Rizzonia's page

I have encountered this issue with one of the players in our group. Did you find a resolution to your question?

I'm new to the forums, just to make sure we are on the same page:
RAW= rules as written?
RAI= rules as interpreted?
correct?

Also, PF uses 0 in several other ways:
you can have 0 HP (very special rules on what you can do with this.)
you can have 0 in a stat. (again, very special rules)
(and again for modifier)
you can have 0 spells remaining
you can have an item with 0 charges (except wand: becomes non-magical)
you can get 0 experience from an encounter
you can deal 0 damage (and still get other effects except poison)

These examples are proof that PF not only acknowledges 0, but utilizes it in several ways.

Are, Thanks for the link. I had a loading error when trying to post. Didn't think it got posted. Sorry for the dup.

Dops? I say we give this until tuesday. Than let everyone in the party read it, and decide on an outcome BEFORE we start to game. Whatever outcome it is, I will go with, as will the rest of the party.

If anybody else has anything to add or present, please do so by Tuesday night.

(This comment is mainly to bump this issue back to the top.)

For a spell that has it's duration as (concentration + x per Caster level), Is it required to spend your next standard action to maintain the spell in order to get the (x per CL) portion of it?
Or more to the point, does the act of casting a spell include it's initial maintenance concentration? And does the spell "linger" if not maintained the following round.

(ignore spells with a duration of just concentration, as I know they do not linger, It's the extra time based on CL that is the issue.)

The Backstory:
Our group is currently running the kingmaker campaign. In witch every player gets to DM a book out of the 6 books that make up that campaign. Every PC in the game can cast spells, so this effects all of us as players and DMs. The group is split down the center about the interpretation of the rules regarding concentration and maintaining of spells. Since we are all DMs of the game and no side has a majority, there is no way to "break the tie" so to speak.

We are now seeking an external opinion since 1/2 of our nights gaming are spent trying to convince the other side that our interpretation is correct. And the thing at stake is a whole standard action (in the following round) that might be spent casting another spell or attacking.

Side 1: interprates the rules as: concentrating while casting and maintaining are different things, and that if you do not maintain the spell even once, you do not get the CL based extra time and the spell will "fizzle" similar to if you had failed a concentration check while casting it since you were never actually maintaining the spell.

Side 2: Interprates the duration as a mathematical equation where duration= (con. + x per CL) so that if con = 0 (IE: never maintained) than it's duration is (0 + x per CL) or just (x per. CL). what this says is that these spells CAN be "fire and forget" in a way but only last as long as the CL based bonus time.

Any reference to specific rules, erratas, or definitions would go a long way toward resolving this issue. Both sides have read all material regarding duration and concentration, but we reach differing conclusions from the same words.

In a spell that has a duration of (concentration + x per.CL), do you still get the extra rounds if you do not spend your next standard action to maintain it?

Or more to the point, is the act of casting a spell considered it's initial maintenance?

Back story:
our group is split down the center for the interpretation of rules regarding maintaining spells. We are playing the kingmaker campaign, and we switch off as DM between every book (out of 6). Since we are all the DMs of the game, we do not have a tiebreaker to lay down the ruling on this issue and say "this is how my game works". we have decided to seek external help in this matter, as every party member is capable of casting spells, and half our games are spent arguing about this issue with each side thinking the ruling will either nerf or overpower spellcasting.

on one side, it is believed that you do not get the extra (x per CL) if you never actually take the standard action to perform the maintain spell action. since concentrating to cast and maintain a spell are different. In this interpretation it would require your next standard action to prevent your spell from dissipating as if you were interrupted while casting it. Or something similar to that.

on the other side, duration is viewed as an equation where if the rounds you have spent concentrating =0 than the spells duration is (0 + x per caster level)or just (x per CL)In this interpretation spells with these durations would be "fire and forget" in a sense, but they would only be in play for as long as their CL bonus to duration is.

example:
Lets say i'm casting a wall of fire at CL 10. (duration is con + 1 rnd per CL) or con+10 rounds. do I need to spend my next standard action on concentrating to get the extra 10 rounds out of it, or does it last 10 rounds after casting is completed? (assuming I will not chose to maintain it in the following round)

Any references to specific rules or erratas will be greatly appreciated and go a LONG way to resolving this dispute, as both side are reading the same text and arriving at different conclusions.