Design Manager
|
I'm sorry OldSkoolRPG, I'm not seeing the distinction you are. It's NOT normally, it's in a normal turn and in a normal turn you may only take 1 standard and one swift action.
As to "regardless of what other actions you take", please look at the spell Borrowed Time. "For the duration of this spell, you gain an extra swift action you can use only during your turn." So it's 100%, totally FALSE that you can NEVER gain more than one per round. Taking that into account, there are things that can let you override the "regardless of what other actions you take" clause. Prove to me the ready action isn't one of them...
And the spell specifically overrides the restriction, because it contains text that says it does. "Ready" contains no such text, though it does for standard actions.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone who knows a lot more than me probably knows this answer.
Using reading, and having that trigger. Does that still count as your normal turn? Or is it now something different due to already ending your turn?
It moves your initiative (techincally even if the trigger is the guy after your turn, the number would change).I've always thought it initiated it's own turn and that was why you could use any of the action types (sans full action).
So folks who know more, is there any evidence of this one way or another? Off hand I didn't see anything gthat listed it as the same turn; despite ending your turn using the reading action. (it is a standard action that ends your turn..) Nor did I see anything that says it is it's own turn.
Off hand I'm inclined to think it's it's own special turn, after all ready action text says you can use any of those actions but does not specify you must have not used a swift action before.. (Though it also doesn't say what happens if you use your immediate action before your trigger goes off.. I suppose that your readied action would fail at that point)
So Ready action says "The ready action lets you prepare to take an action later, after your turn is over but before your next one has begun." So that would mean that the ready action does not happen on your current turn. So you could, potentially, use ready to activate a swift in the same round that you used a swift action, but the trigger couldn't be anything that occurs during your turn. So, using Bane and then readying an action to use Judgement when an enemy attacks you would work, but readying an action to use Judgment when you activate Bane would not.
Readying an action doesn't change your initiative.Delaying an action is how you change your initiative.
Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.
Emphasis mine. Taking a readied action changes your initiative.
|
I think lines are kinda drawn on this and suggest an interested party review the FAQ format sticky and post separate posts on:
1) direct substitution of a swift for a standard and/ or move;
2) use of a readied action to use a second swift in the same round;
3) ability to opt to use a standard or move when a class ability or other rules resource "improves" the action economy tequirement to a swift.
Stuff
You may have missed my point. I'm not saying that you cannot do something worse. I'm saying that if the option to do worse isn't there in the rules, then, by the rules, you cannot do worse. As in, you cannot arbitrarily change aspects of an ability because you want to do "worse" or otherwise. The passage you quoted states that you can cast a "worse" spell, in regards to caster level. So, if you want to, you can cast a spell at reduced caster level because that rule says that you can.
In the case of missing or getting hit intentionally, there's nothing really there in the rules about that. So, on the rules end of things, you can't. Whether that holds up in play is another thing entirely. Though, if allowed, it would effectively be a house rule. Similar to how some people early in the thread had mentioned a house rule that allowed you to trade a standard for a swift.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's approaching "Dead character not taking actions is a house rule" territory.
While that might be hyperbolic, it's along the lines of what he's trying to say. There aren't rules for doing worse than normal because of realistic assumptions.
.
I'd prefer if swift actions were more specifically detailed, because the current wording could be read in context of how they are applied when viewed against free actions, vs a hard rule for everything.
I'm in the camp of allowing an action that normally can be done as a swift action, to be used during your standard or move instead. You are still performing a standard action, just to do something that could be done as quickly as a swift normally.
Due to the possible abuse potential in certain abilities, a blanket "You cannot perform the same swift action more than once a round" clause, that I'd break on a per ability basis (if it's an ability that seems like you should be able to, which I haven't found yet).
I fully accept that this would be a house rule if needed, but it would be nice for folks walking into a PFS game to know where they stand according to the rules (so it doesn't change from DM to DM, and a potential build becoming invalidated for it).
.
Also, I just thought to note that when Swift actions first came out, there was like.. a couple spells + quickened spell, and maybe an ability or feat that used it.
Now, it's become almost the "favorite" action mechanic for so many new things in Pathfinder expansion books, that it might be a good idea to revisit and lock down the wording on this action type. There's a lot more interplay than there was back when the rule was first introduced, and the potential for interactions was probably not foreseen on this level.
As Malachi put it, the action type was introduced as a "limited free action" and the RAW mostly written from that perspective. How the PDT wants to handle it today might be a good idea to announce (in a small errata of adding a line of text to the action type, or a simple FAQ that puts it in no uncertain terms how they want it handled).
|
StuffYou may have missed my point. I'm not saying that you cannot do something worse. I'm saying that if the option to do worse isn't there in the rules, then, by the rules, you cannot do worse. As in, you cannot arbitrarily change aspects of an ability because you want to do "worse" or otherwise. The passage you quoted states that you can cast a "worse" spell, in regards to caster level. So, if you want to, you can cast a spell at reduced caster level because that rule says that you can.
In the case of missing or getting hit intentionally, there's nothing really there in the rules about that. So, on the rules end of things, you can't. Whether that holds up in play is another thing entirely. Though, if allowed, it would effectively be a house rule. Similar to how some people early in the thread had mentioned a house rule that allowed you to trade a standard for a swift.
There are rules for deliberately failing saving throws. Why? Because sometimes a creature wants to be affected by a spell, even when it is expected to be detrimental. They also introduced (harmless) as a qualifier in the saving throw entry of certain beneficial spells, so that you didn't have to accept it if you didn't want it, because previously those 'beneficial' spells allowed no save, and this could be exploited by a fiendishly brilliant player.
So they found a need to write a rule allowing deliberate save failure. But they have yet to find a need to write rules about deliberately being hit or deliberately missing. First, there was no 'no save' entry on attack rolls that needed legislation to avoid (like with saves). Second, as a problem for the DM to adjudicate, it's not rocket science! 'Er...okay, you miss him. Don't bother rolling'.
Nor have they found a need to write rules allowing you to take more time than you need in order to use an ability.
The devs admit that the rules don't cover every possible situation. For those situations not described (like deliberately missing), that's what the DM is for!
For things that the rules cover, like Reach weapons not being allowed to attack at 5-feet, you must follow those rules unless you have another rule which says otherwise.
For things not covered in the rules, the lack of a rule does not prevent it! If your stance is that the lack of a 'deliberate miss' rule means that you're not allowed to deliberately miss, then that same logic means that the lack of a rule allowing you to go to the toilet means that the game rules forbid you from evacuating your bowels!
That is not a stance I can support.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except your position led to you saying that you can't attack with a long spear haft until you saw the sharp tip off of the end. Which is really, really nonsensical. You really do seem to be using two different standards. I'm not trying to be hostile, I'm just trying to suss out the differentiation here. The rules also don't speak to whether you can use the spear shaft as an improvised weapon that doesn't have the reach quality.
While I disagree with Malachi's position on standard/swift action topic this is entirely something different. If I remember correctly you were one of the participants in the debate over whether part of a weapon can be used as an improvised weapon.
In that thread the two views were 1)That weapons are constructed of separate parts that individually are not intended to be weapons and that you can use those parts of the weapon as improvised weapons. 2) That manufactured weapons are always treated by the rules as a single object that is intended as a weapon and so neither the weapon nor any of its parts can be used as improvised weapons.
So it is a bit disingenuous to come here and dredge up an old debate and declare the opposing side as nonsensical as if it was resolved when there was never any official ruling as far as I can recall. If there was an official ruling and I somehow missed that then I apologize and carry on lol.
Probably already been brought up, but you are limited to one swift action per round regardless. So, if you converted your standard to a swift, you'd only be able to use that swift action if you hadn't used any other swift actions that round.
Or another way, you have an infinite number of swift actions, but you can only use one of them per round.
|
Design Manager
|
Probably already been brought up, but you are limited to one swift action per round regardless. So, if you converted your standard to a swift, you'd only be able to use that swift action if you hadn't used any other swift actions that round.
Or another way, you have an infinite number of swift actions, but you can only use one of them per round.
Not exactly true; you're limited to one swift action per turn, not per round. Funtionally that often means the same thing because you take swift actions on your turn, but if you have an option that allows you to take one after your turn, it isn't limited by your earlier swift action (unless you're somehow able to take two swift actions on someone else's turn, in which case you can't because of the per turn limit).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Probably already been brought up, but you are limited to one swift action per round regardless. So, if you converted your standard to a swift, you'd only be able to use that swift action if you hadn't used any other swift actions that round.
Or another way, you have an infinite number of swift actions, but you can only use one of them per round.
You are limited to one swift action per turn.
So you can do a Standard, Move, and Swift per turn (and free/non actions).That can be read as meaning not Standard, Move, Swift and Swift per turn.
What is being suggested doesn't break that rule (if read that way).
As an example, this is something that could be suggested: do Judgement as your swift action, Lay on Hands as your Standard action, and then Move as your move action.
You are still only doing one swift action (you aren't getting standard, move, swift and swift), but you are performing two actions that normally require only swift to perform.
.
The whole basis of the argument is around whether Swift action restrictions are meant to:
Restrict a person from making more than one swift action in addition to his standard and move actions.
or
Restrict a person from performing different actions that require a swift to perform.
One is a simulationist look at actions (what I physically have time to do in a round), while the other is a gamist look at actions (judgements and lay of hands can't be used in the same turn, it's a tactical decision).
And the reason people are seeing the first interpretation is because Swift actions are described from the perspective of Free actions, which normally have "no limit" (within reason, DM's call).
Since it's being described that way, the implication of the "only once per round" feels like it's talking more about the actual action economy (only one swift), rather than the actions themselves (no judgement + lay on hands).
.
My personal stance is that it breaks my suspension of disbelief too much with the gamist interpretation. I personally allow a normally swift action ability to be used during your standard action or even move action.
The only thing I might restrict is that since the wording of swift actions is "you are doing it while doing other things, hence not taking up much time", simultaneity restricts a particular swift action to only once per turn (so you can't lay on hands three times in one turn, but you can lay on hands, change judgement and cast a quickened spell).
|
Design Manager
|
That's actually incorrect. Using a swift does not prevent you from taking an immediate, taking an immediate outside your turn prevents you from using your next swift. "Effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn". So what I described is, in fact, the result of the proposed rules change.
No - you are incorrect.
Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action and counts as your swift action for that turn.If you use a swift - you can't use an immediate on your turn. You technically could use the immediate after your turn - it would then burn your swift for the next turn. RAW what you proposed couldn't work, you'd have to wait for initiative to pass and then burn the immediate. Pedantic perhaps but this is the rules forum after all.
As to if this really results in being overpowered for the inquistor - I'd have to playtest to see how it really pans out - it looks good on paper - but so many things do that turn out meh.
Since the original response was apparently phrased in a manner that was taken to be offensive, let me try and post one that works:
We are saying the same thing. You must have misread what I originally posted, wherein the Inquisitor, under the proposed rules change, was taking a swift action, exchanging his standard to perform another swift action, and then activating his immediate on his allies turn. So my statement was correct, it looks like you may have just missed and/or misunderstood what I was saying.
You are limited to one swift action per turn.
So you can do a Standard, Move, and Swift per turn (and free/non actions).
That can be read as meaning not Standard, Move, Swift and Swift per turn.
What is being suggested doesn't break that rule (if read that way).
As an example, this is something that could be suggested: do Judgement as your swift action, Lay on Hands as your Standard action, and then Move as your move action.
You are still only doing one swift action (you aren't getting standard, move, swift and swift), but you are performing two actions that normally require only swift to perform.
No one has shown one single shred of evidence to support the claim that an action typed as one action becomes a Standard if you use that action to perform it. The rules say, and I quote, "You can take a move action in place of a standard action." See that, the move doesn't become a standard action and you don't "use your standard action to perform another move." Rather you are allowed to replace you standard action with a move action. So you take no standard action and take two move actions. There is absolutely no change of action types.
The whole basis of the argument is around whether Swift action restrictions are meant to:
Restrict a person from making more than one swift action in addition to his standard and move actions.
or
Restrict a person from performing different actions that require a swift to perform.
One is a simulationist look at actions (what I physically have time to do in a round), while the other is a gamist look at actions (judgements and lay of hands can't be used in the same turn, it's a tactical decision).
And the reason people are seeing the first interpretation is because Swift actions are described from the perspective of Free actions, which normally have "no limit" (within reason, DM's call).
Since it's being described that way, the implication of the "only once per round" feels like it's talking more about the actual action economy (only one swift), rather than the actions themselves (no judgement + lay on hands).
Please stop trying to assign motives and labels, i.e. gamist, to those who disagree with you. I don't know about others who have been debating this issue but whether or not you can use judgement + lay on hands or anything else has no bearing on it. What matters is what the rules actually say and they say "You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take." So whether you move or not, whether you take your standard action or not, or anything else (except apparently one spell) you can only take one swift. You can't take a swift and the replace your standard action with another swift like you can take a move and then replace your standard action with another move.
My personal stance is that it breaks my suspension of disbelief too much with the gamist interpretation. I personally allow a normally swift action ability to be used during your standard action or even move action.
The only thing I might restrict is that since the wording of swift actions is "you are doing it while doing other things, hence not taking up much time", simultaneity restricts a particular swift action to only once per turn (so you can't lay on hands three times in one turn, but you can lay on hands, change judgement and cast a quickened spell).
So you admit your interpretation is entirely based upon personal play style preferences. I'm sorry, but you finding it difficulty to maintain suspension of disbelief has no bearing on what the rules actually are.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of a "gamist interpretation", you could consider a swift/interrupt action to be so taxing that you can only do it once a round. As if it winds you and you can't work up the strength to do that kind of action again until you catch your breath.
A swift action isn't a minor thing like a free action. It is described as being a larger expenditure of energy and effort.
It's not allowed by RAW. Personally, I don't mind allowing players to trade their standard action (but not their move action) for an additional swift action...
You can cast 2 quickened spells instead of 1 quickened spell and 1 standard spell. Not exactly a great deal...
The Inquisitor can use Judgement and Bane in the same round? So what? Now he can't attack because he spent his standard action buffing himself.
It's not allowed by RAW. Personally, I don't mind allowing players to trade their standard action (but not their move action) for an additional swift action...
You can cast 2 quickened spells instead of 1 quickened spell and 1 standard spell. Not exactly a great deal...
The Inquisitor can use Judgement and Bane in the same round? So what? Now he can't attack because he spent his standard action buffing himself.
That is my position as well. It isn't allowed by RAW but I see no problem with houseruling it.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not allowed by RAW. Personally, I don't mind allowing players to trade their standard action (but not their move action) for an additional swift action...
You can cast 2 quickened spells instead of 1 quickened spell and 1 standard spell. Not exactly a great deal...
The Inquisitor can use Judgement and Bane in the same round? So what? Now he can't attack because he spent his standard action buffing himself.
As I pointed out earlier, that's not always the case. Teamwork feats are nice because of the increased action economy they give, and it's easily possible for an Inquisitor to shoehorn an attack action or even full-round charge action into a round they've already taken a standard in. So against enemies with high DR or other defenses the Inquisitor might have trouble piercing, being able to action swap like that could absolutely be the superior option.
I don't think it's actually game-breaking though (almost nothing that runs off of the "I hit it and deal damage" mechanic is going to be game-breaking), it's just worth keeping in mind that there are going to be times where you get unintended and superior options when you change the current RAW. Spellcasters who use action economy manipulating spells and classes with Teamwork feats are probably going to be the key areas to watch here since they've got the most options for manipulating their action economy.
|
Wow, My thread is over 185 posts, and has already received some Moderation because of folks losing their cool! keep up the discussion guys we'll reach 200 posts yet!
There is a lot of circular logic going around. I personally think that a little more crystal clarity would be helpful, to me and the groups I play in. I also wish the abilities that were intended to be once per round abilities were written as such rather than using swift actions as a crutch for laziness of design. All actions should be able to be traded up for slower actions (at an always 1:1 ratio regardless of relative scale in order to prevent abuse). this just makes so much sense that many folks simply assume its included in the rules even when we discover to our surprise in a later reading that woops, its not.
If you feel as I do, then click FAQ, if you don't, don't.
|
|
Except your position led to you saying that you can't attack with a long spear haft until you saw the sharp tip off of the end. Which is really, really nonsensical. You really do seem to be using two different standards. I'm not trying to be hostile, I'm just trying to suss out the differentiation here. The rules also don't speak to whether you can use the spear shaft as an improvised weapon that doesn't have the reach quality.
To help you suss out the difference, the rules for weapons in general and reach weapons in particular are wholly defined when trying to use them as well as you can. There are no rules for using them in a worse fashion, so the rules don't, for example, disallow a deliberate miss.
The rules for improvised weapons are specifically for objects that are not weapons. The rules are written that disallow using weapons as if they were not weapons. Although there are no rules for using them in a worse fashion, claiming to do that while also claiming the ability to discard the written disadvantage of the reach quality (no adjacent attacks) is actully claiming an advantage, not making it worse!
While the clear intent of reach weapons is to specifically deny adjacent attacks, and the clear intent of the improvised weapon rule is to give weapon stats to objects that don't have them, the intent of swift actions is to be exactly like free actions....the only difference being you only get one, compared to as many free actions as you want. it is certainly not clear that they don't want you to execute tasks which you could do as a swift at your fastest to be done more slowly as a standard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also wish the abilities that were intended to be once per round abilities were written as such rather than using swift actions as a crutch for laziness of design.
The limits of swift are supposed to be baked into the abilities that rely on them. Swift actions force you to choose which swift/interrupt you wish to use from round to round. Game design thrives on interesting choices.
All actions should be able to be traded up for slower actions (at an always 1:1 ratio regardless of relative scale in order to prevent abuse).
The game could have been designed with that in mind from the beginning, but it was not. To try to change such a major rule this far in the life cycle of the game, would cause unneeded balancing headaches. Personally, if I were going to go around changing the game, the first thing I would get rid of is iterative attacks for high BAB. It slows down combat and punishes those who need to move and attack. Simply giving damage bonuses for higher BAB would be cleaner and faster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@OldSkoolRPG
I wasn't attempting to disprove anything you've said, but rather shedding light on the reason for different interpretations between folks here.
When you state "There is absolutely no change of action types.", it's a level of strict rules reading that a lot of folks might not follow. You are taking it as factual proof, whereas I'm trying to show how someone else's interpretation may come to this different conclusion.
.
Regarding my "simulationist" and "gamist" labels, they were not made to slander or deride one interpretation or another. I often prefer gamist rules (hitpoints or spell slots, for example) for their ease of play, or tactical fun.
Rather I'm giving a label because that's the conclusion each interpretation pushes towards.
Reading the restriction as a method of how much time you have in a round to perform actions is putting it in a simulationist light (what is my character physically limited in this game world at performing, does it make sense).
Reading the restriction as a limitation on interaction of various abilities, such that it forces you to make tactical decisions on whether you use one ability or another, and balance of character power, puts it in a gamist light.
This isn't to say that one method is somehow "lesser" than another, but rather to put it into perspective as to why some people would read the rules in a certain way (the simulation aspect is more important to them than the mechanical interactions, or vice versa).
It was simply a way to shed light on why someone would read the same text and see something completely different. Not to put down one interpretation or another.
.
And my personal preference was made known in my first post in this thread. That doesn't mean I can't see both interpretations and understand the arguments made for both.
My last paragraph wasn't intended as proof of anything, but simply further indication as to why I'd personally run it a certain way, regardless if that was the correct ruling as per PDT or a house rule.
I thought that was obvious with the way I started the paragraph with "My personal stance", rather than "This is RAW".
.
TL;DR - It seems like you've read my post in a more argumentative tone than I wrote. Understandable in a thread with folks arguing their side, lol.
My post was more to simply explain why there's two interpretations going on. It seemed like there was a lot of misunderstanding or talking past each other in this thread, and I was hoping to enlighten, not convince or deride.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like you've read my post in a more argumentative tone than I wrote. Understandable in a thread with folks arguing their side, lol.
My post was more to simply explain why there's two interpretations going on. It seemed like there was a lot of misunderstanding or talking past each other in this thread, and I was hoping to enlighten, not convince or deride.
I apologize if I jumped to a conclusion about your intent. I admit the whole simulationist/gamist terminology is a pet peeve of mine. I don't fit nicely into either one of those and have seen them used way too often to dismiss ideas or arguments, so that may have gotten me unjustly riled up. Again I apologize for my incorrect assumptions as to your intent and tone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks :)
And for what it's worth, I try to avoid labeling a person with such terminology, since I myself enjoy many aspects of both styles of gaming, I honestly don't think most people who play pen and paper roleplaying games neatly fit into a single gaming method.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All actions should be able to be traded up for slower actions (at an always 1:1 ratio regardless of relative scale in order to prevent abuse).The game could have been designed with that in mind from the beginning, but it was not. To try to change such a major rule this far in the life cycle of the game, would cause unneeded balancing headaches.
Don't worry -- it's already been stated that Pathfinder Unchained will contain an action point system as an optional rule. No telling how many 'swift' actions we'll get in a turn once that goes live...
|
|
Personally, I prefer a more simulationist approach to my games. Stray to far from what is reasonably believable and your rules break immersion. Once that happens, it becomes less like roleplay and more like a board game. That was what broke 4th edition for me, too many of the available actions felt like strategy game mechanics rather than the sort of thing a real fantasy (yes, yes, oxymoron I know) character would do or be capable of. For some folks that's fine, its not for me, but you're entitled to play the game in anyway you find fun.
|
|
Wow, My thread is over 185 posts, and has already received some Moderation because of folks losing their cool! keep up the discussion guys we'll reach 200 posts yet!
There is a lot of circular logic going around. I personally think that a little more crystal clarity would be helpful, to me and the groups I play in. I also wish the abilities that were intended to be once per round abilities were written as such rather than using swift actions as a crutch for laziness of design. All actions should be able to be traded up for slower actions (at an always 1:1 ratio regardless of relative scale in order to prevent abuse). this just makes so much sense that many folks simply assume its included in the rules even when we discover to our surprise in a later reading that woops, its not.
If you feel as I do, then click FAQ, if you don't, don't.
I will be happy to click FAQ on threads that address the multiple questions brought up here and which are presented in the format requested by the development team in the sticky post.
So basically the argument is that the rules specifically say you can use a standard for a move action. However in actuality you can also trade any longer action action for any shorter action. If that is true then why only call out move and standard actions? Before the excuse of "swift actions are a late game edition and it was an oversight" comes up there were still free actions. Before the excuse of you can do free actions at any time comes up this would allow you to cast a spell that was prepared as a quickened spell and they used to be free actions before swift actions were invented. Also 3.5 had the rules compendium and then we had the playtest for Pathfinder.
So I ask once again just to b sure my question is clear→ Why are specific actions called out if the intent is to sub any action?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So basically the argument is that the rules specifically say you can use a standard for a move action. However in actuality you can also trade any longer action action for any shorter action. If that is true then why only call out move and standard actions? Before the excuse of "swift actions are a late game edition and it was an oversight" comes up there were still free actions. Before the excuse of you can do free actions at any time comes up this would allow you to cast a spell that was prepared as a quickened spell and they used to be free actions before swift actions were invented. Also 3.5 had the rules compendium and then we had the playtest for Pathfinder.
So I ask once again just to b sure my question is clear→ Why are specific actions called out if the intent is to sub any action?
I'm in agreement with your conclusion but want to point out one thing in your post. The rules do not say you can use your Standard Action to perform an action that is normally requires Move Action. It says you can REPLACE your Standard Action with a Move Action.
Examples:
You can't use your Standard Action to control a frightened mount(a move action). You can replace your Standard Action with a Move Action and use that Move Action to control your frightened mount.
You can't use a Standard Action to stand up from prone. You can replace your Standard Action with a Move Action and use that Move Action to stand up from prone.
You can't use a Standard Action to ready or drop a shield. You can replace your Standard Action with a Move Action and use that Move Action to ready or drop a shield.
It is subtle but important distinction. The whole misconception that action types change this way is the cause of all the confusion on this thread.
