Asking everybody else, they've told you that it's Haste and "other effects" like Haste, such as Speed Weapons, the Blessing of Fervor Spell, and so on.Ironically enough, you aren't taking the Action called "Full Attack" in the examples of Pounce, Spring Attack, Spell Combat, etc. Which means any effects which function "whenever you use the full-attack action," such as Rapid Shot, Hammer the Gap, and so on, doesn't apply to those options. (Of course, there's the Haste FAQ, but all that does is cement a precedent where that's the case unless it says otherwise.)It's not just a 'Haste FAQ', at least for Spell Combat, it's 'Haste and other effects FAQ'.
Care to speculate what those 'other effects' might be?
Based on what? Why didn't they use the words like 'other haste effects' or 'other similar effects' as they do in the spells and abilities when referring to those sorts of effects?
There is absolutely no specificity attached to the wording of 'other effects', and insisting that there is is merely inserting your own bias.
Yeah, I'm getting tempted to abandon this thread as unproductive. It's full of "This is what I feel like the rules ought to be, even if it goes against all logic, common sense, and basic comprehension of the English language." There's no point having a conversation with people who can't manage a basic level of rational discussion.
We're just constantly going back and forth with "This is what the rules say" vs. "This is what I feel like the rules ought to be."
Asking everybody else, they've told you that it's Haste and "other effects" like Haste, such as Speed Weapons, the Blessing of Fervor Spell, and so on.Ironically enough, you aren't taking the Action called "Full Attack" in the examples of Pounce, Spring Attack, Spell Combat, etc. Which means any effects which function "whenever you use the full-attack action," such as Rapid Shot, Hammer the Gap, and so on, doesn't apply to those options. (Of course, there's the Haste FAQ, but all that does is cement a precedent where that's the case unless it says otherwise.)It's not just a 'Haste FAQ', at least for Spell Combat, it's 'Haste and other effects FAQ'.
Care to speculate what those 'other effects' might be?
Based on what? Why didn't they use the words like 'other haste effects' or 'other similar effects' as they do in the spells and abilities when referring to those sorts of effects?
There is absolutely no specificity attached to the wording of 'other effects', and insisting that there is is merely inserting your own bias.
Of course there isn't.
But they don't understand that, nor do they care to understand that, because they're under the impression they're correct and that nothing can refute their position.
|
Asking everybody else, they've told you that it's Haste and "other effects" like Haste, such as Speed Weapons, the Blessing of Fervor Spell, and so on.Ironically enough, you aren't taking the Action called "Full Attack" in the examples of Pounce, Spring Attack, Spell Combat, etc. Which means any effects which function "whenever you use the full-attack action," such as Rapid Shot, Hammer the Gap, and so on, doesn't apply to those options. (Of course, there's the Haste FAQ, but all that does is cement a precedent where that's the case unless it says otherwise.)It's not just a 'Haste FAQ', at least for Spell Combat, it's 'Haste and other effects FAQ'.
Care to speculate what those 'other effects' might be?
Based on what? Why didn't they use the words like 'other haste effects' or 'other similar effects' as they do in the spells and abilities when referring to those sorts of effects?
There is absolutely no specificity attached to the wording of 'other effects', and insisting that there is is merely inserting your own bias.
Even if we interpret what the Dev said your way, it applies to spell combat, and spell combat alone, because Pounce has a different text and all the other abilities calling for a full attack action don't have a FAQ, AFAIK.
Note this text, too:
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.
That part of the FAQ say that it change how haste interact with full attacks and that a full attach and a full attack actions aren't the same thing.
You need something more specific that that to recognize that a full attack and a full attack action aren't the same thing?
|
Hi all,
I posted the other day about Fighting Defensively and Pounce.
There doesn't seem to be consensus on whether one can Pounce Defensively, other than maybe don't plan on using it in PFS because of table variance, and ask your GM.
What about Pounce and Medusa's Wrath? RAI, this seems like it should work, but the wording in Medusa's Wrath is the same as Fighting Defensively; it requires a "Full-Attack Action":
Whenever you use the full-attack action and make at least one unarmed strike, you can make two additional unarmed strikes at your highest base attack bonus. These bonus attacks must be made against a dazed, flat-footed, paralyzed, staggered, stunned, or unconscious foe.When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).We have the Spell Combat FAQ (thank you @Ascalaphus), which is somewhat helpful, but still doesn't address the larger RAW question:
Magus, Spell Combat: Does spell combat count as making a full attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects?
Yes.
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.
So, does the RAI feel of Medusa's Wrath make us think that Pounce + Medusa's Wrath should be OK? Or is there still the larger RAW issue of the discrepancy between "making a full attack" vs. "taking a full-attack action"?
Considering you can still perform a full-attack while fighting defensively; I'd say you can pounce since that's essentially the same thing. Otherwise there would be a lot of Crane Style/Pummeling Style folk that couldn't attack, ever.
"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 for until the start your next turn." - Just keep in mind once you fight defensively for that round, you're stuck with it for that round - Much like if you Power Attack or Attack with a Shield and lose the Shield bonus.
Considering Medusa's Wrath requires nothing other than the target to be dazed, flat-footed, paralyzed, staggered, stunned, or unconscious; you get 2 more attacks if you pounce someone that qualifies. Pretty simple.
I can't help you on the Spell Combat thing... not familiar enough.
@ Kazumetsa Raijin: But what if they're affected by one of those conditions mid-Full Attack?
For example, if I have Shatter Defenses, and I affect somebody with an Intimidate check from the Enforcer feat with one of my attacks (presume a Sap Master build that emphasizes Unarmed Strikes), wouldn't I then qualify for applying Medusa's Wrath?
Or hell, what if I hit them with an Unarmed Strike and they fall Unconscious, wouldn't I then qualify for applying Medusa's Wrath?
|
|
That part of the FAQ say that it change how haste interact with full attacks and that a full attach and a full attack actions aren't the same thing.
You need something more specific that that to recognize that a full attack and a full attack action aren't the same thing?
Depends. Are we talking strict RAW, or are we, as I have been, talking about what the developers intend.
If it's the latter, then yes, I need something more. If it's the former, then no I've already stated many times that, by strict RAW, full attacks, full attack actions, and actions which let you use all of your attacks are not strictly the same thing.
Though, you'll note in the part you quoted (and failed to include in your bolded section for some reason) that the attacks you get while using Spell Combat are essentially a full attack.
So, what does the word essentially mean in that situation?
Additionally, you haven't really answered my specific question to you regarding the original or modified statement on how the devs think full attacks, full attack actions, and actions which grant you your full attack sequence should be treated in the game.
In fact, let me just shift the bolding for you to demonstrate:
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.
Let's bold it another way:
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.
The effect is a full attack but the creature isn't using a full attack action.
We return again to the initial part of that phrase: This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with etc.
It change how haste interact with effects that are a full attacks, it don't change full attacks into full attacks actions.
|
|
@ Kazumetsa Raijin: But what if they're affected by one of those conditions mid-Full Attack?
For example, if I have Shatter Defenses, and I affect somebody with an Intimidate check from the Enforcer feat with one of my attacks (presume a Sap Master build that emphasizes Unarmed Strikes), wouldn't I then qualify for applying Medusa's Wrath?
Or hell, what if I hit them with an Unarmed Strike and they fall Unconscious, wouldn't I then qualify for applying Medusa's Wrath?
It applies all the same. Even if you're very final attack with it's likely pitiful BAB somehow hits, and say it was a Stunning Fist and successfully stunned them, you'd get two extra attacks afterwards at full BAB.
With Shatter Defenses; Definitely a Yes there.
With Unarmed Strike and them falling unconscious, definitely a yes there too. Medusa's Wrath is pretty nasty, and is really a bonus feat always worth grabbing as soon as possible. Especially if you have one level in Cleric and the Repose Domain(and Conductive on your weapon or the Domain Strike feat)!