|
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?
Answer: the rules don't let you swap a standard action for a swift action. However, the rules are silent on whether you can execute such tasks as LOH on yourself as a standard action, even though you could execute them faster.
I'm supposed to do 60 spins of roulette in one hour, one per minute. If my pit boss tells me to work faster and get 120 spins in, do I reply that trying to get two minutes into every minute is against the laws of physics? Or do I just work faster.
If I want to take my time and use LOH on myself as a standard, why am I being accused of trying to get two swifts? I want to take one swift and one standard.
Answer: the rules don't let you swap a standard action for a swift action. However, the rules are silent on whether you can execute such tasks as LOH on yourself as a standard action, even though you could execute them faster.I'm supposed to do 60 spins of roulette in one hour, one per minute. If my pit boss tells me to work faster and get 120 spins in, do I reply that trying to get two minutes into every minute is against the laws of physics? Or do I just work faster.
If I want to take my time and use LOH on myself as a standard, why am I being accused of trying to get two swifts? I want to take one swift and one standard.
No the rules are not silent. The rules for LoH say "Using this ability is a standard action, unless the paladin targets herself, in which case it is a swift action." It does not say the paladin CAN use it on herself as a swift action. It simply says that using on herself IS a swift action. It has nothing to do with the speed at which it can be performed.
When the rules say that Channel Energy is a Standard Action they don't have to specify you can't Channel Energy as a Move Action or as a Swift Action because they specified what action it is. When the rules say that standing from prone is a Move Action they don't have to specify you can't do it as a Standard Action, or a Swift Action because they specified what type of action it is. When the rules say that using LoH on yourself is a swift action they don't have to specify you can't do it as a Standard Action or a Move Action because they told you what type of action is required. You cannot perform any action on any other action type than is specified.
The reason you are being accused of trying to get two swifts is because using LoH on yourself is ALWAYS(how can I stress always any more?) a Swift Action.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stray to far from what is reasonably believable and your rules break immersion.
So I take it you ban all magic?
Naw, Wizards get away with everything. Only time the "realism" hammer comes down, is on martial PCs.Stray to far from what is reasonably believable and your rules break immersion.So I take it you ban all magic?
QFT
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to muddy the waters more...
You can cast a quickened spell (see the Quicken Spell feat), or any spell whose casting time is designated as a free or swift action, as a swift action.
So you can cast spells which take a free action as a swift action if you want.
|
|
Answer: the rules don't let you swap a standard action for a swift action. However, the rules are silent on whether you can execute such tasks as LOH on yourself as a standard action, even though you could execute them faster.I'm supposed to do 60 spins of roulette in one hour, one per minute. If my pit boss tells me to work faster and get 120 spins in, do I reply that trying to get two minutes into every minute is against the laws of physics? Or do I just work faster.
If I want to take my time and use LOH on myself as a standard, why am I being accused of trying to get two swifts? I want to take one swift and one standard.
No the rules are not silent. The rules for LoH say "Using this ability is a standard action, unless the paladin targets herself, in which case it is a swift action." It does not say the paladin CAN use it on herself as a swift action. It simply says that using on herself IS a swift action. It has nothing to do with the speed at which it can be performed.
When the rules say that Channel Energy is a Standard Action they don't have to specify you can't Channel Energy as a Move Action or as a Swift Action because they specified what action it is. When the rules say that standing from prone is a Move Action they don't have to specify you can't do it as a Standard Action, or a Swift Action because they specified what type of action it is. When the rules say that using LoH on yourself is a swift action they don't have to specify you can't do it as a Standard Action or a Move Action because they told you what type of action is required. You cannot perform any action on any other action type than is specified.
The reason you are being accused of trying to get two swifts is because using LoH on yourself is ALWAYS(how can I stress always any more?) a Swift Action.
And once again I reply that the rules are written with a certain set of assumptions, among which is the assumption that you're trying to do things as fast and efficiently as possible. Thus, there are no rules for executing tasks more slowly than you could, just like there are no rules for deliberately missing. Or going to the toilet. But I dispute that this means you're not allowed to do those things. The rules are permissive in the areas that they address. For the areas that are not addressed (deliberately missing, going to the toilet, doing things slowly) that's where the DM comes in.
So, not trying to manipulate time, just doing things more slowly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stray to far from what is reasonably believable and your rules break immersion.So I take it you ban all magic?
This argument is getting old.
No need to toss out the baby with the bathwater. I can handwaive physics for rules that are meant to break reality.
That applies equally to "elite martial expertise" as it can magic.
The normal rules for the in-game universe emulating reality for immersion doesn't preclude the PCs being amazing in their right.
It's a matter of internal consistency.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And once again I reply that the rules are written with a certain set of assumptions, among which is the assumption that you're trying to do things as fast and efficiently as possible. Thus, there are no rules for executing tasks more slowly than you could, just like there are no rules for deliberately missing. Or going to the toilet. But I dispute that this means you're not allowed to do those things. The rules are permissive in the areas that they address. For the areas that are not addressed (deliberately missing, going to the toilet, doing things slowly) that's where the DM comes in.
So, not trying to manipulate time, just doing things more slowly.
And once again I will try to say this so you will finally get it. Action...Types...Are...Not...Measures...Of...Speed. Got that? Do I need to say again that Action types are not measures of speed. How can I get that across any clearer.
An action being a Standard Action does not mean it takes longer than a Move Action because action types are not measures of speed. They take into account several factors other than speed such as complexity of an action, amount of concentration the action takes, etc... When you choose to replace your Standard Action with a Move Action this does not mean you are taking the Move Action more slowly. How fast or slowly you are performing the actions is never even a factor.
The rules, and I can't emphasize this enough, DO NOT denote the amount of time it takes to perform an action. The rules use actions types rather than amount of time to denote what you can do in a round. They don't say it takes 1 second to use LoH on yourself. So you aren't arguing that you want to be able to take 3 seconds to perform it instead. The rules say it uses a swift action to use LoH on yourself and you want to say no I don't like the specified type and want to do it as a standard. That is like saying I don't like my human character being a Humanoid type I want my human character to be an Outsider. It is like saying I don't like that my Shuriken are classified as ammunition I want to use them as thrown weapons instead. The rules tell you the action type for LoH. That excludes other action types. Your repeated references to doing it more slowly is simply obfuscation of the fact that you just want to arbitrarily change the designated action type.
|
Stray to far from what is reasonably believable and your rules break immersion.So I take it you ban all magic?This argument is getting old.
No need to toss out the baby with the bathwater. I can handwaive physics for rules that are meant to break reality.
That applies equally to "elite martial expertise" as it can magic.The normal rules for the in-game universe emulating reality for immersion doesn't preclude the PCs being amazing in their right.
It's a matter of internal consistency.
This.
Basically, if you were to read a transcript of your combat and remove the dice rolling, does it read like something out of a fantasy novel, or not, if not then the rules are too game like and not immersive enough. They lack believability. 4th edition was this way, its why I jumped ship from d&d. Arguably, its why a good portion of Paizo's design team did as well.
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.
That is what I meant. I was just trying to avoid being all technical with it. I know action types don't really change. My point to be clear is that you can only use the action type that is called for barring some special ability. So no using standards to perform an act that calls for a swift action. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
when the gods (DM) are watching, one does not simply lay of hands himself twice in 6 seconds.
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?
Answer: the rules don't let you swap a standard action for a swift action. However, the rules are silent on whether you can execute such tasks as LOH on yourself as a standard action, even though you could execute them faster.
I'm supposed to do 60 spins of roulette in one hour, one per minute. If my pit boss tells me to work faster and get 120 spins in, do I reply that trying to get two minutes into every minute is against the laws of physics? Or do I just work faster.
If I want to take my time and use LOH on myself as a standard, why am I being accused of trying to get two swifts? I want to take one swift and one standard.
My point is that you can not use use a certain action to perform an act that calls for another action.
That is the intent.
Acts are tied to actions, so by using a standard action to perform an act that calls for a swift action you are effectively doing/using two swift actions.
Per RAW there is no allowing for you to use any action other than the one listed for an act. That is also RAI unless you have something to show precedent without a special rule in place.
Do you get my point now?
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.
While I'm sure it'd be advantageous every now and then, most of the time it's not a good deal... And even when it is, it's usually not all that impressive.
And once again I will try to say this so you will finally get it. Action...Types...Are...Not...Measures...Of...Speed. Got that? Do I need to say again that Action types are not measures of speed. How can I get that across any clearer.
...
Well, the action type rule section says:
An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform...
...
Swift Action: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, ...
So you might see why people are assuming it's based on a measure of how fast you are performing the actions.
In fact, I'm having trouble finding anything that implies action types mean more than how long they take (other than the part on free/swift taking so little effort they can be done while doing other things, and move actions talking about moving your speed, although that one even says "or an action that takes a similar amount of time." ).
I may be missing a later section though, if you can quote one with more description of action type limitations for me.
I'm doing this from my phone, so it's tough going doing the legwork.
|
|
Y'know, I actually kind of agree about the action type =/= time point raised above. But, as raised in a subsequent post, well, yes they are. : )
They are a combination of time and complexity. That's why I don't think move actions are adequate but standard actions are (to execute the task that should only take a swift). This is illustrated in the rule about only getting two spells per round: one from a standard and one from a swift, because these two actions have the required complexity.
From their (late) inception, tacked on to the d20 system, swift actions are really standard actions at a discount.
I'm not forced to take the discount.
Y'know, I actually kind of agree about the action type =/= time point raised above. But, as raised in a subsequent post, well, yes they are. : )
They are a combination of time and complexity. That's why I don't think move actions are adequate but standard actions are (to execute the task that should only take a swift). This is illustrated in the rule about only getting two spells per round: one from a standard and one from a swift, because these two actions have the required complexity.
From their (late) inception, tacked on to the d20 system, swift actions are really standard actions at a discount.
I'm not forced to take the discount.
That is your flavor/fluff view of them, and I agree that by real world logic it would make sense, but that does not always translate to a rule in the game world. The idea of a fighter only being able to "forget" certain feats is an example of that with his class ability.
So to be sure we are clear, I understand your logic. I am also saying that if the PDT were to rule today, they would say "It does not work that way".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Y'know, I actually kind of agree about the action type =/= time point raised above. But, as raised in a subsequent post, well, yes they are. : )
They are a combination of time and complexity. That's why I don't think move actions are adequate but standard actions are (to execute the task that should only take a swift). This is illustrated in the rule about only getting two spells per round: one from a standard and one from a swift, because these two actions have the required complexity.
From their (late) inception, tacked on to the d20 system, swift actions are really standard actions at a discount.
I'm not forced to take the discount.
No, they really really aren't. That is why an unarmed fighter who just wants to jab, an action that in the real world is both very simple and very fast, still takes a standard action to do that. Action types are just action types. Actions categorized as a certain action type are just always that action type. You are just trying to justify doing something the rules don't allow by trying to use terminology, i.e. speed, to make it look like it makes real world sense when action types have no bearing on real world measures.
You also keep ignoring the fact that the rules never allow you to use one action type to perform an action from another type or to change an actions type from one to another,i.e. Ready is always a Standard Action, Standing from Prone is always a Move Action, and LoH is always a Swift action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stray to far from what is reasonably believable and your rules break immersion.So I take it you ban all magic?This argument is getting old.
No need to toss out the baby with the bathwater. I can handwaive physics for rules that are meant to break reality.
That applies equally to "elite martial expertise" as it can magic.The normal rules for the in-game universe emulating reality for immersion doesn't preclude the PCs being amazing in their right.
It's a matter of internal consistency.
Two counter points:
1) you're argument in no way counters what I said in regards to his post.
2) old arguments can still apply if they're valid; arguments don't lose validity just because they're old.
As many people have said, if he wants to house rule this, he can. By all means, change the rules to fit the game you want to play! But don't pretend that a game of fantasy and magic is somehow lessened just because one minor rule wasn't written the way you believe it should be written. It's a game. Change it up as you see fit. And play by the rules when you go to formal settings (like PFS).
For me, this entire argument is akin to arguing that a knight should be able to move only one space in chess, and demanding that the creators of chess change the rules because it breaks immersion that a knight can move 3 spaces, but somehow can't move one.
2) old arguments can still apply if they're valid; arguments don't lose validity just because they're old.
It was an idiom. Don't take it literally.
.
Your post felt dismissive, and drawing upon the forum sensationalism that goes on. The fact that it elicited 3 additional semi-dismissive/joking comments immediately after only made it feel like guys high-fiving after a "good burn".
I don't know if that was your intention, but that's how you came across.
.
As many people have said, if he wants to house rule this, he can. By all means, change the rules to fit the game you want to play! But don't pretend that a game of fantasy and magic is somehow lessened just because one minor rule wasn't written the way you believe it should be written. It's a game. Change it up as you see fit. And play by the rules when you go to formal settings (like PFS).
The post you took your isolated quote from literally said it was his personal feelings.
Here, I'll bold the sections that tell you he isn't telling you to change anything:
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.
You are taking his personal comments and making it out as a global attack on how everyone should game.
I don't know why.
2) old arguments can still apply if they're valid; arguments don't lose validity just because they're old.It was an idiom. Don't take it literally.
.
Your post felt dismissive, and drawing upon the forum sensationalism that goes on. The fact that it elicited 3 additional semi-dismissive/joking comments immediately after only made it feel like guys high-fiving after a "good burn".
I don't know if that was your intention, but that's how you came across..
As many people have said, if he wants to house rule this, he can. By all means, change the rules to fit the game you want to play! But don't pretend that a game of fantasy and magic is somehow lessened just because one minor rule wasn't written the way you believe it should be written. It's a game. Change it up as you see fit. And play by the rules when you go to formal settings (like PFS).The post you took your isolated quote from literally said it was his personal feelings.
Here, I'll bold the sections that tell you he isn't telling you to change anything:
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.You are taking his personal comments and making it out as a global attack on how everyone should game.
I don't know why.
I see your point, and it is a fair one. However, I never made it a global argument. I made it an argument against him specifically and then other people (yourself included) extracted from there.
|
|
And once again I will try to say this so you will finally get it. Action...Types...Are...Not...Measures...Of...Speed. Got that? Do I need to say again that Action types are not measures of speed. How can I get that across any clearer.
A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform only a single swift action per turn.
You can cast spells in a fraction of the normal time.
Now call me crazy but i think time and speed are related, otherwise physics are wrong
|
|
Y'know, I actually kind of agree about the action type =/= time point raised above. But, as raised in a subsequent post, well, yes they are. : )
They are a combination of time and complexity. That's why I don't think move actions are adequate but standard actions are (to execute the task that should only take a swift). This is illustrated in the rule about only getting two spells per round: one from a standard and one from a swift, because these two actions have the required complexity.
From their (late) inception, tacked on to the d20 system, swift actions are really standard actions at a discount.
I'm not forced to take the discount.
No, they really really aren't. That is why an unarmed fighter who just wants to jab, an action that in the real world is both very simple and very fast, still takes a standard action to do that. Action types are just action types. Actions categorized as a certain action type are just always that action type. You are just trying to justify doing something the rules don't allow by trying to use terminology, i.e. speed, to make it look like it makes real world sense when action types have no bearing on real world measures.
You also keep ignoring the fact that the rules never allow you to use one action type to perform an action from another type or to change an actions type from one to another,i.e. Ready is always a Standard Action, Standing from Prone is always a Move Action, and LoH is always a Swift action.
Action types are game terms which determine certain aspects of the game, now this is a game that is "supppoused" to represent a fantasy game where physics do exist normally. I think you haven´t read the very first post of this thread.
The "faq" request is actually a plead for a rules change or a rules clarification in the vein of what has been discussed so far. Raw is pretty clear.
Now so far it has been adressed that
-By Raw you cant change action types, except standard/move
-It is not broken to be able to change the action type, because you still have one swift action per round. Hence you cant make more actions than normal
-It does make sense because of the physics involved.
-There is a precedent for changing actions to others via standard/move exchange
so at the end what i see is that people post witouth even bothering reading the whole discussion so far, so many points have already been adressed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And once again I will try to say this so you will finally get it. Action...Types...Are...Not...Measures...Of...Speed. Got that? Do I need to say again that Action types are not measures of speed. How can I get that across any clearer.
A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform only a single swift action per turn.Now call me crazy but i think time and speed are related, otherwise physics are wrong
You can cast spells in a fraction of the normal time.
So if I said "making breakfast consumes a very small amount of time" you would then, because time is related to speed in physics (more accurately speed = velocity x time but speed =/= time as you are trying to suggest), that "making breakfast" then becomes a measure of speed?!? That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard.
You even deceptively bolded the text of your quote because it also says a swift action consumes a small amount of time but represents a larger expenditure of energy and effort. The text explicitly said swift actions represent not only speed but also energy and effort.
In my posts above I said exactly that. That action types represent more than just speed. Note I didn't say that speed isn't a factor at all, I said they aren't measures of speed.
Yes quicken spell lowers the time factor involved in spells so they are just a swift action. Other things might lower the effort required for an action instead to make it a swift. Something else might lower the energy necessary and thus reduce an action to swift. None of that indicates that action types are measures of speed.
|
|
represents a larger expenditure of energy and effort than a free action
and probably
represents a larger expenditure of energy and effort than a no action
So what was your point again? that im beign deceptive?
Action types are not measures of speed.
That action types represent more than just speed.
Note I didn't say that speed isn't a factor at all, I said they aren't measures of speed.
Probably you should make this clearer, because it looks like if you are changing what you said
None of that indicates that action types are measures of speed.
Yeah, they are measures of time spent
so what you are saying is that time spent has nothing to do with speed?
Well i dont even know how to answer that, maybe i read you incorrectly
So if I said "making breakfast consumes a very small amount of time" you would then, because time is related to speed in physics (more accurately speed = velocity x time but speed =/= time as you are trying to suggest), that "making breakfast" then becomes a measure of speed?!? That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard.
making breakfast represents a larger expenditure of energy and effort than blinking
ormaking breakfast takes less time than travelling to the moon.
or
making breakfast can be done faster than answering this thread
and speed= distance/time
represents a larger expenditure of energy and effort than a free actionand probably
represents a larger expenditure of energy and effort than a no action
So what was your point again? that im beign deceptive?
My point was that action types are an abstraction of a number of different factors one of which is speed or time spent on the action. One swift action might take more time but represent less effort than another.
You say that they are measures of time spent. No, they are not. That is just one factor. An action that takes a longer time but requires very little concentration or effort might be a swift action. Likewise an action that takes a very short amount of time but requires more concentration or effort might also be a swift action. One takes less time than the other but is still a swift.
For standard actions, a monk's quick jab with his fist and a heavily armored warrior's sweep of his greataxe both take the same type of action but realistically the jab is much faster. Why? Because action types aren't just about speed.
Action types are a very broad way of classifying actions without having to go in and assign values to all of these different factors (speed, concentration, effort, etc...) for each action.
Edit: Oh and excuse me for flubbing the formula for speed with the formula for distance. I am at work and was interrupted mid post and had a brain fart when I returned as to what I as typing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if I said "making breakfast consumes a very small amount of time" you would then, because time is related to speed in physics (more accurately speed = velocity x time but speed =/= time as you are trying to suggest), that "making breakfast" then becomes a measure of speed?!? That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard.Speed, in the context of the action types, is the time it takes to perform the task. Speed is not time, but it is indeed related to time.
Trying to argue that a swift action is or is not faster than a standard action is the wrong argument. Everyone here should agree that a standard action takes longer time. Everyone here should agree that a swift action takes less effort than a standard action as well.
The only reason people should be saying you can't take two swift actions in a round is the verbatim text that says just that.
However, I postulate, it is possible that specific text was simply meant to be a delimiter definition separating a swift action from a free action instead of keeping a standard (longer) action from performing a swift (shorter) action. Which interpretation makes more sense?
I don't believe that there are conversion rules for a full round action being able to do a free action either. Anyone know if that RAW citation exists? I don't think anyone would argue that since it doesn't explicitly state it, you can't purposefully take your time and perform a free action over a long enough period that it takes a full round action.
Can you take a full round action to cast a quickened spell? By RAW, no. Can you take 10 minutes to cast it? Again, no. Makes no sense, but there we are.
The problem is you are limiting it to just a comparison between swift and standard actions and actually I would argue that swift's aren't necessarily faster than standard actions.
Here is an example, the paladin and his mount are in combat with the paladin on the mount. Though they are in physical contact it is a Standard Action for the paladin to use LoH on his mount but a Swift Action for him to use on himself. Why? It isn't because it takes more time to reach over touch the mount. Why would it take any more time to perform that action? It isn't a matter of speed.
Also comparing standards to move. Are you telling me it takes longer for a human to punch someone in the nose (Standard Action) than it takes for them to run 30'(Move Action)?
Action Types are not measures of speed. They just are what they are and each action is given a specific type and that is what it takes to perform that action regardless of how fast or slow you say you are performing it.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to argue that a swift action is or is not faster than a standard action is the wrong argument. Everyone here should agree that a standard action takes longer time. Everyone here should agree that a swift action takes less effort than a standard action as well.
I don't agree that a swift takes less effort than a standard. I think it takes a different kind of effort that you can only summon up about once every 6 seconds or so. It's not the time it takes but the level of focus or concentration required to do it that limits it to once a round.
Oh, and physics teacher pedant:
|
|
So if I said "making breakfast consumes a very small amount of time" you would then, because time is related to speed in physics (more accurately speed = velocity x time but speed =/= time as you are trying to suggest), that "making breakfast" then becomes a measure of speed?!? That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard.Speed, in the context of the action types, is the time it takes to perform the task. Speed is not time, but it is indeed related to time.
Trying to argue that a swift action is or is not faster than a standard action is the wrong argument. Everyone here should agree that a standard action takes longer time. Everyone here should agree that a swift action takes less effort than a standard action as well.
The only reason people should be saying you can't take two swift actions in a round is the verbatim text that says just that.
However, I postulate, it is possible that specific text was simply meant to be a delimiter definition separating a swift action from a free action instead of keeping a standard (longer) action from performing a swift (shorter) action. Which interpretation makes more sense?
I don't believe that there are conversion rules for a full round action being able to do a free action either. Anyone know if that RAW citation exists? I don't think anyone would argue that since it doesn't explicitly state it, you can't purposefully take your time and perform a free action over a long enough period that it takes a full round action.
Can you take a full round action to cast a quickened spell? By RAW, no. Can you take 10 minutes to cast it? Again, no. Makes no sense, but there we are.
The problem is you are limiting it to just a comparison between swift and standard actions and actually I would argue that swift's aren't necessarily faster than standard actions.
Here is an example, the paladin and his mount are in combat with the paladin on the mount. Though they are in physical contact it is a...
Here you are saying "dont campare to real life they are game terms"
Then you compare real life to a game termNow the game term specify they take "less time"
You should get your official idea in order.
Are we discussing real life or not? no, we are not. There are descriptions that say and define what game terms do. In this case swift action EXPLICILY say to take less time than standard actions. Whether you say "so in real life this action..." is irrelevant, any example such as that is completely irrelevant.
Now there the game represents a state where physics exist, but you cant play for both team. Either you avail rule of real life dependancy or the rule defined trought abstract terms of the game.
So if I said "making breakfast consumes a very small amount of time" you would then, because time is related to speed in physics (more accurately speed = velocity x time but speed =/= time as you are trying to suggest), that "making breakfast" then becomes a measure of speed?!? That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard.Speed, in the context of the action types, is the time it takes to perform the task. Speed is not time, but it is indeed related to time.
Trying to argue that a swift action is or is not faster than a standard action is the wrong argument. Everyone here should agree that a standard action takes longer time. Everyone here should agree that a swift action takes less effort than a standard action as well.
The only reason people should be saying you can't take two swift actions in a round is the verbatim text that says just that.
However, I postulate, it is possible that specific text was simply meant to be a delimiter definition separating a swift action from a free action instead of keeping a standard (longer) action from performing a swift (shorter) action. Which interpretation makes more sense?
I don't believe that there are conversion rules for a full round action being able to do a free action either. Anyone know if that RAW citation exists? I don't think anyone would argue that since it doesn't explicitly state it, you can't purposefully take your time and perform a free action over a long enough period that it takes a full round action.
Can you take a full round action to cast a quickened spell? By RAW, no. Can you take 10 minutes to cast it? Again, no. Makes no sense, but there we are.
The problem is you are limiting it to just a comparison between swift and standard actions and actually I would argue that swift's aren't necessarily faster than standard actions.
Here is an example, the paladin and his mount are in combat with the paladin on the mount. Though they are
Here you are saying "dont campare to real life they are game terms"
Then you compare real life to a game term
Now the game term specify they take "less time"
You should get your official idea in order.
Are we discussing real life or not? no, we are not. There are descriptions that say and difine what game terms do. In this case swift action EXPLICILY say to take less time than standard actions. Whether you say "so in real life this action..." is irrelevant, any example such as that is completely irrelevant.
Now there the game represents a state where physics exist, but you cant play for both team. Either you avail rule of real life dependancy or the rule defined trought abstract terms of the game.
Perhaps you can edit your post so that I can understand what you are referring to. You posted all the quotes at once and then said "here is where you say x" and "then you say y" and I can't tell what x and y you are talking about. The quotes you posted don't even contain the arguments you are accusing me of so I have no clue how to address this.
A standard action can move you 30 feet. A swift action can move you 0 feet. The amount of work capable of being performed is greater during a standard action. Therefore, the effort required for a standard action has to be greater than a swift action?
First a standard action does not allow any movement at all. Movement requires a move action. It does say you can take a move action in place of your standard action but then you are taking a move and not a standard. Second the Battle Oracle revelation Surprising Charge lets you move up to your speed as an immediate action which is a swift equivalent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To muddy things:
You can make a charge as a standard action (when you can't make full round actions), which involves moving up to your speed and then attacking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the question listed in a more FAQ friendly way:
In the description of the swift action, does the line "You can perform only a single swift action per turn" limit you from performing an action that normally can be done as a swift action during your standard action (similar to swapping in a move action for your standard), or is it only meant to be a continuation of the previous sentence detailing the differences from free actions, allowing the swap?
I think that more clearly states the two ways people are reading the text. Simple FAQ answer can put it all to rest (and help folks know where they stand in PFS vs houserules).
.
The problem I might see here is that unless you add in something like "You can only perform a particular swift action once per round.", you may need to have a special clause like they do with Quickened spells for every swift action ability you don't want happening more than once a round.
This gives weight to ruling on the side of "can't swap" because it would mean the least amount of errata or rules interaction consideration. Since they want to normally avoid any errata in general (and esp. on the main core rulebook and a core functionality of the game), I think regardless of how they might feel, it will be ruled that way.
Though putting in an alternative rule for swift actions in, say, the Unchained book, might be a way to introduce an elaborated alternative.
First a standard action does not allow any movement at all. Movement requires a move action. It does say you can take a move action in place of your standard action but then you are taking a move and not a standard. Second the Battle Oracle revelation Surprising Charge lets you move up to your speed as an immediate action which is a swift equivalent.
Semantics. After expending your standard action to do so, by converting it to a move action as you said, you are still 30 feet further down the road.
It would have been funnier if you said you quicken spell a teleport and travel 100 miles. Specific trumps general. Kudos!
I'm trying my best to speak in general rules terms.
The whole I'm spending a standard action to move is part of the problem here. Because some people are arguing that because they want to spend a standard action to perform that second swift action that the second swift action isn't really a swift it is a standard. In the rules an action never changes type unless there is a spell, feat or ability that specifically changes it. The whole reason for this discussion is because people want to change a swift action into a standard action to get around the limit on one single swift action per turn.
Also Surprising Charge is not magic. So trying to equate an argument about the teleport spell with my point that Surprising Charge allows you to move your speed as an immediate action is very disingenuous. Yes we all know that magic can do crazy things and that doesn't prove anything about action speeds. However, we aren't talking about magic here and so you didn't address the point at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
wow, 240 posts, and you guys are still drawing battle lines?
I would have expected you to agree to disagree by now...
It's only on page 5. We have to at least go to page 10.
|
|
The whole reason for this discussion is because people want to change a swift action into a standard action to get around the limit on one single swift action per turn.
Plese, this is not true. The swift action limit is not what is in discussion. This is the fith time i say this in this thread, dont get people confused
|
|
It's still civil so it's still useful~
At least it was for me, I learned a lot about readied actions and in the games I play the "ready action swift" should work.
yakno if I ever decide to make a kirin strike character.
I have to admit i learned a lot aobut readied actions and how they are very strange as for actions are referred.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole reason for this discussion is because people want to change a swift action into a standard action to get around the limit on one single swift action per turn.Plese, this is not true. The swift action limit is not what is in discussion. This is the fith time i say this in this thread, dont get people confused
That is exactly the argument Malachi Silverclaw was making!
Yes, it may be the fifth time you have said it and it is as untrue as the first time you said it.
|
|
The whole reason for this discussion is because people want to change a swift action into a standard action to get around the limit on one single swift action per turn.Plese, this is not true. The swift action limit is not what is in discussion. This is the fith time i say this in this thread, dont get people confused
As the OP, I feel I can with a certainty speak to the reason for this discussion. And that reason is that in games I had played over multiple groups and across rule sets 3.5 to PF it has been assumed this was possible without anyone specifically brining the topic up, and with no definitive house ruling. We all just sort of played it that way especially, and most commonly but not exclusively to the casting of quickened spells at their normal casting times. It wasn't until recently when I reread the Actions section of the combat chapter that I realized this might actually not be the case so I sought clarification.
|
|
The whole reason for this discussion is because people want to change a swift action into a standard action to get around the limit on one single swift action per turn.Plese, this is not true. The swift action limit is not what is in discussion. This is the fith time i say this in this thread, dont get people confusedThat is exactly the argument Malachi Silverclaw was making!
Yes, it may be the fifth time you have said it and it is as untrue as the first time you said it.
You say im wrong, I agree to disagree. As i said before "an action reducing ability should not make an ability more difficult to be used than normal". Now thats common sense not how the rules work as of now, maybe you think its bad rules are based on common sense, i dont know.
Your comments however misguide, or could be interpreted as how somone posted somewhere "trying to break the game by taking 3 swift action spells." And thats not the thing we are looking for.
Your comments however misguide, or could be interpreted as how somone posted somewhere "trying to break the game by taking 3 swift action spells." And thats not the thing we are looking for.
You can't make that statement on behalf of others, just yourself, and I never said that is what you were looking for. I said some people on here were arguing that and I linked the posts where they did it.
For those saying you should be able to cast a quickened spell with a standard action... would it provoke an AoO or not?
|
|
You can't make that statement on behalf of others, just yourself, and I never said that is what you were looking for. I said some people on here were arguing that and I linked the posts where they did it.
I can speak for the op, because he has agreed with this. Its possible you haven´t red many earlier posts.
For those saying you should be able to cast a quickened spell with a standard action... would it provoke an AoO or not?
I think they would, basically you cast the spell the same way you have done if you hadnt applied metamagic. Normally doing this would be a huge loss. It does have aplications however on very specific scenarios.