Soverayne's page

So, with this system does it mean you can cast 3 spells every 2 turns (provided you do nothing else)?

On page 102...

Advanced actions are more complicated; you must

commit 2 or more acts to perform them. Some advanced
actions require more acts than you can possibly commit
during a single turn. In this case, you must continue
committing acts toward that advanced action over
multiple turns until the advanced action is complete.

On page 105 under Advanced Actions...

Cast a Standard-Action Spell (Complex; 2 Acts): You

cast a spell with a casting time of 1 standard action. This
isn’t an attack action, even if the spell requires a ranged
attack roll. If you provoke attacks of opportunity when
casting the spell, you don’t provoke attacks a second time
when making the ranged attack roll

So does this mean you can spend 2/3 of your actions to cast the first spell, then start casting the second with 1/3...then complete it on the 1/3 of your next turn and then do another spell with the last 2/3?

I know Swift Spells are limited to once per turn but are standard actions limited in any such way?

Paul Miller 769 wrote:

Sun Tzu would say to go for the leader true but if the real leader is the players so thats not a real option.

In Pathfinder or any d20 game. The only commodity more valuable than the gold piece is the action.

If the minions can cause damage or disrupt they are targets. Generally they will be less resilient than players. Removing them will proportionately reduce damage/disruption and remove actions.

Its always better to kill what is easy to kill first to remove enemies than to try to focus characters (be they BBEG's or Players) that will have higher defenses.

If your looking to really sock it to them look for spells that alter the terrain, especially if they all cannot fly. A grease spell works great as does entangling roots or spike stones. Slow down the melee and have a wizard ready to counterspell the casters or cast wind wall for the ranged.

Sun Tzu would make the determination on the threat he was facing rather than adhere to any rigid doctrine.

Seriously - let's say that you're the big bad guy, you're evil and you have some minor common DR (like 5/magic).

Now let's say that you are being charged by a Paladin who can Smite Evil, bypass damage resistance, deal tremendous amounts of damage to you and poses a very real and immediate threat. Meanwhile, you're also being peppered by many arrows from archers who will be lucky to penetrate your armor class and if they do will have pretty much all of their damage nullified by your damage resistance.

Who do you want to spend your time taking out? Its either take little to no damage from the archers while you deal with the Paladin or take tremendous amounts of damage from the Paladin while you deal with the archers. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

I love how you quote me saying, "If they can deal damage or disrupt." and then counter my argument with my own caveat clause. Very good reading comprehension there.