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.
I am no authority on this, but the passages you quote are also in the d20 SRD with the same ambiguity. If you read further, beginning on page 138 and continuing to page 140, there is more explanation of full round actions.
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 began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.
I have always understood it to mean you can do both.
Examples:
Typical: Round 1, a mage begins casting a summon spell. This spell takes a full round, and it completes at the very beginning of his action on round 2. During his action on round 2, he may make a move action and a standard action as normal, and his summoned creature may also make a move action and a standard action.
Atypical: Round 1, a mage can move his full normal movement, or stand up from prone, or use any other move action, then using the "Start Full-Round Action" standard action (yes, it's redundant, but that's what they called it), he can begin casting his summon spell. On round 2, he uses another standard action to "Complete Full-Round Action" and his spell immediately completes at the end of that standard action and his summoned creature appears. At this point, the mage still has his move action, and his summoned creature should have a move and a standard action available.
Note that the Typical choice is the preferable one, since it allows a mage to begin summoning in round 1 and still cast another spell in round 2. His summoned critter could charge into battle in round 2 AND he could drop a fireball on the enemy, also in round 2
With the Atypical version, the mage gets to move in each round (the Typical version allows no more than a 5' move in round 1) but in exchange, the mage cannot cast a second spell in round 2 because he must use his standard action to complete his summoning spell.
So tell your new player "Welcome to the wonderful world of D&D!" and also tell her to use the Typical option every time, unless she finds herself absolutely needing to move and begin a full-round action in the same round.
Hope that clarifies the options.
Oh, a further note:
I have always thought the "Start/Complete Full-Round Action" should not require people to use two standard actions to utilize this ability.
It seems to me that this might have originally been a misprint that has never been corrected.
Maybe someone meant it to be punitive, essentially allowing us to move and start a full-round action in one round, which can be pretty useful sometimes, so the penalty is giving up a standard action in the next round.
But I don't see the point to it.
If you use your full round to make a full-round action, you use one move action and one standard action.
I don't see why you would not also use a standard action in round 1 to start your full-round action, then a move action in round 2 to complete it.
I've never houseruled it or playtested it so I have no experience on whether this would be unexpectedly powerful or whether the punitive version is justified.
My players have never wanted to do this anyway (I think none of them are sufficiently aware of it to remember to use it, even though I've had enemies do it once in a while and we've discussed it when it happened).
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 think you need to tell your player to stuff it, and do as you say ;-)
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.
A full-round casting time finishes at the end of your turn. They are free to make AoOs. Some spells (like Summon Monster spells) have a casting time of "1 round" and that is DIFFERENT than a full-round action. 1 round casting time means the entire round, up until your next turn, is spent casting. That would prevent AoOs from being made by you for sure.
A full-attack is a full-round action, not a 1 round action.
Like Bard-Sader said.
A "1 Round" Casting Time spell requires a Full-Round Action,
but they aren't one and the same thing:
Most Full-Round Actions complete ON YOUR INITIATIVE, but "1 Round" Spells require "Concentration" until just before your next turn. Unless something specifies that an Action takes "1 Round" or more to complete (during which time you are Concentrating), all Actions are assumed to complete on your Initiative (Instantaneous Actions occurring when you choose, obviously, but not while you are Concentrating) Concentration could probably be more clearly defined, as well.
The Terminology could probably be clarified too (Full Round Action -> Full Action?) and all the relevant rules for this could be spelled out a bit better, in one place... Perhaps a "Channeled" Spell type could be introduced for "1 round" and "1 round +" spells, and could be clearer in it's relation to Full(-Round) Actions.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
A full-round casting time finishes at the end of your turn. They are free to make AoOs. Some spells (like Summon Monster spells) have a casting time of "1 round" and that is DIFFERENT than a full-round action. 1 round casting time means the entire round, up until your next turn, is spent casting. That would prevent AoOs from being made by you for sure.
Point of clarification - a 1 round casting time *is* a full-round action, the rules even take pains to point that out. It's just a full round action with special consequences. It is in fact the longest possible full round action - all full round actions take up all your effort *for the round*, and this one happens to finish up right before your next round, so it couldn't possible take longer and still be doable in one round.
Full Round Actions do NOT necessarily take all your attention/action for the ROUND,
they take them all for your TURN, which leaves AoO's & Instantaneous Actions free.
1 Round (+) Spellcasting or other activities using Concentration have their own rules.
(This is why I think "Full Action" instead of "Full-Round Action" would be clearer.)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Full Round Actions do NOT necessarily take all your attention/action for the ROUND,
they take them all for your TURN, which leaves AoO's & Instantaneous Actions free.
1 Round (+) Spellcasting or other activities using Concentration have their own rules.
(This is why I think "Full Action" instead of "Full-Round Action" would be clearer.)
Your turn is your chance to choose actions for the round. You don't stand there like for the rest of the round doing nothing - it's an abstraction. So yes, a FRA takes all your effort for the round.
A few quotes to back that up:
"A full-round action requires an entire round to complete" - page 138, Pathfinder RPG Beta, repeated on page 134 as well.
"When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character peforms his entire round's worth of actions." (page 133)
...That would logically lead to Full Attacks precluding AoOs
(and not occuring on your initiative, but just before your next turn)
...Maybe that's OK, though...??? (that would make Combat Reflexes suck alot, though)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
...That would logically lead to Full Attacks precluding AoOs
(and not occuring on your initiative, but just before your next turn)...Maybe that's OK, though...??? (that would make Combat Reflexes suck alot, though)
It wouldn't, unless you insist on inserting rules that don't exist into the game. Generally speaking, you can always take an AoO if you threaten, situations where you can't are called out, or should be if they aren't.
A few quotes to back that up:
"A full-round action requires an entire round to complete" - page 138, Pathfinder RPG Beta, repeated on page 134 as well.
Which would make me think my Full Attack doesn't complete until after an entire Round.
Seriously, I don't want to offend or anything, I've just suggested that the rules terminology could be cleared up, since there's obviously confusion for some people.
Changing the NAME of Full Round Action to Full Action doesn't seem to present any negative side-effects, and clarifying a "Channeled Action" or "Concentrated Action" type which can then require either a Full Action or 2 Standard Actions (or more), would clarify the rules for those, all in one place so nobody gets confused.
/shrug
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.
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:
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:
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.
When you begin a spell that takes 1 round or longer to cast, you must continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration from 1 round to just before your turn in the next round (at least).
This is also a specific rule that only applies to this specific action of casting a 1-round spell.
This in no way means that other full-round actions require you to continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration into your next round.
So as you can see, the only confusion here is whether or not to apply a very specific exception, that really only applies to casting spells with casting times of 1 round or more, to all other full-round actions.
Clearly, you would not want to mistakenly apply this specific exception as a general rule to all full-round actions.
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.
Further note:
It doesn't help the clarity that D&D and Pathfinder continue to the the term "Round" to mean:
1. A round of combat is the time it takes for every combatant to take its turn to attack, move, etc.
and
2. A combatant's round is the time it takes for one combatant to take its turn to attack, move, etc.
In other words, "round" is interchangeable as a "round of combat for everyone" and a "round of combat for one combatant".
This is bad form by the folks that made D&D, but we've had something like 3 1/2 decades to get used to it.
Still, it would be a good idea if one day, someone, maybe even the Pathfinder folks, might choose another acceptible term for one of these game concepts, just to avoid the confusion.
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.
Hope for erinyes.
Succubi are wild, chaotic, vicious temptresses who do whatever it takes to get the job done wildly, quickly and brutally.
Erinyes are methodical, trained, patient, and good at what they do. They'll stop at nothing to achieve their goals, but they get there by being totally irresistable perfectionists and do whatever it takes to get the job done correctly, thoroughly, and perfectly.
Either way, you end up damned to an eternity of suffering, but at least you can hope to choose the path you take to get there...
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.
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:
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:
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 *DO* think clarifying the terminology would be a great advancement, with no negatives:
Characters' TURNS are distinct from ROUNDS (not Character specific)
and perhaps FULL ACTION instead of Full Round Action (why not?)
...That would logically lead to Full Attacks precluding AoOs
(and not occuring on your initiative, but just before your next turn)...Maybe that's OK, though...??? (that would make Combat Reflexes suck alot, though)
Attacks of Opportunity are not actions. They are just free attacks you get to make when certain situations present themselves. So no problem there.
Page 133 PF Beta: "Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down.
In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of
her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks
are called attacks of opportunity."
I see only one problem with full actions. As a full round action you can do a full attack. With the full attack you can fight defensively. If you make it just a full action then the benefits of fighting defensive would not be for the entire round. So full round action kind of needs to be there or you might create confusion.
Personally I don't find anything confusing about full round actions at all as they are so I don't really see the benefit of changing to create more confusion.
I think the problem the original poster placed is confusing two rules for different situations. One is an exception to for situations that allow it.
Basically a full round action takes one round. You can use a two standard actions, one this round and one next round to complete full round action if that action allows it. This would be for action that take full round but aren't specific to the round. Say it takes a full round action to crank open the portcullis. So in the case of person who has to run up, then take full round action it just makes more sense that they can spend the move action to get there and standard action to start opening the portcullis then next round use their standard action again to finish that and the move action to move through it. Otherwise they move waste their standard action. Spend the 2nd round opening the portcullis and then move on the 3rd action. While that works it seems kind of silly since you are essentially wasting two standard actions.
It doesn't help the clarity that D&D and Pathfinder continue to the the term "Round" to mean:
1. A round of combat is the time it takes for every combatant to take its turn to attack, move, etc.
and
2. A combatant's round is the time it takes for one combatant to take its turn to attack, move, etc.In other words, "round" is interchangeable as a "round of combat for everyone" and a "round of combat for one combatant".
This is bad form by the folks that made D&D, but we've had something like 3 1/2 decades to get used to it.
Still, it would be a good idea if one day, someone, maybe even the Pathfinder folks, might choose another acceptible term for one of these game concepts, just to avoid the confusion.
Quoted for truth.