| 11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The recent FAQ on the nauseated condition makes this question relevant: Can you use your move action to take a free action?
We now have a case where you are allowed to take a single move action but no free actions, which leads to some interesting absurdities if you are unable to take at least a single free action in place of the single move action that you are entitled to. On the other hand, there is no question that a free action requires less effort than any other sort of action, so a reasonable case could be made for letting somebody use whatever action type they have available to take a free action in the rare cases where you are restricted from taking free actions.
Swift actions already have defined limits, so I am assuming that you cannot downgrade a move action to take a swift action -- but if I am wrong on that, maybe the same FAQ can address that issue as well.
First off, you aren't actually "entitled" to anything. Things in the game become much less "absurd" when you don't have a feeling of entitlement to cloud issues.
The only time you are allowed to "downgrade" is when it is explicitly called out, such as the case of standard into move. Otherwise it is a no go. Actions fit into a category, and you are allowed (or not allowed) specific actions of each category during your round depending on circumstances.
As a GM, I allow it. Would like to see some answer.
|
Could have sworn you were always allowed to take free actions on your turn if you were capable of any action. The reasoning is because except for speaking, all general free actions can be described as stopping a different kind of action.
Falling prone - Not maintaining balance
Dropping an item - Not maintaining a grip on the item
Ceasing concentrating on a spell - Not ... yeah.
If you can take any action at all, not being able to take free actions is ludicrous. When a character falls unconscious they do all three, and they don't get any actions.
Swift actions are a different question though.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
First off, you aren't actually "entitled" to anything. Things in the game become much less "absurd" when you don't have a feeling of entitlement to cloud issues.
The only time you are allowed to "downgrade" is when it is explicitly called out, such as the case of standard into move. Otherwise it is a no go. Actions fit into a category, and you are allowed (or not allowed) specific actions of each category during your round depending on circumstances.
If you can't downgrade, it leads to very "absurd" results. Two people that are nauseated and try to reload their weapon.
Why shouldn't the archer feel "entitled" to take a simpler/easier/less time intensive version of an action that a light crossbowman can do: reload. Unless that light crossbowman trained to do it faster [rapid reload], then getting nauseated means he's less able to reload than an untrained person...
First off, you aren't actually "entitled" to anything. Things in the game become much less "absurd" when you don't have a feeling of entitlement to cloud issues.
The only time you are allowed to "downgrade" is when it is explicitly called out, such as the case of standard into move. Otherwise it is a no go. Actions fit into a category, and you are allowed (or not allowed) specific actions of each category during your round depending on circumstances.
If you can't downgrade, it leads to very "absurd" results. Two people that are nauseated and try to reload their weapon.
Why shouldn't the archer feel "entitled" to take a simpler/easier/less time intensive version of an action that a light crossbowman can do: reload. Unless that light crossbowman trained to do it faster [rapid reload], then getting nauseated means he's less able to reload than an untrained person...
And how many "real world" comparisons actually make a difference in our fantasy GAME where things are typically simplified to make the game run more smoothly? That is the point.
Something in the game rubs you the wrong way, welcome to you opinion. Not all rules need to make sense to everyone. As a matter of fact they NEVER will. That is kinda the point. Can't make everyone happy, but you can make the game run well (and lets face it, that is a job with an expansive rule set). I'll take a game running well over every circumstance making sense in a non simulationist game.
That is my opinion on it, and amusingly enough it is just as valid and "important" as yours. There are other games that do what you want better, if that is the type of gameplay you really desire.
Skylancer4: Having one person be able to reload and another not should rub EVERYONE the wrong way. There should be no reason someone shouldn't ask the question when a new ruling leads to an illogical result.
And to the point, I don't find the current set up "running well". Not being able to fix every problem/issue is no excuse for not trying to fix them or have the game make as much sense as possible.
As to "There are other games that do what you want better", I'd like rule to be as sensible as possible and that's something every game can improve on. A nauseated person forgetting or being able to drop an item or fall prone makes NO sense from a logical, gameplay, or balance perspective because they are limited to a more complex action.
And to be clear, the FAQ is a reversal of the standing rule in the core rules, combat section.
"Restricted Activity: In some situations, you may be unable to take a full round's worth of actions. In such cases, you are restricted to taking only a single standard action or a single move action (plus free and swift actions as normal). You can't take a full-round action (though you can start or complete a full-round action by using a standard action; see below)."
Any other time the rules say restricted/limited to a single move action or single standard action that also included the normal free/swift action. For some reason nauseated is the MOST powerful action limiting effect in the game... And to use your logic above, leaving nauseated use the above quote would have been the best way to make the game "simplified to make the game run more smoothly". Making an exception to existing rules doesn't make things rule smoother...
This question has already been endlessly debated in at least one other thread. What I am really trying to do with this thread is generate some FAQ clicks to get a definite answer to a question that is an obvious result of the Nauseated FAQ ruling -- but FAQ-ing any post in that earlier thread would obviously not work to get a follow-on explanation of this newly confirmed situation.
We really cannot work out what to do without going beyond the rules+FAQ. For example, can you drop an item as your move action on your turn? That action is a free action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity, wbile the nearest equivalent move action (picking up an item) does provoke an attack of opportunity. So would a nauseated character who decides to drop an item be completely unable to do so (in my opinion, an absurd result), be able to do so as a move action without provoking an AoO, or be able to do so as a move action while provoking an AoO? There is clearly no consensus on the answer to that question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Skylancer4: Having one person be able to reload and another not should rub EVERYONE the wrong way. There should be no reason someone shouldn't ask the question when a new ruling leads to an illogical result.
And to the point, I don't find the current set up "running well". Not being able to fix every problem/issue is no excuse for not trying to fix them or have the game make as much sense as possible.
As to "There are other games that do what you want better", I'd like rule to be as sensible as possible and that's something every game can improve on. A nauseated person forgetting or being able to drop an item or fall prone makes NO sense from a logical, gameplay, or balance perspective because they are limited to a more complex action.
And to be clear, the FAQ is a reversal of the standing rule in the core rules, combat section.
"Restricted Activity: In some situations, you may be unable to take a full round's worth of actions. In such cases, you are restricted to taking only a single standard action or a single move action (plus free and swift actions as normal). You can't take a full-round action (though you can start or complete a full-round action by using a standard action; see below)."
Any other time the rules say restricted/limited to a single move action or single standard action that also included the normal free/swift action. For some reason nauseated is the MOST powerful action limiting effect in the game... And to use your logic above, leaving nauseated use the above quote would have been the best way to make the game "simplified to make the game run more smoothly". Making an exception to existing rules doesn't make things rule smoother...
You obviously aren't playing the same game I am, because my PFRPG core rule book is definitely an exception based rule set, where general rules are stated and just about every spell, the majority of feats and class abilities, and pretty much every magic item is an exception to the general rules outlined in the game.
Is that the same game you are playing? Because my game runs pretty damn smooth with what we have in the book. It would take effort to not from what I've seen.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules are clear: no. The rules do not generally allow one action type to be used for another. The exception that proves the rule being standard to move, as we all know.
Now, as a GM, I would have no problem allowing free actions when nauseated, with a few broad rules about "only to stop doing something or speak a few words", to allow dropping prone, dropping a held item, or looking at the cleric, swallowing hard and muttering "m'gonna be sick...", but still disallow shenanigans involving "well, my character has this trait, that feat, and this racial ability, so I can actually do X as a free action".
A better rules question would be:
A character under the nauseated condition cannot perform free actions. This creates some odd situations like not being able to drop an item without provoking an attack of opportunity, but being able to gently place the item on the ground and provoking, while still actually letting go of the item. Can a GM use their discretion on allowing some free actions either in addition to or in place of the allowed move action?
I think loading a weapon would definitely come under the cannot "do anything else requiring attention" clause. Just because you can do it quickly doesn't mean it doesn't require your attention. Equally placing something carefully on the floor requires attention.
What I am really trying to do with this thread is generate some FAQ clicks to get a definite answer to a question that is an obvious result of the Nauseated FAQ ruling
It won't work.
Even if the developers come in here and answer this FAQ one way or the other, the answer will go like this:
"As a general rule, you can/cannot convert free actions into move actions but this general rule has no bearing on the specific rule of the Nauseated condition which explicitly says you cannot."
Given that, this thread won't impact the Nauseated condition at all, even if it gets an answer.
Besides which, the CRB already answers this (A move action can be converted to a Standard action but no other action types can be converted) so if the PDT answers this at all, their answer is probably going to be "No FAQ needed" or, if you get a FAQ, it will probably just say "As the CRB combat rules already stipulate, the only action type that can be converted is a Move into a Standard."
(of course I won't rule out the possibility that they use the FAQ to change the core rules as they have been doing that quite a bit recently).
But however it goes, it's still a general rule that is overridden by the Nauseated condition's specific rule and will have no bearing on that condition.
The rules are clear: no. The rules do not generally allow one action type to be used for another. The exception that proves the rule being standard to move, as we all know.
Just curious: is that rule stated anywhere or is it merely inferred?
We often see threads asking about trading out a move for a swift action, which indicates to me that the rules are not clear on this topic. If you know a place where this general rule is stated, that would help a lot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The vast majority of rules tell you what is allowed/what you can do. When the rules are silent on things, it is because they aren't allowed unless an exception is stated (as in using a standard action to make a move action). This is what an exception based rule set is. If they were to do it the other way (telling you what you cannot do) the game rules would literally be a collection like an encyclopedia set. Obviously that isn't a good idea for a game, for numerous reasons.
In order for an "action" or "event" to be allowed, you need to provide a rule to show you can do it. There is no such rule for using move to free or swift as a blanket statement (there might be a class ability or such that does in very narrow circumstances, I haven't looked as it isn't pertinent to the OPs question).
Basically if you want to do something you need to find the rule that allows you to do it. That is just the way the rules set is made/set up. And it is why the argument of " the rules don't tell me I can't " is so obnoxious, because once someone gets to that point you have to realize that the person saying that doesn't really understand the core fundamentals of the game mechanics/rules.
It absolutely isn't that the rules are "unclear" it is that people want something from the rules for whatever reason, and the rules don't allow it. And because there are no rules regarding it, they try to work in the action they want either with "it doesn't say I can't" or "they obviously meant to allow it and didn't say anything", when it is plain as day that the rules don't have any way to allow the action/event.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules are clear: no. The rules do not generally allow one action type to be used for another. The exception that proves the rule being standard to move, as we all know.Just curious: is that rule stated anywhere or is it merely inferred?
We have a list of action types. They are listed and explained separately. Nowhere does it say anything like "hey, all these are interchangeable." In fact, by listing them separately, they are clearly all different and they all have different rules.
then we have ONE exception. Trading a Standard action down to a Move action. This is the ONLY mention of converting one kind of action into another.
As that link I just posted says, when you're unsure that a rule exists but you have an exception to that unsure rule, then the existence of that exception proves the existence of the rule.
For example, if there's a sign by the road saying "No parking between 9am and 5pm" then this clearly proves that you ARE allowed to park in that spot anytime during the other 16 hours of the day. The sign doesn't say so, and you might wonder if that rule exists or not, but the fact that the sign makes a clear exception proves that there is also a clear rule.
The same holds true for the combat rules about converting Standard to Move - it's the exception that proves the rest of the rule: you cannot convert actions except for that one exception.
Heh. I was going to use a "no parking" in an example, too. No need, now, thanks Blake.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, discussions like this and some of the comments about the sanctity of the rules are why 5th Ed will continue to thrive.
The DM is the ultimate arbiter of the rules. If your action is as practical as staggering 30 ft while retching violently then they should let you do it. If not, no. You'll have a much easier time convincing your DM than the posters on the forums!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, the Nauseated condition should be rewritten slightly. Rather than giving a generic 'move action' it should allow only the explicit 'move - move action.'
In other words your sick character can stagger around if desired, but can't really do anything else. No manipulating objects or starting a bardic performance or anything like that. That would eliminate pretty much all of the weirdness, keeping the flavor of the condition and not causing any sort of controversy over what makes sense.
Move Action: A move action allows you to move up to your speed or perform an action that takes a similar amount of time.If the rules allow me to swap my move for an action that takes a "similar amount of time" does this preclude actions that take a less amount of time? If so, where do the rules state or even suggest this?
The rules tell you all of the places where an action takes "a similar amount of time". They're the move actions.
The rules also tell you that you cannot swap an action for a "shorter" action with the exception that proves the rule which is that standard actions may be used to take move actions.
The rules absolutely, unequivocally allow a standard action to be used for a move action. The rules have permitted that trade. Since this is a permissive rule set, the onus is on you to find the place that allows trading a move action for a free action. If you cannot, then the rules do not allow it. We know this because of the specific exception that proves the rule which is the standard to move trade.
I am not, however, speaking of the sensibility of this rule, or whether it makes the nauseated condition ridiculous. We know that you can trade a standard to a move because the rules say you can. Show us where the rules say you can trade a move to a free. If they don't say you can, then you can't.
I differ. It is not the reverse question. I'm not asking to change the actions that a character can perform on a given turn, I'm asking if we can change the action type of a given action for another that consumes more time and effort, which usually, noone in their right mind would do, like: using a move action to reload your bow, or spending two hours to cast a Grease Spell, or using a Full-Attack to attack only once with a BAB of +16.
Actually, my intuition tells me that the answer could be positive.
Asking Can I use my move to do a swift is the same question as can I do my swift as a move. The answer is still no. Nothing in the rules supports this and the line that says standards can be changed to moves enforces that it's not the normal. Because there are classes that are swift action gated and would love to convert a swift action into a move action to get 2 in a round.
Move Action: A move action allows you to move up to your speed or perform an action that takes a similar amount of time.If the rules allow me to swap my move for an action that takes a "similar amount of time" does this preclude actions that take a less amount of time? If so, where do the rules state or even suggest this?The rules tell you all of the places where an action takes "a similar amount of time". They're the move actions.
The rules also tell you that you cannot swap an action for a "shorter" action with the exception that proves the rule which is that standard actions may be used to take move actions.
The rules absolutely, unequivocally allow a standard action to be used for a move action. The rules have permitted that trade. Since this is a permissive rule set, the onus is on you to find the place that allows trading a move action for a free action. If you cannot, then the rules do not allow it. We know this because of the specific exception that proves the rule which is the standard to move trade.
I am not, however, speaking of the sensibility of this rule, or whether it makes the nauseated condition ridiculous. We know that you can trade a standard to a move because the rules say you can. Show us where the rules say you can trade a move to a free. If they don't say you can, then you can't.
Your character should be able to attempt anything you can realistically conceive. It should then be for the DM to make a decision about how long that will take and what the chance of success is.
The rules can't be expected to pre-envision and set a time and difficulty for every single action that could ever be conceived. In that regard it is not a permissive rule set.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically if you want to do something you need to find the rule that allows you to do it. That is just the way the rules set is made/set up. And it is why the argument of " the rules don't tell me I can't " is so obnoxious, because once someone gets to that point you have to realize that the person saying that doesn't really understand the core fundamentals of the game mechanics/rules.
[...]
It absolutely isn't that the rules are "unclear" it is that people want something from the rules for whatever reason, and the rules don't allow it. And because there are no rules regarding it, they try to work in the action they want either with "it doesn't say I can't" or "they obviously meant to allow it and didn't say anything", when it is plain as day that the rules don't have any way to allow the action/event.
Do you actually mean to say that anyone who has ever asked this question is either completely ignorant or trying to exploit the game? If that is what you meant, that's kind of offensive.
A lot of people who have asked this question are just trying to make the rule make sense. Right now, if I'm nauseated:
-- I can't drop something that I'm holding
-- I can't fall to the ground
-- I can't speak (or communicate in any way, really)
-- I can't end a rage
and so on. That doesn't seem to make any sense, so people are wondering if that's really what the rules say.
And most of the people that I see asking this question are experienced GMs who really stop to consider what the full implications of the rule interpretation are, and often it's because they have spotted an odd interaction or a corner case that many people wouldn't be aware of.
As it stands now, being nauseated is a more restrictive condition than being staggered, which seems odd: most people would think "I'm only one hit point away from falling unconscious and dying" would be a more serious condition than "I'm going to throw up."
(Also note that I didn't dispute the original statement regarding how the rules work: I just asked if there was an explicit statement somewhere that we could reference, because that kind of thing causes a lot of confusion.)
Basically if you want to do something you need to find the rule that allows you to do it. That is just the way the rules set is made/set up.
Actually, "the rules don't say I can't" is a legitimate philosophical approach to rules texts, and to new gamers, that's likely the default approach because the most common "normal life" set of rules--the law--is usually handled that way:
1) In some rule sets/laws, everything is allowed except that which is expressly forbidden. In this approach, the rules tell you only what you can't do.
2) In some rule sets/laws, everything is forbidden except that which is expressly allowed. In this approach, the rules tell you only what you can do.
3) In many rule sets/laws, there is a mix of these two approaches, depending on the realm or area under consideration. To take the parking example, in most places, you are allowed to park unless a sign specifically forbids it. However, if you go to a parking lot, you are only allowed to park in designated areas--i.e., you can't park there unless the stripes specifically allow it.
While it's true that the second approach is much more common in games overall, it is not a universal truth. Unless there's a statement by the game designers indicating the approach, the first approach is still a legitimate philosophical approach to the rules.
I think the third approach is actually what most GMs use, whether they realize it or not. Anytime the game rules includes statement along the lines of "the GM should reward player creativity" or "these are just examples--the GM should not restrict players to these examples," it seems like a pretty clear indication that this is not intended to be a 100% restrictive rule set.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gwen, I like your philosophical digression; I'm always up for philosophy.
In the real world, I can do a nearly infinite list of things. If you expand that list into trivia, like "I can walk forward three steps and spin around in a circle clockwise for 37 seconds" then the list truly is infinite (or infinite enough for this discussion).
It would be truly impossible for law makers to create permissive laws that allow everything I should be legally allowed to do.
Law #456,218: Yes, you can walk forward three steps and spin around in a circle clockwise for 37 seconds.
Law #456,219: Yes, you can walk forward three steps and spin around in a circle clockwise for 38 seconds.
Law #456,220: Yes, you can walk forward three steps and spin around in a circle clockwise for 39 seconds.
Etc.
So real world laws are restrictive by nature. They tell us what it is ILLEGAL to do (and provide appropriate penalties). We then assume that everything else is legal, so I can legally walk forward three steps and spin around in a circle clockwise for 37 seconds because there is no law against it.
But game rules don't work like that.
In chess, the rule is that a rook can move in a straight line forward, backward, or side-to-side, as far as it wants to go or until it captures an opposing piece or is blocked by one of its own pieces. A permissive rule telling what is permitted.
But there is no rule that says that a rook cannot move forward three spaces and then left two spaces. Nor is there a rule that says a rook cannot move forward four spaces and then left two spaces. Etc.
So games work exactly backward from the way real-world laws work. Laws tell us what we cannot do and therefore everything else is permitted while games tell us what we can do and therefore everything else is omitted.
The legal approach is not really a legitimate philosophical approach to game rules. Certainly not to board games like chess where the list of permitted rules is very short (a few dozen rules) and the list of omitted rules is literally thousands, or even millions, of times longer.
In a RPG like Pathfinder, the gap is narrowed somewhat because the list of permitted rules is thousands of pages long by this time, counting all the books. But still, the list of all the things we cannot do is infinitely longer:
Humans cannot sneeze blue mucus that paralyzes all creatures in a 20' cone.
Humans cannot sneeze green mucus that paralyzes all creatures in a 20' cone.
Humans cannot sneeze blue mucus that paralyzes all creatures in a 25' cone.
Humans cannot sneeze blue mucus that petrifies all creatures in a 20' cone.
Dwarves cannot sneeze blue mucus that paralyzes all creatures in a 20' cone.
Etc.
So, ultimately, rules for games are always permissive. We can convert a standard action into a move action because it is permitted. We cannot convert other actions because it is not permitted, and the lack of a rule is not permission to assume a default stance that we can do it because there is no rule to tell us we can't (if that default stance is true, then my characters are about to use lots of blue mucus).
Sure, the mucus thing is hyperbole, but the same hyperbolic example is thoroughly applicable to the action conversion question. Call it reductio ad absurdum to illustrate the more meaningful point (though it feels more like an expansio ad absurdum to me).
Many games are not permissive. 1st edition D&D, 2nd edition D&D, 3rd edition D&D and oh 5th Edition D&D.
Wait, wasn't pathfinder adapted from the first three?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As other have said (and my GMing time is currently at 27 years), we are not discussing what the rules ought to say. I've said it here, and elsewhere: if you want to use a free action while nauseated in my game, you are more than welcome to do so, as long as I can vet the action you want to perform. Once I've allowed an action, it's allowed forever, barring a future decision explicitly rescinding that particular action because it does more than I think the rules want to permit. I am not a jerk, and if you want to drop your sword and fall prone while nauseated, then take a move action, go for it at my table.
But the rules do not allow trading a move action for another one. Anyone claiming they do needs to back it up in the face of the contradictory evidence of the rules not you saying can in general, but explicitly allowing the standard to move trade.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As other have said (and my GMing time is currently at 27 years), we are not discussing what the rules ought to say. I've said it here, and elsewhere: if you want to use a free action while nauseated in my game, you are more than welcome to do so, as long as I can vet the action you want to perform. Once I've allowed an action, it's allowed forever, barring a future decision explicitly rescinding that particular action because it does more than I think the rules want to permit. I am not a jerk, and if you want to drop your sword and fall prone while nauseated, then take a move action, go for it at my table.
But the rules do not allow trading a move action for another one. Anyone claiming they do needs to back it up in the face of the contradictory evidence of the rules not you saying can in general, but explicitly allowing the standard to move trade.
Exactly how this should be run.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the problem with all of this is the fact that the nauseated condition really hasn't received a significant revision since the dawn of 3e - long before there were such things as swift or immediate actions to complicate matters.
Personally, I think it excessively rigid to not allow free actions while allowing any actions at all - in this case a move action. Moreover, earlier versions of staggered, while allowing swift and immediate actions, didn't allow free actions either. That came with later revision. With that in mind, I'd venture a guess that nobody really envisioned denying free actions when PCs have their actions partially reduced. My expectation is that if there is a clarification - free actions would be allowed - barring, of course, GM adjudication.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move action for one or more equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action."for one or more equivalent actions"
Right there. Right there, we are told we can swap out move actions for multiple actions. So you're wrong. The rules do allow us to swap out move actions for other actions, but it's not very clear how it works.
You're onto something, but it's just a case of bad editing.
That text came right out of the 3.5 rules but apparently was changed in the Pathfinder SRD. Here's the original text from 3.5:
Move Action
If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move for one or more equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action.
Almost the same thing, but note where I've bolded it, the word "action" is missing from the original rule.
This is very important.
It clearly states that you can choose not to MOVE by swapping your MOVE for some other equivalent action (still a MOVE ACTION) such as drawing a weapon or getting a potion out of your belt pouch or opening a door - all move actions that you could do instead of actually moving.
That's what the original rule said - you swap your move for an equivalent action, but it's all still under the heading of MOVE ACTION.
Sure, that's a different game, different rules. But Pathfinder evolved form those rules. That's the same Chapter (combat) the same section (actions), the same subsectin (move actions) and the same sentence except for EXACTLY ONE WORD.
Interesting.
It does raise a question: Was this one word ("action") added because the developers were changing the rule, or because of bad editing?
Here's the answer: If the developers had intended to change the rule, they would have done so more effectively than adding one ambiguous word. Even you admit that it's ambiguous; you said "we just don't know how many free actions it takes to make a move action". Why? Because there are no rules for that. The developers did NOT make rules for this - if they had, there would actually BE rules for it. There are no such rules.
Given that the developers did not make rules for this, the only plausibly logical conclusion is that adding "action" to that sentence was an editing error that slipped under the radar - somoene was typing along and they just assumed a word that really wasn't there in the original text and typed it in error, then nobody caught the mistake.
Until now. Good catch. We should tell Paizo to errata that word out of there.
If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move action for one or more equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action."for one or more equivalent actions"
Right there. Right there, we are told we can swap out move actions for multiple actions. So you're wrong. The rules do allow us to swap out move actions for other actions, but it's not very clear how it works.
You're onto something, but it's just a case of bad editing.
That text came right out of the 3.5 rules but apparently was changed in the Pathfinder SRD. Here's the original text from 3.5:
Move Action
If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move for one or more equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action.Almost the same thing, but note where I've bolded it, the word "action" is missing from the original rule.
This is very important.
It clearly states that you can choose not to MOVE by swapping your MOVE for some other equivalent action (still a MOVE ACTION) such as drawing a weapon or getting a potion out of your belt pouch or opening a door - all move actions that you could do instead of actually moving.
That's what the original rule said - you swap your move for an equivalent action, but it's all still under the heading of MOVE ACTION.
Sure, that's a different game, different rules. But Pathfinder evolved form those rules. That's the same Chapter (combat) the same section (actions), the same subsectin (move actions) and the same sentence except for EXACTLY ONE WORD.
Interesting.
It does raise a question: Was this one word ("action") added because the developers were changing the rule, or because of bad editing?
Here's the answer: If the developers had intended to change the rule, they would have done so more effectively than adding one...
Actually that one word is correct. The problem is using the word "Move" for an action type. There is an action that itself is named Move so it is the Move action and this action is an action with the Move type. By using the same term for an individual action and an action type it creates these problems.
If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move action [the action actually named Move] for one or more equivalent actions[actions with the Move type]), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action.
Actually that one word is correct. The problem is using the word "Move" for an action type. There is an action that itself is named Move so it is the Move action and this action is an action with the Move type. By using the same term for an individual action and an action type it creates these problems.
If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move action [the action actually named Move] for one or more equivalent actions[actions with the Move type]), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
In Pathfinder, I have a Move Action (tm). I can use that Move Action to move, but I don't have to - instead I can use that Move Action to open a door, draw a weapon, stand up from prone, retrieve an item, or many other things. All of those require me to use my Move Action but none of them requires me to actually move.
What the rule I quoted is saying is this:
If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have chosen not to use your Move Action to move but have used it to do some other equivalent activity allowed as a Move Action), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action.
They just said it badly and accidentally edited in an extra word that shouldn't be there.
Paizo didn't change it that much. Here is what the d20srd says:
Nauseated
Experiencing stomach distress. Nauseated creatures are unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention. The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn.
I don't see any relevant difference between the d20srd quote above and the Paizo PRD version of the same condition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, NN959, you're right. You've been right all along.
I'll start using all these rules in the combat section that tell me how to swap my action types, when I can, when I can't, and how many to swap for what. Since, you know, the rules are all there. I will begin using those right away.
Oh, yeah, wait. There are no rules for that. Can't be done. Except the one that is allowed, converting a Standard action to a Move action.
You're saying we have rules for it, but the actual rulebook does not have those rules. Anywhere. Until Paizo prints those rules, there is no way for any of us to use these unprinted nonexistent rules.
You go right ahead and keep using your house rules and I'll go right ahead and keep using the official ones.
But please stop confusing your house rule for an official one and please stop posting your house rule in a Rules Questions forum where it doesn't really belong. Take this house rule of your and go post it in the house rules forum where it does belong, and I'll gladly come help support your house rule, mainly because I think that's it's mostly a good one as long as we're careful to prevent multiple-swift-action abuse.