| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Let's say I have an SLA that references a spell, but does not have the same name as the spell.
Let's also say the spell takes a full round action to cast.
Does it take a standard action or a full round action to use the SLA.
Example follows
Bigger(sp): This ability works as though casting a enlarge person.
School transmutation; Level sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting Time 1 round
Components V, S, M (powdered iron)
Spell-Like Abilities: Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
Does it take a standard action or a full round action to cast "Bigger"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Full-Round action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Casting Time 1 round =/= full-round action
n00bxqb, the rules would appear to disagree with you:
A spell that takes one round to cast is a full-round action.
A spell with a casting time of 1 round is a full-round action.
Casting Time 1 round =/= full-round action
Yes it is.
A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.
|
A one full round casting time =/= a full round action.
A spell that takes one round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed....
...When you begin a spell that takes 1 round or longer to cast, you must continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration from 1 round to just before your turn in the next round (at least). If you lose concentration after starting the spell and before it is complete, you lose the spell.
So, casting a spell with a casting time of one full round requires you to expend your full round action. Does that mean that these two things are the same?
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.
I can't actually think of any spell that has a casting time of one full round action (outside of metamagic), but I can think of many with a casting time of one full round.
In the OP, he takes a spell with a casting time of one full round, but he refers to it as a casting time of one full round action. These are different things, and if we are seeking a rules answer then we should be precise in our use of the rules terms under examination.
To be fair, this is a common misconception, and even a common use of imprecise language among those who understand the differences in the two rules definintions.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Kinda looks like everyone knows the difference between a spell that takes your whole turn to cast then finishes immediately, and a spell that takes your whole turn and continues until just before your next turn; except nobody's paying enough attention to the words they read to be able to agree on what they're called, so everyone thinks all these people who actually agree with them are wrong. *sigh*
@OP: I don't understand how you still have your question, when you highlighted the answer to it in your own post.
The OP is asking about what action type an SLA uses and not the difference between full-round action spells and full-round action spells that take 1 round to cast.
Yes, a 1 round casting time spell uses a full round action, I quoted this. That does not mean we assume a full round action uses a 1 round casting time.
There is no misconception except that by those people who think there is. The rules clearly state that a spell that takes 1 round to cast is using a full-round action (as I quoted earlier). That does not mean I or anyone else involved in this thread thinks that the spell goes off immediately.
Nobody here has stated that when you are using a full-round action to cast a 1 round spell that the spell does not take 1 round to cast and yet several of you are assuming we have stated that.
Does it take a standard action or a full round action to cast "Bigger"?
Based on the OP's original question (quote above) we can ask the expanded question so that the discussion can stop being derailed.
Question: When a spell has a casting time of 1 round (ie: a full-round action and takes a round to cast) does the SLA equivalent of the spell take 1 round (ie: a full-round action and takes a round to cast) or does it take a standard action (as per SLAs that are not specified otherwise)?
Answer: If an SLA is replicating a spell then you follow the spell's casting time. If the casting time is 1 round then you are using a full-round action and it takes a round to cast (goes off right before the start of your next turn).
Now, can we stop debating something which is not in question?
My statement needed no further distinction since it was a direct answer to an existing question and dialog which had already stated that it was a 1 round casting time and the question had phrased the answer as "standard action or a full round action" (which assumed 1 round casting time by the earlier portions of the post).
Way to take my post out of context. :)
As an aside, I find it funny that people are stating that a 1 round casting time is not a full-round action when the rules clearly state that it is (I have quoted it and even Malachi quoted it when he said it wasn't). It is a full-round action that does not go off until just before your next turn.
In fact, there is no action type of "1 round". Any spell that has a casting time of "1 round" or more uses an action type of "full-round action" so how can I be wrong by stating the action type used?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know you didn't mean it that way, but the unmodified statement 'a one round casting time equals a full round action', is misleading and incorrect by itself, and other posters (including me) were bringing precision.
Here are some quotes:-
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.
Here's your quote:-
A spell that takes one round to cast is a full-round action.
Here are others:-
You can run as a full-round action.
Withdrawing from melee combat is a full-round action.
Charging is a special full-round action.
So, even though it says that casting a spell with a one round casting time is a full round action, it is not true that a full round action is a one round casting time. They are not equal, and you wrote that they are.
I don't believe that you didn't know that the whole time, but since that's what you wrote then it's okay to correct that statement.
Malachi,
Please show where I stated that a full-round action is a one round casting time? You cannot because I never stated that.
Please show where I ever used the word "equals"? You cannot because I never used that word in any of my posts in this thread.
Please do not take my posts out of context and please do not ascribe me to saying things I did not.
What I did state is that a one round casting time is a full-round action. This is stated right in the rules. Are you saying the rules are incorrect?
Are you stating that a one round casting time is not a full-round action?
Now, when I made my first post stating "full-round action" that was a specific response to a specific question of "Standard or full round action" where the post had already indicated the spell was a 1 round spell and thus the assumption was that a full-round action was the action required for a 1 round spell.
Again, any understanding you may have to the contrary is because you are either misunderstanding the OPs original post or you are taking my first post out of context.
Nefreet, if the majority of posters do not understand how to read context then it is likely the fault is still theirs.
They read my post out of context as a statement all by itself when it was an answer in response to a question that was part of a post that supplied all of the particulars including that this was a 1 round spell.
Lets put it another way: what is the action to cast a 1 round spell? Full-round action.
Is that an incorrect answer? No, it is the correct answer to the question of what is the action required to cast a 1 round spell.
My post was answering the question of what is the action required which is what the OP asked. Failure to understand so basic a question seems to be what you and others are having a problem with.
Instead you jump on what you feel is an 'incomplete answer' when in fact it is complete since it was already stated this was a 1 round spell.
|
|
Please show where I ever used the word "equals"? You cannot because I never used that word in any of my posts in this thread.
Okay.
Casting Time 1 round =/= full-round action
Replying, you wrote:-
n00bxqb, the rules would appear to disagree with you.
He wrote that they are not equal, you replied that the rules disagree with that, leading to the impression that you think the rules say that they are equal.
If anything, you misinterpreted n00bxqb; he was saying the two things aren't the same thing. He wasn't saying that you are wrong about a full round casting time taking your full round action.
It is a little pedantic to correct it, I admit. I doubt that anyone who's posted in this thread doesn't know the difference. But on the other hand, there may be some who read this thread who know less about the rulles, see a post saying that these two things are not equal, a reply saying that this is wrong, and inferring that therefore they must be equal.
The possible mistake that this impression may lead to is that they may think that a casting time of a full round action is the same thing as a casting time of one full round, and we both know that this is not the case.
In short, no-one who 'corrected' you thinks you don't know, we just made sure that no reader was accidentally mis-led.
Malachi, lets look at the order of things.
1) I posted a correct statement in response to the OPs post.
2) n00bxqb responded with what can only be interpreted as a comment saying that my statement was not correct.
Now, he did not provide enough information as to why he believed my statement was not correct so I could only assume he believed that 1 round spells do not equal (and thus use) a full-round action since that is the only information he provided.
Thus, I corrected that (assumed) belief with the rules which you are overlooking again by taking out of context my statement about the rules disagreeing with him.
Perhaps I missed the thrust of his point which, according to you, is that they do use a full-round action but do not mean the same thing but he did not state that and if that is the case it means he took my post out of context to begin with.
In any case, at no point did I state they were the same thing.
In my response to n00bxqb I stated that a 1 round spell uses a full-round action which, if anything, had nothing to do with his statement if his statement was not a contradiction of mine.
If his statement IS a contradiction of mine then my response statement was correct.
So, would you like to take anything else out of context?
Nefreet, I had context, he did not. He provided no basis nor explanation for his statement and it was not part of the discussion up until that point.