| 11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The description for Full-Round Action (Category) states:
"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)."
"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."
The bolded passage seems to mean that all Full-Round actions work like 1-Round Casting Time spells: "taking an entire round to complete". I just don't think that's the intent, because Full Attacks are supposed to resolve on your TURN, not just before your next turn (which is the case if an entire round must pass), and that would also make the special distinction/rule for 1-Round Casting Time spells superfluous. IMHO, this is just a poorly worded passage whose sole intent is expressing that a F-R Action is mutually exclusive with a Move and Standard Action (under normal circumstances, although the wording there shouldn't be too concrete either, since at least bonus Move Actions are easy enough to gain). That certainly seems like it qualifies for Errata, to me.
Another poster somehow believed that F-R Actions did not work like 1-Round Spells, but somehow were "1-Turn" actions that occupied all of your turn, even preventing one from taking a Swift Action in your turn before the F-R Action began (which is just bizarre, and not even 1-Round Spells work like that). I'm not quite sure how they made that conclusion, since "turn" is nowhere mentioned in F-R Actions' description, nevertheless they did bring my attention to this wording which does seem problematic on other grounds.
Hit the FAQ button? :-)
Honestly since the Move Action, Standard Action and Full Round action were introduce in 3.0 they have been pretty clearly understood by everyone I have ever met who plays D&D/Pathfinder.
I don't honestly see a need for an FAQ on it.
It seems to me that overliteralism in the reading of most of the rules in the game is what leads to most of the arguments of this nature.
Besides that Paizo themself insist on over-literalism in application of certain rules, e.g. the "Attack Action"/Vital Strike issue,
I don't think this is really a case of that, as the description is really just indistinguishable from 1 Round Spells.
If the bolded passage is not accurate, it should be Errata'd, or at least FAQ'd.
A pretty simple one to fix in the end, but that makes doing so all the easier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We disagree in what over litaralism is then. An attack action has always been classified and listed as a standard action in the game rules if my memory serves me properly.
For example if you want to make an attack of any kind you have always needed to spend a standard action. You cannot make one with a move action (barring exeptions from feats, spells or class abilities). And to get more than one attack a round you have always had to use a full round action to do a full attack action.
I have never run into anyone confused on those points, either in my gaming group or at the FLGS I frequent.
I DO agree that more clarity needs to be presented between a combat round and a players round or turn. But the full round action description seems fine to me. Especially as the example you use of the full round spell casting is specifically noted as a more defined rule than the general, hence making it an exception.
The part after what you bolded does bring up an interesting factor to question:
Let's say I have a Quick Runner's Shirt equipped. As a Swift Action, I can take an additional Move Action for Movement. So if I wanted to Move + Full Attack, by RAW, I couldn't use the Quick Runner's Shirt for 2 reasons:
1. A Full Round Action, by RAW, cannot be done in conjunction with any Standard or Move Action. I could use the Quick Runner's Shirt, but I couldn't take any Movement, since Movement requires a Move Action to do.
2. If I am denied a Standard or Move Action, by RAW I cannot activate the Quick Runner's Shirt, a Swift Action, to take a Move Action for Movement since I am denied an initial Move Action, and the Quick Runner's Shirt only gives me an additional Move Action for Movement. (i.e. it only gives me its effects, predicated that I have a Move Action to begin with.)
So not only does this spit in the face of what should otherwise be accomplished with a Full Attack, but also with the usefulness of the Quick Runner's Shirt (of which PFS banned, according to this very same RAW, for no good reason at all).
I'll FAQ it so they can fix the RAW regarding the matter, though as Gilfalas has mentioned, the RAI is quite obvious and should supersede the RAW. But of course, PFS doesn't have this luxury...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For my group the only place this ever caused a y confusion was coup de grace. The fact thst it thematicslly worked for the villain to pose dramatically before the kiling blow likely didn't help.
@Gilfalas:
And yet MANY players with solid 3.x experience could not recognize the current understanding of Attack Action/Vital Strike from the RAW, because 'action' also has a standard English meaning. Likewise, players ROUTINELY conflate "round" and "turn", if not in their understanding of game rules, at least in routine conversation about the game, which contributes to other players getting confused about the game rules. So I would hope that the RAW itself would not contain errors which directly contribute to poor understanding of rules distinctions.
This rule itself can be seen to be contributing towards confusing players about the distinction between "round" and "turn".
Here is a link to the post(er) that brought this to my attention, demonstrating just how crazy this line can be.
(I don't think I was succesful at convincing them otherwise)
Let's say I have a Quick Runner's Shirt equipped. As a Swift Action, I can take an additional Move Action for Movement. So if I wanted to Move + Full Attack, by RAW, I couldn't use the Quick Runner's Shirt for 2 reasons:
1. A Full Round Action, by RAW, cannot be done in conjunction with any Standard or Move Action. I could use the Quick Runner's Shirt, but I couldn't take any Movement, since Movement requires a Move Action to do.
Indeed, this was what I was getting at with my reference to the rules (problematically) being 'overly concrete' in stating exclusivity with Move and Standard Actions. I honestly don't think your distinction of "additional" is truly requiring of attention, but the wording clearly does have it's problems.
Thanks for hitting FAQ.
The part after what you bolded does bring up an interesting factor to question:
Let's say I have a Quick Runner's Shirt equipped. As a Swift Action, I can take an additional Move Action for Movement. So if I wanted to Move + Full Attack, by RAW, I couldn't use the Quick Runner's Shirt for 2 reasons:...
Except that specific exceptions (such as magic items) have always superseded general rules (and in fact almost all of D&D/PF magic items, spells, class abilities, feats, etc. for the most part are nothing but things that allow you to do specific exceptions of one kind or another).
The purpose of the item is to allow the items use and effect to happen in the game. Otherwise it would not be there.
Just like boots of haste allow non-spell casters access to the haste spell power, that shirt allows a clear exception to the normal rules so it's power is of a use.
That example of the quick runners shirt is (to me) a perfect example of over literalism.
|
Quandary, given the topics of your other posts, it is my belief that you are being too analytical of this game. You are picking battles and asking for FAQs on matters that most people understand pretty well (or at the very least aren't "Frequently Asked Questions").
Try taking a step back and interpreting a passage for what it's trying to say, rather than digging down and looking for meaning that isn't there.
Might I suggest taking a break from the forums for a bit? There's a difference between a legitimate debate and creating one out of nothing.
|
Note that a full-round action is different than casting a 1-round spell as per a spontaneous caster using a metamagic feat on a spell:
Sorcerers and bards must take more time to cast a metamagic spell (one enhanced by a metamagic feat) than a regular spell. If a spell's normal casting time is 1 standard action, casting a metamagic version of the spell is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard (except for spells modified by the Quicken Spell feat, which take 1 swift action to cast). Note that this isn't the same as a spell with a 1-round casting time. Spells that take a full-round action to cast take effect in the same round that you begin casting, and you are not required to continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration until your next turn. For spells with a longer casting time, it takes an extra full-round action to cast the metamagic spell.
Because the sorcerer or bard has not prepared the spell in a metamagic form in advance, he must apply the metamagic feat on the spot. Therefore, such a character must also take more time to cast a metamagic spell (one enhanced by a metamagic feat) than he does to cast a regular spell. If the spell's normal casting time is a standard action, casting a metamagic version is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. (This isn't the same as a 1-round casting time.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
…
Might I suggest taking a break from the forums for a bit? There's a difference between a legitimate debate and creating one out of nothing.
I took a break for a bit and it really does help lol
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe so Nefreet, I might try that.
I'm not trying to pick any battles though, if Paizo wants to act on this info they can; if they don't want to, they won't. I don't have any illusion that I can change their fundamental perspective on things, but putting out the info doesn't hurt anything, and AFAIK they've requested people to report/FAQ problems with the rules. Categorically hostile responces to such info (as opposed to ignoring that which does not hold interest, or match your personal taste for 'analytic-ness', etc) itself seems to have some misplaced motivation.
@Desolate Harmony: Ironically, that very quote is another example of misleading rules text.
[as for 1 Round Casting Time spells]
The bolded "round" should read "turn", or else it is another case of conflating the two terms, which doesn't help non-experts understand the game, especially when it ties back into the text I highlighted at the top of the thread.
The part after what you bolded does bring up an interesting factor to question:
Let's say I have a Quick Runner's Shirt equipped. As a Swift Action, I can take an additional Move Action for Movement. So if I wanted to Move + Full Attack, by RAW, I couldn't use the Quick Runner's Shirt for 2 reasons:...
Except that specific exceptions (such as magic items) have always superseded general rules (and in fact almost all of D&D/PF magic items, spells, class abilities, feats, etc. for the most part are nothing but things that allow you to do specific exceptions of one kind or another).
The purpose of the item is to allow the items use and effect to happen in the game. Otherwise it would not be there.
Just like boots of haste allow non-spell casters access to the haste spell power, that shirt allows a clear exception to the normal rules so it's power is of a use.
That example of the quick runners shirt is (to me) a perfect example of over literalism.
Not exactly. The Additional part may be, though the first reason stands on its own.
Going by the strict RAW, I can perform a Swift Action (Shirt Activation) and a Full Round Action, but I cannot take the Move Action that the Shirt would give me because you cannot make both Full Round Actions and Move Actions in the same turn/round.
The RAI we can gather from this is that Full Round Actions (i.e. Full Attack Actions) take up almost all of your concentration, that other very taxing subjects cannot be conjoined because you are too occupied performing the Full Round Action (aka making a bunch of attacks via attack rolls).
Your example of the Boots of Haste is fairly inaccurate, because it is concisely stated that you can activate them as a Free Action (during your turn) and can turn them off with another Free Action, using the power for 10 rounds per day (activation and deactivation in 1 round increments).
The only written discrepancy I've made regarding the Shirt is the inclusion of the word "additional," since it appears the game assumes you will always have a Move Action, though taking actions during combat can lead to some other subjects. (In actuality, one does not simply "have" actions. They choose to take them, not automatically have them.)
The other discrepancy I made regarding the Shirt is not with how it is written, but how it interacts with other rules:
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.
Emphasis Mine.
It is a Swift Action to activate the Shirt, allowing you to take another Move Action for Movement. So by this RAW cited above, I can take the Movement Action, and still have a Move and Standard Action, but then I can no longer take Full-Round Actions, because I already performed a Move Action, which cannot be done in conjunction with a Full-Round Action. I can double move and Vital Strike, but I cannot single-move (via Shirt) and Full Attack.
Now do you see the problem with the poorly-worded RAW?
|
Hey, I'm from the post that this question spawned from.
The debate was:
As a magus, using a metamagic rod of quicken, and gloves of storing, can you during your turn.
1. Cast a quickened spell using the rod (Bladed dash)
Bladed dash - When you cast this spell, you immediately move up to 30 feet in a straight line any direction, momentarily leaving a multi-hued cascade of images behind you. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity. You may make a single melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against any one creature you are adjacent to at any point along this 30 feet. You gain a circumstance bonus on your attack roll equal to your Intelligence or Charisma modifier, whichever is higher. You must end the bonus movement granted by this spell in an unoccupied square. If no such space is available along the trajectory, the spell fails. Despite the name, the spell works with any melee weapon.
2. use a free action to put the rod away with the gloves of storing.
3. Use Spell combat.
Things got confusing to say the least, regarding having something in your hand at any time during the round preventing the use of spell combat.
Quickened Cast Bladed Dash as a Swift Action does not conflict with the RAW Full-Round Action. The Spell itself does not constitute a Move Action, only that you get to Move without burning a Move Action.
Free Action to store an item via Gloves of Storing does not conflict with the RAW Full-Round Action.
If Spell Combat is the Full-Round Action, by RAW and RAI this is a legal (and cool) combination.
(On a side note, where is that Bladed Dash spell located at? I don't remember seeing it in any book...)
|
|
Quickened Cast Bladed Dash as a Swift Action does not conflict with the RAW Full-Round Action. The Spell itself does not constitute a Move Action, only that you get to Move without burning a Move Action.
Free Action to store an item via Gloves of Storing does not conflict with the RAW Full-Round Action.
If Spell Combat is the Full-Round Action, by RAW and RAI this is a legal (and cool) combination.
(On a side note, where is that Bladed Dash spell located at? I don't remember seeing it in any book...)
Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Inner Sea Magic
Maybe so Nefreet, I might try that.
I'm not trying to pick any battles though, if Paizo wants to act on this info they can; if they don't want to, they won't. I don't have any illusion that I can change their fundamental perspective on things, but putting out the info doesn't hurt anything, and AFAIK they've requested people to report/FAQ problems with the rules. Categorically hostile responces to such info (as opposed to ignoring that which does not hold interest, or match your personal taste for 'analytic-ness', etc) itself seems to have some misplaced motivation.
You're creating noise, not signal. Telling you to stop it is appropriate.
Quandary, given the topics of your other posts, it is my belief that you are being too analytical of this game. You are picking battles and asking for FAQs on matters that most people understand pretty well (or at the very least aren't "Frequently Asked Questions").
Try taking a step back and interpreting a passage for what it's trying to say, rather than digging down and looking for meaning that isn't there.
Might I suggest taking a break from the forums for a bit? There's a difference between a legitimate debate and creating one out of nothing.
Regardless of the fact that we all understand what is being stated by the rules here, it is poorly worded and the poor words can create confusion when compared to other rules in the game. This may not need an FAQ but it should be cleaned up with errata.
|
Quickened Cast Bladed Dash as a Swift Action does not conflict with the RAW Full-Round Action. The Spell itself does not constitute a Move Action, only that you get to Move without burning a Move Action.
Free Action to store an item via Gloves of Storing does not conflict with the RAW Full-Round Action.
If Spell Combat is the Full-Round Action, by RAW and RAI this is a legal (and cool) combination.
(On a side note, where is that Bladed Dash spell located at? I don't remember seeing it in any book...)
You missed the point of the argument. Remember spell combat requires you to have an empty hand for the duration of the full round action so the instant you put the rod in your hand you have violated the requirements for spellcombat. Trying to say you can draw the rod and put it away before doing spellcombat violates the FULL ROUND requirement, there is no time before the F-R action since it occupies all of the round, beginning to end.
You missed the point of the argument. Remember spell combat requires you to have an empty hand for the duration of the full round action so the instant you put the rod in your hand you have violated the requirements for spellcombat. Trying to say you can draw the rod and put it away before doing spellcombat violates the FULL ROUND requirement, there is no time before the F-R action since it occupies all of the round, beginning to end.Quickened Cast Bladed Dash as a Swift Action does not conflict with the RAW Full-Round Action. The Spell itself does not constitute a Move Action, only that you get to Move without burning a Move Action.
Free Action to store an item via Gloves of Storing does not conflict with the RAW Full-Round Action.
If Spell Combat is the Full-Round Action, by RAW and RAI this is a legal (and cool) combination.
(On a side note, where is that Bladed Dash spell located at? I don't remember seeing it in any book...)
Except by the RAW, the bolded part is allowed and very much within the rules.
RAW, the only restriction for Full Round Actions are that yes, they take the full round to do, but the constraints are towards the Standard and Move Actions. There is no clause regarding that Full Round Actions cannot be done in addition to Free Actions and Swift/Immediate Actions.
By this same RAW, it is actually more plausible to disallow the utilization of the Quick Runner's Shirt (granting an additional Move Action for Movement as a Swift Action) than what is being proposed, because what is being proposed does not involve Move or Standard Actions, whereas the Quick Runner's Shirt does; the foundation of which Full Round Actions cannot conjoin with.
Let's also take a look at what Swift and Free Actions represent, according to RAW:
A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action.
The bolded part suggests (if not outright says) that a Swift Action has no impact toward the amount of time needed for a Full Round Action to occur (i.e. it does not impede the requirement of the entire turn for a Full Round Action). It also mentions that it behaves just like a Free Action in both availability of option and affection of the character's turn.
Let's see what Free Actions have to say:
Free actions don't take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn. Free actions rarely incur attacks of opportunity.
This bolded part suggests (again, if not outright says) that Free Actions consume no time during the character's turn (even though there are limits, that is GM FIAT territory, not RAW), so taking Free Actions to Draw a Rod and Stash it in a Glove of Storing, by RAW, takes 0 seconds to occur. A Swift Action of casting the spell Bladed Dash, which also behaves exactly like a Free Action, by RAW, also takes 0 seconds to occur.
Even if there is "no time before the F-R action," there doesn't need to be, both before and after because Swift and Free Actions, by RAW, don't take any time to do. There is even a clause regarding Swift Actions that says it doesn't impede the performance of other actions, which, since Swift Actions and Free Actions behave exactly the same in this regard, extends to Free Actions by the Transitive Property of Congruency.
This is a purely legal move, even with the poorly worded RAW in place.
|
|
The action economy is not the issue:-
To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free
That is the issue. Spell Combat is a special full round action, during which one hand must be free. Since it's a full round action, then it's duration is your entire turn. Your hand must be free while using it, therefore your hand must be free during your entire turn.
As Malachi points out, the failure is not due to the fact that Spell Combat is a full-round action, it's that Spell Combat states that you must have one hand free. The general consensus (backed by designer quotes) is that you must have the hand free for the entire turn.
So you are correct that if all we were dealing with was a full-round action, the suggested scenario would be legal; however, the specific full-round action (Spell Combat) includes specific text that makes the scenario invalid.
To the original post: I agree that the language is incorrect; it should say "turn" rather than "round". That said, I don't believe that it needs an FAQ; the intent of the text is clear - it just needs a correction in the term used.
|
|
At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.
As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action
This implies that when you choose to take the full round action to use spell combat, your hand must be free.
The key would be, anytime you can take a full round action, you are able to use a free action beforehand.
As Malachi points out, the failure is not due to the fact that Spell Combat is a full-round action, it's that Spell Combat states that you must have one hand free. The general consensus (backed by designer quotes) is that you must have the hand free for the entire turn.
So you are correct that if all we were dealing with was a full-round action, the suggested scenario would be legal; however, the specific full-round action (Spell Combat) includes specific text that makes the scenario invalid.
To the original post: I agree that the language is incorrect; it should say "turn" rather than "round". That said, I don't believe that it needs an FAQ; the intent of the text is clear - it just needs a correction in the term used.
Even though here is exactly what his turn would be like:
[Optional: Free Action, Quick Draw Metamagic Rod; duration, 0 seconds]
Swift Action, Cast Quickened Bladed Dash; duration, 0 seconds
Free Action, Store Metamagic Rod in Glove of Storing; duration, 0 seconds
Full-Round Action, Perform Spell Combat; duration 6 Seconds.
That is 100% legal by the RAW and accurate to its interpretation.
Even if it "requires one hand free," it is being fulfilled prior to the Spell Combat Full-Round Action being performed, and with the language of "This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast," I can guarantee you that RAW, if you can pull this same maneuver while using Two Weapons (just add in an optional Quick Draw Weapon), you can do this same exact thing with Spell Combat. It's actually even easier than Two-Weapon Fighting itself in terms of action consumption.
Again, we are arguing pure RAW here, which says he can do it. If we want to throw in Dev Quotes that says he can't, then he can't, but only by RAI.
I agree that this needs an errata because "turn" and "round" are entirely different animals and as such a full round action would prevent a player from taking an attack of opportunity because it takes the whole round and not just the players turn. This is clearly not was intended, but if I were a new player to the games, that is exactly what I would be reading.
Are you saying that he's casting a quickened spell AND casting a second spell as part of Spell Combat?
The Quickened Spell has nothing to do with Spell Combat, because it is cast previously before performing Spell Combat.
That isn't to say, you can't cast 2 Spells for Spell Combat, but the Quickened Spell must be cast during Spell Combat in order for it to take effect [after the initial spell cast is discharged], because if you cast it before Spell Combat (with, let's say, Shocking Grasp), performing Spell Combat afterward would override the spell you cast previously, or would not be a part of Spell Combat since it is already expended (Bladed Dash would fall into the latter of the two), and if you cast it after Spell Combat, it doesn't take place with Spell Combat because Spell Combat is technically already resolved, and the Quickened Spell would be its own little thing.
In addition, the RAW would definitely agree with my interpretation, since that is exactly what it's saying.
Of course, it may not be RAI, though I will say that if you post the Dev Quote that Xaratherus was talking about, it most certainly will help things out here.
As Malachi points out, the failure is not due to the fact that Spell Combat is a full-round action, it's that Spell Combat states that you must have one hand free. The general consensus (backed by designer quotes) is that you must have the hand free for the entire turn.
So you are correct that if all we were dealing with was a full-round action, the suggested scenario would be legal; however, the specific full-round action (Spell Combat) includes specific text that makes the scenario invalid.
To the original post: I agree that the language is incorrect; it should say "turn" rather than "round". That said, I don't believe that it needs an FAQ; the intent of the text is clear - it just needs a correction in the term used.
Even though here is exactly what his turn would be like:
[Optional: Free Action, Quick Draw Metamagic Rod; duration, 0 seconds]
Swift Action, Cast Quickened Bladed Dash; duration, 0 seconds
Free Action, Store Metamagic Rod in Glove of Storing; duration, 0 seconds
Full-Round Action, Perform Spell Combat; duration 6 Seconds.That is 100% legal by the RAW and accurate to its interpretation.
First, free actions do not take 0 seconds. They may take a small amount of time, but they still take time - thus why a GM can reasonably limit the number you can take in a round.
Second, you list Spell Combat as the last 'action' in a sequence, and that's simply not correct.
By definition, a turn\round is 6 seconds in length. A full-round action states that it takes the full duration of your turn to perform. Therefore, while you can take swift and free actions while also taking a full-round action, the only way that can occur is if those actions are occurring simultaneously with the full-round action.
So at tick 00 on your turn 'clock', you're starting Spell Combat. At tick 01, when you pop out the metamagic rod from your glove, you've violated the requirements for Spell Combat. The same thing is true if you start the turn with the metamagic rod in your hand: Since a full-round action by definition must start at tick 00 of the clock, the rod is in your hand when you try to perform Spell Combat - and so you fail to meet the requirements for it.
You're painting a picture of actions occurring in a linear sequence, and that's not correct in this instance; the correct picture is of action A - a full-round action that takes the entire turn to occur - and of actions B, C, D, etc. which are occurring at various points throughout the duration of action A.
and if you cast it after Spell Combat, it doesn't take place with Spell Combat because Spell Combat is technically already resolved, and the Quickened Spell would be its own little thing.
There is no "after Spell Combat". Spell Combat lasts from tick 00 of your turn to tick 06 of your turn, at which point your turn is over.*
*The exception to this is a five-foot step; the full-round action description states you can take this "before, during or after the action", but a five-foot step is 'not an action' so it breaks the normal rules flow.
First, free actions do not take 0 seconds. They may take a small amount of time, but they still take time - thus why a GM can reasonably limit the number you can take in a round.Second, you list Spell Combat as the last 'action' in a sequence, and that's simply not correct.
By definition, a turn\round is 6 seconds in length. A full-round action states that it takes the full duration of your turn to perform. Therefore, while you can take swift and free actions while also taking a full-round action, the only way that can occur is if those actions are occurring simultaneously with the full-round action.
So at tick 00 on your turn 'clock', you're starting Spell Combat. At tick 01, when you pop out the metamagic rod from your glove, you've violated the requirements for Spell Combat. The same thing is true...
This sounds like your own invention.
Actions are performed in order and resolved in order. You can perform free/swift actions on your turn before you start a full-round action.
|
|
First, free actions do not take 0 seconds. They may take a small amount of time, but they still take time - thus why a GM can reasonably limit the number you can take in a round.Second, you list Spell Combat as the last 'action' in a sequence, and that's simply not correct.
By definition, a turn\round is 6 seconds in length. A full-round action states that it takes the full duration of your turn to perform. Therefore, while you can take swift and free actions while also taking a full-round action, the only way that can occur is if those actions are occurring simultaneously with the full-round action.
So at tick 00 on your turn 'clock', you're starting Spell Combat. At tick 01, when you pop out the metamagic rod from your glove, you've violated the requirements for Spell Combat. The same thing is true...
This sounds like your own invention.
Actions are performed in order and resolved in order. You can perform free/swift actions on your turn before you start a full-round action.
Being able to use the Swift action before the full round action does seem to be 100% legit by RAW... easiest support is in he fact that a Sorcerer can use a quickened spell as a swift and then a meta-magicked spell as a full round action, or a character could activate Arcane Strike and 5 foot step then full attack with two weapon fighting.
The only limitation I can see is that you would have to use a spell without somatic components because once you drew the rod, your hands would be full. You wouldn't have the actions to drop and redraw your weapon otherwise. But in the case of Bladed Dash, I can't see anything illegal.
|
|
As Malachi points out, the failure is not due to the fact that Spell Combat is a full-round action, it's that Spell Combat states that you must have one hand free. The general consensus (backed by designer quotes) is that you must have the hand free for the entire turn.
So you are correct that if all we were dealing with was a full-round action, the suggested scenario would be legal; however, the specific full-round action (Spell Combat) includes specific text that makes the scenario invalid.
To the original post: I agree that the language is incorrect; it should say "turn" rather than "round". That said, I don't believe that it needs an FAQ; the intent of the text is clear - it just needs a correction in the term used.
Even though here is exactly what his turn would be like:
[Optional: Free Action, Quick Draw Metamagic Rod; duration, 0 seconds]
Swift Action, Cast Quickened Bladed Dash; duration, 0 seconds
Free Action, Store Metamagic Rod in Glove of Storing; duration, 0 seconds
Full-Round Action, Perform Spell Combat; duration 6 Seconds.That is 100% legal by the RAW and accurate to its interpretation.
First, free actions do not take 0 seconds. They may take a small amount of time, but they still take time - thus why a GM can reasonably limit the number you can take in a round.
Second, you list Spell Combat as the last 'action' in a sequence, and that's simply not correct.
By definition, a turn\round is 6 seconds in length. A full-round action states that it takes the full duration of your turn to perform. Therefore, while you can take swift and free actions while also taking a full-round action, the only way that can occur is if those actions are occurring simultaneously with the full-round action.
So at tick 00 on your turn 'clock', you're starting Spell Combat. At tick 01, when you pop out the metamagic rod from your glove, you've violated the requirements for Spell Combat. The same thing is true if you start the turn with the metamagic rod in your hand: Since a full-round action by definition must start at tick 00 of the clock, the rod is in your hand when you try to perform Spell Combat - and so you fail to meet the requirements for it.
You're painting a picture of actions occurring in a linear sequence, and that's not correct in this instance; the correct picture is of action A - a full-round action that takes the entire turn to occur - and of actions B, C, D, etc. which are occurring at various points throughout the duration of action A.
and if you cast it after Spell Combat, it doesn't take place with Spell Combat because Spell Combat is technically already resolved, and the Quickened Spell would be its own little thing.There is no "after Spell Combat". Spell Combat lasts from tick 00 of your turn to tick 06 of your turn, at which point your turn is over.*
*The exception to this is a five-foot step; the full-round action description states you can take this "before, during or after the action", but a five-foot step is 'not an action' so it breaks the normal rules flow.
Let's put it another way:
The magus is adjacent to the target with his weapon in hand.Magus turn start.
- Magus use the glove to retrieve the rod - in no way that affect the full round action he need to do, anyone can do a free action when performing a full round action.
- magus cast a still shocking grasp as a quickened spell using the rod. Swift action. - in no way that affect the full round action he need to do, anyone can make 1 swift action while performing a full round action.
- magus deliver shocking grasp with spellstrike. It is the attack given by the touch range spell. A no action.
- magus store the quickening rod. - in no way that affect the full round action he need to do, anyone can do a free action when performing a full round action. It is his second free action, well within the limits of "a reasonable number".
- magus declare spell combat: at this all the conditions are fulfilled, he can. The requirements to make an action are checked when you make the action. - Start of spell combat.
- magus make his first attack and kill his opponent.
- he take a 5' step to be adjacent to another opponent - a no action that don't interfere with him using a full round action.
- he make his second attack and end his attack routine
- then he cast shocking grasp (spell combat)
- and make another attack with spellstrike. - end of spell combat.
- magus use quickdraw and draw a dagger.
That is how it work. The magusd need to abide to the rules for using spell combat for the fullduration of his full round action, but if he has a mean to do other actions before or after the full round actions he don't need to abide to the rules of spell combat.
Magus: When using spell combat, can the weapon in my other hand be an unarmed strike or a natural weapon?Yes, so long as the weapon is a light or one-handed melee weapon and is associated with that hand. For example, unarmed strikes, claws, and slams are light melee weapons associated with a hand, and therefore are valid for use with spell combat. A tail slap is not associated with a hand, and therefore is not valid for use with spell combat.
—Pathfinder Design Team, 04/05/13
The key part is "When using spell combat". A full round action limitations don't last all of your round, they last only while you are performing the action, you can still take swift and free actions before of after that.
If you charge (full round action) and you have a swift ability that is triggered by a successful charge you can make it, even if it is a action that you can't perform during a charge, as the charge action as ended.| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
As Malachi points out, the failure is not due to the fact that Spell Combat is a full-round action, it's that Spell Combat states that you must have one hand free. The general consensus (backed by designer quotes) is that you must have the hand free for the entire turn.
So you are correct that if all we were dealing with was a full-round action, the suggested scenario would be legal; however, the specific full-round action (Spell Combat) includes specific text that makes the scenario invalid.
To the original post: I agree that the language is incorrect; it should say "turn" rather than "round". That said, I don't believe that it needs an FAQ; the intent of the text is clear - it just needs a correction in the term used.
Even though here is exactly what his turn would be like:
[Optional: Free Action, Quick Draw Metamagic Rod; duration, 0 seconds]
Swift Action, Cast Quickened Bladed Dash; duration, 0 seconds
Free Action, Store Metamagic Rod in Glove of Storing; duration, 0 seconds
Full-Round Action, Perform Spell Combat; duration 6 Seconds.That is 100% legal by the RAW and accurate to its interpretation.
First, free actions do not take 0 seconds. They may take a small amount of time, but they still take time - thus why a GM can reasonably limit the number you can take in a round.
Second, you list Spell Combat as the last 'action' in a sequence, and that's simply not correct.
By definition, a turn\round is 6 seconds in length. A full-round action states that it takes the full duration of your turn to perform. Therefore, while you can take swift and free actions while also taking a full-round action, the only way that can occur is if those actions are occurring simultaneously with the full-round action.
So at tick 00 on your turn 'clock', you're starting Spell Combat. At tick 01, when you pop out the metamagic rod from your glove, you've violated the requirements for Spell Combat. The same thing is true...
Once again, the RAW would like a word with you. I understand the RAI quite clearly, but the point of argument is that the RAW does not match up with the otherwise assumed RAI.
I already quoted the RAW, of which Swift and Free Actions specifically state that they do not take any time at all. When it takes no time at all, the assumed duration is 0 seconds. As far as the RAI is concerned regarding that, the Action is performed so instantaneous that it doesn't affect the Full Round Action.
There is even a clause in the Swift Action (which takes more effort than a Free Action) that straight out says it doesn't interfere with your other actions.
There is no "turn clock," there is no "ticks" in a turn, there is a sequential order of which you take actions, and there is no clause that says you must start with a Full Round Action in order to take a Full Round Action.
|
|
Are you saying that he's casting a quickened spell AND casting a second spell as part of Spell Combat?The Quickened Spell has nothing to do with Spell Combat, because it is cast previously before performing Spell Combat.
That isn't to say, you can't cast 2 Spells for Spell Combat, but the Quickened Spell must be cast during Spell Combat in order for it to take effect [after the initial spell cast is discharged], because if you cast it before Spell Combat (with, let's say, Shocking Grasp), performing Spell Combat afterward would override the spell you cast previously, or would not be a part of Spell Combat since it is already expended (Bladed Dash would fall into the latter of the two), and if you cast it after Spell Combat, it doesn't take place with Spell Combat because Spell Combat is technically already resolved, and the Quickened Spell would be its own little thing.
In addition, the RAW would definitely agree with my interpretation, since that is exactly what it's saying.
Of course, it may not be RAI, though I will say that if you post the Dev Quote that Xaratherus was talking about, it most certainly will help things out here.
Forgive me, I misunderstood. I thought you needed the rod to cast the Spell Combat spell.
Anyway, If the quickened spell could be completely resolved before you start the Spell Combat then I see no problem. Despite the concept that all things are happening simultaneously, the actual rules have each action resolved in order. So, do whatever swift/free actions you like with whatever you like in your hands, then Spell Combat with the off-hand free for the duration of that action, then do whatever free actions you want once Spell Combat is resolved.
The issue here with the spell combat problem is that it is a special FULL ROUND ACTION and f-r actions by RAW stake they take the entire round meaning technically its not just your turns action economy you are consuming. It begins at the very begging of your turn and ends at the start of your next. Because of this and the fact that spell combat requires that entire time that you have nothing in your hand it causes a problem.
|
|
The issue here with the spell combat problem is that it is a special FULL ROUND ACTION and f-r actions by RAW stake they take the entire round meaning technically its not just your turns action economy you are consuming. It begins at the very begging of your turn and ends at the start of your next. Because of this and the fact that spell combat requires that entire time that you have nothing in your hand it causes a problem.
Ah! Now I understand what this is all about.
Yes, the 'full round action' is poorly named. A more accurate name would be 'full turn action', because it is begun and resolved immediately. In contrast to a one round casting time, where you not only have to take a full round action to cast it, it doesn't resolve until the start of your next turn.
It's 'full' round only in the respect of action economy:-
* move+move
OR
* move+standard (or standard+move)
OR
* full round
It lasts for that entire action. It is completely resolved within your turn. If you can take swift or free actions then these may be usable during that full round action, but may also be used on your turn before and/or after you initiate that full round action.
Yeah, the wording should be adjusted to make that clear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue here with the spell combat problem is that it is a special FULL ROUND ACTION and f-r actions by RAW stake they take the entire round meaning technically its not just your turns action economy you are consuming. It begins at the very begging of your turn and ends at the start of your next. Because of this and the fact that spell combat requires that entire time that you have nothing in your hand it causes a problem.
Except the Full Round Action statement then follows up by clarifying that "Thus, it cannot be coupled with a standard or move action."
I don't think I have much to add, although I guess that having the debate over the Spell Combat case come over to this thread demonstrates that it was not just me picking battles and creating a controversy out of nothing. Had I not stumbled across that debate/problem, but had just realized the RAW was problematic vs. accepted RAI, I would probably have just posted it to the Errata thread, but since it was an actively problematic issue, it seemed valid to escalate to a FAQ until the next printing/Errata can be issued.
Incidentally, I realized another repurcussion contrary to accepted RAI: people assume that getting a bonus Move or Standard Action allows them to combine those with a F-R Action during their turn, one before the other. By this RAW, you can't do that, you could only spend Bonus Move+Move+Standard. Kind of a significant detail.
And yes, the NAME of Full-Round Action is itself misleading (vs. conventionally accepted RAI), but I don't expect that to change because too many things reference that name. The issue is not the name, which can be whatever it wants, but the actual exposition of rules connected to that name.
And to be clear, I don't really know what the RAI is. I do know that many many players have played contrary to this RAW, including in PFS games and probably in games with Paizo staff themself, and Paizo has never done anything about it to "correct" them. That said, Paizo could rule either way on this, either stating the RAW is inaccurate, or uphold the RAW and change how many many people play the game. The FAQ/Errata petition is just to bring that issue to the fore, to resolve the issue one way or the other.
Thanks for hitting FAQ.
FYI, I was referring to this line:
RAW, that seems to exclude using a F-R Action in combo with a Bonus Move granted by an ability, such as that of the Pathfinder Chronicler PrC.
(unless the Bonus Move Action ability EXPLICITLY STATES that it can be combined with a F-R Action, which the above PrC does not do)
Of course, martial classes are the ones who most depend on Full Round Actions, for casters it's just gravy.
Whether that is RAI or not is up to Paizo to confirm.
If some ability allows moving or taking a move action AS A swift action, that isn't a problem, as it is done as a swift.
Your point re: non-convertability of Standard/Move/Full-Round Actions is spot on, and also applies to Surprise Rounds or when Staggered.
While I appreciate your point about the lack of definitive correlation between "realistic" time and "effort" or even "real time" sequentiality per se, the rules themselves are currently giving strong indications otherwise: (Action Types definition)
I can't really think of why that line is even necessary, but it's existence prods people in a certain direction.
I'm not expecting Paizo to Errata ALL these instances... Many cases of the rules using "round" when "turn" is more precise just don't matter, because turn is a subset of round... But some are worded in a way that IS more problematic, and with the 'fluff' text NOT clearly ruling out one or another paradigm, that can impact actual game play (as seen by debate over specific abilities).
At least a FAQ to resolve issues that they don't want to Errata would seem justified. But rather than leave a minefield of possible RAI/RAW conflicts that may require individual FAQs, I'd think that it's preferable to bring everything into conformance with a clear, easily understood single paradigm, and only have variations from that clearly expressed where necessary for RAI... Thus, if rules text is not accurately expressing RAI, it's usually best to fix it.
@ Kazaan: I already explained in a RAI standpoint that a Swift Action (and by Transitive Property of Congruency, Free Actions) take practically zero effort to perform. The Rules even say that they take no time at all, and take little to no effort to do, and since there is no distinction in the rules regarding actions and their effort (i.e. so and so Free Action is X duration and takes Y amounts of physical force to do), we can't really say that the term "effort" has a proper application in both mechanics and concepts.
As far as I'm concerned, my explanation is concise and accurate to the RAW interpretation, and fits with the expected RAI that we otherwise take for granted, as well as the RAI we gather from the restrictive RAW, and there hasn't been a single argument made that my explanation did not cover. If one does come across, I'll happily attempt to refute it, and if I can't, then I will concede. But until then...
@ Quandary: In regards to something giving you so and so action to perform, instead of performing so and so action as a Swift/Free/Immediate Action, is a lot more different than you think.
Quick Runner's Shirt says that, as a Swift Action, you can take an additional Move Action for Movement. In this case, the Shirt, which is a Swift Action to activate, allows a second Move Action for Movement for the bearer to use. Because it is its own utilization (i.e. a Move Action is still needed to actually move), it cannot be done with a Full Round Action.
Whereas a Quickened Spell says that you instead cast a Spell with X Casting Time (1 Standard, 1 Round, 1 Minute, etc.) as a Swift Action. Since it has a utilization separate from what it otherwise would normally be (instead of 1 Standard/Round/Minute casting time, it only takes a Swift Action), it can be done with a Full Round Action.
I read the F-R Action rule as discussing action types: Standard and Move.
I have no familiarity with this Quick Shirt (and never mentioned it myself),
but it didn't sound like people were saying it granted a Move Action (type of action) i.e. Move Action 'slot',
but that it let you do the Move Action (specific action) as a Swift Action,
which isn't in conflict with a rule discussing compatability with action TYPES i.e. slots.
Again, I have no familiarity with that item, and if it's using un-necessary mechanical bypasses to do it's thing, it could well have problems there.
...I won't get into the naming of the Move Action Type of Action here.
It actually does, as it says so here.
Once per day as a swift action, the wearer can take an additional move action to move on his turn.
It says that as a Swift Action, you can take an additional Move Action for movement.
You're welcome to spend a Swift Action to activate the shirt, but when you are denied Standard or Movement Actions upon attempting a Full Round Action, it does nothing for you.
|
|
It actually does, as it says so here.
Once per day as a swift action, the wearer can take an additional move action to move on his turn.It says that as a Swift Action, you can take an additional Move Action for movement.
You're welcome to spend a Swift Action to activate the shirt, but when you are denied Standard or Movement Actions upon attempting a Full Round Action, it does nothing for you.
Except that isn't what it says. It says nothing about spending a swift action to activate and THEN getting a bonus movement, it states that you can use the swift action as a bonus move action. You are adding a step that does not exist in order to invalidate an item to use it as an example to support your argument. That step does not exist, however, it is as written, a direct exchange of a swift action for a movement action 1 time per day.
It's good that there is examples of specific cases possibly impacted by the general rule being discussed, but I think debate over the specifics of those belongs in another thread... When the topic is the validity of this general rule, EXACTLY how it filters down to each case is distracting, IMHO. Not at all trying to disparage or invalidate any particular position or topic, but this thread was created to distinguish it's topic from the discussion of another specific case, after all.
Basically the spells are an exception to the normal use of a full round actions. I really wish they were just stated as taking 1 round since that is really what is going on with them.