Standard Actions/Full Attack

[PraxisVetli]

Hey guys, got a dispute between myself and a fellow DM.
We're debating whether a 12 lvl wizard can cast two attacks per round as a full attack, the technical dispute being whether an a spell is technically a standard action.
Argument in favor:
A full attack allows multiple sword swings (each a standard action). A spell casting is (generally) also a standard action. So hence a full attack should allow the wizard two spells?
Argument against:
In Deities and Demigods, the Deity Taiia has the option of whipping around a sword way to many times, OR ONE spell. Thus the DM argues that a spell is a full action.
Counter Arguement: A metamagic spell is a full-action. So shouldn't a average spell take less time?

Once and for all, help me out guys, tell me what and why.

[Gray Mage]

Nope, a full attack is a full-round action, not a number of standard actions equal to how many attacks were made. You only get one standard action a round (barring something granting more standard actions, like a belt of battle), so you can only cast one standard action spell. However, you can also cast a second spell in the same round if it had a casting time of a swift action.

[Lateral]

No, you cannot. A 'full attack' is a specific action, and that's to make attacks, not cast spells. A full attack does not allow you to take multiple standard actions, it allows you only to make multiple attacks, and spells are not attacks.

[mattie_p]

Hey guys, got a dispute between myself and a fellow DM.
We're debating whether a 12 lvl wizard can cast two attacks per round as a full attack, the technical dispute being whether an a spell is technically a standard action.
A spell that states its casting time is a standard action is, in fact, a standard action.

Casting Time (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#castingTime)
Most spells have a casting time of 1 standard action. Others take 1 round or more, while a few require only a free action.
A wizard cannot cast two standard action spells per round.


Action Types (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#actionTypes)
An action’s type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated. There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, free actions, swift actions, and immediate actions.

In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action.

Argument in favor:
A full attack allows multiple sword swings (each a standard action). A spell casting is (generally) also a standard action. So hence a full attack should allow the wizard two spells?

A full attack is a full round action, and has special rules for it. See the actions in combat link above.


Argument against:
In Deities and Demigods, the Deity Taiia has the option of whipping around a sword way to many times, OR ONE spell. Thus the DM argues that a spell is a full action.

The DM is incorrect, unless the spell has a full round action casting time.


Counter Arguement: A metamagic spell is a full-action. So shouldn't a average spell take less time?

Once and for all, help me out guys, tell me what and why.

A metamagicked spell is only a full round action if applied by a spontaneous caster. Wizards can prepare spells with the meta-magic feat without increasing casting time.


Metamagic Feats (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#metamagicFeats)
As a spellcaster’s knowledge of magic grows, she can learn to cast spells in ways slightly different from the ways in which the spells were originally designed or learned. Preparing and casting a spell in such a way is harder than normal but, thanks to metamagic feats, at least it is possible. Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal. This does not change the level of the spell, so the DC for saving throws against it does not go up.

Wizards and Divine Spellcasters
Wizards and divine spellcasters must prepare their spells in advance. During preparation, the character chooses which spells to prepare with metamagic feats (and thus which ones take up higher-level spell slots than normal).

Sorcerers and Bards
Sorcerers and bards choose spells as they cast them. They can choose when they cast their spells whether to apply their metamagic feats to improve them. As with other spellcasters, the improved spell uses up a higher-level spell slot. But because the sorcerer or bard has not prepared the spell in a metamagic form in advance, he must apply the metamagic feat on the spot. Therefore, such a character must also take more time to cast a metamagic spell (one enhanced by a metamagic feat) than he does to cast a regular spell. If the spell’s normal casting time is 1 standard action, casting a metamagic version is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. (This isn’t the same as a 1-round casting time.)

For a spell with a longer casting time, it takes an extra full-round action to cast the spell.

TL:DR, you are both wrong in some ways, apparently.

[Arkusus]

Nope, a full attack is a full-round action, not a number of standard actions equal to how many attacks were made. You only get one standard action a round (barring something granting more standard actions, like a belt of battle), so you can only cast one standard action spell. However, you can also cast a second spell in the same round if it had a casting time of a swift action.

Bingo, he said it.

You have one standard action and one move action and one swift action per round. A full-round action takes up all of these and has some benefit, but spellcasting does not benefit from full-round actions, except possibly the spells that REQUIRE full-round actions to cast.

[Gray Mage]

Bingo, he said it.

You have one standard action and one move action and one swift action per round. A full-round action takes up all of these and has some benefit, but spellcasting does not benefit from full-round actions, except possibly the spells that REQUIRE full-round actions to cast.

Actually, I believe a full-round action only takes up your move and standard actions, you can still take a swift action.


In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#actionTypes)

[PraxisVetli]

But then what does the Wizard do with his second attack per round?? Use his non proficient weapon with his non-existant Base Attack?

[mattie_p]

But then what does the Wizard do with his second attack per round?? Use his non proficient weapon with his non-existant Base Attack?

If the wizard casts a spell as a standard action, they don't get to attack. End of story. Any standard action prevents the use of the iterative attacks (which are only part of the full attack full round action).

Wizards should be doing what they do best, which is casting spells. If they are attacking, they are either very low level (and out of spells for the day) or something has gone terribly wrong.

[Lateral]

If you cast a spell, you're using your standard action. You can't attack at all. Outside of gish builds, Wizards don't use full attacks. The reason they get BAB at all is that every class has to have one, and it helps with touch attack spells anyway. There are only three BAB progressions, and Wizards get the worst one, but the rule that once you reach +6 BAB you get a second attack is a general rule and not tied to any particular class.

[Gray Mage]

But then what does the Wizard do with his second attack per round?? Use his non proficient weapon with his non-existant Base Attack?

If a wizard casts a standard or full-round action spell in a round (again, barring some way of gaining more actions) there is no second (nor first) attack at all. An attack action that uses up a standard action and a full-attack that uses a full-round action are two separate things. A spell can also use a standard action (most do) or a full-round action and are a third, unrelated thing.

[PraxisVetli]

It seems then that mages (because that's all who seems to have the half BAB) should then just get one attack...
Is that just poor mechanics?


Also, insert Battle Sorc.
They then have the option of clobbering or casting, not switching back and forth?
That seems less than useful.

[Lateral]

It seems then that mages (because that's all who seems to have the half BAB) should then just get one attack...
Is that just poor mechanics?
No, it's just that the basic design is 'every class gets one of three base attack flows, +1/2 class level, +3/4 class level, or +class level.' With a wizard's BAB, you aren't really supposed to be melee fighting, but it does give you the option, and it helps a lot with landing any spells that require attack rolls.

Also, insert Battle Sorc.
They then have the option of clobbering or casting, not switching back and forth?
That seems less than useful.
It really, really is. However, generally if you want to play a combat-capable caster, you don't alternate between shooting people with magic and hitting people with sticks. Rather, you use your magic to make yourself into a ten-foot-tall sword-wielding iron monster of pointy death, and then hit people with sticks.

[PraxisVetli]

It really, really is. However, generally if you want to play a combat-capable caster, you don't alternate between shooting people with magic and hitting people with sticks. Rather, you use your magic to make yourself into a ten-foot-tall sword-wielding iron monster of pointy death, and then hit people with sticks.

I lolled, oh god I lolled.
Isn't there a spell somewhere that turns you into the Warforged Death Machine Titan Thing?
Wraithstrike??

[TheIronGolem]

Here's another way to look at it. On your turn you can take:

1. One standard action, one move action, and one swift action
OR
2. Two move actions and one swift action
OR
3. One full round action and one swift action

Free actions (such as the 5-foot step) are allowed in addition to any of the above.

If you're taking multiple attacks (due to high BAB, dual-wielding, flurry of blows, whatever), those individual attacks are NOT standard actions. They're parts of one full-round action. The "single attack is a standard action" thing is correct, but ONLY when you're taking the standard-plus-move option (#1 above).

Regardless of class, a character with +6 or higher BAB is perfectly entitled to take multiple attacks, but it takes a full-round action (#3 above) to do so.

[Lateral]

I lolled, oh god I lolled.
Isn't there a spell somewhere that turns you into the Warforged Death Machine Titan Thing?
Wraithstrike??
Wraithstrike is awesome, but not that awesome. Body of War is that spell, and yes, that's what I was thinking of.


Free actions (such as the 5-foot step) are allowed in addition to any of the above.
Well, that's not strictly true- you can only take a five-foot step if you don't move in the rest of the round.

[PraxisVetli]

Wraithstrike is awesome, but not that awesome. Body of War is that spell, and yes, that's what I was thinking of.

I meant in Combination.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I lolled, oh god I lolled.
Isn't there a spell somewhere that turns you into the Warforged Death Machine Titan Thing?
Wraithstrike??
Body of War, from the Spell Compendium (and maybe elsewhere) gives you most of the abilities and qualities of a Warforged Titan. You might also be thinking of Iron Body, a similar spell from the PHB that gives you DR 15/Adamantium, bonus strength, and a bunch of construct traits. Wraithstrike is an unrelated (but top-tier!) spell that can be cast as a swift action, and makes you attacks for the round target touch AC. It's great for a gish type-- cast the spell and power attack for full.

In any case, I'd recommend looking back over the Combat chapter in the PHB-- that should clear up a lot of the confusion you and your friend seem to be having.

[Curmudgeon]

But then what does the Wizard do with his second attack per round?? Use his non proficient weapon with his non-existant Base Attack?
A Wizard will have a second attack in a round only if (a) their BAB is +6 or higher, and (b) they're using the full attack action — just like every other D&D character. You might as well ask the what the Scout is supposed to do with their second (or third) attack per round, since a Scout needs to move at least 10' every round in order to enable skirmish damage.

Iterative attacks are purely a function of using the full attack action. Nobody has them otherwise.

[TuggyNE]

You might as well ask the what the Scout is supposed to do with their second (or third) attack per round, since a Scout needs to move at least 10' every round in order to enable skirmish damage.

But surely the Scout will use Travel Devotion to guarantee that they can move and still get a full attack off! :smalltongue:

[Andezzar]

Nobody has them otherwise.Except those with Snap Kick. :smallbiggrin:

[Greenish]

Free actions (such as the 5-foot step) are allowed in addition to any of the above.5' step isn't technically a free action, but falls under "miscellaneous actions".


Except those with Snap Kick. :smallbiggrin:Snap Kick isn't an iterative attack. People can get extra attacks from other stuff (like Snap Kick or Manyshot) without using a full attack action, but no one gets iterative attacks from high BAB in any other circumstances.


[Edit]:
Any standard action prevents the use of the iterative attacks (which are only part of the full attack full round action).To be specific, you can attack first once (if you haven't used your move action for the round), and then decide whether said attack was the first one in a full attack, or a standard attack. How that works with, say, TWF (where you take penalties to full attacks), is anyone's guess.

[Andezzar]

Snap Kick isn't an iterative attack. People can get extra attacks from other stuff (like Snap Kick or Manyshot) without using a full attack action, but no one gets iterative attacks from high BAB in any other circumstances.I forgot about Manyshot. But nearly all other non-iterative extra attacks (Haste, speed weapon ability, Whirling Frenzy etc.) only work on Full Attacks as well.
[quote=SRD]A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full attack action in order to get more than one attack.]It is irrelevant whether the extra attacks are iterative or not. You need an explicit rule to use them on a Standard Action attack.

[PraxisVetli]

Alright, an oddball then.
Can a four weapon wielding Draegloth with multiweapon fighting, multidexterity, multitasking, and Somnatic weaponry hit melee while still casting?
BAB is 42/42/42/42/37/27/22. (I think, away from sheets)
How would that configure?
Would I simply lose the last two Attacks saying the arms were busy? I understand only one spell, but I'm looking for a way to melee and mage simultaneously.
If it doesnt work, how can I alter my course so it will?

[Grod_The_Giant]

To cast and attack, you need to use Quicken Spell, a spell that already has a swift or free action casting time, a class feature like the Duskblade's Arcane Channeling, or something along those lines. There is, to the best of my knowledge, nothing in the rules that will allow you to drop attacks from a full attack in order to take extra standard actions.

Remember, think about actions, not attacks.

It's a standard action to make one attack.
It's a full-round action to make multiple attacks, with the exact number being based on your BAB.
It's a standard action to cast most spells. Casting is not an attack

[PraxisVetli]

But Multitasking enables casting while performing other actions.
So why can't I full attack while casting? Yes, they are both full round actions, but that's not the point. The point is I should be able to do them both SIMULTANEOUSLY
Right?

[KillianHawkeye]

But Multitasking enables casting while performing other actions.
So why can't I full attack while casting? Yes, they are both full round actions, but that's not the point. The point is I should be able to do them both SIMULTANEOUSLY
Right?

Except that's not what Multitasking says. It allows you to have each pair of arms do a seperate and simultaneous action. A partial action is a 3E term that is no longer used in 3.5, but it effectively limits you to either a Standard or a Move action. So you could make ONE attack with one set of arms while casting a spell with the other set. You'd still need to take the Full-Attack action to get all your attacks with Multiweapon Fighting, which you cannot do if you choose to multitask.

[PraxisVetli]

That is obnoxious.
Makes things like Duskblade seem less than ideal..
How does TWF then work?
Tome and Blood discusses using Touch Spells as Light Weapons; how does that work? If I can't take the attack granted by TWF due to casting not being an attack, then whats the point? Why waste a feat when I have to wait until next round anyway.
Does it mean I can hold a spell in my off-hand, and deliver next round?
Or does it nean that Touch Spells have a different setup? Are they considered "Attacks?" Can a melee mage then dip into duskblade and do TWF and be efficient so long as they speciallize in touch attacks?

I'm sorry, I've just had my entire understanding of BAB and casting launched out the window, I'm desperately trying to rebuild.

[PraxisVetli]

A partial action is a 3E term that is no longer used in 3.5, but it effectively limits you to either a Standard or a Move action.

That's not entirely true, I do believe in the 3.5 MM, Chokers' "Quickness" gives them additional "partial actions," and I believe "Haste" is phrased the same way?

[olentu]

That's not entirely true, I do believe in the 3.5 MM, Chokers' "Quickness" gives them additional "partial actions," and I believe "Haste" is phrased the same way?

Choker is extra standard or move. The haste spell grants merely an extra attack when making a full attack. In fact, the haste spell goes out of the way to specify that it does not grant an extra action.

[Grod_The_Giant]

That is obnoxious.
Makes things like Duskblade seem less than ideal..
Duskblade has a class ability that lets you cast a touch spell and deliver it through a melee attack.


How does TWF then work?
Gives you extra attacks when you make a full attack.


Tome and Blood discusses using Touch Spells as Light Weapons; how does that work? If I can't take the attack granted by TWF due to casting not being an attack, then whats the point? Why waste a feat when I have to wait until next round anyway.
Tome and Blood is 3e, I think. CArc talks about some of the same stuff; mostly it means that touch spells can score critical hits on natural 20s, that you can take Weapon Focus (Touch spells), things like that.


Does it mean I can hold a spell in my off-hand, and deliver next round?
You can hold the charge on a touch spell until you touch something (accidentally or intentionally). So... yes?


Or does it nean that Touch Spells have a different setup? Are they considered "Attacks?" Can a melee mage then dip into duskblade and do TWF and be efficient so long as they speciallize in touch attacks?
I think you might be able to do that-- you can deliver touch spells through unarmed attacks or natural weapons- although most touch spells only work for one touch.


I'm sorry, I've just had my entire understanding of BAB and casting launched out the window, I'm desperately trying to rebuild.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but I'd say your first move should be to crack open your PHB/head over to the SRD and re-read the combat chapter. Should answer most of your questions,

[137beth]

Choker is extra standard or move. The haste spell grants merely an extra attack when making a full attack. In fact, the haste spell goes out of the way to specify that it does not grant an extra action.

This is to contrast with 3.0, where Haste did give an extra action, and was extremely overpowered as a result.

As for duskblade...yea, it's not one of the more powerful classes. The key is to NOT cast spells in the middle of a fight--buff yourself at the beginning of combat, then attack.
If you want a revised (and better) version of the duskblade, you might want to check out the magus (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus) from pathfinder--it is a fairly straightforwards gish class.

[KillianHawkeye]

Touch spells counting as a light weapon also means you can apply Weapon Finesse to your touch attacks.

[Mr.Sandman]

What about weaponlike spells? Comp. Arcane gives two classifications of weaponlike spells that in many ways act like weapons. They require attack rolls, can score crits, take the same standard action to cast just one that one swing of a sword or sot from a boww takes. Sounds like a weapon, and thus able to full attack, to me.

[Sephoris]

This is to contrast with 3.0, where Haste did give an extra action, and was extremely overpowered as a result.

As for duskblade...yea, it's not one of the more powerful classes. The key is to NOT cast spells in the middle of a fight--buff yourself at the beginning of combat, then attack.
If you want a revised (and better) version of the duskblade, you might want to check out the magus (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus) from pathfinder--it is a fairly straightforwards gish class.

The Magus also gets to do exactly what you're asking about: the Spell Combat ability lets them cast a spell as part of a full attack action, albeit at a penalty to the attacks. It's essentially TWF with one weapon and a spell.

[Maginomicon]

What about weaponlike spells? Comp. Arcane gives two classifications of weaponlike spells that in many ways act like weapons. They require attack rolls, can score crits, take the same standard action to cast just one that one swing of a sword or sot from a boww takes. Sounds like a weapon, and thus able to full attack, to me.
Because the spell after the casting itself is weapon-like, but is not an actual weapon. A full-attack (with the exception of the Magus mentioned above) never treats the act of casting as an actual weapon, even if the spell is weapon-like.

[Maginomicon]

The closest thing you can get to a full-attack casting is to use a spell with multiple-touch-range-charges on it and then full-attack on some following round. The "full contact mage (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FullContactMagic)" build I made is centered around this.

[Mr.Sandman]

An unarmed attack is not a weapon either, though still qualifies. Also, PHB pg 141: Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered an armed attack... The touch spell provides you with a credible threat that the defender is obliged to take into account just as if it were a weapon. Touch attack is one of the categories of weaponlike spells, so does it count and not the other? That would not make much sense.

[Douglas]

That is obnoxious.
Makes things like Duskblade seem less than ideal..
Duskblade has class features that specifically change how this works.

At level 3, Duskblade gets a class feature that lets you spend a single standard action to do all of the following at once: a) cast a touch spell, b) make a melee weapon attack, and c) have the touch spell delivered by the melee weapon attack.

At level 13, Duskblade gets a class feature that lets you spend a single full round action to do all of the following at once: a) cast a touch spell, b) make a full attack with a melee weapon, and c) have the touch spell delivered simultaneously to every creature you hit at least once with that full attack.


How does TWF then work?
If you make a full attack, and only if you make a full attack, you get the bonus attacks of TWF.


Tome and Blood discusses using Touch Spells as Light Weapons; how does that work? If I can't take the attack granted by TWF due to casting not being an attack, then whats the point? Why waste a feat when I have to wait until next round anyway.
The point of using touch spells as light weapons has nothing to do with using them in combination with TWF. It means that you can apply Weapon Finesse to them.


Does it mean I can hold a spell in my off-hand, and deliver next round?
Or does it nean that Touch Spells have a different setup? Are they considered "Attacks?"
There is a special clause in the rules that casting a touch spell lets you make one attack for free, without costing an extra action, but that attack has to be a touch attack with the sole purpose of delivering the spell.

If that attack misses, or if the spell works for multiple attacks, you can then in future rounds attack with it as if it were a weapon attached to your hand (using either spell-only touch attacks or damaging unarmed strikes that have to hit full AC) until it runs out of charge. For most spells, it will run out when it hits once. Chill Touch, and possibly some other spells that don't spring to mind, will last longer.


Can a melee mage then dip into duskblade and do TWF and be efficient so long as they speciallize in touch attacks?
The Duskblade class feature that is relevant in combination with TWF doesn't come until level 13, which is far too many levels to be a dip.

The usual approach for melee mages is to cast buff spells before combat, then when in combat spend their standard or full rounds actions almost exclusively on attacking. In-combat spellcasting for such mages is typically reserved for swift or free action spells (possibly made that way by Quicken Spell), certain feats that allow spending spells for non-spell beneficial effects as a swift or free action, and the hopefully rare occasions when a particular bit of utility is more important than attacking.

It is emphatically not to actually cast offensive spells while in melee.


That's not entirely true, I do believe in the 3.5 MM, Chokers' "Quickness" gives them additional "partial actions," and I believe "Haste" is phrased the same way?
The Choker gets an extra "standard action or move action". The Haste spell is quite specific that it does not grant an extra action at all, just that if you happen to make a full attack you get one extra attack during it.

[Maginomicon]

An unarmed attack is not a weapon either, though still qualifies. Also, PHB pg 141: Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered an armed attack... The touch spell provides you with a credible threat that the defender is obliged to take into account just as if it were a weapon. Touch attack is one of the categories of weaponlike spells, so does it count and not the other? That would not make much sense.
Actually it explicitly is a weapon. You're confusing "armed attack" with "attack". "Armed" is a keyword that determines whether it provokes an AoO (among other qualities). Look at the weapons table (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponDescriptions) and you'll see that the second entry on the list is the "unarmed strike".

So that you don't get confused, unarmed strikes are a special case that are both an "unarmed attack" and a "manufactured weapon" (that is, they are not by-default an "armed attack" and are not considered a "natural weapon"; it sounds weird, but it's just a special exception).

You're also confusing "touch attack" with "touch spell charge". Think of a "touch spell charge" as live-wiring your skin so that as soon as it comes near a valid target for the effect, it discharges. The act of having a touch spell charge on your hand (or more-accurately, your entire body, which is called "holding the charge") makes your usually-unarmed-strike a credible threat, and thus is considered "armed" and does not provoke an AoO.

[Maginomicon]

How does TWF then work?Every issue that you're having here can be answered by the rules for "holding the charge". See my post above where it talks about a "touch spell charge".


Tome and Blood discusses using Touch Spells as Light Weapons; how does that work?To put it in more realistic terms, a "light weapon" is simply a quality of a weapon which describes how easy it is to manipulate it in the act of attacking. Thus, it interacts with various rules and effects where the question of how easy it is to manipulate in the act of the attack is relevant. It's also important to note that Tome and Blood is a 3.0 book (not a 3.5 book), and so the rules on Touch Spells may have significantly changed. The 3.5 Player's Handbook trumps Tome and Blood in this manner when it comes to the general case of using a "touch spell charge" as a weapon.


If I can't take the attack granted by TWF due to casting not being an attack, then whats the point? Why waste a feat when I have to wait until next round anyway.The basic gist is that you can put a "touch spell charge" on your off-hand and then use both the touch spell charge (similar to or as part of an unarmed strike which is now an armed attack) and your usual weapon (such as a sword) the following round during a full-attack.

Think about it this way: A "standard action" and a "full-round action" are both units of time (similar -- but not identical -- to how a second is a unit of time). An "attack" in-general is not locked-in to always taking a specific length of time. For example, a full-attack action (a special combat action) takes a full-round action (a unit of time) and can contain a very large number of attacks (especially if you have multiple natural weapons such as claw attacks). A single distinct attack with a weapon (that is, one that is not part of a full-attack action) by-default consumes a length of time equivalent to a standard action. You're only allotted a certain amount of time during your turn, so you can only do one or the other (this is why a round in which you use a standard action attack allows you to take a move action and why a round in which you full-attack only allows a 5-ft step).

It's key that you understand that the length of time consumed for an "attack" is fluid.

When you cast a touch-range spell, it usually consumes a standard action. Part of the amount of time consumed (and thus part of the action of casting) includes an OPTIONAL attack (which, again, since an attack's duration is fluid, can be a tiny part of another action) that you can use to touch something or someone within your reach. If you either miss with the attack or choose not to attack, you continue to "hold the charge", and the following round can attempt to attack again as if it were any weapon (taking a standard action attack or a full-attack as normal).

It's also worth noting that there's a difference between "delivering a touch spell charge as part of an attack" and "delivering a touch spell charge as the attack". In more realistic terms, the former is like a "punch" and the latter is like a "slap". Most casters only bother to use the "slap" since it only requires hitting the opponent's touch AC (and in-fact, the "slap" is the only option they can take if it's the free optional attack they get during the act of casting). However, they usually have the option to "punch" instead and try to hit the regular AC. If they succeed at the punch, not only does the spell discharge as normal, but it also does your unarmed strike damage.


Can a melee mage then dip into duskblade and do TWF and be efficient so long as they specialize in touch attacks?That's up to a question of optimization, but generally, yes.


I'm sorry, I've just had my entire understanding of BAB and casting launched out the window, I'm desperately trying to rebuild.As the very wise cover of the Hitchhiker's Guide says, "DON'T PANIC".

[KillianHawkeye]

What about weaponlike spells? Comp. Arcane gives two classifications of weaponlike spells that in many ways act like weapons. They require attack rolls, can score crits, take the same standard action to cast just one that one swing of a sword or sot from a boww takes. Sounds like a weapon, and thus able to full attack, to me.

The properties are not transitive.

What I mean by that is just because you can make a single attack as a Standard Action and multiple attacks as a Full-Round Action does not mean you can cast multiple spells as a Full-Round Action even if you can cast a single one as a Standard Action. This is because attacking and spell casting are not the same things, even when they are occasionally similar. The spell being or not being weapon-like is really irrelevant.

[Curmudgeon]

So that you don't get confused, unarmed strikes are a special case that are both an "unarmed attack" and a "manufactured weapon"
Only for Monks.
A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

(that is, they are not by-default an "armed attack" and are not considered a "natural weapon"; it sounds weird, but it's just a special exception). That's just incorrect. An unarmed strike is always a natural weapon, albeit one with special rules which make it use iterative attacks rather operate like other natural weapons. Some RAW citations:
You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike.
You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang).
Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. (The spell does not change an unarmed strike’s damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.)
A fanged ring grants its wearer the Improved Unarmed Strike feat and the Improved Natural Attack (unarmed strike) feat.

[Maginomicon]

Only for Monks.
That's just incorrect. An unarmed strike is always a natural weapon, albeit one with special rules which make it use iterative attacks rather operate like other natural weapons.Wrong. It's the other (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070327a) way (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a) around (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070410a).

Unarmed Attack/Unarmed Strike: These two terms are used interchangeably to describe an attack with an appendage that is not a natural weapon, such as a human's fist. An unarmed attack usually deals nonlethal damage and provokes an attack of opportunity from the creature being attacked.


Before we move on, it's worth pointing out that a character making an unarmed attack, even with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, does not have natural weapons. Nor is a natural weapon a substitute for the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.

[Curmudgeon]

Wrong. It's the other (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070327a) way (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a) around (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070410a).
Quoting Skip Williams, known for his many goofs in the D&D FAQ and free mix of official and house rules in his "Rules of the Game" articles, does nothing to contest the actual rules citations I provided.

[Maginomicon]

Quoting Skip Williams, known for his many goofs in the D&D FAQ and free mix of official and house rules in his "Rules of the Game" articles, does nothing to contest the actual rules citations I provided.
Suit yourself. Attacking the author instead of the authority doesn't help you.

[Curmudgeon]

Suit yourself. Attacking the author instead of the authority doesn't help you.
OK, let's try this again. The site header for Skip's "Rules of the Game" articles advertise them as "he examines what happens when rules collide". RotG articles don't claim those colliding rules are just the RAW; Skip includes many house rules — some declared as such, and some not. Because your statement that I am "wrong" is supported only by those "Rules of the Game" articles by Skip Williams, characterizing how well that source tracks the RAW is relevant.

Again, I've cited the RAW. Can you cite any RAW sources which help your counter-claim?