You are entitled to your belief. I get to answer my questions in the way I choose to answer them. I don't do so to dodge questions, I do so to not overly simplify the answers in this rather complex game. My only goal is to illuminate whenever possible.
Good gaming!
You are entitled to your belief. I get to answer my questions in the way I choose to answer them. I don't do so to dodge questions, I do so to not overly simplify the answers in this rather complex game. My only goal is to illuminate whenever possible.
Good gaming!
I wasn't trying to upset you or insult you, I was just stating my assertion that that stated question appears to be as simple to answer as yes or no. I understand that in this game its truly never that easy, but that doesn't mean that a yes answer is all inclusive. Simply that it would in fact clarify the discussion thus far.
LOL! I'm not upset at all. No worries.
Basically, I don't see any useful information being conveyed by the line: "A [normal] full-round action requires an entire round to complete", distinguishing it from Standard/Move Actions. When "taking an entire round to complete" is a succinct approximation of how 1-Round actions resolve (one entire round after your turn, i.e. just before your next turn), that's just confusing.
Well, a single move action COULD complete over an entire round, but doesn't REQUIRE it. A full-round action does REQUIRE an entire round to complete.
I understand why Stephen is declining to make a general statement about how magical items that allow you to break the rules work.
But since the game is resolved by mechanics hinging on formal turns, what useful information is being conveyed by stating that for F-R actions uniquely? I can't see how the game would be negatively impacted by not including that line, if it's basically fluff that doesn't impact mechanics. Meanwhile ~'ends/completes after 1 entire round' happens to exactly fit how a REAL mechanical rule works for 1-Round actions. If it's not necessary for the game, and introduces confusion with REAL rules, why keep it?
Anyways, whether or not Paizo wants to actually Errata that (which they're not going to do ASAP in any case, as that is for each new print run), I just thought that direct confirmation of my supposition about RAI would make the general rule (RAI) clear for everybody. If Stephen or any Dev disagrees with any of those conclusions, it would be useful to know. I edited out the non-relevant passages just so debate over desirability of RAW wording doesn't confuse the topic of RAI function.
|
Since this is an exception to the rules, it depends greatly on the exception. This thread has talked about to different exceptions to the normal action economy, and each has had its differences. There is no general rule about exceptions of this type, there are only the rules within the exception.
Since anything that gives you an extra action is an exception to the rules, are you saying that therefore they are exceptions to the 'FRAs can't be combined with move/standard actions' rule?
That would have to be my only interpretation of what he said sense I have yet to find a scenario where normal action economy allows more than standard+move; standard+standard; move+move; or Full round
|
I don't dodge questions. I give the best answers I can. Some answers cannot be given with a simple yes or no.
Thanks for responding Stephen.
This whole business seemed to spawn when I asked if a magus could use Gloves of storing and a metamagic rod of quicken to cast a spell, and perform Spell combat on the same turn.
Some people thought since the rod was in my hand at any point during the turn it invalidated Spell combat, others believed that since using it and putting it away was a swift and free action, that Spell combat could still be used.
Could you provide some illumination to this question?
Thank you.
No problem, easy to do :-).
I think the last sentence of that post is also similarly fart-scented...So my post you responded to is then pretty much accurate to RAI?
Again, I've always understood RAI that way, but others seemed to read RAW differently,
but it was difficult to convince otherwise when the RAW just didn't support my understood RAI.Taking a look at the last sentence (Full-round actions do take an entire round, but the effects of those actions are typically resolved during your turn. There are exceptions, such as casting a 1-round casting time spell.) is entirely what I mean. No farts there.
Here is a great example. Run. When you take the run action, you are running for the entire six seconds of the round construct, but you resolve the run during your turn. Since everyone takes actions within the round, things go off simultaneously, but the effects are generally resolved during your turn even though the entire activity occurs during the round.
1-round casting time spellcasting is an exception to this convention, as the effect occur on your next turn, as the rules state.
I’m not sure I get the part of: “Full-round actions do take an entire round, but the effects of those actions are typically resolved during your turn”.
I guess my English isn’t good enough or perhaps I’m stupid… or both.To keep this simple to me:
Initiative order:
24: Friendly Sorcerer (FS)
22: Enemy fighter (EF) 10 ft from Sorcerer and 20 ft from Cleric
20: Friendly Cleric (FC)
18: Enemy Ranger (ER) in light armor and with spring attack. 10 ft from Cleric and 15 ft from Friendly Sorcerer
- - - ER
FC - FS - EF
Round 1:
What if the ranger had had Combat reflexes and dex +12? Then he could had hit the Sorcerer twice. Right? Or the ranger could have just walk to the cleric passing the Sorcerer first. Sorcerer provoke AoO, first attack (no action) continue walking to the cleric. Cleric provoke AoO second AoO (no action), the ranger attack cleric using his Attack action (standard action).
How can a Full-round action that takes an entire round be resolved during your turn?
If the casting takes a Full-round action, the casting must provoke AoO during the full round and if the casting provoked a round action then the casting must be able to be interrupted during the full round?
What if the fighter hits the sorcerer and she Sorcerer fails her concentration check. Does the spell still go off? What if the Fighter fails his will Save? How can the fighter have attacked the sorcerer if he is held?
Seriously, I’m not being a Jerk. I simply don’t get it.
@Zark: It's a kludge for simplicity's sake.
All turns take place within the 6-second period making up a round, but generally speaking all actions taken within a turn are resolved within that turn and do not effect the turns of others. So even though the Fighter is hitting the Wizard with his sword in the same 6-second period that the Wizard is casting her spell, the attack is resolved in a separate 'turn' from the casting and so doesn't force a concentration check.
There are exceptions to this - casting a spell that requires a 1-round cast time, for instance.
|
For those still getting confused between a Full Round Action and 1 Round Casting please look up the rules for Spontaneous Casters casting spells with Metamagic Feats.
It clearly states that a Full Round Action is NOT the same as 1 Round Casting.
If the spell’s normal casting time is
a standard action, casting a metamagic version is a fullround
action for a sorcerer or bard. (This isn’t the same
as a 1-round casting time.)
@Zark: It's a kludge for simplicity's sake.
All turns take place within the 6-second period making up a round, but generally speaking all actions taken within a turn are resolved within that turn and do not effect the turns of others. So even though the Fighter is hitting the Wizard with his sword in the same 6-second period that the Wizard is casting her spell, the attack is resolved in a separate 'turn' from the casting and so doesn't force a concentration check.
There are exceptions to this - casting a spell that requires a 1-round cast time, for instance.
OK. Thanks.