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.
You have already been shown that information several time in this thread by myself and Tarantula above. It is on the Actions In Combat table. The rules tell you what action type each action has.
When the rules specify that something like a creature, weapon, action, spell, etc.... is a specific type then that is what type it is. If the rules say a medium dagger is a light weapon for a medium creature it is. If the rules say that the AC bonus provided by the Shield spell is a deflection bonus then it is. If the rules say that the bonus a Paladin's allies receive to their saving throws vs fear is a Morale bonus it is. If the rules say that a human is a humanoid then it is. If the rules say that standing up from prone is a move action then it is. It is a pretty simple concept.
You understand that concept perfectly well in other discussions:
Here on the "Slashing Grace, usless?" thread you argue that it is crystal clear that weapons classified as Light Weapons cannot be used as One-Handed Weapons for Slashing Grace.
Here you argue that because Longbow and Shortbow are not listed on the Two-Handed Weapons table that they are not Two-Handed Weapons.
Here you argue that you can't have a wand of a quickened 1st level spell because activating the wand has a specific action type, i.e. standard. You sure don't think that can be arbitrarily changed in that thread for some reason.
I could go on pulling more posts out of your history showing that in any other discussion you get the concept, but you come here and suddenly need proof that if the rules say an action is a standard action that it is actually a standard action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes three hundred posts!!!
and incidentally i've gotten the 200th and 300th posts in this thread, go me!
Only because you are sneaking in little one line posts while I have to type full responses lol. If I had the Quicken Post feat so that I could post as a Swift Action you would have never gotten those!
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.You have already been shown that information several time in this thread by myself and Tarantula above. It is on the Actions In Combat table. The rules tell you what action type each action has.
When the rules specify that something like a creature, weapon, action, spell, etc.... is a specific type then that is what type it is. If the rules say a medium dagger is a light weapon for a medium creature it is. If the rules say that the AC bonus provided by the Shield spell is a deflection bonus then it is. If the rules say that the bonus a Paladin's allies receive to their saving throws vs fear is a Morale bonus it is. If the rules say that a human is a humanoid then it is. If the rules say that standing up from prone is a move action then it is. It is a pretty simple concept.
You understand that concept perfectly well in other discussions:
Here on the "Slashing Grace, usless?" thread you argue that it is crystal clear that weapons classified as Light Weapons cannot be used as One-Handed Weapons for Slashing Grace.
Here you argue that because Longbow and Shortbow are not listed on the Two-Handed Weapons table that they are not Two-Handed Weapons.
Here you argue that you can't have a wand of a quickened 1st level spell because activating the wand has a specific action type, i.e. standard. You sure don't think that can be arbitrarily changed in that thread for some reason.
I could go on pulling more posts out of your...
You are taking the discussion to a new level suggesting that action types are descriptors. Descriptors have particular in-game rules that govern them. I never once suggested that things which do not have descriptors are in fact governed by descriptors.
You can show many posts in my history where I am particular about what the rules actually say, and so I will continue to act in that fashion here. Can you support your claim that action types are descriptors? Or are you prepared to admit that you stepped over a line and you cannot support your claims with rules text?
|
| 2 people 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!
Fortunately, you count yourself as an ally, so you're more than able to Lay on Hands to yourself as a standard action.
You are taking the discussion to a new level suggesting that action types are descriptors. Descriptors have particular in-game rules that govern them. I never once suggested that things which do not have descriptors are in fact governed by descriptors.
You can show many posts in my history where I am particular about what the rules actually say, and so I will continue to act in that fashion here. Can you support your claim that action types are descriptors? Or are you prepared to admit that you stepped over a line and you cannot support your claims with rules text?
Nice strawman you have built. I never said that actions are descriptors. What I have said is that the rules say that creatures are categorized by creature type and you can't arbitrarily alter what category a creature belongs to. I have said that weapons are categorized by weapon type and you can't arbitrarily alter what category a weapon belongs to. I have argued that actions are categorized by action types and you can't arbitrarily alter what category an action belongs to. Never one have I said that action types are descriptors or that actions are categorized by descriptors. That accusation is pure fabrication.
What I have said is that when the rules explicitly assign a category to something whether that category is a type, a descriptor or something else you can't arbitrarily reassign that thing to another category.
I have also shown your own posts where you argue that objects,i.e. weapons, which are categorized by weapon type(not a descriptor) can't have that category arbitrarily changed.
You have never answered my questions:
The rules categorize weapons by weapon type(not a descriptor). Can a player can just arbitrarily say that his greatsword is a light weapon so as to use weapon finesse with it? Or is a greatsword a two-handed weapon because the rules categorize it as such.
The rules also categorize weapons by proficiency type(again not a descriptor). Can I arbitrarily claim that for my rogue katanas are simple weapons? Or is a katana an exotic weapon because the rules categorize it as such?
The rules categorize actions by action types(not a descriptor). Can a player say he wants to stand up from prone as a free action? Or is standing up from prone a move action because the rules categorize it as such?
You are taking the discussion to a new level suggesting that action types are descriptors. Descriptors have particular in-game rules that govern them. I never once suggested that things which do not have descriptors are in fact governed by descriptors.
You can show many posts in my history where I am particular about what the rules actually say, and so I will continue to act in that fashion here. Can you support your claim that action types are descriptors? Or are you prepared to admit that you stepped over a line and you cannot support your claims with rules text?
Nice strawman you have built. I never said that actions are descriptors. What I have said is that the rules say that creatures are categorized by creature type and you can't arbitrarily alter what category a creature belongs to. I have said that weapons are categorized by weapon type and you can't arbitrarily alter what category a weapon belongs to. I have argued that actions are categorized by action types and you can't arbitrarily alter what category an action belongs to. Never one have I said that action types are descriptors or that actions are categorized by descriptors. That accusation is pure fabrication.
What I have said is that when the rules explicitly assign a category to something whether that category is a type, a descriptor or something else you can't arbitrarily reassign that thing to another category.
I have also shown your own posts where you argue that objects,i.e. weapons, which are categorized by weapon type(not a descriptor) can't have that category arbitrarily changed.
You have never answered my questions:
The rules categorize weapons by weapon type(not a descriptor). Can a player can just arbitrarily say that his greatsword is a light weapon so as to use weapon finesse with it? Or is a greatsword a two-handed weapon because the rules categorize it as such.
The rules also categorize weapons by proficiency type(again not a descriptor). Can I arbitrarily claim that for my...
So, you can't back up your claims?
Edit: I will be more than happy to answer your questions, go post them in the threads where you found them.
The rules categorize actions by action types(not a descriptor). Can a player say he wants to stand up from prone as a free action? Or is standing up from prone a move action because the rules categorize it as such?
There is the true strawman. No one has even approached what you describe here. Do you really see this question as an accurate representation of any position in this discussion?
The rules categorize actions by action types(not a descriptor). Can a player say he wants to stand up from prone as a free action? Or is standing up from prone a move action because the rules categorize it as such?There is the true strawman. No one has even approached what you describe here. Do you really see this question as an accurate representation of any position in this discussion?
Actually that is an argument to absurdity whereby one shows that a proposition if accepted leads to an absurd conclusion.
So, you can't back up your claims?
Edit: I will be more than happy to answer your questions, go post them in the threads where you found them.
I did backup my claims and your entire response here is to simply assert that I didn't instead of actually answering the proof provided. This is like someone being asked to prove that 2 + 2 =4 and so you get up and work it out the board showing groups of two and two add up to four and your detractor gets up and says "So you can't prove it huh?"
I have given you examples from multiple tables and quoted rules text for multiple actions and demonstrated the similarity between multiple types of categorization in the rules and you simply post "So you can't prove it huh?"
In addition the questions I asked are not from any other threads. I asked questions pertaining to this discussion which you are refusing to answer.
Malachi, though I believe to be incorrect incorrect and often using fallacious reasoning, I at least felt was arguing in good faith. You, sir, are just flat out dishonest and I won't waste more time on you.
|
Only because you are sneaking in little one line posts while I have to type full responses lol. If I had the Quicken Post feat so that I could post as a Swift Action you would have never gotten those!Yes three hundred posts!!!
and incidentally i've gotten the 200th and 300th posts in this thread, go me!
If you had the Quicken Post feat then your argument would result in your total inability to write a longer post, even if you wanted to.
'No,' you'd say, 'for me, a post is something with only one sentence, and therefore there can be no such action as typing more sentences in the same post!'
What I have said is that the rules say that creatures are categorized by creature type and you can't arbitrarily alter what category a creature belongs to. I have said that weapons are categorized by weapon type and you can't arbitrarily alter what category a weapon belongs to. I have argued that actions are categorized by action types and you can't arbitrarily alter what category an action belongs to.
Excellent! You can't arbitrarily change these things, but you can change them! How? By doing something that will change them!
How can you change a creature type? How about turning it into an undead creature? Not arbitrary, but perfectly feasible.
How can you change a weapon's category? Change the size of the creature using it. Not arbitrary, but possible.
How can you change the action type required to perform a task? Choose to do it more slowly. Not arbitrary, but a deliberate choice.
As a supplement to the action types described in chapter 8 of the Player's Handbook (standard, move, full-round and free), this chapter introduces a new type of action: the swift action.
This chapter was the Magic chapter of that book, and was the first appearance of the swift action in the game.
Swift actions usually involve magic or the activation of magic items; many characters (especially those who don't use magic) will never have an opportunity to take swift actions.
The whole point of a swift action is to cast a spell (or activate a spell-like ability or magic item) while not interfering with your ability to attack, cast a spell, whatever you want to do with your standard (or full-round) action. This is because they would prevent you from taking your normal action! So they devised a way of doing things which would normally take your standard action (cast a spell, activate a spell-like ability) and cast them more quickly.
It's absurd to imagine that you are totally unable to take the normal standard action to do them! They started as standard actions, and they gave you a way to do them more quickly! They never saught to prevent you from doing these things in the normal time for these activities, which is a standard action.
The swift action is a benefit, but you don't have to use that benefit. The rules assume you want to use every single benefit you have, just like they assume you try not to get hit; that's why they didn't bother to put rules in for doing so. That's what DMs are for!
It's no more 'against the rules' to do these things as standard instead of swift as it is 'against the rules' to deliberately miss an attack or deliberately let yourself be hit.
Excellent! You can't arbitrarily change these things, but you can change them! How? By doing something that will change them!
How can you change a creature type? How about turning it into an undead creature? Not arbitrary, but perfectly feasible.
How can you change a weapon's category? Change the size of the creature using it. Not arbitrary, but possible.
How can you change the action type required to perform a task? Choose to do it more slowly. Not arbitrary, but a deliberate choice.
Arbitrarily means by individual will or choice. Saying you can't do it arbitrarily but by choice is a contradiction of terms because they mean the same thing.
You can't change creature type without a feat or ability that allows you to do so. You can't as human just choose to stop being a humanoid and be an animal. What you can do is learn the beast shape spell or take levels in druid to get wildshape to do so.
You can't change weapon category just by choosing to do so. You have to have the appropriate feat, spell or ability. Yes it can be done by using magic to cast enlarge person on yourself. Even then you don't get to choose the weapon type you are told by the rules what weapon type your weapon now is based on your size.
How can you change the action type of an action? Not by simply choosing for it to be a different action type. You can't just choose for standing up from prone to be a swift action. What you can do is get an ability, such as Kip Up, that changes it. Even then you don't get to just choose but the ability tells you what action it is. It is a move action if you don't spend a panache point as long as you have one and it is a swift if you do. No amount of choosing is going to change it to a swift without spending that panache point. If you are out of panache points what action is it to stand up from prone? The rules tell you what it is, you don't just choose for yourself, it is a move action.
Actually that is an argument to absurdity whereby one shows that a proposition if accepted leads to an absurd conclusion.
No, reductio ad absurdium specifically means that you actually reduce the premise; you did not do that. You intentionally misrepresented your opponents views, constructed a fake argument based on your misrepresentation, and set about intentionally challenging your fake argument. Ie. classic strawman. You may be have been able to distract your high school debate club sponsor with the cute little games and verbal sleight of hand, but it wont work here pal. You can't worm your way off the hook by distraction with me. I now presume that you will not defend your claim because you cannot. All of that aside, you accuse me of being dishonest yet you openly misrepresent the arguments of others. How can you look at yourself with a straight face when you lie to advance your claims and then call others dishonest? All the while refusing to support your own outlandish claims. You sir are the dishonest actor here.
I have given you examples from multiple tables and quoted rules text for multiple actions and demonstrated the similarity between multiple types of categorization in the rules
So you have now gone from "Action types are descriptors" to "They fit the same general framework of similarity of categorization," that's back pedaling my friend. You can shy away all you want but your statements were too bold and you have realized it. You should just come out and own it now.
In addition the questions I asked are not from any other threads. I asked questions pertaining to this discussion which you are refusing to answer.
Questions regarding weapon types and proficiency most certainly are from other threads. Don't act like I'm dodging your BS because I stuck a flag it and pointed out you're full of BS to everyone. I'm not going to acknowledge your off-topic BS here.
I won't waste more time on you.
Not a parting quip! I'm am truly damaged, sir! Well played, I have seen the err of my ways! It was only your quip that was needed all along. Be sure to include them more often; it makes it clear to all just who you are.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why either of you are still poking one another. The basis of the thread is formed on a logical statement: Swift actions take less time than move actions, which take less time than standard actions. Should a character be allowed to sacrifice larger time-consuming actions to perform actions which consume less time?
I'm of the belief that faster actions are allowed to take the place of more time-consuming actions.
I don't see why either of you are still poking one another. The basis of the thread is formed on a logical statement: Swift actions take less time than move actions, which take less time than standard actions. Should a character be allowed to sacrifice larger time-consuming actions to perform actions which consume less time?
I'm of the belief that faster actions are allowed to take the place of more time-consuming actions.
So would you allow three swift actions then?
Yes. And I don't caaaaaaaaaaaaare~! :D
I don't see why either of you are still poking one another. The basis of the thread is formed on a logical statement: Swift actions take less time than move actions, which take less time than standard actions. Should a character be allowed to sacrifice larger time-consuming actions to perform actions which consume less time?
I'm of the belief that faster actions are allowed to take the place of more time-consuming actions.
Your question of should a character be allowed to sacrifice, to use your words, a more time consuming action to perform one that takes less time is very different than the question do the rules currently allow characters to do that.
The answer to should they allow it is a matter of opinion. My personal opinion is that it should be allowed with some kind of limitation to prevent the three spells per round type issues.
The answer to whether the rules currently do allow it is a different question. I think the RAW answer is no. Malachi, and I think the OP but I don't want to attribute a position to him that he doesn't believe, think the RAW answer is yes. That is what we have been arguing, not whether the rules should allow it but do they.
However, you are right. Pretty much every argument that can be made has been made, sides have been chosen, and no one is going to change their mind at this point.
|
|
'Arbitrary', in this sense, implies a motive to do something, but without a rational means to achieve that purpose.
So, in this sense, 'arbitrarily' changing creature type or weapon category is to change them without the means to do so. If you have the means (template, size change), then it's not arbitrary in that sense.
If you use 'arbitrary' to merely mean 'choice', then that doesn't prevent you from doing anything, because every action you take on your turn is your choice!
Where we disagree is that you don't think that we have the means to perform an action in more time than we could, and I think we do. I don't think the rules forbid taking longer, any more than they forbid us from deliberately missing or deliberately being hit in combat.
'Arbitrary', in this sense, implies a motive to do something, but without a rational means to achieve that purpose.
So, in this sense, 'arbitrarily' changing creature type or weapon category is to change them without the means to do so. If you have the means (template, size change), then it's not arbitrary in that sense.
If you use 'arbitrary' to merely mean 'choice', then that doesn't prevent you from doing anything, because every action you take on your turn is your choice!
Where we disagree is that you don't think that we have the means to perform an action in more time than we could, and I think we do. I don't think the rules forbid taking longer, any more than they forbid us from deliberately missing or deliberately being hit in combat.
Then why not a move action to use a swift action? Surely a move action is longer then a swift action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then why not a move action to use a swift action? Surely a move action is longer then a swift action.Why would it matter? RAW is quite clear that you cannot take two Swifts in a round.
Because the argument Mr. Silverclaw is putting forth (and please correct me if I get anything wrong) is that taking a standard action to perform an activity that normally requires a swift action changes it into a standard action. He feels the game allows taking a longer time to perform an action that could be performed quicker. My question is, why only allow the swift action to standard action conversion when his argument should equally apply to move actions (which, if I recall correctly) he did not think should be allowed.
'Arbitrary', in this sense, implies a motive to do something, but without a rational means to achieve that purpose.
So, in this sense, 'arbitrarily' changing creature type or weapon category is to change them without the means to do so. If you have the means (template, size change), then it's not arbitrary in that sense.
If you use 'arbitrary' to merely mean 'choice', then that doesn't prevent you from doing anything, because every action you take on your turn is your choice!
Where we disagree is that you don't think that we have the means to perform an action in more time than we could, and I think we do. I don't think the rules forbid taking longer, any more than they forbid us from deliberately missing or deliberately being hit in combat.
You are, once again, equivocating between the game and non-game meaning of a word. You are using the word "means" but what are are talking about is ability. Acquiring a template, size change, feats, class feature, etc... which you refer to as "means" are different abilities defined by rules text. You then in the last paragraph switch to using the term "means" for ability in the general sense of the capacity to perform an action.
We have a line of rules text that says "Standing up from prone is a move action." In order to change that from a move action I need an ability in game terms, i.e. another line of text that says "In x condition you can stand up from prone as swift action".
That same concept provides for doing actions slower than necessary. For example Kip Up provides the above text saying you can stand up from prone as a swift action by spending a panache point. So now I have rules text telling me I can spend a panache point and do it fast or I can not spend the point and do it slow. Another example, Fast Drinker says you can drink alcohol as a swift action instead of a standard. So this rules text says you are able to drink as alcohol as a swift but still gives you the option of doing so as a standard.
You are arguing that if the rules say "Putting on your hat is a swift action" that you don't need another rule to change that rule. However, you don't follow that logic both ways. If I don't need a rule saying that I can perform LoH on myself as a standard action instead of the swift the rules say it is then I don't need a rules text saying I can perform an attack as a swift action either, I can just do it if I can justify the "means" in real world terms.
You are trying to use a non-rules argument to justify an in game rules-text change. However, the only thing that can change explicit rules text is another explicit rules text, or a house rule.
|
|
'Arbitrary', in this sense, implies a motive to do something, but without a rational means to achieve that purpose.
So, in this sense, 'arbitrarily' changing creature type or weapon category is to change them without the means to do so. If you have the means (template, size change), then it's not arbitrary in that sense.
If you use 'arbitrary' to merely mean 'choice', then that doesn't prevent you from doing anything, because every action you take on your turn is your choice!
Where we disagree is that you don't think that we have the means to perform an action in more time than we could, and I think we do. I don't think the rules forbid taking longer, any more than they forbid us from deliberately missing or deliberately being hit in combat.
You are, once again, equivocating between the game and non-game meaning of a word. You are using the word "means" but what are are talking about is ability. Acquiring a template, size change, feats, class feature, etc... which you refer to as "means" are different abilities defined by rules text. You then in the last paragraph switch to using the term "means" for ability in the general sense of the capacity to perform an action.
We have a line of rules text that says "Standing up from prone is a move action." In order to change that from a move action I need an ability in game terms, i.e. another line of text that says "In x condition you can stand up from prone as swift action".
That same concept provides for doing actions slower than necessary. For example Kip Up provides the above text saying you can stand up from prone as a swift action by spending a panache point. So now I have rules text telling me I can spend a panache point and do it fast or I can not spend the point and do it slow. Another example, Fast Drinker says you can drink alcohol as a swift action instead of a standard. So this rules text says you are able to drink as alcohol as a swift but still gives you the option of doing so...
The rules assume that you're trying your best. Trying not to be hit, trying your best to hit, trying to take your actions as quickly and efficiently as you can. The rules don't cover situations where you are not trying your best.
There are no rules for allowing an enemy strike to hit you. Are you saying that this is against the rules, simply because there are no rules for allowing yourself to be hit?
There are no rules for deliberately missing your attack roll. Are you saying that this is impossible, on the grounds that there are no rules for it?
There are no rules for going to the toilet. Is this impossible too?
There are no rules allowing you to take your time standing up. Are you saying that's it's impossible to stand up slowly? Do any action more slowly than you could?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously? This horse isn't dead yet?
When the 3.5e Psionics Handbook introduced swift and immediate action, the developers had the opportunity to codify those as able to be substituted in place of more "lengthy" actions. They didn't. They instead went out of their way to explicitly state that they cannot.
Why?
Because the developers wanted to create a type of free action that they could count on being performed a maximum of once per round. They wanted to enhance the action economy in a unique way, allowing a character to take all of its normal actions, and still have a fairly powerful action set aside for things that cannot happen more than once per round.
That's it.
The most obvious example off the top of my head being an inquisitor's judgment. You can't have it set to give you a bonus to AC, then swift it to a bonus to damage, make your attacks, then swift it back to AC. That's cheesy, regardless of if you're using your move action to perform the second shift.
Another example is lay on hands, wherein the developers balanced a certain amount of healing per round, not expecting a paladin to potentially heal himself three times (at the cost of his other actions). Normally, without any houserule, a paladin could heal himself a maximum of once per round. That's the developers' expectation, and while houseruling this won't overtly break the game, it isn't what's intended.
So. We know the answer: no, you cannot substitute swifts for other actions. We know the origin and the history. What you do is up to you, as with all rules.
Did I miss something productive?
|
|
Because the argument Mr. Silverclaw is putting forth (and please correct me if I get anything wrong) is that taking a standard action to perform an activity that normally requires a swift action changes it into a standard action. He feels the game allows taking a longer time to perform an action that could be performed quicker. My question is, why only allow the swift action to standard action conversion when his argument should equally apply to move actions (which, if I recall correctly) he did not think should be allowed.Then why not a move action to use a swift action? Surely a move action is longer then a swift action.Why would it matter? RAW is quite clear that you cannot take two Swifts in a round.
I've tried to deal with one thing at a time, but since you ask...
In the beginning...well, in the 3.5 Miniatures Handbook, on the first page of the Magic chapter, appeared the Swift Action for the very first time in the game. I quoted it in a recent post on this thread.
It made clear that swift actions were simply a way of casting spells or activating spell-like abilities (your own, or those of a magic item), without interfering with your normal set of actions (which were either one full-round action or one standard and one move). Such actions (casting a spell, activating a spell-like ability) require a standard action, so if you did such an action it prevented you from using your standard or full-round action to attack, cast a spell, whatever the main thing is that you would do with your standard.
So the swift action allowed you to cast certain buff-type spells (or SLAs) as a free action, but they didn't want you to be able to do loads in the same round, so they limited this swift casting to once per round.
Since it took a standard action (at least) to cast a spell/use an SLA, a move action was never good enough. The swift action is a quick standard action, in terms of complexity.
There is more to it than time taken, as I've said before. Even according to RAW, swift actions take almost no time, and are quicker than either a standard or a move. But standard actions can handle more complex tasks than move actions. This is why the important stuff you do (attacking, casting spells, whatever) takes a standard, and although you can have two move actions in the same turn, you can't take two standard actions.
From their inception, swift actions were designed to handle the complexity of casting a spell/activating an SLA. So they can handle more complexity than move actions, but maybe not quite as much complexity as standard actions (no swift attacks, for example).
So, in order of time taken (from longest to shortest):-
full-round > standard > move > free/swift
But, in order of the complexity of actions that they are capable of handling:-
full-round > standard > swift > move
As always, specific written exceptions exist, but in general terms a move action cannot handle the tasks that swift actions usually perform: casting spells/activating SLAs.
And going back to the focus of this thread, swift actions are simply quick ways of doing things that should take a standard action, so choosing not to do them swiftly simply brings those actions back to where they should be: using a standard action.
...'Arbitrary', in this sense, implies a motive to do something, but without a rational means to achieve that purpose.
So, in this sense, 'arbitrarily' changing creature type or weapon category is to change them without the means to do so. If you have the means (template, size change), then it's not arbitrary in that sense.
If you use 'arbitrary' to merely mean 'choice', then that doesn't prevent you from doing anything, because every action you take on your turn is your choice!
Where we disagree is that you don't think that we have the means to perform an action in more time than we could, and I think we do. I don't think the rules forbid taking longer, any more than they forbid us from deliberately missing or deliberately being hit in combat.
You are, once again, equivocating between the game and non-game meaning of a word. You are using the word "means" but what are are talking about is ability. Acquiring a template, size change, feats, class feature, etc... which you refer to as "means" are different abilities defined by rules text. You then in the last paragraph switch to using the term "means" for ability in the general sense of the capacity to perform an action.
We have a line of rules text that says "Standing up from prone is a move action." In order to change that from a move action I need an ability in game terms, i.e. another line of text that says "In x condition you can stand up from prone as swift action".
That same concept provides for doing actions slower than necessary. For example Kip Up provides the above text saying you can stand up from prone as a swift action by spending a panache point. So now I have rules text telling me I can spend a panache point and do it fast or I can not spend the point and do it slow. Another example, Fast Drinker says you can drink alcohol as a swift action instead of a standard. So this rules text says you are able to drink as alcohol as a swift but still
So since the rules assume that when I attack I am trying my best to hit, when firing my bow I can tell my GM that I am going to fire my bow as fast as I can not bothering to aim just point and fire as fast as humanly possible so that I can make a Full Attack as a Standard Action or maybe even a Move? You are trying to rationalize why you should get to ignore a rule.
Your argument boils down to "The rule assumes that I am doing my best so I can ignore it anytime I say I'm not doing my best."
BTW there are rules for deliberately missing your attack. You can say you are going to hit into a square. So if an Orc is standing in front of you you can choose to roll a hit normally and hit him. If you want to miss you can target one of the squares on either side of him and guess what, you will miss.
Also the rules do cover doing less than your best. If you want to hit someone but not hurt them the rules cover doing non-lethal damage. So that proves they when they want that to be an option the devs included it in the rules.
The toilet argument is another one of your false analogies. You are comparing something for which there is no rule with something for which there is a rule. You are basically saying that since there is no rule saying you have to follow the rules that you don't.
No matter how you twist and turn it your position is just logically inconsistent and violates the rules as written.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dude, if you seriously don't understand the difference between "it takes 3 hours to drive to Denver," and "you must always take exactly 3 hours to drive to Denver," then you shouldn't have conversations in the rules forum.
The rules are not written in legalese, they are written by reasonable people for use of reasonable people.
|
|
Dude, if you seriously don't understand the difference between "it takes 3 hours to drive to Denver," and "you must always take exactly 3 hours to drive to Denver," then you shouldn't have conversations in the rules forum.
The rules are not written in legalese, they are written by reasonable people for use of reasonable people.
Excellently put! : )
|
|
You are comparing something for which there is no rule with something for which there is a rule.
This is where we disagree. : )
Your position is that the rule is the only way you can perform a task (in terms of action type used), while my position is that the rules give you the best time you can perform an action, and that they don't have rules for doing those things less than as well as you can.
You alleged 'rule' about deliberately missing = non-lethal damage is so poor it doesn't need a counter.
As I wrote in a previous post, swift actions are just quick ways of taking some standard actions, like casting a spell or activating a spell-like ability. Using a standard action to perform them isn't weird, it's the action that's usually required anyway!
So, yes, you can drive to Denver in six hours instead of three, if you want. : )
|
|
Fortunately, you count yourself as an ally, so you're more than able to Lay on Hands to yourself as a standard action.Unfortunately, the word ally isn't used in the LOH description.
Using this ability is a standard action, unless the paladin targets herself, in which case it is a swift action.The wording of that ability is pretty tough to get around.
To be honest, I responded directly, rather than actually looking it up. Doesn't change the point of my post.
You are comparing something for which there is no rule with something for which there is a rule.This is where we disagree. : )
Your position is that the rule is the only way you can perform a task (in terms of action type used), while my position is that the rules give you the best time you can perform an action, and that they don't have rules for doing those things less than as well as you can.
You alleged 'rule' about deliberately missing = non-lethal damage is so poor it doesn't need a counter.
As I wrote in a previous post, swift actions are just quick ways of taking some standard actions, like casting a spell or activating a spell-like ability. Using a standard action to perform them isn't weird, it's the action that's usually required anyway!
So, yes, you can drive to Denver in six hours instead of three, if you want. : )
First, yes the rule is the only way you can perform an action. The only way I can perform a Vital Strike is exactly the way the rule says I can. The only way I can Demoralize an opponent with Intimidate is exactly in the manner the rule says I can. When the rules tell us how something works that is how it works. You are still just rationalizing why you should get to ignore a rule you don't like. You've come up with this "Well I'll just say I'm not doing my best and so I can ignore it"
Next, I never said that deliberately missing = doing non-lethal damage. That is a pure strawman. I said deliberately missing = not targeting the opponent. I said non-lethal damage = not doing your best to hurt someone. Those are two different arguments and you are fallaciously combining them. So yes the argument that non-lethal damage = deliberately missing someone is a very poor argument but it isn't one ever made. Nice try.
The whole drive to Denver thing is yet another false analogy. Because hours are set specific rates of time and action types aren't. The same Standard Action type is used to represent a quick jabbing punch or a wide arching swing of a greatsword. The same Move Action type is used for both moving 10' and moving 30' or even more for some creatures. So for a move action I can move 30' quickly or I can move 10' very slowly or I can move 30' very quickly but both are a Move Action. So your entire "drive to Denver" argument is, in the immortal words of Sheldon Cooper, hokum.
hours are set specific rates of time and action types aren't.
Source Cite?
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Do we know the original intent here?
Swift actions were not originally part of the 3.5 ruleset. We know that they were added in a supplement for 3.5 D&D, and became very popular toward the end of that edition's run.
When 4th edition D&D came along, it introduced the concept of a "minor" action that was pretty much exactly the same as a Swift action, except that it specifically allowed the player to exchange down (that is, use a standard action to perform a move or swift action, and use a move action to perform a swift action).
When Pathfinder was introduced, it did not add this additional language, although that would have been the perfect time to do so. Do we have any insight into why that was not done?
I guess what I'm asking is, which of these scenarios is correct:
1) The ability for a character to use a standard and/or move action to perform a swift action was deliberately excluded from Pathfinder, because the designers did not want characters to be able to perform more than one swift action per round.
2) The designers simply didn't add the explicit ability to downgrade action types, either because they didn't think of it or thought it would be obvious.
3) Some other reason.
I would exclude scenario 2. The ability to downgrade swift actions was specifically not allowed in D&D 3.5, from which Pathfinder is derived. If Paizo's intent was to change that, there would have been a corresponding change somewhere in the rules, whether by replacement or by deletion.
|
|
yes the rule is the only way you can perform an action.
So, you think that you must take exactly three hours to drive to Denver.
It's no point citing rules that do exist (non-lethal damage) to conveniently ignore the fact that there are no rules for deliberately missing, or allowing an enemy to hit you.
Where the rules define something, follow those rules. Where the rules do not cover something, see your DM. The rules fully expect us to know that.
You believe that the action types cover taking longer by simply not allowing you to take longer. I believe the rules cover the best way to take an action (hitting, avoiding being hit, taking longer to perform an action), but do not cover the opposite. So, see your DM.
As I said, you are only allowed one standard action. Casting a spell/activating an SLA takes a standard action. This meant that you couldn't buff in the same round that you attacked/cast another spell/activate a magic item. The swift action allowed you to do that without preventing your normal standard action.
The swift action simply allows you to perform selected standard actions more swiftly (as quickly as a free action), expressly so that it doesn't interfere with performing your usual set of actions. You can only perform a standard action more swiftly once in a given round, but there is no prohibition on not performing them more swiftly.
A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than is the case with a free action. You can only perform one swift action per turn, without affecting your ability to perform other actions....
...Swift actions usually involve magic or the activation of magic items; many characters (especially those who don't use magic) will never have an opportunity to take swift actions.
yes the rule is the only way you can perform an action.So, you think that you must take exactly three hours to drive to Denver.
It's no point citing rules that do exist (non-lethal damage) to conveniently ignore the fact that there are no rules for deliberately missing, or allowing an enemy to hit you.
Where the rules define something, follow those rules. Where the rules do not cover something, see your DM. The rules fully expect us to know that.
You believe that the action types cover taking longer by simply not allowing you to take longer. I believe the rules cover the best way to take an action (hitting, avoiding being hit, taking longer to perform an action), but do not cover the opposite. So, see your DM.
As I said, you are only allowed one standard action. Casting a spell/activating an SLA takes a standard action. This meant that you couldn't buff in the same round that you attacked/cast another spell/activate a magic item. The swift action allowed you to do that without preventing your normal standard action.
The swift action simply allows you to perform selected standard actions more swiftly (as quickly as a free action), expressly so that it doesn't interfere with performing your usual set of actions. You can only perform a standard action more swiftly once in a given round, but there is no prohibition on not performing them more swiftly.
A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than is the case with a free action. You can only perform one swift action per turn, without affecting your ability to perform other actions....
...Swift actions usually involve magic or the activation of magic items; many characters (especially those who don't use magic) will never have an opportunity to take swift actions.
I've already answered the entire "driving to Denver" argument. Repeating doesn't make it become less fallacious. Different actions that in the real world are faster or slower in comparison to each other are still the same type of action.
I even gave the example of moving 10' as a move action or 30' which is still a move action.
You say the rules assume that we a character is trying his best, forget for the moment that doing your best =/= doing it fast or slower, but you have no proof for that. It is just your rationale for saying you can ignore it when the rules explicitly say something you don't like. Your entire argument is just making stuff up to justify doing what you want to do.
You say where the rules exist follow the rules but where they don't ask your GM. Do the rules cover what action it is to use LoH on yourself? Yes, the rule says it is a swift action. If you do it as fast as you can it is a swift action. If you do it as slowly as you can it is a swift action. If you do it as well as you possibly can it is a swift action. If you do it as poorly as you possibly can it is a swift action. All because the rules say it is a swift action and doesn't differentiate between fast and slow, well and poorly.
If the developers wanted using LoH, or any other swift action, to just be a swift action no matter what how could they write it to make that perfectly clear to other than just telling you what type of action it is?
If you allow a spellcaster to cast a quickened spell as a standard action, do you let them ignore (or change) any other metamagic spell?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only 1 swift action per round is an intentional balance of power on classes that have access to and use many swift actions such as magus and inquisitor. Allowing trading of standard actions to swift allows for better action economy overall and would result in higher actual levels of power for classes that use swift action buffing.
There is no need for an FAQ here. The rules are clearly understood. You get one swift action per round and cannot use another action type to perform swift actions.
What you are requesting in not a clarificaiton or an FAQ. No, what you want is a rule change, one I am decidedly against for the purposes of balance.
Now that I've said my peace, which seems to be in agreement with a lot of other people here, have I missed any important thoughts or developments in this thread (which I didn't bother to read the whole of since it's rather long)?
|
The game was balanced around an action economy. Each player has a set of action types that they can perform on their turn. With the exception of Immediate Action to Swift and Standard Action to Move there are absolutely no "action equivalencies" or trades. To trade one action for another other than what I mentioned above is a wildly blatant divergence from the rules and balance goes right out the window.
|
|
Only 1 swift action per round is an intentional balance of power on classes that have access to and use many swift actions such as magus and inquisitor.
I'm afraid that this is provably untrue.
The d20/D&D mechanics introduced the action economy we know and love, except for swift and immediate actions.
When these two actions were introduced, they were created to allow you to do things that normally take a standard action (cast a spell, activate an SLA) and do them in the same round that you take another standard action.
It certainly was not to balance different classes, because those classes you mention did not exist, and those classes that did exist did not have any abilities that could be taken by using a swift action.
The only similar thing that already existed, which was ret-conned into a swift action, were Quickened spells.
Quickened spells were simply spells that had a casting time of 'one standard action' and allowed you to cast it as a free action, with the proviso that you could only cast one quickened spell per round (along with one cast as a standard, for a maximum of two spells).
So, when the swift action was created, quickened spells changed from being standard action spells cast using a free action instead (but only once per round), into standard action spells cast using your (new) swift action instead, and you can only use one swift action per round.
So, casting a quickened spell (which is a standard action spell cast more quickly) using your standard action, seems perfectly sane. It preserves the maximum of two spells per round (and only one using your swift action), and while not optimal, you're not required by the rules to be perfectly optimal at all times!
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm afraid that this is provably untrue.
The d20/D&D mechanics introduced the action economy we know and love, except for swift and immediate actions.
When these two actions were introduced, they were created to allow you to do things that normally take a standard action (cast a spell, activate an SLA) and do them in the same round that you take another standard action.
It certainly was not to balance different classes, because those classes you mention did not exist, and those classes that did exist did not have any abilities that could be taken by using a swift action.
The only similar thing that already existed, which was ret-conned into a swift action, were Quickened spells.
Quickened spells were simply spells that had a casting time of 'one standard action' and allowed you to cast it as a free action, with the proviso that you could only cast one quickened spell per round (along with one cast as a standard, for a maximum of two spells).
So, when the swift action was created, quickened spells changed from being standard action spells cast using a free action instead (but only once per round), into standard action spells cast using your (new) swift action instead, and you can only use one swift action per round.
So, casting a quickened spell (which is a standard action spell cast more quickly) using your standard action, seems perfectly sane. It preserves the maximum of two spells per round (and only one using your swift action), and while not optimal, you're not required by the rules to be perfectly optimal at all times!
Do you have a reference for your claim here? I remember when swift actions were introduced and I don't recall any indication that they were "standard actions sped up." They were introduced in later splats as a completely new action type, that just happened to match the rules for Quickened spells and SLAs (not a standard/move, once a round only). At no point in 3.5 were the actions introduced as swift actions noted as being "faster standard actions."
Once you change the casting time it's not a Standard action spell any more, any more than a Merciful spell is a "lethal damage spell cast for nonlethal." That's just being needlessly and deceptively pedantic.
As far as what Claxon was saying, the magus and inquisitor were written after the rules on swift actions, so it can be argued that those classes balance was intended with the 1 swift/round limit already in place. The designers specifically made certain actions swift with the understanding that only one could happen each round. And these classes were publically playtested so it's not like this fact went unnoticed.
Dude, if you seriously don't understand the difference between "it takes 3 hours to drive to Denver," and "you must always take exactly 3 hours to drive to Denver," then you shouldn't have conversations in the rules forum.
The rules are not written in legalese, they are written by reasonable people for use of reasonable people.
Ha, Haha, Hahahehehe ROTFLMAO
Did you get that from a fortune cookie or something? Because I can't see how that statement bears any relationship to either Pathfinder or the 3.5 and 3rd Ed that came before it.
Indeed this very thread is one of many that put the lie to that statement.
I suppose you could consider developer comments to be fortune cookies. Sure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you allow a spellcaster to cast a quickened spell as a standard action, do you let them ignore (or change) any other metamagic spell?
Cast a Quickened Spell
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. Only one such spell can be cast in any round, and such spells don't count toward your normal limit of one spell per round. Casting a spell as a swift action doesn't incur an attack of opportunity.
Note that it says you CAN, not you MUST. So at least in the case of a Quickened Spell, or spells that are Free, Swift or Immediate actions to cast, they can be cast as Standard Actions.
Only 1 swift action per round is an intentional balance of power on classes that have access to and use many swift actions such as magus and inquisitor. Allowing trading of standard actions to swift allows for better action economy overall and would result in higher actual levels of power for classes that use swift action buffing.
I'm not convinced there are any real balance issues created by allowing someone to use a standard action as a swift action. Sure, as an Inquisitor, I could activate Bane and Judgement in the same round. But giving up a standard action is a high price to pay. It means I can't cast a spell, can't double move, can't charge, can't make a full round archery attack. Where's the advantage? I'm not getting any benefit from the bane in the first round, so I might as well have left it until the second round.
The Magus is similar - their swift actions are mostly only useful because you can attack at the same time. How often would you realistically want to use Spell Recall and enhance your weapon in one turn, but not cast a spell or attack?
As a paladin, I could heal myself twice a round with LoH - but then I can't do anything else. There may be cases where that's useful, but it's rarely going to be the best choice. A 4th level paladin can already LoH on himself and channel positive energy for healing in the same round, which would heal them as fast as doing it twice, and heal allies as well.
If you allow a spellcaster to cast a quickened spell as a standard action, do you let them ignore (or change) any other metamagic spell?
What advantage does a spellcaster gain from doing that? Doing this would be on a par with talking while you cast a Silent Spell or making hand motions while you cast a Still Spell. If you prepared two spells as Quickened spells and decide to cast both of them in the same turn, that was poor planning on your part given the high spell level adjustment of the Quicken Spell feat.
There are some people that believe the Moon Landing was a hoax. Arguing with people like that is useless. You will never convince them, and you just waste your time.