Realms DM's page

Any remaining confusion here is stemming from misapplying a specific rule that only relates to the casting of spells that have a casting time of 1 round or longer.

All "full-round" actions are completed by the end of your turn in the same round that you begin them. This inclues Full Attack, Withdraw, Full-Round Run, etc.

Pathfinder Beta page 138 wrote:

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.

This means that you are free to make AoOs or other instant actions later in the round on your opponents' turns as you are able.

No, it doesn't specifically state this here, though rules I won't quote that describe how to take AoOs and other instant actions specify when and how to use those actions.

Note that there is nothing in the "Full-Round Action" description (on any page) that states that using a Full-Round action requires you to give up your ability to use AoOs or other instant actions.

Now,

There is one exception, and it is specifically pointed out in the SRD and in the Pathfinder rules:

Pathfinder Beta page 139 wrote:

A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action.

This means your 1-round spell is a full-round action and therefore follows other full-round-action rules (only a 5' movement, etc.)

Note: if this were all that was said about 1-round spells, then your spell would go off at the end of yoru first round of casting it and you would be free to make AoOs and other instant actoins - but that's not all that is said:

Pathfinder Beta page 139 wrote:

It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell.

This means there is a special rule that applies only to this specific action that says your 1-round spell has a delayed effect.

This in no way means that other full-round actions have any kind of delayed effects....

Thanks again for the reply. I think this should clear things up quite nicely. This resolves any doubt that I had begun to harbor.

Many of the above statements are also presented in a Rules of the Game series of articles regarding Actions on the Wizards site.

Just to be clear, I don't believe any of this confusion was caused by the beta itself. These rules as written were present in the 3.5 PHB as well as on the d20 SRD. I would have been going in circles trying to explain things regardless of the rules source.

I'm not certain that I'd advocate changes such as renaming actions or anything because of all this. Since this is our opportunity to change things for the better, I'll suggest a couple lines to clarify full-round actions maybe?

All "full-round" actions are completed by the end of your turn in the same round that you begin them. This inclues Full Attack, Withdraw, Full-Round Run, etc.

(With the exception of spells with a 1 round casting time.)

This means that you are free to make AoOs or other instant actions later in the round on your opponents' turns as you are able.

I think you need to tell your player to stuff it, and do as you say ;-)

Understand that the questions she's posing are genuine, born of a desire to really understand the game and the rules. I don't want to resort to "because I say so" with her.

And again, possible succubus or erinyes. I may be under some form of compulsion, forced to delve into and dissect these rules against my better judgement.

Thanks very much for the reply. This explanation helped cement things for me and I was able to relay them to my player with satisfactory results (mostly, more on that in a minute...). I had been resolving full-round actions using your "typical" example provided above, which I had always taken as the "right" way to do things.

Out of this apparent happy resolution, however, arose further questions. Specifically related to full-round actions, the full attack action and attacks of opportunity.

The scenario posited by my player was "So when I cast a spell with a full-round casting time, I can't make opportunity attacks?" To which I stated that was correct, the spell takes until your next turn to complete. The time between your turns is occupied by the casting and the action must be uninterrupted (Chapter 10 Magic pg. 161). So then she confirmed that when her fighter (second character along with her wizard) becomes high enough level to get extra attacks he'll need to use a full attack action, which is a full-round action, in order to make all her attacks. At which point she became concerned over losing attacks of opportunity due to making a full attack (full-round action). I stated I didn't believe this to be the case as she was taking the rules for full-round actions from the resolution of a spell with a 1 round casting time and applying it to the full attack action. But again, when she asked me to show her where in the beta (or even in the SRD) the difference between these two full-round actions was clarified, and attacks of opportunity allowed or disallowed, I couldn't find any such statement.

At this point I'm suspecting she may either be a succubus or an erinyes, sent to tempt or corrupt me by using vaguely written rules. Concepts I thought I understood are being thrown into chaos, but by literal, direct readings of rules, which seems at times to be both lawful and chaotic.

I'm running a new player on some solo adventures using the Pathfinder RPG Beta. She had some questions about full-round actions, how they get resolved and how they affect the next rounds actions. In spite of my experience as a DM (and in light of paragraphs that were pointed out to me), I found I didn't have a good explanation as to how things really worked besides "this is how I've always done it". I promised a comprehensive answer and I know the crew here can be counted on.

So exhibit A, from Chapter 9 pg 134:

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).

Some full-round actions do not allow you to take a 5-foot step.
Some full-round actions can be taken as standard actions, but only in situations when you are limited to performing only a standard action during your round. The descriptions of specific actions, below, detail which actions allow this option.

In this case it sounds like you begin your full-round action during your turn on Round 1. You may make a 5 foot step whenever you wish (as allowed by the specific action description of course). Your full-round action completes on your turn during Round 2...here's the confusion/question...at which point you may take your Round 2 turn normally? Or is part of your turn on Round 2 consumed by the full-round action from Round 1? This leads me to:

Exhibit B, from Chapter 9 pg 137:

Start/Complete Full-Round Action

The “start full-round action” standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action. You can’t use this action to start or complete a full attack, charge, run, or withdraw.

Here it sounds like you could take a move or move-equivalent action, begin the first half of a full-round action as your standard action on Round 1, complete part 2 of the full-round action as your standard action during Round 2, and then take a move or move-equivalent action to complete your turn. However, when taken along with the previous paragraph it seems clear that only a 5 foot step is allowed. This section does make it sound like part of your turn on Round 2 is used by the full-round action. This part is difficult to accept based on the full-round action required to make a full attack. You begin your attack with a standard action on Round 1 and complete it with a standard action on Round 2? Really? (Ok, I know this isn't the case, but my player was drawing very near to conclusions along these lines based on a very literal reading of the rules.)

The specific cases where this came up in play are summoning spells, specifically, when does your summoned creature actually appear and when can the caster and creature act normally, and preparing an oil flask as a thrown weapon.

Please gentle Paizonians, help reconcile these two passages. I thought I had all this figured out years ago. I guess not.

While journeying through caverns leading to the ancient lair of a long fallen Nar Demonbinder, when the fighter claims that disarming traps takes too long and is a waste of time, don't listen. Cais listened.

PC's Name: Cais
Race: Human
Class: Ranger
Level: 4
Circumstances of Death: The already wounded Cais (mauled by spider swarms) was neatly bisected by a crit from a Ceiling Pendulum trap. His HP were in the teens and the damage dropped him well below -10.
Setting: Forgotten Realms, home campaign

Undeterred the party wrapped his halves and forged on! To the demise of:

PC's Name: Brother Caerus
Race: Human
Class: Cleric of Tempus
Level: 4
Circumstances of Death: Standing toe to toe with a huge Fiendish Monstrous Spider, buying the party time to withdraw. He was peeled from his breastplate raw and wriggling, like a little mollusk.
Setting: Forgotten Realms, home campaign

The rest of the party, seizing the moment of brave sacrifice to make their withdrawl, realized they only needed to be faster than their slowest member. Namely:

PC's Name: Moira
Race: Human
Class: Fighter
Level: 4
Circumstances of Death: Overcome by poison (str) and unable to run under the burden of her heavy equipment. With ample HP, but a strength of 0, she was unable to resist as the spider wrapped her up and left her to hang a bit. Just a bit though.
Setting: Forgotten Realms, home campaign

Kos-Tee-Chee

But then again, I'm lazy.

I have house rules. You have house rules. We've all made little tweaks here and there to parts of 3.5 we wanted to try and improve.

Let's take all our pieces and parts and spread them out on the table so everyone can see them. Maybe someone has something that would be a good fit?

No judging or namecalling anyone's house rules...this is just show and tell.

My house rules:

• Increase skill points to a minimum of 4. Classes with 2 +Int skill points are increased to 4 +Int.

• Flanked as a state. If an enemy is flanked by two attackers, any other attackers will also receive a flanked bonus to attack, as well as allowing a rogue to sneak attack.

• No more immunity to critical hits or sneak attack damage. Run one campaign that's really heavy on undead and you'll see why this can be a real drag for the players.

• A new feat every even level instead of every three. (Bear in mind I haven't tested this myself yet. I'd swear that someone like Lilith or Eileen the Prophet was going to try something like this also, but I never heard how it turned out.)

Who's next?

This would make it complicated to do Prestige Class entry requirements.

In general I'm split on it, I don't think any class should have 2+, 4+ should be the minimum, Clerics should be able to be skilled in a few knowledges and so should Sorc/Wiz

I also like to have my wizards have a couple ranks in tumble =p

I also want to concur with this, especially the 4 point minimum. This is on my list of house rules.

I want to reiterate my vote for skill points, with the added 4 point minimum.

I vote to keep skill points.

I'll have a go at the new skill system, but a planned progression like this seems to be sacrificing customization for speed.

Customization is good, I think.

Greetings and welcome to the Pathfinder RPG General Discussion forum.

This is the forum for general comments about the Pathfinder RPG and discussing the system with other fans. This is also where we will post announcements about upcoming Alpha releases and opportunities to play the game.

This forum should also be used to post up new rules and suggestions about parts of the system that have not yet appeared in an Alpha document.

We need your help to make this the best game possible. Thanks for checking out the Pathfinder RPG and welcome aboard.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Thank you Jason. Thank you very much.

And thanks to the whole Paizo crew.

*swoon*

D(epartmen) O(f) T(ransportation) ?

Deformities

It's a basic EMT acronym for trauma patient evaluation.

I was going to post a crack on the "Does this mag go through editing?" thread with the Dead Horse alias and it is no longer available.

It really doesn't matter much, but I'm worried that my pbp aliases might go the same way.

I for one liked Dead Horse...I'll miss him.

But then again, I can be a jerk.

the WotC Trollshaws

*snerk*

I got this great idea that will finally solve the anti-4e problem.

I suggest the Mods put markers next to anti-4e people's names so we know who they are at a glance so we can ignore them. If that doesnt work we can lock them from accessing the 4e section of the boards. The problem would finally be solved when the 4th edition begins and they will be unable to access the D&D pages at all. It will be like they dont even exist anymore.

Nice to see the level of discourse has evolved from simple trolling to quasi-sectarianism.

Yeah, he/she/it is a real piece of work.

Anyone who dares post a concern or criticism in the WotC 4E Concerns and Criticisms forum is promptly board zerged by the 4E pep squad, apologists and party men, who will at a minimum attempt to shout you down. The signal to noise ratio is in the basement.

The "community" response over there is certainly contributing to me becoming less and less optimistic about 4th edition.

~RD

1) Do you plan to convert to the new edition of D&D?

At this point my answer is a solid negative. I will remain at 3.5 + whatever I decide to houserule in from 4.0.

2) If Paizo converts its RPG products to 4.0, how will that affect your purchasing patterns for our products?

My purchases of Paizo RPG products will likely slow or stop, as it will take time and effort to convert materials from 4.0 to whatever permutation of 3.5 I wind up with. The time I may need to convert materials on my own will slow my rate of consumption. If conversion is too much trouble, I may stop purchases of new Paizo RPG products altogether, and only seek out older RPG materials.

3) If Paizo does not convert its RPG products to 4.0, how will that affect your purchasing patterns for our products?

My purchases of Paizo RPG products will continue at their current pace. I will see you, however, and raise you that if you *don't* convert, I will subscribe to Gamemastery modules instead of buying them piecemeal.

I initially posted "Paizo is my master now", in response to your first thread on this topic. I was cautiously optimistic about 4E at that point. Unfortunately, I'm becoming more discouraged and disappointed by how I'm seeing 4.0 shape up, instead of becoming bolstered and excited. I will not be converting to 4.0. Wizards has failed to inspire confidence in me.

~RD

the Dungeons and Dragons Coloring Album

Bingo.

The Dungeons and Dragons Coloring Album appeared in my Easter basket(!) on Easter in 1980 and served as my introduction to D&D. I was 7. I still have it.

In later years I learned that my Grandmother picked it out for me. I'm not sure that at the time she knew what it was, or what she was getting me in to :)

~RD

Your mileage may vary

or

Yuan-ti might make Violins

But that would be Craft (Musical Instrument), and is certainly not fun.

~RD

I feel that some skills should be roleplayed i cant stand the thought of i would like to bluff the guard as an example ok roll.

I have always run games were players or myself as a dm had to roleplay what they are doing. It actually makes a lot of sense to me what your thoughts please on this subject.

I try to encourage players to tell me what their characters are going to say, but the die roll is what counts in the end. As in, what are you going to say to bluff/intimidate the guard? Maybe a +2 circumstance bonus if they come up with something really good.

It makes sense to try and roleplay the situation, but it's not reasonable to expect a player to be as glib or silver-tongued as their character. I've played with some charismatic people, but I've never met a player who can bluff or intimidate as well as a character with those skills maxed out.

~RD

Speaking of miles per gallon:

A 2006 study found that the average American walks about 900 miles a year.

Another study found that Americans drink an average of about 22 gallons of beer a year.

That means, on average, American get about 41 miles per gallon!

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE.

I've never been more insulted.

I drink way more beer than that in a year.

~RD

Krome wrote:

oh and why would I like to see a 3.75?

Two things I would want to see changed in 3.75

This is why 3.75 would be a risky move ... while you like the idea of changing these 2 things, there may be a significant portion of community that doesn't. Or maybe they want to change thing that you think doesn't need to be changed.

Any 3.75e version is bound to be a mixed bag. I would think that it's likely to aggravate as many or more people than it please. It'll be the 3e-3.5e conversion all over again; just on a smaller scale.

-Skeld

What if it wasn't a risky move though? Or what if it was made to be a less risky move? What if it was a softcover .25 version rules upgrade/modification to 3.5, instead of a fully blown 3.75 hardcover? Weighing in at $14.95 or $19.95, and dovetails in with your existing 3.5 books?

No need to reinvent (or rewrite, or reprint) the wheel. To steal an analogy from Heathy, just put a shiny new hubcap on the 3.5 mobile.

While speculation can be made that 3.75 would be risky, I'm free to speculate that it could be done in a way that minimizes risk to both Paizo and the gaming community.

~RD

ps...My apologies if I am covering old ground...I'm only up to page 3.

Avoid Realms of Horror at ALL COST.

So yeah. Avoid Realms of Horror.

Thanks for the no holds barred answer. This is just what I was looking for.

~RD

Paizo is my Master now.

well, I have the entire set; one of them takes place in a space ship; make sure you want to have that sort of thing in your game before you pick up the entire set. Also, I thought the weapons were a bit blah so I enhanced them a bit; ie Blackrazor and Whelm and I forget the other one.

I think the space ship / ray gun / power armor adventure is Barrier Peaks, S3. That one is right out. I didn't intend to do all of them. S1 and S2 are my main interests.

~RD

What's everyones opinions / advice regarding this?

It's been years and years since I've played or run these, and I was thinking about having a go at it with my current group.

The conversion to 3.5 won't be a problem, but what I'm wondering is are there any specific advantages to using the stand alone modules (S1, S2, etc...) as opposed to picking up Realms of Horror and using that?

~RD

4th Edition will be the most current version of D&D EVAR! (pending 4.5, 4.5 Gold Edtion, 5th, 5.5, etc, etc)

I've been skeptical of 4.0, but I'm all in for the 4.5 Gold Edition.

As an addendum, who would ever tell you how bad their last iteration of a product was, to sell you on an upcoming version, while still trying to get you to buy products associated with and supporting the old, "flawed" edition?

I know the software industry does this to a certain extent, but this 4.0 vs. 3.5 stuff is getting ridiculous.

"3.5 is soooo bad. Haha, man, I can't believe so many of you spent that much money on a flawed system. But no really, 4.0 will be AWESOME."

This thread touches on some recurring thoughts I've had about the incoming 4.0. Mainly, I don't believe 4.0 is going to be the magic bullet that we're being told, and I'm starting to resent the implication from WOTC that the user base is stupid enough to believe it.

I've been on board for all the transitions from one edition to the next, and for each one there has been this element of trash talking the older edition. Pointing out it's horrible, horrible failings, while showcasing the new versions seemingly bulletproof, watertight solutions to all the old "problems".

I went through all my old Dragon magazines from the time periods around new edition releases, and it was very enlightening. The edition where this trash talking seemed minimal was 1st to 2nd edition. It was very prevalent for 2nd to 3rd, and for 3.0 to 3.5., but this current blitz of "How Bad System X Is" is getting old. 3.5 did not become the old busted joint overnight, no matter how badly WOTC wants you to think that. It is the same awesome system that fixed that horrible, horrible 3.0.

So no, I don't think anything is wrong with 3.5. At least, no more than there ever was. But a great effort is being made to point out all of its shortcomings to sell you on buying the new version.

/tinfoil_hat_off

I would guess upheaval in the Realms associated with the release of 4E.

Realms DM wrote:

So the outstanding question for the Lords (or Ladies?) of Customer Service - can you tell when this order will be shipping?

Thanks again.

Your order is ready to go and should be shipping sometime this week.

Thanks,
cos

Cos,

I heard that the robot (I will not call it by name, even if Vic does) is raising hell in your warehouse and has caused a bit of a backlog. The reason I ask is that my order is still in a pending state. Just thought I would check in and make sure everyone at Paizo is ok. Oh, and to ask if my order will be shipping next week?

Thanks. Be safe.

Awesome.

I humbly submit, sir, that you are awesome.

Skeld wrote:

I, for one, welcome our new cycloptic robot overlords.

-Skeld

We trust, obey, and love our robotic overlords.

All hail Robot

I am VERY upset to hear about your support for robots. I have a FIRM, IRON-CLAD POLICY against spending money on any merchant who supports a robot lifestyle. The robot whose activities include "finding these orders and cancelling them" certainly qualifies.

Anything that sends the message "you can celebrate robots with this purchase" is not acceptable to me. I estimate I have spent over $200 on Paizo products in the last year and was considering subscribing to your "Pathfinder" periodical. That is out of the question if you choose to continue employing this robot. Robot use is a "starter" for almost every other technology related crime out there.

I take this matter seriously and will not "get over it" or "lighten up" about "just robots."

I really hope I can spend money on Paizo products again. Send this robot back to the manufacturer now.

Oh, and thanks for the help everyone ; )

A number of people purchased a charter subscription and a players guide on the same order. Since the players guide is a free bonus to charter subscribers, I couldn't tell if people really wanted two copies, or if they thought that they had to add it to their cart manually. So rather than have customer service contact everyone individually, I made a robot that found these orders and cancelled them.

Gary - Thank you for the insight into the cancellation. For the record, however, robots make me nervous and I find your comments somewhat alarming. For your own safety, please be careful around it.

So the outstanding question for the Lords (or Ladies?) of Customer Service - can you tell when this order will be shipping?

Thanks again.

I placed this order July 28th, knowing full well that it wouldn't be shipped until Pathfinder: Rise of the Runelords Player's Guide (OGL) was ready to ship. All items went to a Pending status, except for the Players Guide, which was in a status of PreOrder. Also included in this order was my Pathfinder subscription.

I received the email announcing my Pathfinder items were getting ready to ship, and Pathfinder 1 and the bonus Players Guide appeared as a separate order 788121. This order is currently in a Shipping status complete with UPS tracking number (yay!).

My question/issue is about my original order, 769203. All items in this order still say Pending, except for the Pathfinder: Rise of the Runelords Player's Guide (OGL), which is now Cancelled for this order. In fact, the status says "Cancelled Sunday". I did not cancel this item myself, and I'm not sure why it was cancelled. To be clear though, I don't mind that it's been cancelled from this order if that will expedite shipping at this point.

So, why was Pathfinder: Rise of the Runelords Player's Guide (OGL) cancelled from order# 769203? As a follow up, can you tell when this order will be shipping?

Thanks in advance.