Item Activation and Action Economy

[Pedro Coelho]

Wondrous items are usually command word activated or use-activated. Activating an item with a command word is usually a standard action, while activating a use-activated magic item is, according to the rules, "either a standard action or not an action at all" (emphasis mine).

A big concern in terms of game balance is the issue of action economy. The general advice in the critique my item threads is "activating an item should be a standard action", because otherwise it allows a character to activate an item and attack, activate an item and cast a spell or activate an item and then activate another one in the same turn - all of which may unbalance a combat round.

However, there are precedents in the rules - boots of speed take only a free action to activate, and Scott Fernandez's nightmare boots from RPG Superstar 2011 play around with swift and free actions to activate the item. Granted, these are exceptions.

So, is there an objective way of determining whether an use-activated item such as those boots could or should make use of free actions instead of standard actions, or should we just go with gut feeling? Or simply make it a standard action and leave it at that?

[Jacob Kellogg]

One of the main benefits of boots of speed is that it lets you attack more. If activating it required you to give up your attack for that round, that would be a really bad item - it makes it harder to do what it's supposed to help you do.

In my opinion, that's the reason it's an exception. So if your item is one whose whole point is to improve your ability to do X, then you should consider cost its activation such that you can activate it and do X in the same round.

If instead your item is one which kind of "does its own thing" when you activate it, then it should cost a standard action.

In a sense, a standard action is your chance to "do a significant thing". Other actions help to set you up to do your significant thing. You get to do one significant thing per round. So if using the item is a significant thing to do, then it should cost the same action as other "significant things". If using the item is supposed to improve some other significant thing that you can already do, then it should use one of those action types that normally help you prepare for your significant thing.

[The Crusader]

In my reading of previous years' entries, it seems that in the past, people have tried to make their item "better" by manipulating the activation time. Basically, "I would never use this item if it required a standard action to activate, but since I can activate it and still take my full round action it is awesome!"

[Joel Flank]

I can share the thought process I had making my Bodyguard's Vest , which used a swift action to activate also. Since it effectively is a SIAC, but with the restriction that the suggestion spell a) is limited to one specific suggestion, and b) that it's a far less optimal suggestion ("attack me instead of anyone else") rather than something a spellcaster might choose "lie down and take a nap, it's tiring carrying all of those weapons"), it needed a balancing factor, and making it a swift action was the way I chose to go. It also lets the user actually be able to do something about those attackers he's just made attack him.

Overall, I would recommend not using faster than standard actions to activate unless you have really considered if it's balanced against what the item does, as Jacob mentions.

[James Raine]

I like using swift actions for items I have with fighters in mind. Why? Because they have very few options as to what to do with their swift actions to begin with. Spellcasters have swift-action spells almost from as soon as they can start casting spells (and later can turn standard-action spells into swift-action spells with Quicken), so they have something to do with that action. Fighter-types and rogue-types have fewer options for that action type, so I try to show them some love. Back in 3.0, Quicken Spell basically meant that spellcasters--by virtue of being a spellcaster with Quicken Spell--got an extra action every turn (which, as demonstrated by the fact that we're even having this conversation, is a big deal).

[cwslyclgh]

James Raine wrote:

Back in 3.0, Quicken Spell basically meant that spellcasters--by virtue of being a spellcaster with Quicken Spell--got an extra action every turn (which, as demonstrated by the fact that we're even having this conversation, is a big deal).

didn't even need the quicken spell feat for that.... just the 3.0 haste spell

[Scott Fernandez]

My boots' effects usually required them to be combined with specific actions, generally ones that involved moving around like charge, run, & withdraw. That way you still weren't really squeezing too much more out of the action economy. Paizo seems very consistant that using magic should cost a standard action for the most part.

--Schoolhouse Vrock

[Kiel Howell]

What about primarily non-combat items? What should be a good time-cost formula? I know that's a broad and vague question so apologies about that.

[agirlnamedbob]

Pendin Fust wrote:

What about primarily non-combat items? What should be a good time-cost formula? I know that's a broad and vague question so apologies about that.

This is something I've wondered about as well. I think for many of the more "standard equipment" type items that aren't intended for use in an initiative scenario, actions haven't even been covered.

I believe the rule of thumb was always to assume using any item was a standard action unless otherwise noted, or that obviously didn't make any sense (so flicking a switch might be a free action, depending, but something like setting up a tent would obviously take longer than a standard action).

[Matt Banach]

What point - if any - would there be in making the use of an item a full round action, as opposed to a standard action?

My thought is that requiring the item be activated by a full-round action makes it much less likely that it will be (successfully) used in combat. However, even though that could be the intent of design, I'm uncertain that it is necessary. Thoughts?

[James Raine]

A full-round action isn't a one-round action. A full-round action just takes your standard and move actions for this turn but triggers immediately, while a one-round action takes those same actions for this turn and then triggers at the start of your next turn.

The long story short is that I'd much rather the former than the latter when triggering an item. If the item's good enough, I would totally go with a full-round action, but I would probably not go with a one-round item simply for targeting issues.

[Garrett Guillotte]

Matt Banach wrote:

My thought is that requiring the item be activated by a full-round action makes it much less likely that it will be (successfully) used in combat. However, even though that could be the intent of design, I'm uncertain that it is necessary. Thoughts?

It's a somewhat more tactical alternative to a fail chance if it requires a full, uninterrupted round.

Looking at past Top 32 examples, Basilisk's Eye Sight required a full-round action to attach the scope, which discourages swapping one scope between multiple firearms or with multiple scopes, and a full-round action to make the shot, which is similar to other aiming requirements.

Claw of the Crawling Spell scaled the range of its effect based on the action investment, from a 10-foot movement or 45-degree rotation as a swift action to 60 feet/360 degrees as a full-round action.

[agirlnamedbob]

When I'm trying to figure out if something should be a full round action, one point I always consider (that hasn't been brought up yet) is that if something is a standard action, the implication is that the character then still has a move action left (and vice versa). If it's impractical for the character to have the option of taking a second action while using the item, then a full round action might be more appropriate.

I think a good example of this is a bag of holding. If it's just got a couple things in it (what would fit in a standard backpack) it's a move action to pull something out. So it's feasible that a character could reach in, grab something, and then activate it once they pull it out. Now... if you have a bag of holding that's FULL, it's far more likely that you're going to have to stop, open the bag, and then spend some time looking around before you find the item you're looking for.

Even with that in mind, I've never met anyone who said that a bag of holding wasn't useful. And if you NEED an item out of one in an unexpected combat, you're going to be willing to take the extra few seconds to dig for it.

[Pedro Coelho]

Found of another exception: cloak of the manta ray doesn't require an action to activate; instead, it needs that certain conditions be met - in this case, when the wearer enters salt water.

[James Raine]

Isn't that also a legacy item, though? I know stuff that got carried from older editions sometimes has weird rules shenaniganery surrounding it.

[Pedro Coelho]

Hmm, yeah, it did exist in 3.5 with pretty much the same text. Not sure how it worked in 3.0, I'll have to check the old books later.

[James Raine]

I'm pretty sure it's at least a 2e item.

[cwslyclgh]

It is much older than 2e, Cloak of the Manta Ray first appeared in Supplement II "Blackmoor", of course like all OD&D items no activation specifics were given it just "Moves one at the same speed as a manta ray, enables one to breath water and also fights as a manta ray when released to do so." (Pg 26)