Opinion: full-round actions and spells with "1 round" casting time

[ckdragons]

For some odd reason, I'm bothered by the idea in Pathfinder that a full-round action takes less time than a full-round spell. For example, a fighter can complete his full attacks in a single round or a sorcerer can cast a spell with a standard action casting time and a meta-magic feat in a single round. However, a someone casting a spell with a 1 round casting time doesn't complete until the start of the next action. Shouldn't the spell with the 1 round casting time also be allowed to complete in a single round, same as a rull-round action? I know this is RAW but I want to hear your opinion on this subject (pros and cons) if I were to house-rule all 1 round spells complete as a full round action. Spells with longer casting time will complete on the conclusion of the round after the appropriate number of rounds (e.g. lesser restoration is a 3 round casting time, which would complete at the end of the character's 3rd round instead of the start of the character's 4th round.).

[Vamptastic]

I like anything that makes life difficult for magic users.

[ckdragons]

Huh?... I would think this would make life better for spellcasters since technically it would take less time to cast spells with long casting times and less time to allow for interruptions.

[Vamptastic]

I was talking about the way it originally is.

[+5 Toaster]

probably be cause spells are usually a better use of a full round action in the first place.

[Sebastian]

The spells with a full round casting time are usually on the powerful side, and thus need an opportunity to be interrupted, or are summon spells, which effectively grant an extra action. I can't think of many spells in the former category (sleep?), but if you eliminated the actions of a summoned monster on the round it is summoned, that would probably go a long way towards making the later balanced.

[Vamptastic]

Yeah, when that Wizard's done doing being a mathmagician, he's usually altered reality somehow. The fighter just punched someone in the face, and the Ranger shot someone with an arrow.

[Da'ath]

I tend to agree with Vamptastic. I'm not for "nerfing spellcasters," but I'm also not for rule changes that make their already spiffy life any easier. My opinion, obviously.=)

They're already much more resilient and vastly more sustainable in Pathfinder than previous editions. Lack of resilience and sustainability were previously used as balancing factors for their "phenomenal cosmic power".

[Joy X Baker]

Da'ath wrote:

I tend to agree with Vamptastic. I'm not for "nerfing spellcasters," but I'm also not for rule changes that make their already spiffy life any easier. My opinion, obviously.=)

They're already much more resilient and vastly more sustainable in Pathfinder than previous editions. Lack of resilience and sustainability were previously used as balancing factors for their "phenomenal cosmic power".

PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWEEEER,

Itty bitty living capacity.

[ShadowcatX]

Ya, I've got to say I don't care for the change either. Casters are strong enough.

[Bill Dunn]

I have always found it a bit weird to have 1 round not equal a full-round. I'm not sure we really benefit much from having two different and distinct measurements for taking up a whole round, particularly with respect to spell-casting. I mean, I get that the full-round action is a lot easier to administer because you resolve it all on the acting character's turn. But I think, conceptually, it injects a lot of unnecessary confusion.

I wouldn't mind seeing more full-round actions like coup de grace and spontaneous metamagic be increased to 1 round actions to increase their interruptability. But then, I think a lot more spells should be increased in casting time to increase their interruptability and decrease caster mobility as well.

[Lincoln Hills]

They're different durations, but I agree that the wording causes them to be very readily confused. Since most players refer to "my turn" as their character's full set of actions, and "this round" as the entire set of actions between the top and bottom of the initiative order, I suppose it would reduce confusion to call 'full-round' actions full-turn actions ("This action consumes all of the character's time and attention during his or her turn in this round of combat,") and refer to spells with a one-round casting time as one-full-round actions ("This action consumes all of the character's time and attention from the initiative count on which the action begins right up until just before the same initiative count on the next round of combat.") The wording could probably be improved, but it would help distinguish the two things that are both called "full round" from each other.