Except that isn't what it says. It says nothing about spending a swift action to activate and THEN getting a bonus movement, it states that you can use the swift action as a bonus move action. You are adding a step that does not exist in order to invalidate an item to use it as an example to support your argument. That step does not exist, however, it is as written, a direct exchange of a swift action for a movement action 1 time per day.It actually does, as it says so here.
Once per day as a swift action, the wearer can take an additional move action to move on his turn.It says that as a Swift Action, you can take an additional Move Action for movement.
You're welcome to spend a Swift Action to activate the shirt, but when you are denied Standard or Movement Actions upon attempting a Full Round Action, it does nothing for you.
It says that as a Swift Action, you can take an additional Move Action to move. I would read that as saying that the Shirt allows you to take an additional Move Action to move in exchange for a Swift Action; hence my revising of "Swift Action to activate the shirt."
However, when you want to perform a Full Round Action, you can't take any Move or Standard Actions, period, no matter how you get them. Once you take one, you can't take the other.
The point is that if the Shirt says "you take a Move Action to move as a Swift Action 1/day", then you'd be correct, since it directly changes the action consumption from a Move Action for Movement to a Swift Action for Movement. But it doesn't say that. As it's worded, it's a Swift Action to allow you to take an additional Move Action for movement. If it was worded differently, such as how I've worded it above, you'd have a valid (and winning) case.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have $10 to spend, and (apart from things that are free) the items on sale are:-
* a move action, cost $4
* a standard action, cost $6
* a full round action, cost $10
Then you can afford:-
* 1 full round action OR
* 1 move action + 1 standard action OR
* 2 move actions
The reason that, if you buy a full round action you can't take a move or standard, is not that it's forbidden, but because you can't afford to because you've run out of money.
The Quick Runner's Shirt gives you a voucher which can only be redeemed for a move action, and that move action can only be used to move your speed. The voucher cost 1 swift action to buy, and must be spent on the same turn it was purchased.
Buying and spending that 'move action' voucher in no way limits how you spend your $10, and if you spend your $10 on a full round action then this in no way prevents you from buying/using your voucher to get an extra move action.
A fair anaology, and interpretation in terms of RAI, but again, the RAW says otherwise.
It says that as a Swift Action, you can take an additional move action to move.
The word take is just as key as the word "can," because when one takes an action (i.e. I take a Standard Action to Attack), it is assumed that they are performing the action in question.
In this case, since as a Swift Action, I can take a Move Action, it doesn't change the fact that 1. I have to spend a Swift Action to get this extra Move Action, and 2. I still have to utilize a Move Action to actually Move. RAW, I can't just Move as a Swift Action, because it doesn't say that.
If it said "Once per day, on your turn, a Move Action for movement is done as a Swift Action instead," then your interpretation would be correct.
|
|
Your assertion depends upon the idea that if you take a full round action that this somehow forbids any other move, standard or full round actions, on the grounds that 'A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round', even if you magically get extra actions!
But that's not the case. Full round actions consume your action allocation for the round (we'll leave free/swift/immediate/etc.actions out of this, because we don't disagree about them not being a factor here). You are allocated either one full round OR one standard plus one move OR two move actions. Whichever you choose, you can't choose either of the others. So if you choose the full round, then that choice has consumed all the effort that was allocated to you.
But if you magically get extra actions, these are in addition to that allocation. The full round action that required all of your original allocation doesn't suddenly require extra effort to complete just because you have magically been granted an extra move action.
This aspect of the game system has not changed since 3rd ed. In the 3.5 Magic Item Compendium there is an item called Belt of Battle (p. 73). It takes a swift mental action to activate, starts each day with three charges, and:-
Spending 1 or more charges grants you an extra action, which must be taken immediately (before you take any other action).
1 charge: 1 move action.
2 charges: 1 standard action.
3 charges: 1 full-round action.
Since, if you spend 3 charges, you get an extra full round action, this must be in addition to the normal allotment of 1 full round/1 standard+1 move/2 move actions, because if it worked like you say then this extra full round action would deny you the ability to take your normal allotment of actions, rendering that expensive magical ability pointless.
That would be absurd. If you have two interpretations and one leads to absurdity, then the other must be correct.
Firstly, an item from 3.X uses different (even if similar) rules than Pathfinder, so using it to help your case is not only irrelevant, but also improbable to apply. I'm also pretty certain that by 3.X RAW, the item as written has its mutual exclusiveness and irrelevance just as it would here. It needs a clause that allows it to apply while bypassing the already stated "Standards + Moves can't be done with Full Round Actions," for it to work as intended; which, as written, it does not currently possess.
Secondly, I don't care about "effort" or any of that, because it has no mechanical explanation in the book. We all know the intent, but the RAW does not reflect it; that is the whole point of what we are arguing here.
The fact that it essentially says you can't take a Standard or Move Action when you take a Full Round Action is exactly what the RAW is dictating. Read it again:
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.
I am completely ignoring the first sentence because you seem to think that's what I am hung up on; the fact that it takes all of your effort to complete. I could care less, since the bolded part clarifies what the first sentence means in terms of intent.
If you perform a Full Round Action, you cannot take any Move or Standard Actions unless the ability says you can do so. The opposite is just as true; if I take a Move or Standard Action, by RAW, I cannot take a Full-Round Action, even if I am allotted additional Move or Standard Actions, because the two/three are mutually exclusive by RAW. It's this same logic you provide that dictates "Standard + Move = Full Round," which is not true.
If that was the intent of the Devs, it would've been written to accomodate such a concept. It wasn't, and never will be, considering you can essentially cast 3 spells in a round (2 of which are Metamagic'd) going by that interpretation, something the Devs will never intend to allow.
It's plain and simple; RAW, it's one or the other. You get a slew of one or more Standard and Move actions, or you get a single Full Round Action to take. Swift and Free Actions are also allowed, since they aren't excluded (and actually specifically say they don't interfere with the performing of your other actions), but spending a Swift Action to allow you to take an additional Move Action for movement, while in the same round of a Full Round Action, can be done, but with no effect, since the additional Move Action allotted cannot be taken with a Full Round Action.
Pathfinder uses the same rules as 3.5....except where they changed them.
This part of the rules is unchanged.
Spending 3 charges on the Belt of Battle grants an additional full round action. How do you imagine that works?
I expected it wouldn't have changed, since they apparently got the word across all that time ago. Funny, how it's been in writing for so long, and just now we're bringing to light how incorrect it is written. Anyway...
As it's written, it doesn't. It's no different than the Crane Wing/Riposte errata fiasco Paizo pulled (no offense to them, but it is a prime example), in that Crane Wing is garbage and does not do what people want it to do anymore, and that Crane Riposte, as it's unchanged, can't make any application due to it being unchanged with Crane Wing.
If you take the 1 or 2 Charges and try to perform a Full Round Action, by RAW you cannot because you are unable to do both a Full Round Action and a Standard/Move Action in the same turn, meaning the 1 or 2 charges are wasted. Since a Full Round Action needs the entire round to complete, you can't do more than one in a given round, meaning the 3 charges are wasted.
As far as I'm concerned, one could rule that as either a Cursed Item for a BBEG to drop onto the hands of their PCs, expecting it to do something (but actually doesn't) or an Item that Nobody Wants. Another idea is that it's one of those falsely advertised gimmicks Merchants throw around that claims to do this and this, but actually doesn't because it was designed so poorly. See where I'm going with this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except the Full Round Action statement then follows up by clarifying that "Thus, it cannot be coupled with a standard or move action."
The word 'Thus', in my analysis, means that this line is spelling out a consequence of the rule for clarity, not stating a rule in and of itself. In patents (I'm a patent examiner) we would call something analogous to this 'functional language', where someone's saying their invention is for the purpose of doing such-and-such, which doesn't get any legal weight.
I would confidently say that the quick runner's shirt should allow you to take a move action and full round action in the same turn. However, I agree that you can't take a full-round action in a round where you have already taken a move action, unless you specify in advance that the move action is granted by the shirt, especially since the shirt says it can only be used to actually move. If you just say, I'm moving here, and then something happens that makes you want to take a full-round action, you can't activate the shirt and then take a full attack. I would also say that it should allow you to take a move action in a surprise round where you have also taken a standard action, or if you are otherwise denied a move action, because "additional" doesn't logically require there to be more than zero to begin with.
'Take some more tea,' the March Hare said to Alice, very earnestly.
'I've had nothing yet,' Alice replied in an offended tone, 'so I can't take more.''You mean you can't take less,' said the Hatter: 'it's very easy to take more than nothing.'
|
|
@Darksol the Painbringer: let me get this straight.
Are you saying that you agree that extra actions are really okay, but that the way the RAW is written makes it seem like you can't take an extra move action granted by magic if you take a full round action in the same turn? And that the reason you are posting is so that Paizo can change the wording so that it makes the intent clear?
Or do you really believe that the way that the devs of both 3rd ed and PF want the rule to be understood is that taking a full round action prevents you from benefitting from extra actions, such as from the shirt or the belt mentioned above?
@Darksol the Painbringer: let me get this straight.
Are you saying that you agree that extra actions are really okay, but that the way the RAW is written makes it seem like you can't take an extra move action granted by magic if you take a full round action in the same turn? And that the reason you are posting is so that Paizo can change the wording so that it makes the intent clear?
Or do you really believe that the way that the devs of both 3rd ed and PF want the rule to be understood is that taking a full round action prevents you from benefitting from extra actions, such as from the shirt or the belt mentioned above?
If I were running it, I would allow my players to use the Shirt as a Swift Action, to make a Move Action for movement up to a creature, and Full Attack all in the same round.
In fact, I am certain this is the intent the Devs wanted to give regarding Full Round Actions, both Pathfinder and 3.X included.
But RAW, the PC would not be able to take a Move Action for movement up to a creature with using the Shirt as a Swift Action. It's a mixed message; if the book says one thing, yet the intent is the exact opposite of what they have written, then what is a player (new or old) left to think? Is he supposed to trust the product he's buying or the people who designed the product? They both have equal merit in this regard, so it's not like one can disregard the other.
Let me put it this way; if Paizo was a Sign manufacturing company, and wanted to make a Yield sign, why would they instead put the words "Stop" instead of "Yield"? What am I supposed to do, am I just supposed to Stop and wait for a Go sign to come around, or do I Yield, see that there is no oncoming traffic, and then proceed the way I was going? They have two different meanings in our driving rules, and stating that "Stop" is actually supposed to mean "Yield," for every bad sign they put out defeats the whole purpose of making it a driving sign in the first place.
That is exactly what they're doing here, but on a different and more invalid level. Instead of the current "Full Round Actions can't be done with Standard or Move Actions," it should [also] say "Extra Standard or Move Actions allotted from the norm can be taken in addition to any other actions the creature might otherwise choose to take."
That's not including how it has confused people into believing "effort" is a game term players used to define what one can and can't do in a round, a level of which my example did not cover.
@ Paladin of Baha-who: They could have just as easily used a word such as "Therefore" or perhaps some other Lawyerese mumbo-jumbo to get their point across while fulfilling these other non-existant, irrelevant laws, but simplicity has less opportunities to become stupidity.
I also disregarded my argument of the inclusion of the word "Additional," since there is no reason to argue it, as there are other issues, of which are more present. Plus, your Alice in Wonderland reference is about as applicable as you would claim my quoted sentence to contain legal weight.
Therefore and thus mean the same thing. It's a statement of a consequence of the previous rule, not a statement of a rule itself.
At the time the rule was written, there were no methods of getting an additional action in a round. (Looking at the d20srd, it looks like this text is something they imported from 3rd edition D&D, so it was certainly written before even all the options in 3rd edition.) I just don't think that the phrase, "A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can’t be coupled with a standard or a move action," is meant to exclude the possibility of magic allowing a full-round action to take less time, allowing other movement.
Therefore and thus mean the same thing. It's a statement of a consequence of the previous rule, not a statement of a rule itself.
At the time the rule was written, there were no methods of getting an additional action in a round. (Looking at the d20srd, it looks like this text is something they imported from 3rd edition D&D, so it was certainly written before even all the options in 3rd edition.) I just don't think that the phrase, "A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can’t be coupled with a standard or a move action," is meant to exclude the possibility of magic allowing a full-round action to take less time, allowing other movement.
So they could've worded it another way. This is why a lot of the time Copypasting without checking your work is a bad thing to do. You leave errors that, while it could be okay to state regarding 3rd edition, makes no sense to keep in Pathfinder given the options one can possess.
And how is it simply a consequential statement? If you take a Move Action or Standard Action, you can't take a Full Round Action, and vice-versa. Simple as that.
It doesn't disparage what Move Actions or Standard Actions, whether they are ones you can normally take or ones that are granted from Magic Items, etc. So simply saying "Well, it's supposed to do something" doesn't cut it for both RAW as well as RAI, considering there are several subjects still in the books that don't do Jack Squat, and Paizo is rendering even more subjects useless by their erratas and FAQs, purposeful or not.
Also, the magic item in question is not "allowing a full-round action to take less time," it is allowing one to, as a Swift Action, be able to take an additional Move Action to move. "Time" is poorly expressed in terms of mechanics, and has no appication. There are already abilities in the Pathfinder books that expressly show full-round actions taking less time: the Mobile Fighter capstone allows a character to take a Full Attack Action as a Standard action. The Quick Runner's Shirt lacks that language, so it isn't one of them.
It doesn't matter if they didn't reword it. As the rule is phrased, the rule for the game purposes is "A full-round action requires an entire round to complete." That's all. If we look at what an entire round normally consists of, you get, as someone listed before, 1 standard action and 1 move action, and optionally a few other shorter actions. So, a full-round action takes up the same amount of time, normally, as 1 standard and 1 move, thus you can't use a full-round action in the same round as a move or standard action under normal circumstances.
So, as you said, if you take a move action or standard action, you can't take a full-round action, and vice-versa -- because the full-round action is defined as requiring an entire round, which is elsewhere defined as consisting essentially of a standard (or standard as move) and a move action.
There really is no errata or FAQ needed here. Specific trumps general. General rule: Full-round action takes up an entire round and thus doesn't allow for a move or standard action. Specific rule: with a quick runner's shirt, you get to use a swift action to take an extra move action in a round, for movement only. In game-world terms, the shirt speeds you up and in the same amount of time you would normally only be able to take a 5-ft step and attack twice (or however many times), you can now move up to 30 ft and attack twice.
Edit: As an aside, the crane wing change preventing crane riposte from working has been rectified with another FAQ errata. I agree that that was sloppiness on the part of the development team, not noticing that their nerf of Crane Wing also had a consequence of making Crane Riposte significantly less useful.
It doesn't matter if they didn't reword it. As the rule is phrased, the rule for the game purposes is "A full-round action requires an entire round to complete." That's all. If we look at what an entire round normally consists of, you get, as someone listed before, 1 standard action and 1 move action, and optionally a few other shorter actions. So, a full-round action takes up the same amount of time, normally, as 1 standard and 1 move, thus you can't use a full-round action in the same round as a move or standard action under normal circumstances.
So, as you said, if you take a move action or standard action, you can't take a full-round action, and vice-versa -- because the full-round action is defined as requiring an entire round, which is elsewhere defined as consisting essentially of a standard (or standard as move) and a move action.
There really is no errata or FAQ needed here. Specific trumps general. General rule: Full-round action takes up an entire round and thus doesn't allow for a move or standard action. Specific rule: with a quick runner's shirt, you get to use a swift action to take an extra move action in a round, for movement only. In game-world terms, the shirt speeds you up and in the same amount of time you would normally only be able to take a 5-ft step and attack twice (or however many times), you can now move up to 30 ft and attack twice.
If that was all that needed to be said to get their point across, they wouldn't have followed it up with the sentence behind it. That's all it would have needed to say. But they didn't. The clause following is just as important because it is its own separate rule. The portion you just quoted alone can be interpreted to still include actions that may also be Standard and/or Move Actions. Time is but a measurement, just because it takes the entire round to complete doesn't mean one can't simply multi-task with it. The next sentence then goes on to explain further what you can and can't do when you take a Full Round Action.
A character can take as many actions as they are able (and willing) to take. There is no "Rounds consists of Characters having 1 Standard, Swift/Immediate, and Movement Action each, with Unlimited Free Actions." The clauses regarding each action sets the limit as to how many of each action type a character can and can't do on his turn. It's that kind of sloppy treatment (no offense to you, it's the RAI that the Devs implement) that really burns through the RAW.
Another silly classic item example for what an item should do compared to how it's written is the Jaunt Boots; the lack of details and concise explanation would otherwise show that the item is a pile of garbage and shouldn't even exist.
Just because you can activate the Shirt as a Swift Action, which makes you able to take an additional Move Action for Movement, that's all it does. It doesn't circumvent the rule as it's written whatsoever. You can't take a Move Action with a Full Round Action. The Shirt simply allows you to take an additional Move Action to move on your turn in exchange for burning up a Swift Action. That in no way supersedes what is otherwise written as a rule, and there has been no justification other than what I assume is "It has to do something."
Well, I can see where you're getting that interpretation. I don't think it's correct, but I can see your point. So, best thing to do is FAQ the OP and see what the devs make of it.
As for Jaunt boots, they're not really in the same category as a quick runner's shirt. The shirt defines what sort of action activating it is, whereas the boots do not, which defaults to a standard action to activate a magic item, making them less useful. It's a good "get out of threat range quick" item, I suppose, and I guess that's what it's for. Now that I think about it, these would have been very useful on my character yesterday in a PFS session, where a ghoul surprised us and got adjacent to my character in the surprise round. Of course, I can't afford them yet.
Edit: Actually, after thinking about it more, they really wouldn't have been very useful, since a withdraw would do the same thing. Yeah, they're just kinda useless.
The runner's shirt, on the other hand, is ridiculously useful and significantly underpriced.
It's not as useful as people make it out to be by RAW. It's a nice "Get Out of Dodge" item, but that's it.
Perhaps its the RAI people associate with that makes it ridiculous good?
The shirt is a specific, which trumps the general rules.
It is a magic item, and when you activate it, you gain what it says you gain.
A move action.
Well, PFS bans it. Most of what PFS bans is evil or associated with evil, or doesn't fit with the style of the game they want to play, or is not compatible with PFRPG. Quick runner's shirt, on the other hand, is banned for being too powerful for the price.
|
Well, PFS bans it. Most of what PFS bans is evil or associated with evil, or doesn't fit with the style of the game they want to play, or is not compatible with PFRPG. Quick runner's shirt, on the other hand, is banned for being too powerful for the price.
No, it's banned because they thought the cost was incorrect for what it did. That's it.
in regards to the quick runners shirt, the move action provided (by my understanding) is completed AS PART of the swift action associated with the use of the shirt. basically, it allows an extra move action AS A swift action. at least thats how i'm reading it. its not a swift action that tacks on another move action to the turn. it IS your swift action, entirely, as a whole. everything it describes in its effect happens within the activating swift action.
the way i see it, it a turn only has a maximum of a swift, move, standard, and (x)free actions in it. you can sub your move and standard for a full round/full attack in their place, leaving you with a swift+full round+(x)free actions. either way you slice it, whenever you use any effect/ability/etc. that takes any of these actions (i.e. the swift action for QRS, thats the ONLY action it takes. the move action its describing takes place within the swift it calls for. as another example, the free action associated with casting a touch spell it still part of the standard action used to cast it, even if you can move in between them.)
back to the thread topic, however: the wording of a full round action, as well as its name, make it impossible to do even the swift/free actions you are allowed to do with them simply because of the ways its worded. a full round is a full round, not a turn. however, one can argue that a single players "turn" happens in real time with everyone elses and the term "round" is used to explain the actions of everyone involved happening all at once. if you use this logic (as i do), then a full round as described in the book works exactly the same as a move and standard conjoined, which leaves plenty of space for swift/free/immediate actions before/within/after it.
Well, PFS bans it. Most of what PFS bans is evil or associated with evil, or doesn't fit with the style of the game they want to play, or is not compatible with PFRPG. Quick runner's shirt, on the other hand, is banned for being too powerful for the price.No, it's banned because they thought the cost was incorrect for what it did. That's it.
That's my point, it's too cheap for what it does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The description for Full-Round Action (Category) states:
"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 (see below)."
"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."The bolded passage seems to mean that all Full-Round actions work like 1-Round Casting Time spells: "taking an entire round to complete".
"A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you begin casting the spell" (Core Rulebook 213)
Basically the first two sentences in this paragraph tell you that such a casting is a full-round action, and how it is different in the case of casting. Because the second part is important in the case of spell casting, the exception is made and that is why you don't have full-actions in casting times, because--like many other full-round actions--one might mistakenly believe that the effects come into play at the end of your turn, and not the start of your next.
|
|
Stephen, can you take the extra move action (or whatever action) granted by a Swift Runner's Shirt (or whatever magic) in the same round as you take a full round action (such as a full attack) on the grounds that it's an extra action?
Or does the very act of taking a full round action of any kind stop you taking those magically-granted extra action on the grounds that the rules say that if you take a full round action then you can't take a move or standard in the same round?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the case of the swift runner's shirt you take a move action (to move not other things that don't involve movement that might take a move action) as the swift action. Since swift actions are not barred, you can use the shirt when you take a full-round action, unless for some strange reason, that would stop you from taking the swift action.
Thank you, Stephen, we appreciate you clarifying that. I guess we should interpret the shirt's rules as saying "Once per day, the wearer can use a swift action to move as if using a move action to move," or words to that effect, which is what most of us were reading it as.
Thanks Stephen for clarifying the intent of both the Quick Runner's Shirt and the Full Round Action statement. (You must be pretty bad at RPS if they keep sending you to these threads. :D)
However, let's take something else, since your intent explanation, while it clarified one thing, still leaves some other cases (and technically didn't answer Malachi's question); I believe there is a Monk of the Four Winds ability that grants you 3 extra Standard Actions, called Slow Time. These are in addition to any other single Standard or Move Action that the character can take.
Since these are in addition to what the character otherwise has access to, would they be unable to take them if they decide to take a Full Round Action (i.e. Full Attack) in the same turn?
|
|
@Stephen: if you remember the Belt of Battle from the 3.5 Magic Item Compendium, it was an item that could be activated as a swift action and granted an extra move (1 charge), standard (2 charges) or full-round action (3 charges), which must be taken immediately (before you take any other action).
If you take a full-round action, would that prevent you from benefitting from the Belt, either in 3.5 or in PF (if it were to be converted to PF)?
Thanks Stephen for clarifying the intent of both the Quick Runner's Shirt and the Full Round Action statement. (You must be pretty bad at RPS if they keep sending you to these threads. :D)
However, let's take something else, since your intent explanation, while it clarified one thing, still leaves some other cases (and technically didn't answer Malachi's question); I believe there is a Monk of the Four Winds ability that grants you 3 extra Standard Actions, called Slow Time. These are in addition to any other single Standard or Move Action that the character can take.
Since these are in addition to what the character otherwise has access to, would they be unable to take them if they decide to take a Full Round Action (i.e. Full Attack) in the same turn?
No. In that case you take a swift action to gain three standard actions instead of just one during your turn (not in addition to the standard and move action as you state). The rules for that ability put a limit on those standard actions and explicitly state that you "cannot combine them to take full-attack actions."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Stephen: if you remember the Belt of Battle from the 3.5 Magic Item Compendium, it was an item that could be activated as a swift action and granted an extra move (1 charge), standard (2 charges) or full-round action (3 charges), which must be taken immediately (before you take any other action).
If you take a full-round action, would that prevent you from benefitting from the Belt, either in 3.5 or in PF (if it were to be converted to PF)?
Sorry, I don't answer rules questions from non-Paizo products.
No. In that case you take a swift action to gain three standard actions instead of just one during your turn (not in addition to the standard and move action as you state). The rules for that ability put a limit on those standard actions and explicitly state that you "cannot combine them to take full-attack actions."Thanks Stephen for clarifying the intent of both the Quick Runner's Shirt and the Full Round Action statement. (You must be pretty bad at RPS if they keep sending you to these threads. :D)
However, let's take something else, since your intent explanation, while it clarified one thing, still leaves some other cases (and technically didn't answer Malachi's question); I believe there is a Monk of the Four Winds ability that grants you 3 extra Standard Actions, called Slow Time. These are in addition to any other single Standard or Move Action that the character can take.
Since these are in addition to what the character otherwise has access to, would they be unable to take them if they decide to take a Full Round Action (i.e. Full Attack) in the same turn?
Not sure that I'm following or that this answered Darksol's specific question. I don't believe Darksol was asking if you could combine them to get extra full-round actions. If I'm reading correctly, the question was: Could combine your 'normal' standard and move action to take a full-round action, and then use the Monk's Slow Time ability and take the 3 extra standard actions granted by Slow Time on top of that (effectively having a full-round action and 3 standard actions all in one turn)?
Not sure that I'm following or that this answered Darksol's specific question. I don't believe Darksol was asking if you could combine them to get extra full actions. Darsol (and I, actually) wanted to know: Could you use the Monk's Slow Time ability, combine your 'normal' standard and move action to take a full-round action, and then still take the 3 extra standard actions granted by Slow Time on top of that?
You don't get a regular standard action that you can combine with a move action in a round in which you take slow time. With a swift action, you replace your normal standard action with three of the standard actions that are described in the ability. That is: "The monk can use these actions to do the following: take a melee attack action, use a skill, use an extraordinary ability, or take a move action. The monk cannot use these actions to cast spells or use spell-like abilities, and cannot combine them to take full-attack actions."
In this case, you cannot take a full-attack action during your round, because you gain three limited standard actions instead of your normal standard action. You do not take these three standard actions in place of your normal standard action during your turn (though you still get the normal move, swift, and free actions you could possibly take during your turn.)
You don't get a regular standard action that you can combine with a move action in a round in which you take slow time. With a swift action, you replace your normal standard action with three of the standard actions that are described in the ability. That is: "The monk can use these actions to do the following: take a melee attack action, use a skill, use an extraordinary ability, or take a move action. The monk cannot use these actions to cast spells or use spell-like abilities, and cannot combine them to take full-attack actions."
In this case, you cannot take a full-attack action during your round, because you gain three limited standard actions instead of your normal standard action. You do not take these three standard actions in place of your normal standard action during your turn (though you still get the normal move, swift, and free actions you could possibly take during your turn.)
Gotcha. Thanks!
OK, to be clear:
By RAI there is NO restriction on combining Full Round Actions with Standard, Move, or ANY Action (e.g. Free, Swift) before, during, or after the Full-Round Action... The only restriction derives from normal action economy which gives you the choice of a normal Standard+Move or a Full-Round Action...?
And the line "A full-round action requires an entire round to complete" should NOT be taken literaly at face value, which would make it work like 1-Round Casting time spells? Thus, Full Round Actions begin at any time during your Turn, and (besides 1-Round Spells or equivalents) end at some point during your Turn?
Those should address the people whose reading of Full Round Actions in the context of Spell Combat originally prompted this thread.
OK, to be clear:
By RAI there is NO restriction on combining Full Round Actions with Standard, Move, or ANY Action (e.g. Free, Swift) before, during, or after the Full-Round Action... The only restriction derives from normal action economy which gives you the choice of a normal Standard+Move or a Full-Round Action...?And the line "A full-round action requires an entire round to complete" should NOT be taken literaly at face value, which would make it work like 1-Round Casting time spells? Thus, Full Round Actions begin at any time during your Turn, and (besides 1-Round Spells or equivalents) end at some point during your Turn?
Those should address the people whose reading of Full Round Actions in the context of Spell Combat originally prompted this thread.
I've answered a few specific questions...I don't think that these specific questions would necessarily justify all of the above statements.
There are full-round actions. 1-round spell casting is a full round action where the effect occurs at the start of your next turn, rather than during your current turn, like many other full-round actions.
A few rare options allow you to enhance or change your action economy, but that doesn't invalidate the normal action economy, it just grants exceptions to the normal action economy.
I would say this: Full-round actions do take an entire round, but the effects of those actions are typically resolved during your turn. There are exceptions, such as casting a 1-round casting time spell.
When you say , that seems to be conflating the terms "Round" and "Turn".
AFAIK, characters don't have their own "rounds" they have their own "turns", which are less than a round (sequentially).
1 Round Actions require an entire round to complete, meaning they complete just BEFORE your NEXT turn (i.e. 1 round after your first turn), NOT on your current turn. Requiring an entire round to complete seems like it should be a unique quality of 1-Round Actions, by my understanding of RAI.
The line of the RAW stating that NORMAL F-R actions require an entire ROUND to complete muddies that distinction.
When you say "rather than during your round, like many other full-round actions", that seems to be conflating "Round" and "Turn".
AFAIK, characters don't have their own "rounds" they have their own "turns", which are less than a round (sequentially).
1 Round Action require an entire round to complete, meaning they complete just BEFORE your NEXT turn (i.e. 1 round after your turn), not on your current turn.
Requiring an entire round to complete seems like it should be a unique quality of 1-Round Actions, by my understanding of RAI.
The line of the RAW stating that NORMAL F-R actions require an entire ROUND to complete muddies that distinction.
Right, brain fart. I've changed my post to clarify.
No problem, easy to do :-). BTW, I think the last sentence of that post is also similarly fart-scented...
()
So my post you responded to is then pretty much accurate to RAI?
Again, I've always understood RAI that way personally, but others seemed to read RAW differently,
and it is difficult to convince otherwise when the RAW just didn't support my understood RAI.
No problem, easy to do :-).
I think the last sentence of that post is also similarly fart-scented...So my post you responded to is then pretty much accurate to RAI?
Again, I've always understood RAI that way, but others seemed to read RAW differently,
but it was difficult to convince otherwise when the RAW just didn't support my understood RAI.
Taking a look at the last sentence (Full-round actions do take an entire round, but the effects of those actions are typically resolved during your turn. There are exceptions, such as casting a 1-round casting time spell.) is entirely what I mean. No farts there.
Here is a great example. Run. When you take the run action, you are running for the entire six seconds of the round construct, but you resolve the run during your turn. Since everyone takes actions within the round, things go off simultaneously, but the effects are generally resolved during your turn even though the entire activity occurs during the round.
1-round casting time spellcasting is an exception to this convention, as the effect occur on your next turn, as the rules state.
|
|
Sorry, I don't answer rules questions from non-Paizo products.@Stephen: if you remember the Belt of Battle from the 3.5 Magic Item Compendium, it was an item that could be activated as a swift action and granted an extra move (1 charge), standard (2 charges) or full-round action (3 charges), which must be taken immediately (before you take any other action).
If you take a full-round action, would that prevent you from benefitting from the Belt, either in 3.5 or in PF (if it were to be converted to PF)?
He. : )
I'm not really asking about any one particular item, from this game or any other.
I'm asking about the general case.
If you gain, through magic, an extra move, standard or full-round action, does your choice of taking a full-round action as your normal, non-magical action (not talking about casting a spell with a 1 round casting time, but your normal run-of-the-mill F-R action, like run/charge/full attack/etc.) prevent you from taking that extra action, on the grounds that 'A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round'?
He. : )
I'm not really asking about any one particular item, from this game or any other.
I'm asking about the general case.
If you gain, through magic, an extra move, standard or full-round action, does your choice of taking a full-round action (not talking about casting a spell with a 1 round casting time, but your normal run-of-the-mill F-R action, like run/charge/full attack/etc.) prevent you from taking that extra action, on the grounds that 'A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round'?
For an in-system example, the Mythic ability Amazing Initiative lets you get an extra standard action by burning a point of Mythic power, and although it explicitly bars you from using it to cast a spell it doesn't mention anything about canceling out your ability to otherwise take a FRA.
Sorry, I don't answer rules questions from non-Paizo products.@Stephen: if you remember the Belt of Battle from the 3.5 Magic Item Compendium, it was an item that could be activated as a swift action and granted an extra move (1 charge), standard (2 charges) or full-round action (3 charges), which must be taken immediately (before you take any other action).
If you take a full-round action, would that prevent you from benefitting from the Belt, either in 3.5 or in PF (if it were to be converted to PF)?
He. : )
I'm not really asking about any one particular item, from this game or any other.
I'm asking about the general case.
If you gain, through magic, an extra move, standard or full-round action, does your choice of taking a full-round action (not talking about casting a spell with a 1 round casting time, but your normal run-of-the-mill F-R action, like run/charge/full attack/etc.) prevent you from taking that extra action, on the grounds that 'A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round'?
Since this is an exception to the rules, it depends greatly on the exception. This thread has talked about to different exceptions to the normal action economy, and each has had its differences. There is no general rule about exceptions of this type, there are only the rules within the exception.
Here is a great example. Run. When you take the run action, you are running for the entire six seconds of the round construct, but you resolve the run during your turn. Since everyone takes actions within the round, things go off simultaneously, but the effects are generally resolved during your turn even though the entire activity occurs during the round.
Sure, but you could use one or two Move Actions to walk 30' or 60' continually over 1 Round, right?
Your Run is resolving exactly the same as a Standard Grapple or Move Action as far as sequentiality and duration vs. other characters' actions/turns.So what need is there for the rules to make that statement about F-R actions, distinguishing it from other action types?
Basically, I don't see any useful information being conveyed by the line: , distinguishing it from Standard/Move Actions. When "taking an entire round to complete" is a succinct approximation of how 1-Round actions resolve (one entire round after your turn, i.e. just before your next turn), that's just confusing.
Since this is an exception to the rules, it depends greatly on the exception. This thread has talked about to different exceptions to the normal action economy, and each has had its differences. There is no general rule about exceptions of this type, there are only the rules within the exception.Sorry, I don't answer rules questions from non-Paizo products.@Stephen: if you remember the Belt of Battle from the 3.5 Magic Item Compendium, it was an item that could be activated as a swift action and granted an extra move (1 charge), standard (2 charges) or full-round action (3 charges), which must be taken immediately (before you take any other action).
If you take a full-round action, would that prevent you from benefitting from the Belt, either in 3.5 or in PF (if it were to be converted to PF)?
He. : )
I'm not really asking about any one particular item, from this game or any other.
I'm asking about the general case.
If you gain, through magic, an extra move, standard or full-round action, does your choice of taking a full-round action (not talking about casting a spell with a 1 round casting time, but your normal run-of-the-mill F-R action, like run/charge/full attack/etc.) prevent you from taking that extra action, on the grounds that 'A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round'?
not to sound like a pessimist, but that sounds an awful lot like you are trying to dodge the question...this whole discussion is only relevant because of special rules allowing added actions and the description of a FRA explicitly stating you cant take other standard or move actions....these two conflict on more than just a normal vs. special level because the normal appears to have a built in negation to the specials described above.
simple question: if granted an "extra" standard or more action by some means, can it be taken WITH a FRA?
Simple answer: yes or no?
[EDIT] also, shouldn't there be some kind of errata made to the rules explaining that a FRA is in fact only a full TURN action?
I don't dodge questions. I give the best answers I can. Some answers cannot be given with a simple yes or no.
When people ask questions about specific corner cases, Stephen responding to those specific cases is not surprising.
That is why I tried to keep the focus on the general rules issue, trying to confirm if these conclusions are correct:
RAI: there is NO restriction on combining Full Round Actions with Standard, Move, or ANY Action (e.g. Free, Swift) before, during, or after the Full-Round Action.
The only restriction derives from normal action economy which gives you the choice of a normal Standard+Move or a Full-Round Action...?AND
Full Round Actions [can] begin at any time during your Turn, and (besides 1-Round Spells or equivalents) ends [completes] at some point during your Turn?
When people ask questions about specific corner cases, Stephen responding to those specific cases is not surprising.
That is why I tried to keep the focus on the general rules issue, trying to confirm if these conclusions are correct:RAI: there is NO restriction on combining Full Round Actions with Standard, Move, or ANY Action (e.g. Free, Swift) before, during, or after the Full-Round Action.
The only restriction derives from normal action economy which gives you the choice of a normal Standard+Move or a Full-Round Action...?AND
Full Round Actions [can] begin at any time during your Turn, and (besides 1-Round Spells or equivalents) ends [completes] at some point during your Turn?
^^this^^ i believe can be answered with a yes or no....
I'm not sure it's so much that Stephen's responding to corner cases. More what I'm taking away is that in this generic scenario - FRAs and being granted additional move or standard actions - there is no generalized rule that can be applied. They should be reviewed by the GM on a case-by-case basis.