I said forcing someone into a role is awful. How you define roll could vary greatly too. I didn't say remove them from the game, or to remove all the flavor and individual mechanics. That's a very different thing.
Teamwork can exist in a game you can play solo. The two can coexist.
to force someone into a role or to rely on each other
'Teamwork can exist in a game you play solo' What? Teamwork is a thing you can do by yourself?
Also you said you don't like it when players have to rely on other. That's what teamwork is. I just assumes you didn't like roles not that teamwork itself was the problem.
A 1/2 level animal companion falls off in usefulness fast.
They aren't half level. They're at your level -3, and you raise it to full with a feat.
FE is never likely to be more than a plus 4 and rare at that. And a barbar can always rage against any opponent. No ranger is far behind in DPR without FE and is still falls short with it.
Depends on the ranger. Some keep one at the highest, so they can use instant enemy and get the most out of it. Similarly, many campaigns have a focus that allows you to pick a favored enemy that works in many situations, and allows you to focus your favored enemy on a single type.
Spells are nice, but limited and considering how much better rage powers are over feats they may even cover most of the usefulness spells provide.
Spells are far more than rage powers. Spell list may vary, but the whole thread is about using a spell to put the martials up for instance.
I said forcing someone into a role is awful. How you define roll could vary greatly too. I didn't say remove them from the game, or to remove all the flavor and individual mechanics. That's a very different thing.
Teamwork can exist in a game you can play solo. The two can coexist.
to force someone into a role or to rely on each other'Teamwork can exist in a game you play solo' What? Teamwork is a thing you can do by yourself?
Also you said you don't like it when players have to rely on other. That's what teamwork is. I just assumes you didn't like roles not that teamwork itself was the problem.
You don't do teamwork with yourself, you do it when you have other people. You can have a class that does well on its own and can still help/work with others. Forcing someone to rely on someone is for instance, having to have a cleric or rogue or you just can't do the dungeon without dying. The quickest way to create this is to create an expectation, such as everyone having a particular buff to get a function you could just give them or to take away functions from other classes to give one a particular use. Which is sadly what they did with magical traps, and why you don't see them often in PFS...
Yes, Superstitious Barbarians have better saves than Rangers. In fact, Superstitious Barbarians can potentially have better saves than Monks and Paladins.
That doesn't change the fact that Fighter's have bad saves. Pointing out that Ranger saves aren't as good as Sup Barb saves also doesn't change the fact that Rangers have better saves than Fighters.
I utterly fail to understand your logic with that one.
As far as the rest of the Ranger class, here's why they're still comparable to Barbarians:
--Their combat bonuses apply to whatever weapon they want, ranged or melee. The only requirement is Favored Enemy, and there is a 3rd level Ranger spell that makes whatever you're fighting into your choice of Favored Enemy. (No, you won't always be getting your full bonuses. In this way they're much like a Smiting Paladin. But no fair-minded GM is going to let someone play a Ranger and then refuse to let them use their largest class ability.)
--Yes, Rage Powers are still better than feats, so the Barb's got the advantage there. But part of the weakness of Feats is their prerequisites. Rangers get to ignore those for their Combat Style options, which is a HUGE boost (for example, you can go down the TWF feat tree without sacrificing a high Str - because you can ignore the huge Dex requirement). Fighter's can't do that. They have to meet the prereqs even with their Fighter Bonus Feats.
--Animal Companions MrSin already touched down on, but you don't have to take a "combat pet." There is a ton of flexibility there. Maybe you take a horse, and now you can do mounted combat without worrying about your horse staying super-weak (A fighter does not get to level his mount). Or maybe you take a scouting pet like a bird or small animal that can get info from places that would be much harder for a class to get to.
--Spells. Spells are the strongest mechanic in the game. Hands down.
--Favored Terrain/Woodland Stride/Swift Tracker/Camouflage/Hide In Plain Sight. These bonuses add up fast, and they are what make the Ranger THE best tracker/scout.
--Evasion/Improved Evasion. Grats on being one of the few classes that gets these abilities. Fighters/Barbs/Paladins can't.
They aren't half level. They're at your level -3, and you raise it to full with a feat.
That just means they are worse at lower levels unless you invest a feat (which you also need at lower levels). Animal companions are not very useful at mid to high levels unless you invest in handle animal and have enough extra spells to buff him.
So too make animal companions a good boon a rangers sacrifices a feat, spells, and skill points. That's not going to help him later.Some keep one at the highest, so they can use instant enemy and get the most out of it. Similarly, many campaigns have a focus that allows you to pick a favored enemy that works in many situations, and allows you to focus your favored enemy on a single type.
That's just wrong. Even in undead slaying campaigns the enemies were varied enough that an over invested ranger would suck.
Spells are far more than rage powers. Spell list may vary, but the whole thread is about using a spell to put the martials up for instance.
Look you have said time and time again that a barbar doesn't need or want more than one or two buffs in an encounter. Unless rangers are doing something amazing with their low save spells the same principle holds here. Every action they spend casting spells is a round of full attacks lost. Those spells better be more useful than a full attack not to mention rage powers.
You don't do teamwork with yourself, you do it when you have other people. You can have a class that does well on its own and can still help/work with others. Forcing someone to rely on someone is for instance, having to have a cleric or rogue or you just can't do the dungeon without dying. The quickest way to create this is to create an expectation, such as everyone having a particular buff to get a function you could just give them or to take away functions from other classes to give one a particular use. Which is sadly what they did with magical traps, and why you don't see them often in PFS...
PFS is a poor example. PFS is limited by the nature of PUG teamwork and the randomness of teams. That is not the situation in a normal campaign. Forcing people to rely on others is the goal when designing a team game.
Ok let me try to frame what I think your trying to say in the best light.
You love teamwork and roles, but you don't like arbitrary situations that create these roles like traps and need for hp to healed. Right?
Furthermore the idea of adding a buff to the game that more than half the classes need to function only creates another poorly designed role and grinds you the wrong way.
You would prefer if roles were more generic like WoW or 4th ed where many different classes can fill this role and parties don't have mandatory members like the rogue for traps or the Cleric for his niche spells. (Don't take offense to me using WoW or 4th ed as examples they were not meant as insults by association)
Is this what you are trying to convey to me?
If so, Words of power actually help with that a lot. Aside from the gaping hole that is the ability to heal ability damage(which may depend on what your definition of an affliction is) the Divine casting role is not firmly in the hands of the cleric. Druids get access to spells they could never have before through word of power and can fill the cleric role a lot easier.
That just means they are worse at lower levels unless you invest a feat (which you also need at lower levels). Animal companions are not very useful at mid to high levels unless you invest in handle animal and have enough extra spells to buff him.
So too make animal companions a good boon a rangers sacrifices a feat, spells, and skill points. That's not going to help him later.
Fifth level feat. You get the pet at fourth. It was decided that rangers didn't deserve a full animal companion because they were better at combat than druids. I disagree entirely with that logic, but that's why.
The only skillpoints you sacrifice are ones for handle animal. Which caps when you have +9. You only sacrifice one feat at most. You don't really need to sacrifice much because the companions is highly expendable.
That's just wrong. Even in undead slaying campaigns the enemies were varied enough that an over invested ranger would suck.
Undead campaign? I know what favored enemy I'm taking. Undead all fall under one kind.
Look you have said time and time again that a barbar doesn't need or want more than one or two buffs in an encounter. Unless rangers are doing something amazing with their low save spells the same principle holds here. Every action they spend casting spells is a round of full attacks lost. Those spells better be more useful than a full attack not to mention rage powers.
Or they're using the spells for utility... Full casters can afford crowd control in combat, but paladins toss out litanies as a swift action and rangers can use theirs for utility or for favored enemy when you really need or want it.
PFS is a poor example. PFS is limited by the nature of PUG teamwork and the randomness of teams. That is not the situation in a normal campaign. Forcing people to rely on others is the goal when designing a team game
Its a good example for what I meant. You never know who your with so they couldn't include many of those traps if any.
Forcing people to rely on each other is not the only way to allow teamwork to happen. Its by far the worst.
WoW is not generic or like 4E! A warrior, Death Knight, Druid, and Paladin tank plays entirely differently. Healing them with a druid or a paladin is going to be entirely different depending on the combination. They are not homogenized. They have entirely different rotations and playstyle and with dual spec you are going to have a variety of choices on the go. Forcing people to require 1 tank/3 deeps/1 heal is actually part of its downfall. You try queing as a dps. Sometimes the que is an hour! The incentive to play a tank is that you have a shorter que. Not whether its fun or not. It only serves to reinforce my own point. It does not create instant teamwork to force people to rely on each other. It does not equal fun. It can make it into a chore, or a real pain.
You do not add a buff to the game that allows half the classes to function properly. You give them the ability to function properly in the first place, and then expand on it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's just wrong. Even in undead slaying campaigns the enemies were varied enough that an over invested ranger would suck.Undead campaign? I know what favored enemy I'm taking. Undead all fall under one kind.
And the aforementioned Instant Enemy spell will cover the most dangerous non-undead enemies when you need it.
And the aforementioned Instant Enemy spell will cover the most dangerous non-undead enemies when you need it.That's just wrong. Even in undead slaying campaigns the enemies were varied enough that an over invested ranger would suck.Undead campaign? I know what favored enemy I'm taking. Undead all fall under one kind.
Even in such a campaign we would go whole sessions nothing that was undead. The spell is nice, but only effects one target at a time. Even focused campaigns variate their enemies.
As someone mention that spell is a lot like a paladin's smite, except more limited because they receive far less spell slots and only gain access to it by level 10 (if they have a bonus slot)
We're starting to run into the problem of schrodinger's ranger. He seems to be able to prepare spells that cover the weaknesses of FE, his animal companion (even a druid's needs buffs to function),his lack of rage powers and the low number of bonus feats he gets. All of this covered at the same time with his extremely limited spell slots.
PFS is a poor example. PFS is limited by the nature of PUG teamwork and the randomness of teams. That is not the situation in a normal campaign. Forcing people to rely on others is the goal when designing a team gameIts a good example for what I meant. You never know who your with so they couldn't include many of those traps if any.
Forcing people to rely on each other is not the only way to allow teamwork to happen. Its by far the worst.
WoW is not generic or like 4E! A warrior, Death Knight, Druid, and Paladin tank plays entirely differently. Healing them with a druid or a paladin is going to be entirely different depending on the combination. They are not homogenized. They have entirely different rotations and playstyle and with dual spec you are going to have a variety of choices on the go. Forcing people to require 1 tank/3 deeps/1 heal is actually part of its downfall. You try queing as a dps. Sometimes the que is an hour! The incentive to play a tank is that you have a shorter que. Not whether its fun or not. It only serves to reinforce my own point. It does not create instant teamwork to force people to rely on each other. It does not equal fun. It can make it into a chore, or a real pain.
You do not add a buff to the game that allows half the classes to function properly. You give them the ability to function properly in the first place, and then expand on it.
Ok so your wanting something more like Guild Wars 2 then?
Also PFS is not a good example. Normal games know who they are with and plan out their parties before the campaign begins.
Lol, schrodinger's ranger? Hardly. Most of his abilities always work, and there are built-in ways around the ones that don't.
For what it's worth? If the campaign is themed, you build with the theme. If you happen to run into a serious encounter that deviates from the theme, THAT is when you use the Instant Enemy spell. You don't just spam it on every mook that you're stuck fighting that doesn't happen to be part of the theme.
Also PFS is not a good example. Normal games know who they are with and plan out their parties before the campaign begins.
Your group is the exception then. I've never played PFS ever, it's always been home campaigning, and in 20+ years of gaming the only "pre-game planning" I've ever seen done, in my group or in others, was to make sure no one stepped on anyone else's toes class-wise. Otherwise, it's always been, "Build what you wanna play and we'll make it work."
Ok so your wanting something more like Guild Wars 2 then?
Also PFS is not a good example. Normal games know who they are with and plan out their parties before the campaign begins.
GW2 still has people asking others to fill roles. Despite all the advertisement about not having a trinity, it still wants you to take a support and control. 5 deeps at tier without that is going to run into trouble. Rather look to Vindictus, where only one class can heal and revive as a class feature, but everyone can do it because anyone can carry feathers and potions. If only that class could heal/revive, or another class could tank/dodge, then you would have to wait on that class every time you wanted to play. All the classes have a dodge and qualities that make them appealing, and for the most part they're unique to themselves. You don't have groups asking for a particular class often because no class does something necessary to win/play.
PFS you don't know who your with. They have trouble putting in magical traps because the job was placed on one particular individual, and select archetypes. If there was a wall you could only pass if your name was "Cleric" then you would have to have a cleric for the game. That would suck, and that's bad game design.
Ok so your wanting something more like Guild Wars 2 then?GW2 still has people asking others to fill roles. Despite all the advertisement about not having a trinity, it still wants you to take a support and control. 5 deeps at tier without that is going to run into trouble. Rather look to Vindictus, where only one class can heal and revive as a class feature, but everyone can do it because anyone can carry feathers and potions. If only that class could heal/revive, or another class could tank/dodge, then you would have to wait on that class every time you wanted to play. All the classes have a dodge and qualities that make them appealing, and for the most part they're unique to themselves. You don't have groups asking for a particular class often because no class does something necessary to win/play.
Dude what you describe as nice in Vindictus applies to GW2 except you don't need items to fill roles.
You're just being argumentative.
Lol, schrodinger's ranger? Hardly. Most of his abilities always work, and there are built-in ways around the ones that don't.
For what it's worth? If the campaign is themed, you build with the theme. If you happen to run into a serious encounter that deviates from the theme, THAT is when you use the Instant Enemy spell. You don't just spam it on every mook that you're stuck fighting that doesn't happen to be part of the theme.
Spells are nice, but they can't be used to bring his class features up to par with rage AND still be more useful than rage powers. He has limited slots and can only do so much with them. He can't burn spells to use FE and buff his animal companion and bring extra utility.
You're trying to say the ranger has advantages, but he give up most them to be equal to a barbars rage and one rage power. The barbar then has more features on top of that.
Spells are nice, but they can't be used to bring his class features up to par with rage AND still be more useful than rage powers. He has limited slots and can only do so much with them. He can't burn spells to use FE and buff his animal companion and bring extra utility.
You're trying to say the ranger has advantages, but he give up most them to be equal to a barbars rage and one rage power. The barbar then has more features on top of that.
If you think spells aren't useful I don't know what to tell you. The point of the thread is spells even. Spells are limited in slots sure, but when you can bend reality and end encounters in a single spell, you stop caring so much. It isn't long before you have enough spell slots to go through every encounter and more.
Where did someone say the ranger gives up all his class features to be equal to the barbarian's rage and 1 rage power? In any case the barbarian's main feature is his rage powers.
Dude what you describe as nice in Vindictus applies to GW2 except you don't need items to fill roles.
You're just being argumentative.
Its expected that everyone bring pots and feathers. Its not filling roles with them. There are no roles. Everyone is deeps, everyone can do something. What applies? GW2 still has roles that you try to fill. Unless they've patched it they don't even have dual spec to help people fill a variety of roles.
I could say your just being argumentative too.
Its expected that everyone bring pots and feathers. Its not filling roles with them. There are no roles. Everyone is deeps, everyone can do something. What applies? GW2 still has roles that you try to fill. Unless they've patched it they don't even have dual spec to help people fill a variety of roles.Dude what you describe as nice in Vindictus applies to GW2 except you don't need items to fill roles.
You're just being argumentative.
I'm sorry. If that is how you think Guild Wars 2 works, then I can't trust your reasoning. Let us never directly communicate again.
Aww I feel left out :( I love being argumentative
*ahem*
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! >:(
For this thread you have been a class act and have actually contributed.
*Tips hat
I'm sorry. If that is how you think Guild Wars 2 works, then I can't trust your reasoning. Let us never directly communicate again.
That's how it was when I played. Again, I could use the same logic with you.
I'm sorry. If that is how you think Guild Wars 2 works, then I can't trust your reasoning. Let us never directly communicate again.That's how it was when I played. Again, I could use the same logic with you.
It never was and never will be that way. It is such a fundamental part of the game that for you to miss that makes me inherently question any opinion or conclusion that you choose to share.
Nothing can be gained by our further dialog in any topic ever. There is no need or reason for us to communicate further.
Regardless I have terrible self control and responded to your response anyways...
I don't think this is on topic anymore anyway. My point was you shouldn't have to rely on people to function, which is something that's being suggested here. Function should be inherent, and buffs shouldn't be necessary. If you can play well on your own, but do better as a team, then it works. If you can't play on your own and need a team, then its a bad thing. If the game has modules built around teamwork, remember not to have expectations that may not be met.
Nothing can be gained by our further dialog in any topic ever. There is no need or reason for us to communicate further.
You should really, ya know, sit back and take a few breaths. Stop taking everything personally. Etc. :)
Nothing can be gained by our further dialog in any topic ever. There is no need or reason for us to communicate further.You should really, ya know, sit back and take a few breaths. Stop taking everything personally. Etc. :)
So yeah giving everyone the ability to move and attack provided that the arcane caster is using WoP. How does that change the party dynamic?
It doesn't change the party dynamic at all. All it does is make the DM's job a nightmare as the party destroys things way faster than they should.
It doesn't change the party dynamic at all. All it does is make the DM's job a nightmare as the party destroys things way faster than they should.
Pathfinder has always been like playing a game of tag with SAM Missile Turrets. AKA "Rocket Tag" it is all about wasting the enemy's actions and getting the first full attack. plus, some classes, like the barbarian
can kill stuff in the surprise round by pouncing.
Ok so overall a slight power bump.
What about inter-party balance? Does WoP help even the plainfield between martials and does it help martials stack up better to casters (even though the source is a buff, martials would be able to move and not lose most of their effectiveness)?
Oooooh boy.
So I think it's important to point out that the Accelerate WoP does not work the way Marthkus has been describing:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/wordsOfPower/effectwords/t imeWords.html
Accelerate (Time)
School transmutation; Level alchemist 2, bard 2, magus 2, sorcerer/wizard 2, summoner 2Duration 1 round/level
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
Target Restrictions selected
The target of a wordspell with this effect word can take one additional move action each turn. This move action can come before, after, or between other actions, but not during a full-round action.
Boost: If the target takes a full-attack action, it can, instead of taking an extra move action, make one additional attack at its highest attack bonus.
You either get an extra Move Action, or instead of that, you get a single extra attack when making a Full Attack action.
Accelerate does not give anyone Pounce.
Sigh. It allows you to move then full attack or full attack and move. The boost is a bonus for when you don't need to move and full attack.
Its pounce without the charge
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An extra move action per round, is akin to giving pounce. may not have the exact same name or function, but there is functionally little difference between getting an extra move action, and getting pounce.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/wordsOfPower/effectwords/t imeWords.html
Accelerate (Time)
School transmutation; Level alchemist 2, bard 2, magus 2, sorcerer/wizard 2, summoner 2Duration 1 round/level
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
Target Restrictions selected
The target of a wordspell with this effect word can take one additional move action each turn. This move action can come before, after, or between other actions, but not during a full-round action.
Boost: If the target takes a full-attack action, it can, instead of taking an extra move action, make one additional attack at its highest attack bonus.
You can't move during the fullattack like dervish dance. If the spell didn't specify when you could use the move action, you could attack mutiple poeple who weren't near each other
A Full Attack is a full-round action. Using a full attack makes you sacrifice ALL your movement, except for a single five-foot step, for the turn.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#_full-round-action
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). See Table: Actions in Combat for a list of full-round actions.
So you could take a Standard and two Moves, or you could take a Full Attack and get an extra attack.
Not both.The reason Pounce gets to "break the rules" is because it is not a combat option, it is an Extraordinary Ability, and therefore follows it's own set of rules.
No you only get the 5-ft during the full round attack. As in you can do it in-between attacks.
Full-Round is an action correct? The spell specifically says you may take actions after or before the extra move action. That's a standard action, a move action,a full-round action, and even a 1-round action.
Ok so overall a slight power bump.
What about inter-party balance? Does WoP help even the plainfield between martials and does it help martials stack up better to casters (even though the source is a buff, martials would be able to move and not lose most of their effectiveness)?
OK Let us focus on the topic here people and not get dragged into another flame-bait conversation.
You're ignoring the definition of "Full-Round Action" (quoted above).
It doesn't matter how many extra actions you've been granted in a round, using a Full-Round action eats them all up.
"A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round."
What about inter-party balance? Does WoP help even the plainfield between martials and does it help martials stack up better to casters (even though the source is a buff, martials would be able to move and not lose most of their effectiveness)?
Doesn't really even the playing field. Martials already do lots of damage, pounce or no. They just aren't as effective as they lose damage to lost iteratives. The things martials can't do so well are support and control. Versatility is important. Options are what make casters absurdly powerful. Without outside items or magic, a martial probably isn't going to fly or turn invisible. Much less both at the same time. There are also utilities like detect magic and healing.
You're ignoring the definition of "Full-Round Action" (quoted above).
It doesn't matter how many extra actions you've been granted in a round, using a Full-Round action eats them all up."A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round."
Even if your right. You just use your extra move action before spending your full-round action.
Please get back to the topic.
It doesn't work that way.
A full round action is NOT "move + simple = full round"
It is it's own action type, and once you have decided to use either a move or a simple action, you cannot then also make a full-round action.
It doesn't work that way.
A full round action is NOT "move + simple = full round"
It is it's own action type, and once you have decided to use either a move or a simple action, you cannot then also make a full-round action.
Regardless the spell overrides the rule by saying "This move action can come before, after, or between other actions"
Full-round is an action.I implore you to get back on topic. Please quit flaming this thread. You were doing so well before.
EDIT: OP the GM has already said how he rules it.
In that case, there is zero point in having this discussion. No one but your GM can comment on things that are houseruled with any sort of accuracy.
And if we're discussing a houseruled rule, then General Discussion is the wrong place. This thread should be moved to Homebrew.
In that case, there is zero point in having this discussion. No one but your GM can comment on things that are houseruled with any sort of accuracy.
And if we're discussing a houseruled rule, then General Discussion is the wrong place. This thread should be moved to Homebrew.
It's not a house-rule you're just wrong. I tried to give you an out, but you continue to flame.
Is it really that hard to just examine a question?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When the basic premise of the question is assuming the rules work in a way that they don't?
Yes, it's extremely hard. :)
Edit- Besides, the OP has already been answered. The fact that you don't like the answers doesn't further change things.
When the basic premise of the question is assuming the rules work in a way that they don't?
Yes, it's extremely hard. :)Edit- Besides, the OP has already been answered. The fact that you don't like the answers doesn't further change things.
Except that your wrong about the rules and don't understand them. Even by your own logic your wrong. You are eating your foot so much it is making me hungry.
OP's question has not been answered. Only Mr. Sin has weighed in on the final question. One opinion is not a consensus.
I've linked to the relevant rules. I've shown where I'm right. All you've done is disagree without anything to back up your claim that I'm somehow wrong.
If I'm wrong because the rules say so, then show me where.
If I'm wrong because your particular GM doesn't follow the rules as written in his games, then this entire thread is off-topic as it's in the wrong forum.
I've linked to the relevant rules. I've shown where I'm right. All you've done is disagree without anything to back up your claim that I'm somehow wrong.
If I'm wrong because the rules say so, then show me where.
If I'm wrong because your particular GM doesn't follow the rules as written in his games, then this entire thread is off-topic as it's in the wrong forum.
Dude you just don't read well. The spell overwrites the rules you cited because a full-round action is an action and the spell lets you use an extra move action before and after actions. Just like how you said pounce works. Your own logic proves you wrong.
I've already posted this. Your too busy flaming and dodging the question to focus on it.
Well whatever this thread is getting locked soon anyways...
Thanks for being an @$$.
Full-Round actions consume your entire round. YOUR. ENTIRE. ROUND.
What is so unclear about that? You could have 50 extra move actions granted to you, but if you use a Full-Round Action, then you give them all up, and the only movement you can make that turn is a 5ft step.
And again, please, stop taking everything so personally. This is a rules discussion - there's no need to be calling anyone inappropriate things. :)
Full-Round actions consume your entire round. YOUR. ENTIRE. ROUND.
What is so unclear about that? You could have 50 extra move actions granted to you, but if you use a Full-Round Action, then you give them all up, and the only movement you can make that turn is a 5ft step.
And again, please, stop taking everything so personally. This is a rules discussion - there's no need to be calling anyone inappropriate things. :)
OMG. YOU said pounce overrides that rule! SO DOES THIS SPELL. What is wrong with you!?!?!?!?
See I'm taking it personally because I don't believe you're this stupid. This is clearly intentional.
Besides, look at it from a logical point of view:
If Accelerate works the way you suggest it does, then that means a 2nd level spell is far more powerful than the 3rd level spell it's based on (Haste).
They wouldn't do that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes they would because it effects only one target instead of a party buff. The party buff is a 5th level spell. Also in 3.0 haste gave an extra standard action and was only to one person. That action could be used as a move action. The extra standard made casters too good so they took that out in 3.5.
Paizo makes this spell. Which is worse than the 3.0 version, but better than the 3.5 version. EDIT: Well different. Better for one person than 3.5 haste, but it's a party buff
Furthermore the whole magic system was rebalanced. One-to-one spell comparisons don't work because each type of caster is better at different things.
Servitor I-IX is a standard action while SMI-IX is a 1-round cast. Which is loads better.
They did do that, they also made some options worse, and some spells just different.
Gaining an additional Movement action doesn't change the rule that you may not couple a Full-Round Action with a Movement Action.
Pounce specifically allows for that change to happen.
This is why Pounce works. There is nothing flawed about my logic here.
If by some means you get 1 additional move actions and 1 standard actions, how many full-round actions you can take in one round? 1 or 2?
If the answer to above question is "1" then quick runner's shirt can't let you make full round after movement because full attack doesn't require a move + standard, but a full-round that consumes all you effort in the round.
It's weird that you should ask that. Since you can do that with WoP. There is a spell that gives the target a fullround of actions, but they lose their next turn, unless the word is boosted then they are only staggarded for their next turn. Add in accelerate and in one round a person would have a fullround of actions and a standard action and a move action.