get that you mean that there is a time delay between the two actions. It is not a good idea to use something that has a specific meaning in the game in a so different way without being extremly clear.

Er, I was using 'staggered' as a game term. If you start a full-round action, make an attack, and then get staggered (game term) by a readied action, your full-attack is now ended due to the staggered condition.

If you were using Spell Combat, cast a shocking grasp spell, get staggered (game term) by a readied action, your full action has now been ended.

Anyone who claims that the free action attack from shocking grasp must be delivered as 'part' of the full-action would say that you lose the free action attack

Anyone who says that the free action attack is separate from the full-action would say that you still have the free action attack.

What do you say?


I always got the impression that ''full round action'' was only a name given to express that it takes a full round for it to be completed, but not restricting you from attempting other plausible actions during the same round. Also, there's no such thing as ''my full round'' or ''your full round'', since a full round is a conglomerate of all the characters and creatures's turns involved in a situation (commonly a fight). Maybe you guys are talking about a ''full turn action''? (which I personally don't think exists). As long as he/she fulfills the requirements (feats, class features, racial features, etc as mentioned by some people in this thread) I don't see a reason why a character couldn't take more actions beyond a full round one. It might take you 6 seconds to solve a rubix cube (a full round action), but you might be capable enough to speak, degrab or regrab it (free actions) as you do it.


Talonhawke wrote:
Could someone refresh me on how you are combining SC with WA?

Whirlwind Attack alters a Full Attack Action that you take, be it TWF, Flurry of Blows, and so on.

Spell Combat FAQ says it counts as a Full Attack Action for Haste and other effects.

Therefore, Whirlwind Attack can be used in conjunction with Spell Combat, based that Spell Combat counts as a Full Attack Action for Whirlwind Attack.

People argue that the FAQ refers only to Haste and Haste-like effects, to which point I say, "Why would the FAQ say "and other effects," when anything that functions like Haste refers to and says it doesn't stack with Haste?" I also say that it's easy to have the FAQ say "and Haste-like effects," instead of "and other effects," so suggesting that it's limited to that is silly.

Especially when we have other things reliant on Full Attack Actions, such as Rapid Shot (for Eldritch Archer Magi), Hammer the Gap, and so on.


Goth Guru wrote:
In spell combat, the quickened cheese spell is still -2 to hit. This is not the place to suggest -2 to the save DC for spells cast during spell combat, by the Mangus.

Nobody's suggesting a -2 to the hypothetical spell's Save DC except you. That's a strawman argument.


That was me talking to myself.
If you think that was a strawman argument I am very proud!:p
There is no rule against Strawman Arguments on these boards.


Is "strawman" the word of the month? I've been seeing it a lot lately.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
thaX wrote:

You need not declare a Full Round Action right away, and can drop out of it after the first attack if need be. But since the Full Round Action takes the whole round to do, it is otherwise the full round.

If it is easier for the player to parse it out as before/after, it is fine to do so. We have likely been doing it for the past 20 years in this game. The only particular to keep in mind is trying to do shenanigans outside of the full round action to gain an advantage, which is what was wanted when this issue came up.

Common Sense should come into play here, most feats/abilities/actions spell out what can or can not be done, and how various things are parsed out within the activities performed. Whirlwind Attack, for example, states that any extra attacks are forfeit for a single attack on each target in range. If there are six targets, a free action is not going to enable a seventh. (A swift action will, if it results in an attack, such as Quickened spell being cast)

That's a specific exception to the general rule. If you declare anything other than the Full Round Action first, then you're forfeit from taking a Full Round Action per RAW, since that means your Full Round Action isn't taking the entire round as it's supposed to.

This is false. Provably false. It's just outright wrong and been brought up multiple times already.

PRD wrote:
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.


Yeah, that's the whole point. The entire argument that the full round action takes your entire effort during the round fails because you can take swift actions before you even start that 'entire effort'.

And yet, people like Thax keep insisting that you can only take free and swift actions during full round actions.

He's not getting nearly enough pushback from the people that should know better to drop that line of argumentation.


Goth Guru wrote:

That was me talking to myself.

If you think that was a strawman argument I am very proud!:p
There is no rule against Strawman Arguments on these boards.

It's hard to tell, since that reply was made directly after I stated Spell Combat's penalties would apply to the spell, regardless of it being an actual attack or not.

Either way, the interpretation is (technically) a strawman.

@ Johnny_Devo: To be fair, I'm not the one who used the term "strawman" first. That was thaX and co. who did. But since you seem confused as to why it's being thrown around, here's a link to help explain what a "strawman" is. (It took me a few looks for me to finally understand what the term was conveying, though.)

In short, a strawman is where you take a person's argument, misinterpret it, and present a supposedly relevant counterargument based on that misinterpretation. A solid example is Goth Guru's statement that Spell Combat would present a -2 to the Save DC of the spell you cast based on the rule that Spell Combat imposes a penalty to all attacks (and spells) you perform within that activity.

Ironically enough, people would throw that term out, even though it is entirely possible that they are incorrect (and therefore they are technically the strawman), because the ideal is that their interpretation is the correct one, whereas everybody else's is incorrect due to supposedly not grasping the rules (which is why they call everybody else "strawmen"). Of course, I don't recall using that term in that manner, I merely used the term "strawman" because I thought the definition was to refer to something that was irrelevant. I was half right, but only because the irrelevance was drawn due to not possessing the proper syntax in relation to the rules being discussed, resulting in a misinterpretation that (most likely) has no or incorrect application to the rules being discussed.

I hope that helps clear things up for you.


The Archive wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
thaX wrote:

You need not declare a Full Round Action right away, and can drop out of it after the first attack if need be. But since the Full Round Action takes the whole round to do, it is otherwise the full round.

If it is easier for the player to parse it out as before/after, it is fine to do so. We have likely been doing it for the past 20 years in this game. The only particular to keep in mind is trying to do shenanigans outside of the full round action to gain an advantage, which is what was wanted when this issue came up.

Common Sense should come into play here, most feats/abilities/actions spell out what can or can not be done, and how various things are parsed out within the activities performed. Whirlwind Attack, for example, states that any extra attacks are forfeit for a single attack on each target in range. If there are six targets, a free action is not going to enable a seventh. (A swift action will, if it results in an attack, such as Quickened spell being cast)

That's a specific exception to the general rule. If you declare anything other than the Full Round Action first, then you're forfeit from taking a Full Round Action per RAW, since that means your Full Round Action isn't taking the entire round as it's supposed to.

This is false. Provably false. It's just outright wrong and been brought up multiple times already.

PRD wrote:
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.

That RAW doesn't break the specific limitations of the actions you take, which is where the problem lies.

Lay On Hands still requires a Free Hand, and same with casting a Full Round Action spell (or any spell in general that has somatic components, Swift Action spells included), or delivering a Touch Spell after its cast; they have specific requirements that must be fulfilled in order to perform them.

Taking the RAW you quoted for granted, then that means the subjects I mentioned above (and several others) don't require the limitations I've described, which means that rule breaks the RAI (and other relevant RAW) of the options in question.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Talonhawke wrote:
thaX wrote:

You need not declare a Full Round Action right away, and can drop out of it after the first attack if need be. But since the Full Round Action takes the whole round to do, it is otherwise the full round.

If it is easier for the player to parse it out as before/after, it is fine to do so. We have likely been doing it for the past 20 years in this game. The only particular to keep in mind is trying to do shenanigans outside of the full round action to gain an advantage, which is what was wanted when this issue came up.

Common Sense should come into play here, most feats/abilities/actions spell out what can or can not be done, and how various things are parsed out within the activities performed. Whirlwind Attack, for example, states that any extra attacks are forfeit for a single attack on each target in range. If there are six targets, a free action is not going to enable a seventh. (A swift action will, if it results in an attack, such as Quickened spell being cast)

Going to agree you could cast a spell with a swift action but using whirlwind attack plainly prohibits getting an extra attack. however you could cast it mid whirlwind attack and use one of those attacks to deliver the spell.

The swift action casting would be after the full attack and be separate from the Whirlwind Attack effects.

Notice, please, I said Full Attack, which is within the Full Round Action.


Full attacks are full round actions. How can you get a swift action cast after the full attack when a full attack, which is a full round action, takes the entirety of the round?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
thaX wrote:

You need not declare a Full Round Action right away, and can drop out of it after the first attack if need be. But since the Full Round Action takes the whole round to do, it is otherwise the full round.

If it is easier for the player to parse it out as before/after, it is fine to do so. We have likely been doing it for the past 20 years in this game. The only particular to keep in mind is trying to do shenanigans outside of the full round action to gain an advantage, which is what was wanted when this issue came up.

Common Sense should come into play here, most feats/abilities/actions spell out what can or can not be done, and how various things are parsed out within the activities performed. Whirlwind Attack, for example, states that any extra attacks are forfeit for a single attack on each target in range. If there are six targets, a free action is not going to enable a seventh. (A swift action will, if it results in an attack, such as Quickened spell being cast)

That's a specific exception to the general rule. If you declare anything other than the Full Round Action first, then you're forfeit from taking a Full Round Action per RAW, since that means your Full Round Action isn't taking the entire round as it's supposed to.
Really, you are arguing this?
Core Rulebook wrote:

Full-Round Actions

A full-round action requires an entire round to complete.
Thus, it can’t be coupled with a standard or a move action,
though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can
take a 5-foot step.
Full Attack
If you get more than one attack per round because your
base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus
in Chapter 3), because you fight with two weapons or a
double weapon, or for some special
reason, you must use
a full-round action to get your additional
attacks. You do
not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of
time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before
assigning the later ones.
The only movement you can take during a full attack is a
5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between
your attacks.
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack
bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in
order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two
weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you
are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part
of the weapon first.
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After
your first attack, you can decide to take a move action
instead of making your remaining attacks,
depending
on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have
not already taken a move action this round. If you’ve
already taken a 5-foot step, you can’t use your move action
to move any distance, but you could still use a different
kind of move action.
Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action: You can
choose to fight defensively when taking a full-attack action.
If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to
gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC until the start of your next turn.
Core Rulebook list of actions wrote:

Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all
your effort during a round. The only movement you can
take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before,
during, or after the action. You can also perform free
actions
and swift actions

Core Rulebook wrote:

Free Actions

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

So, when you down your first target, you can come out of the Full Attack, using a move action instead of doing the rest of your attacks. This will take you out of the Full Round Action.

Free Actions take no time to perform, and can be done before you start your full round action, such as activating a swift runner's shirt or using Lay on Hands.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


Shenanigans is doing something that is obviously not intended. Denying a spell is not shenanigans, because the intent that Whirlwind Attack prevents spells is not only not RAW, but because it was written well before things like Spell Combat came to be (though Quickened Spells were still a thing), is highly unlikely to be enforced.

As we have gone through some discussion on the other thread about this, I shall again quote the rule that prevents it, even if you allow the two abilities to be used at the same time, using two Full Round Actions in concert.

Whirlwind Attack forfeits extra attacks... now, a spell...
Core Rulebook wrote:

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 considered an attack and thus would be prevented by Whirlwind attack. (it matters not when you try to use that Free Action Attack you gained from the spell)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
Full attacks are full round actions. How can you get a swift action cast after the full attack when a full attack, which is a full round action, takes the entirety of the round?

See my quote above?

Full Attacks are taken within a Full Round action. The parsing you have seen usually is before and after a full attack, within the Full Round Action. I have pointed this out before.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Full attacks are full round actions. How can you get a swift action cast after the full attack when a full attack, which is a full round action, takes the entirety of the round?

See my quote above?

Full Attacks are taken within a Full Round action. The parsing you have seen usually is before and after a full attack, within the Full Round Action. I have pointed this out before.

Full attacks are full round actions. You just quoted the rules saying that they are. If you are insisting that you can take actions before or after full-attack actions, which are full round actions, then you are essentially refuting your own argument.

Which, of course, many people already knew was wrong. So, I guess better late than never.

There are no words that say the full-attack happens 'within' a full round action, only that a full-attack is a full round action. Look at the tables. This 'within' verbiage that you are adding to the game is, once again, entirely your own invention.


thaX wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Full attacks are full round actions. How can you get a swift action cast after the full attack when a full attack, which is a full round action, takes the entirety of the round?

See my quote above?

Full Attacks are taken within a Full Round action. The parsing you have seen usually is before and after a full attack, within the Full Round Action. I have pointed this out before.

Btw, your quote is full of errors. For example:

Quote:
Free Actions take no time to perform, and can be done before you start your full round action, such as activating a swift runner's shirt or using Lay on Hands.

Both activating a quick runner's shirt and lay on hands (assuming paladin targets self) are swift actions.

Please, try to be a bit more accurate when discussing the rules, you can confuse people.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Ok, free actions such as calling your foe an old fart. Swift and free actions are basically the same except for the limit of only one Swift per turn.

Yes, a full attack must be done as a part of a full round action. Where exactly does it say it prevents free and Swift actions from being performed? This is where the crux of the issue is, trying to limit free actions when they can be used freely, despite the full round action taking up the character's turn.

The issue that had come up was trying to use one specific Free Action Attack in a way that was not intended, on top of using it outside of the Full Round Action. (this is the Whirlwind Attack with Spell Combat subject)

Nothing is preventing the character from using a Swift or Free action during his turn other than if those actions are available for the character to use. (You can't drop a weapon if you are not wielding any, for example)


Yes, dropping out of a Full Attack Action after the first attack is resolved is a specific exception to the general rule of committing to an action once you undergo its resolution. I can't stop a spell mid-action because I realize an enemy has readied against my spellcast, meaning I have to make a concentration check or lose the spell. That's bulls%!^, and you know it.

Whirlwind Attack still isn't a Full Round Action. It requires a Full Attack Action, that much is true, but that doesn't mean that it's an activity in and of itself, the same way Rapid Shot and Hammer the Gap aren't Full Attack Actions. Except, by your argument, they are, which means I can't stack any of those subjects with anything else that is a Full Attack Action, like Spell Combat, TWF, and so on.

If you're going to say that all spells are attacks, then I can substitute a spell anytime I would make an attack. I mean, spells are attacks now, right? This applies for any attack, whether it's a regular Full Attack, TWF, or even on AoOs. See how silly that sounds? That's a strawman, which is permitted by your interpretation that spells are attacks, which therefore means it's not correct.

201 to 250 of 290 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can you take Free and swift actions before and after a Full Round actions? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.