|
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.
Ah, so instead of reasoned discourse, agreeing to disagree, addressing my arguments and advancing your own, instead of all that you're simply calling me a liar?
Ah, so instead of reasoned discourse, agreeing to disagree, addressing my arguments and advancing your own, instead of all that you're simply calling me a liar?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 do realize that I was answering ElementalXX with that post? He said no one ever made those arguments and pointed out that he, ElementalXX, had said five times no one ever made those arguments. My post was to show that you, Malachi Silverclaw, had made those arguments and that he, ElementalXX, could say you didn't until he was blue in the face but it was untrue.
So I wasn't calling you a liar or answering your arguments at all. I was answering ElementalXX claim that your arguments didn't exist.
He said no one ever made those argumentsI didn't said that
I was talking about the op´s argument OldSkoolRPG, the op's argument.
Oldskool is having a logical disconnect between his statement "the whole reason for this thread," and why you are mentioning the OP instead of his favored detractor, Malachi.
Somehow, his statement of "the whole reason for this thread," actually only applies to one poster who didn't actually start the thread. But oldskool seems to have problems telling his perception apart from reality.
I know I do, BDTB!
|
|
Just to clarify my position, I'm not trying to turn a swift action into a standard action. I'm trying to undertake a task which I could have done using a swift action, by taking linger and using a standard action instead.
I'm not trying to change one second into three seconds, I'm just taking three seconds to do a task that could be done in one second.
Just to clarify my position, I'm not trying to turn a swift action into a standard action. I'm trying to undertake a task which I could have done using a swift action, by taking linger and using a standard action instead.
I'm not trying to change one second into three seconds, I'm just taking three seconds to do a task that could be done in one second.
As far as my GM call would be; I would allow you to use a standard action to utilize your swift action for the round; but it would count against the 1 swift action in a round limit. So, if you used an immediate action on the enemies turn, you can't use a standard action to take a swift on yours.
He said no one ever made those argumentsI didn't said that
I was talking about the op´s argument OldSkoolRPG, the op's argument.
Oldskool is having a logical disconnect between his statement "the whole reason for this thread," and why you are mentioning the OP instead of his favored detractor, Malachi.
Somehow, his statement of "the whole reason for this thread," actually only applies to one poster who didn't actually start the thread. But oldskool seems to have problems telling his perception apart from reality.
Malachai's argument was just an example, throughout this thread it has been stated multiple times by multiple people that they aren't asking for two swifts they are asking for a standard and a swift and that standard just happens to be performing an action that is normally a swift so see only one swift. The OP said several times he and his group had never doubted that this can be done. The argument is you can spend a standard action for a swift because then you are performing a standard and a swift and not two swifts.
To say that the question of limits on the number of swift actions is not a factor is simply not true. The answer to whether or not you can turn a swift action into a standard action is no because that would allow two swift actions per turn. To say that limits on swift actions is not a factor is to attempt to just dismiss the argument against swapping a standard for a swift.
So again the whole reason for this thread is because people think you can swap one action type for another because it does not violate the limit on swift actions. My point with that statement in my previous post and now is that this misunderstanding is the problem. You can't swap one action for another, at least not without a feat, spell or ability that changes the action type. Swapping your Standard Action for a Move Action is still a Move Action. So even if you were able to swap a Standard Action for a Swift action it would still be a swift action and could not violate the limit of one per turn.
|
|
Actions (tasks) are a different thing than action (type).
You can't turn one action type into another action type (except standard to move), but you can use different action types to perform different tasks.
Is a quickened spell a swift action? NO! It's an action (cast a spell) which uses a swift action to perform.
What kind of action is Lay On Hands? Answer: wrong question! The correct question is 'what action type must be used to perform the action (task) 'Lay On Hands'. Answer: it depends; one use requires a standard and one a swift.
(getting the question phrased correctly) What action type is required to be used to perform the 'cast a spell' action? Answer: it depends.
A quickened spell does not equal a swift action! If that were the case then a swift action would equal a quickened spell, and the existence of other actions which use a swift action to perform (like LOH on yourself) shows that they are not the same thing, they are not equal.
No, quickened spells use your swift action to perform.
Given that the rules are written with certain assumptions (two hands, trying your best to hit, trying your best not to be hit, doing things in combat as quickly and efficiently as you can), then the action type required to perform any action (task) must surely be the limit on how quickly you can do that task, not a limit on how slowly you can do it!
The rules do not cover trying to miss, trying to be hit, doing things more slowly, or going to the toilet. In these cases, the DM is there to adjudicate.
If I was DM, my adjudication would be that you can perform any task that you could have performed using your swift action by using your standard action instead. It wouldn't actually be a swift action, so a quickened spell cast using a standard action would provoke, and not prevent you using your swift (or immediate, if the other way around). Your move action is not adequate, because time is only one factor with action types; complexity is another.
Actions (tasks) are a different thing than action (type).
You can't turn one action type into another action type (except standard to move), but you can use different action types to perform different tasks.
Is a quickened spell a swift action? NO! It's an action (cast a spell) which uses a swift action to perform.
What kind of action is Lay On Hands? Answer: wrong question! The correct question is 'what action type must be used to perform the action (task) 'Lay On Hands'. Answer: it depends; one use requires a standard and one a swift.
(getting the question phrased correctly) What action type is required to be used to perform the 'cast a spell' action? Answer: it depends.
A quickened spell does not equal a swift action! If that were the case then a swift action would equal a quickened spell, and the existence of other actions which use a swift action to perform (like LOH on yourself) shows that they are not the same thing, they are not equal.
No, quickened spells use your swift action to perform.
Given that the rules are written with certain assumptions (two hands, trying your best to hit, trying your best not to be hit, doing things in combat as quickly and efficiently as you can), then the action type required to perform any action (task) must surely be the limit on how quickly you can do that task, not a limit on how slowly you can do it!
The rules do not cover trying to miss, trying to be hit, doing things more slowly, or going to the toilet. In these cases, the DM is there to adjudicate.
If I was DM, my adjudication would be that you can perform any task that you could have performed using your swift action by using your standard action instead. It wouldn't actually be a swift action, so a quickened spell cast using a standard action would provoke, and not prevent you using your swift (or immediate, if the other way around). Your move action is not adequate, because time is only one factor with action types; complexity is another.
You are absolutely wrong. Just like a human is a creature with the humanoid type and fireball damage is damage with the fire type a quickened spell is an action with the Swift type. Lay on Hands on yourself is an action of the Swift type. Lay on Hands on someone else is an action of the Standard type. Standing up from prone is an action of the Move type. Moving your speed is an action of the Move type.
Making an attack is a standard action.
The simplest move action is moving your speed.
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.
The rules say Actions(Tasks) ARE typed not one says you USE an action type.
On the weapons table when a dagger is on the Light Weapons table that is because it IS a light weapon. When stand up from prone is on the Move Actions table it is because it IS a move action and you can't make it another type of action without a feat, spell or other special ability.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We fundamentally disagree, OldSkool!
'How much is that candy bar?'
'That candy bar is a dollar.'
Do we know what he means? Yes, we speak in casual terms all the time; there is no risk of misunderstanding here. But it is not true that a candy bar is a dollar! It's a candy bar, not a unit of currency! That magazine is a dollar also. That means that if that candy bar is a dollar and that magazine is also a dollar, then that candy bar is a magazine!
This is absurd. Of course we know what you mean, but what you mean is not that it is a dollar but that it costs a dollar! Likewise, the rules don't read like a dry technical manual. When they say this task is a swift action, this is imprecise. That task uses a swift action.
If I want that $1 candy bar, and I only have 50 cents, then I can't have that candy bar or any portion of it. But if I have a $5 bill, can I have that candy bar?
'No! It's $1, not $5!'
'It's okay, keep the change!'
'No, five dollars is not one dollar! The candy bar is one dollar! Five isn't one. You haven't got one dollar, so you can't have the candy bar!'
'Really?'
Really?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We fundamentally disagree, OldSkool!
'How much is that candy bar?'
'That candy bar is a dollar.'
Do we know what he means? Yes, we speak in casual terms all the time; there is no risk of misunderstanding here. But it is not true that a candy bar is a dollar! It's a candy bar, not a unit of currency! That magazine is a dollar also. That means that if that candy bar is a dollar and that magazine is also a dollar, then that candy bar is a magazine!
This is absurd. Of course we know what you mean, but what you mean is not that it is a dollar but that it costs a dollar! Likewise, the rules don't read like a dry technical manual. When they say this task is a swift action, this is imprecise. That task uses a swift action.
If I want that $1 candy bar, and I only have 50 cents, then I can't have that candy bar or any portion of it. But if I have a $5 bill, can I have that candy bar?
'No! It's $1, not $5!'
'It's okay, keep the change!'
'No, five dollars is not one dollar! The candy bar is one dollar! Five isn't one. You haven't got one dollar, so you can't have the candy bar!'
'Really?'
Really?
The problem is the candy bar actually costs a Peso, and the magazine is a Rand, and you have 5 Rubels. So, no you can't make change, unless there is a money changer wanting the currency you have and has the currency you want (standard to move).
We fundamentally disagree, OldSkool!
'How much is that candy bar?'
'That candy bar is a dollar.'
Do we know what he means? Yes, we speak in casual terms all the time; there is no risk of misunderstanding here. But it is not true that a candy bar is a dollar! It's a candy bar, not a unit of currency! That magazine is a dollar also. That means that if that candy bar is a dollar and that magazine is also a dollar, then that candy bar is a magazine!
This is absurd. Of course we know what you mean, but what you mean is not that it is a dollar but that it costs a dollar! Likewise, the rules don't read like a dry technical manual. When they say this task is a swift action, this is imprecise. That task uses a swift action.
If I want that $1 candy bar, and I only have 50 cents, then I can't have that candy bar or any portion of it. But if I have a $5 bill, can I have that candy bar?
'No! It's $1, not $5!'
'It's okay, keep the change!'
'No, five dollars is not one dollar! The candy bar is one dollar! Five isn't one. You haven't got one dollar, so you can't have the candy bar!'
'Really?'
Really?
That is a false analogy. A dollar is not a TYPE of candy. We are talking about actions and their types. Standard, Move, Swift, Free and Immediate are what TYPES actions are given just like Chevrolet, Ford and Toyota are TYPES of cars. A Mustang IS a Ford. You ignored the rest of my post showing that this is consistent with every other TYPE in the game. There are three TYPES of weapons Light, One-Handed and Two-Handed. A Dagger does not USE the Light TYPE, it IS Light. A human doesn't USE the Humanoid type, it IS Humanoid. Standing from prone doesn't USE a move action it IS an action of the move type.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is a false analogy. A dollar is not a TYPE of candy. We are talking about actions and their types. Standard, Move, Swift, Free and Immediate are what TYPES actions are given just like Chevrolet, Ford and Toyota are TYPES of cars. A Mustang IS a Ford. You ignored the rest of my post showing that this is consistent with every other TYPE in the game. There are three TYPES of weapons Light, One-Handed and Two-Handed. A Dagger does not USE the Light TYPE, it IS Light. A human doesn't USE the Humanoid type, it IS Humanoid. Standing from prone doesn't USE a move action it IS an action of the move type.
Honestly, I have to say that I agree with Malachi's analogy, Yours break down when you start the weapon comparison because:
"A dagger is light" No a dagger uses the light type, until the wielder of the dagger changes size categories, if a medium character uses a medium dagger the medium dagger uses the light type, but when that medium character becomes small and uses the same medium dagger, then the dagger uses the One-handed type. The weapon has clearly changed types based on the size of the wielder. Logically then an action can change types based on the speed at which the wielder uses said action.
That is a false analogy. A dollar is not a TYPE of candy. We are talking about actions and their types. Standard, Move, Swift, Free and Immediate are what TYPES actions are given just like Chevrolet, Ford and Toyota are TYPES of cars. A Mustang IS a Ford. You ignored the rest of my post showing that this is consistent with every other TYPE in the game. There are three TYPES of weapons Light, One-Handed and Two-Handed. A Dagger does not USE the Light TYPE, it IS Light. A human doesn't USE the Humanoid type, it IS Humanoid. Standing from prone doesn't USE a move action it IS an action of the move type.Honestly, I have to say that I agree with Malachi's analogy, Yours break down when you start the weapon comparison because:
"A dagger is light" No a dagger uses the light type, until the wielder of the dagger changes size categories, if a medium character uses a medium dagger the medium dagger uses the light type, but when that medium character becomes small and uses the same medium dagger, then the dagger uses the One-handed type. The weapon has clearly changed types based on the size of the wielder. Logically then an action can change types based on the speed at which the wielder uses said action.
I replied incorrectly to this the first time and when trying to correct my post I just jumbled everything up so I deleted and started over lol
Edit: You are right. For a small creature a medium dagger is a one-handed weapon. However, you cant just arbitrarily decide to use a dagger this way. A medium creature can't just decide he wants his dagger to be counted as a one-handed weapon to qualify for feats or what have you. It is what the rules say it is unless an ability or something changes it. That is my same point about action types. An action is the type of action the rules say it is unless changed by an ability, feat, etc...
|
|
Weapon Size: Every weapon has a size category. This designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed.
A weapon's size category isn't the same as its size as an object. Instead, a weapon's size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder. In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder.
Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.
The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
We fundamentally disagree, OldSkool!
'How much is that candy bar?'
'That candy bar is a dollar.'
Do we know what he means? Yes, we speak in casual terms all the time; there is no risk of misunderstanding here. But it is not true that a candy bar is a dollar! It's a candy bar, not a unit of currency! That magazine is a dollar also. That means that if that candy bar is a dollar and that magazine is also a dollar, then that candy bar is a magazine!
This is absurd. Of course we know what you mean, but what you mean is not that it is a dollar but that it costs a dollar! Likewise, the rules don't read like a dry technical manual. When they say this task is a swift action, this is imprecise. That task uses a swift action.
If I want that $1 candy bar, and I only have 50 cents, then I can't have that candy bar or any portion of it. But if I have a $5 bill, can I have that candy bar?
'No! It's $1, not $5!'
'It's okay, keep the change!'
'No, five dollars is not one dollar! The candy bar is one dollar! Five isn't one. You haven't got one dollar, so you can't have the candy bar!'
'Really?'
Really?
Sorry, I'll get written up if my drawer's off and I can't accept tips.
But I agree more that the candy bar is one Euro and you're trying to buy it with $5. You have, in a strict sense, more money than the cost but there's no way to do the conversion the way you want to.
Weapon Size: Every weapon has a size category. This designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed.
A weapon's size category isn't the same as its size as an object. Instead, a weapon's size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder. In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder.
Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.
The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.
Please read up above, I think you started posting that before I corrected myself. Sorry for the confusion there :)
Yes a small creature using a medium dagger uses it as a one-handed weapon. For that creature the the dagger is a one-handed weapon because there is a rule saying it is. It isn't a choice. For a small creature a medium dagger is always a one-handed weapon without some special ability making it otherwise. For a medium creature a medium dagger is always a light weapon unless a special ability makes it otherwise. A medium creature cannot just decide to use his dagger as a one-handed weapon for the purposes of feats or abilities that require a one-handed weapon. A medium creature can wield a one-handed weapon with two hands but it is still a one-handed weapon wielded with two hands.
Action types work exactly the same way. They are what the rules say they are. Standing from prone is a move action and without a special ability of some kind it is always a move action because the rules say it is. It isn't a choice. LoH on yourself is a swift action because that's what the rules say it is. Unless you have a special ability or another rule that specifically changes it the action is whatever type the rules say it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It just sucks in a situation where you've changed your judgement (swift), moved to a new position (move), and now you are stuck (standard action left) unable to Lay on Hands yourself, but you could lay on hands an ally?
This is where the internal consistency kicks in for me, and I have to let it happen. Maybe the abilities that should be capable of doing this should have the same verbiage as bardic performance (in that at 13th level, you *can* start it as a swift, but you don't lose the ability to do it as a move).
If I must, I'll houserule it from one end, or the other. LOL!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whether you make the choice yourself or the choice is forced upon you, both 'weapon category of a medium size dagger' and 'type of action required to perform a task' are variable. They do not equal the qualifier.
Evidence? What action type is 'cast a spell'?
Each spell has a specific action type to cast it. Most are a standard action. Quickened spells are a swift action.
The weapon category of a medium size dagger is unchangeable for a medium sized character. A medium dagger is ALWAYS a light weapon for a medium character.
It just sucks in a situation where you've changed your judgement (swift), moved to a new position (move), and now you are stuck (standard action left) unable to Lay on Hands yourself, but you could lay on hands an ally?
This is where the internal consistency kicks in for me, and I have to let it happen. Maybe the abilities that should be capable of doing this should have the same verbiage as bardic performance (in that at 13th level, you *can* start it as a swift, but you don't lose the ability to do it as a move).
If I must, I'll houserule it from one end, or the other. LOL!
I agree, in my game I house rule LoH to say that it is a standard action but if using on yourself you MAY do it as a swift. That has led to the paladin being able to use it on herself twice in a round, once as a swift and then again as a standard, but I haven't found that to be problem.
@Malachi: See Tarantula's answer.
|
|
A dollar is not a TYPE of candy.
In respect of my analogy, candy is neither a type of currency or a unit of currency.
We are talking about actions and their types. Standard, Move, Swift, Free and Immediate are what TYPES actions are given just like Chevrolet, Ford and Toyota are TYPES of cars. A Mustang IS a Ford. You ignored the rest of my post showing that this is consistent with every other TYPE.
Thanks for the car analogy. Mustangs, Fords, Chevrolets, planes, trucks, whatever, are all vehicles. Just like Lay On Hands, cast a spell, activate a spell-like ability, are alll different tasks (actions) that you can perform.
However, in order to actually do what a vehicle by definition needs to do, it requires fuel; in these cases some kind of fossil fuel derived from oil. How much oil depends partly on how far the vehicle is to travel and partly on road conditions.
In order to actually perform any of those tasks in game, you need to use part of your action economy, which is in units of various types. What kind of action type a task requires is variable.
A dollar is not a TYPE of candy.In respect of my analogy, candy is neither a type of currency or a unit of currency.
We are talking about actions and their types. Standard, Move, Swift, Free and Immediate are what TYPES actions are given just like Chevrolet, Ford and Toyota are TYPES of cars. A Mustang IS a Ford. You ignored the rest of my post showing that this is consistent with every other TYPE.Thanks for the car analogy. Mustangs, Fords, Chevrolets, planes, trucks, whatever, are all vehicles. Just like Lay On Hands, cast a spell, activate a spell-like ability, are alll different tasks (actions) that you can perform.
However, in order to actually do what a vehicle by definition needs to do, it requires fuel; in these cases some kind of fossil fuel derived from oil. How much oil depends partly on how far the vehicle is to travel and partly on road conditions.
In order to actually perform any of those tasks in game, you need to use part of your action economy, which is in units of various types. What kind of action type a task requires is variable.
Another false analogy. Action types are just that, types that different actions fall into. Just like creature types are types that creatures fall into. If I asked you what type of car you drive you would not respond gasoline or diesel which are types of fuel not types of vehicles. You would respond with Ford or Toyota maybe Mustang or Camry.
Action types are not "fuel that makes actions go" or slots that actions use like spell slots, they are categories which actions fall into. Those categories are defined by the rules and can't be arbitrarily changed.
A dollar is not a TYPE of candy.In respect of my analogy, candy is neither a type of currency or a unit of currency.
We are talking about actions and their types. Standard, Move, Swift, Free and Immediate are what TYPES actions are given just like Chevrolet, Ford and Toyota are TYPES of cars. A Mustang IS a Ford. You ignored the rest of my post showing that this is consistent with every other TYPE.Thanks for the car analogy. Mustangs, Fords, Chevrolets, planes, trucks, whatever, are all vehicles. Just like Lay On Hands, cast a spell, activate a spell-like ability, are alll different tasks (actions) that you can perform.
However, in order to actually do what a vehicle by definition needs to do, it requires fuel; in these cases some kind of fossil fuel derived from oil. How much oil depends partly on how far the vehicle is to travel and partly on road conditions.
In order to actually perform any of those tasks in game, you need to use part of your action economy, which is in units of various types. What kind of action type a task requires is variable.
Another false analogy. Action types are just that, types that different actions fall into. Just like creature types are types that creatures fall into. If I asked you what type of car you drive you would not respond gasoline or diesel which are types of fuel not types of vehicles. You would respond with Ford or Toyota maybe Mustang or Camry.
Action types are not "fuel that makes actions go" or slots that actions use like spell slots, they are categories which actions fall into. Those categories are defined by the rules and can't be arbitrarily changed.
Source cite?
Source cite?
Action types are not "fuel that makes actions go" or slots that actions use like spell slots, they are categories which actions fall into. Those categories are defined by the rules and can't be arbitrarily changed.
"Standard Action: A standard action allows you to do something, most commonly to make an attack or cast a spell. See Table: Actions in Combat for other standard actions.
Move Action: A move action allows you to move up to your speed or perform an action that takes a similar amount of time. See Table: Actions in Combat for other move actions."
The table lists the actions which are under each type. Barring rules text which allows you to, you cannot change what type each action is.
Source cite?
Source cite for what? I think you are asking me for a citation that says you can't arbitrarily change what the rules explicitly define but I find it hard to believe you are seriously doing that.
In your game can I wield my greatsword as a light weapon so I can use it with weapon finesse? If not please cite the source that says I can't arbitrarily change its weapon type.
If the rules say vital strike is a standard action then vital strike is a standard action. Its a standard action because the rules say so and I can't arbitrarily change it. The very fact that the rules specify it is the source for why I can't do so.
|
|
The weapon category of a medium size dagger is unchangeable for a medium sized character. A medium dagger is ALWAYS a light weapon for a medium character.
So you're saying that if you don't change any of the variables then the variables remain unchanged? Thanks for that.
Meanwhile, cast enlarge person on a medium creature and that medium dagger is no longer a light weapon for it.
Size is also mutable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The weapon category of a medium size dagger is unchangeable for a medium sized character. A medium dagger is ALWAYS a light weapon for a medium character.So you're saying that if you don't change any of the variables then the variables remain unchanged? Thanks for that.
Meanwhile, cast enlarge person on a medium creature and that medium dagger is no longer a light weapon for it.
Size is also mutable.
If you cast enlarge person on a medium creature, then the medium dagger also becomes large, and is now a light weapon for the large creature.
If you cast it on a medium creature, and then he picks up a medium dagger, then he cannot wield it, as it would have changed below a light weapon.
"The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all."
Also, there is this rules text which I just quoted which specifies you change the type of a weapon for size differences. There is no such statement for actions other than standard to move.
|
|
Action types are just that, types that different actions fall into. Just like creature types are types that creatures fall into. If I asked you what type of car you drive you would not respond gasoline or diesel which are types of fuel not types of vehicles. You would respond with Ford or Toyota maybe Mustang or Camry.
I'll show exactly why your position is fundamentally wrong. The 'actions in combat' tables show a range of tasks that a creature can do in its world. Creatures have no concept of game mechanics, so even though a creature has no concept of attack rolls, crit ranges, armour class, etc., it does know what 'attack' means, or 'cast a spell' or 'stand up'. These are the kind of actions we are talking about with Lay On Hands.
However, creatures have absolutely no concept of game mechanics such as the action types called swift, move, standard, full round. These are not real things. These are only game mechanics.
So, when a creature on Golarion asks another, 'What are you doing?', it could reply, 'Attacking the Orc', 'casting magic missile', or 'standing up'.
What the creature can never say is, 'Doing a standard action'.
What the creature can never say is, 'Doing a standard action'.
To be fair, the creature is probably capable of uttering those words, they just have no meaning in game to the other PCs/creatures/characters/etc.
Action types are just that, types that different actions fall into. Just like creature types are types that creatures fall into. If I asked you what type of car you drive you would not respond gasoline or diesel which are types of fuel not types of vehicles. You would respond with Ford or Toyota maybe Mustang or Camry.I'll show exactly why your position is fundamentally wrong. The 'actions in combat' tables show a range of tasks that a creature can do in its world. Creatures have no concept of game mechanics, so even though a creature has no concept of attack rolls, crit ranges, armour class, etc., it does know what 'attack' means, or 'cast a spell' or 'stand up'. These are the kind of actions we are talking about with Lay On Hands.
However, creatures have absolutely no concept of game mechanics such as the action types called swift, move, standard, full round. These are not real things. These are only game mechanics.
So, when a creature on Golarion asks another, 'What are you doing?', it could reply, 'Attacking the Orc', 'casting magic missile', or 'standing up'.
What the creature can never say is, 'Doing a standard action'.
Your arguments are getting more and more ludicrous. Now you are using an equivocation fallacy by interchanging the meaning of the word action referring to the imaginary activities performed by our characters with the meaning of the word action as a rules mechanic term.
Yes if your character is asked what he is doing he will answer "Attacking the orc." but that is not a mechanical term. In order for the character to "attack the orc" the real life player speaking in terms of game mechanics tells the GM "Alric the Brave is going to Move(mechanical term for a type of Move Action) four squares to be adjacent to the orc and Attack(mechanical term for a type of Standard Action) the orc with his sword"
|
|
Your arguments are getting more and more ludicrous. Now you are using an equivocation fallacy by interchanging the meaning of the word action referring to the imaginary activities performed by our characters with the meaning of the word action as a rules mechanic term.
This is what I am accusing you of!
When we imagine the action in a typical sword & sorcery film, the characters will be attacking, casting spells, laying on hands, etc. When we want to role-play those characters, we can use 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th ed D&D, Pathfinder, Chivalry & Sorcery, whatever game we like. All of these systems will have their own game mechanics to simulate the actions that the characters take.
But while these actions are simulated in our games using different mechanics in each game, the actions are not the mechanics.
Yet you persist in saying that a quickened spell is a swift action! No, the action taken (read: task performed) is a different thing than the mechanics of the game that allow you to simulate that action.
What's more, the mechanics that govern, say, casting a spell or making an attack, are separate mechanics from the time it takes to perform that action.
This isn't even about swift vs. standard actions here. The actions on the 'actions in combat' table are not equal to the category of action type on which they may appear. Some appear in more than one category. They use these action types to perform these tasks these are not equal.
|
|
That phrase combined with your avatar is creepy on a level I don't much care to contemplate.To take you completely out of context, I beg to differ, I have paid for many things with candy.
In respect of my analogy, candy is neither a type of currency or a unit of currency.
I really did laugh out loud at this one.
But while these actions are simulated in our games using different mechanics in each game, the actions are not the mechanics.Yet you persist in saying that a quickened spell is a swift action! No, the action taken (read: task performed) is a different thing than the mechanics of the game that allow you to simulate that action.
What's more, the mechanics that govern, say, casting a spell or making an attack, are separate mechanics from the time it takes to perform that action.
This isn't even about swift vs. standard actions here. The actions on the 'actions in combat' table are not equal to the category of action type on which they may appear. Some appear in more than one category. They use these action types to perform these tasks these are not equal.
The fact that you are completely wrong is evident from the fact that the actions on the actions table are defined in the rules. The rules don't define the imaginary activities performed by our characters they define mechanics. Yes we know what a melee attack is in real and game world but the mechanic called "attack(melee)" is the action used to represent that melee attack. The mechanic called "attack(melee)" is specifically defined in the rules and has limitations and restrictions.
First the "attack(melee)" action is categorized as a Standard Action. That is the TYPE of action it is. Do you know what the word TYPE means? It is a category or classification of something.
Second you can only use the "attack(melee)" action on someone within 5' unless the weapon used has reach. That is all mechanics. If attack(melee) were not a mechanical term they would not need to define it as the standard usage would be understood.
A good example of all of this is the full attack action. While your character might say "I am attacking the orc" but your character would never say "I am fully attacking the orc" or "I am executing a full attack". If your character does not move and takes all of their iterative attacks they would still describe that as "attacking the orc" but not moving and taking all of your iterative attacks has a specific mechanical name, the full attack action. The full attack action is a mechanical term that is categorized as a Full Round Action.
Another action "Move 5' Through Difficult Terrain". Your character would say I am moving 5' through mud, or brambles. The term difficult terrain is a mechanical term that has mechanical effects. Moving 5' Through Difficult Terrain is a specific mechanical term that the rules define and place limits and restrictions on. The definition tells you when you can use it, whether it provokes an AoO or not, that it is different than a 5' step(another mechanical term), and yes, it tells you what type or category of action it is, a full round action.
Sorry but your whole theory about the actions being the imaginary activities and the types being like slots used to perform those activities is entirely divorced from anything in the rules and is your own imaginary rationalization to try and allow you to change an action from one type into another.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the argument is you should be able to use a standard action to perform a swift action because the standard is longer then why not use a move action to perform a swift action? Is a move action not longer than a swift action?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't even tell if RAW, or RAI is being argued anymore.
opinion is being argued here, i haven't seen much RAW or RAI stuff being mentioned for a while.
We established the RAW and the RAI a long time ago. The answer to the question asked in the OP is no, and the actual objection, which was that there was a desire to cast a prepared quickened spell as a standard action, to avoid having to wait until the next round to cast it after having previously cast a quickened spell that around, is also no, clearly.
Some people argue that it should be possible at least in the case of spells. I don't disagree that maybe it ought to be, but it isn't.
opinion is being argued here, i haven't seen much RAW or RAI stuff being mentioned for a while.I can't even tell if RAW, or RAI is being argued anymore.
No one is arguing opinions but it sure isn't the original topic. The original topic was whether or not you could swap a standard for a swift or immediate. The RAW on that was clearly no.
What Malachi and I have been arguing is whether actions are whatever action type the rules say they are. That is still a discussion of RAW just off topic.
Source cite?Source cite for what? I think you are asking me for a citation that says you can't arbitrarily change what the rules explicitly define but I find it hard to believe you are seriously doing that.
In your game can I wield my greatsword as a light weapon so I can use it with weapon finesse? If not please cite the source that says I can't arbitrarily change its weapon type.
If the rules say vital strike is a standard action then vital strike is a standard action. Its a standard action because the rules say so and I can't arbitrarily change it. The very fact that the rules specify it is the source for why I can't do so.
I'm asking you to back up your claim that action types are immutable descriptors of actions in the same way that spells and creatures have descriptors. Then I want you to show me in the rules a passage where it shows "specific action [action type descriptor]" because I can't find one.