|
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I've seen various threads, with various people, debate both sides of this one. I haven't seen a definitive answer, a FAQ, or FAQ votes. I've seen GMs rule it both ways.
A lone warrior and two orcs meet in battle.
Round 1-Init 11
* Warrior uses their full round action for Dazzling Display. They demoralize the orcs for exactly 1 round.
* They immediately end their turn.
Round 1-Init 10
* One orc swings and misses.
Round 1-Init 9
* The other orc swings and misses.
Round 2-Init 11
* The warrior considers an action based on whether or not an orc is still demoralized (he has yet to see a moment in the "game world" where has had a chance to take an action during his 1-round effect)...
At which point did the Dazzling Display effect come into play? Was it for:
(a) Round 1-Init 11
or
(b) Round 1-Init 10?
Why this matters:
When the rules refer to a “full round”, they usually mean a span of time from a particular initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.
I've had players argue both sides. I stopped debating this one, and just let the players decide which interpretation they'd like, and apply it to both sides (GM controlled enemies using the same decision).
FWIW, I know there are adventures (3.5e and PF era alike) where enemies apply things like a 1-round bleed or something, end their turn, and presumably "take advantage" of that condition in the following turn. Evidence of this (not handy at the moment), leads me towards the 'b' interpretation over the 'a' interpretation, but then again I know "adventure writers make mistakes" (a case for 'a' over 'b').
Please FAQ if you think this is worth making crystal clear so we can summon the attention of Mark Eidolon. :)
For fun, I'll also follow this up with posts for voting on interpretation A and interpretation B, where you are voting on how you'd like it to work if clarified in a FAQ .. versus what you believe is RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One round effects last until the beginning of the turn they began on. This isn't really a question much to say on.
Adventure writers occasionally have a very loose idea of the rules.
|
|
.. the beginning of the turn they began on.
Except the question above is:
Given the warrior's turn ended with the action taken to perform Dazzling Display (and consequently, the demoralize effect applied to no creatures during that warrior's turn), which initiative count do you interpret the Dazzling Display effect beginning on?
Choices:
(a) Round 1-Init 11
(b) Round 1-Init 10
As players, GMs and adventure writers have selected both (a) and (b), alike... this appears to be "up for interpretation".
No, the warrior does not get the chance to take advantage of their demoralization. They are no longer demoralized when it is his turn to act because effects that last one round end at the start of the character's next turn.
There is no misinterpretation to be had. It very clearly states this in the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The effect lasts until just before the warrior's next turn would start. "Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on" is not particularly ambiguous. The effect begins on the warrior's initiative count.
The full round action nature of it doesn't change the fact that it starts on the warrior's turn; he could, for example, take the full round action to Dazzling Display, then take a swift action afterward, which clearly would be happening with the demoralizing effect already in place. I think that should make it clear where you start counting.
Just because some people are wrong does not mean something is 'up for interpretation.' Scavion is correct.
"When the rules refer to a "full round", they usually mean a span of time from a particular initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on."
There really is no need to vote here.
I don't vote on whether gravity keeps the moon in orbit. It just does. I don't vote on whether steel is harder than silk. It just is. And I don't need to vote on this rule because it's spelled out clearly in the RAW with no ambiguity.
I wish all rules were this crystal clear. Scavion is right.
.. the beginning of the turn they began on.Except the question above is:
Given the warrior's turn ended with the action taken to perform Dazzling Display (and consequently, the demoralize effect applied to no creatures during that warrior's turn), which initiative count do you interpret the Dazzling Display effect beginning on?
Choices:
(a) Round 1-Init 11
(b) Round 1-Init 10As players, GMs and adventure writers have selected both (a) and (b), alike... this appears to be "up for interpretation".
I have never seen anyone who argues for interpretation B. All Dazzling Display does is allow you to use the Demoralize option of Intimidate on all foes in 30' as a full round action instead of a single foe as a standard action.
The Shaken condition is immediately applied on a successful Demoralize check and the fighter does gain some benefit because the Orcs on Init 10 and 9 will have -2 on their attack rolls against him. When his next turn begins the Shaken condition ends.
No, the warrior does not get the chance to take advantage of their demoralization. They are no longer demoralized when it is his turn to act because effects that last one round end at the start of the character's next turn.
There is no misinterpretation to be had. It very clearly states this in the rules.
And this is usually OK because a lot of conditions or effects imposed would affect the target on its own turn (like shaken or dazed). If there is nothing that would benefit the warrior, then the ability should be scrutinized as questionable design (unless intended to be used with allies).
Wakedown, I have always played my PFS witch under "Interpretation A", the first of your two examples. That being said, I have never considered it an interpretation, as the rule seems clear to me. I have never encountered a judge/GM that has corrected me when I have played the rule as "A".
If my witch uses Evil Eye to reduce an enemy's saves and the target makes their Will Save, I know I have to immediately Cackle in order to keep that effect up so that it is active during my following round's turn, when I then want to follow up with, say, a Slumber and take advantage of the reduced save.
This is why an item like the Cackling Hag's Blouse is so valuable to witches, for allowing a couple of Cackles on Swift Actions for those "oh crap" moments when the baddie made their Will save and you HAVE to Cackle to maintain the effect, but still really NEED that Move Action for something else in that particular round.
I do not really have much more to add to this than that.
I'm confused by references to the fighter not gaining an advantage. The fighter gains an advantage from demoralising the orcs as long as the orc tries to attack him or an ally, or make a skill check or a saving throw What advantage from shaken is the fighter supposed to gain to his own actions. Shaken doesn't affect AC or CMD so nothing the fighter is likely to do will gain any advantage.
Educate me.
To reiterate and map it out:
Round 1
Initiative 11-Fighter uses Dazzling Display, a one round effect lasts till the start of the Fighter's next turn.
Initiative 10- Orc swings and misses
Initiative 9- Orc swings and misses
Round 2
Initiative 11- Demoralization ends, Fighter takes his turn.
|
I'm confused by references to the fighter not gaining an advantage. The fighter gains an advantage from demoralising the orcs as long as the orc tries to attack him or an ally, or make a skill check or a saving throw What advantage from shaken is the fighter supposed to gain to his own actions. Shaken doesn't affect AC or CMD so nothing the fighter is likely to do will gain any advantage.
Educate me.
|
|
I have always played my PFS witch under "Interpretation A"
That is because, you sir, are a model witch player, who in your example is solid in organized play to be prepared for all ways a GM may run things (and I'm sure you can guess which witch players may have brought this topic up when I've been running).
At any rate, those players are the ones I'd like to bookmark this thread and carry it on my phone to gamedays for, and my best effort to paraphrase their specific question (the original one) is:
"if a round ends with the casting/action/etc that then instantaneously causes an effect to come into play, does that effect count as beginning in the initiative count of the action that caused the effect, or does it count as beginning in the initiative count that coincides with the beginning of the effect (the casting or action taken about to bring the effect into play being identified separately as the cause)".
So again, I'd like to reinforce the original question isn't about when a 1-round effect ends, but rather what initiative count reflects it beginning?
I've been trying to keep my own personal desires out of clouding the thread, but as I've clearly posted this in a way that I hope presents it logically (and I think favors neither side), I'm hoping to attract more helpful responses to bookmark and bring to players who run into this specific rule. I know this is Internet rules forums, but I still hold out hope that someone has a bookmark/link or something that says something along the lines of:
"an effect that is brought about by a full round action or as the last action of a turn counts as taking effect in the same initiative count of the action that caused it".
As an side, I will discretely try to pry 'example boss tactics' citations from said players (presumably something like a lone BBEG using a move action followed by misfortune in round 1, then cackling to extend in round 2; or a witch drawing an ill omen wand in round 1, then casting a save-or-die in round 2). I know the Internet general response is "that adventure writer is wrong". I just hope it's not a Bonekeep (since in that case it'd be one of the definitive rule guys who wrote said tactic in print, or at least let it slip through and lends credibility to the permissive ruling).
all of your actions use your initiative count as a reference point. There are no rules that I am aware of that provide an exception. I cannot find anything that even implies otherwise.
|
|
I don't know how much it matters for the discussion, but it was also pointed out to me the impact of how you run this on multiple levels.
For example, if you cast infernal healing (which lasts 10 rounds) on yourself and you apply the fast healing as happening at the "start of an initiative count" (i.e. before anything else), then you'd potentially have a ruling where if you use infernal healing on yourself you only have it "tick for 9 rounds" - since it doesn't "tick" in the round you cast it on yourself and starts "ticking" at the beginning of the next round, then it doesn't tick in the 10th round since it would "end just before the same initiative count that they began on" (f you are using the initiative count the spell was cast in).
However, in this case I'd suggest it wasn't the spell determining the initiative, but the first round the effect happened was your next round, so you'd get all 10 ticks. But then I guess you'd have this open question regarding whether all the turns taken by others would have you counting as having a fast healing effect present on you for that interim time (despite it not ticking, although I don't know how this could ever matter, aka is there anything in the game where the presence of fast healing affects something someone else would do?).
For the most part, beginning/ending of round timing is a funky, somewhat grey area, and part of my intention in starting this thread was to find citations that may have loaned clarifying light on these grey areas.
I don't know how much it matters for the discussion, but it was also pointed out to me the impact of how you run this on multiple levels.
...
For the most part, beginning/ending of round timing is a funky, somewhat grey area, and part of my intention in starting this thread was to find citations that may have loaned clarifying light on these grey areas.
Rules Trump Fluff, Specific Trumps General. A module exception does not affect the general rule, it only affects that specific circumstance. If that circumstance is only affecting the FLUFF of the action, then the general rule still applies, despite what the fluff may suggest (There are numerous cases of fluff in descriptions being contradicted by the general rules, as such that fluff is nullified).
I am sorry, but any effect cast on an initiative counts as occurring on that initiative.
Example:
Fighter 11 uses dazzling display, fighter then provokes AOO from the orcs.
Orc 1 -2 on attack of opportunity to fighter as he is immediately affected.
Fighter round ends.
Orc 1 attacks with -2
Orc 2 attacks with -2
Fighter, dazzling display ends, fighter takes his round.
Infernal healing is the same you get "10 ticks" and the first "tick" is immediately used upon casting.
So fighter is bleeding, Wizard casts infernal healing on the fighter, bleed effect ends and fighter gains 1hp.
Wizard ends his turn.
On the Wizards 10th turn (9 rounds after casting), the fighter has regained 10hp, if a bleed effect was applied in that span each time it is the wizards turn the effect ends. The order of initiative would affect this.
So Monster (Attacks)> Fighter (Bleeds) >Wizard (Infernal)
Fighter takes bleed condition> Fighter takes bleed damage > Bleed removed, 1hp restored.
Or Monster (Attacks)> Wizard (Infernal) > Fighter (Acts).
Fighter Takes Bleed Condition > Bleed condition removed, 1hp restored > Fighter acts having taken 0 Bleed damage.
It is the same with any spell effect with a duration, the moment it is cast, that counts as a single "tick" of the duration. Yes this does mean that mage armor lasts for 1 "less" round than technically advertised by your reasoning, but it also means that the wizard who casts mage armor can take advantage of it on the very next initiatives turn, it does not mean he casts armor, takes the entire next turn, and then gains mage armor.
|
|
.. the moment it is cast, that counts as a single "tick" of the duration. Yes this does mean that mage armor lasts for 1 "less" round ..
I suppose this is an interesting consequence of Interpretation A. For the most part, if you're casting spells like infernal healing or divine favor on yourself, you're only getting 9 usable rounds (not 10) of the effect if the first round counts against the duration despite it not having any effect (either due to the timing of fast healing, or not having any standard actions left after casting divine favor).
(Barring things like a warpriest casting divine favor as a swift action, ~ going back to essentially Core rules; although I suppose even a Quickened Infernal Healing would potentially not "tick" the first round if you run that fast healing happens at the beginning of an initiative count)
So just to clarify,
Let say you have ear piercing scream.
And you find a nifty way to boost the DC (arcanist, etc)
Do you then Perma-daze your opponent?
Turn 1. Mr.Shrieker Dazes orc 1 with ear piercing scream.
Turn 2. Mr. Orc Is dazed.
Turn 3. Since 1 whole run has passed, he screams again dazing the orc again.
Turn 4. Mr. Orc is still dazed.
repeat till Mr orc dies or passes his fort save
Or what about continually throwing sand into your opponents eyes with a dirty trick manuver?
So just to clarify,
Let say you have ear piercing scream.
And you find a nifty way to boost the DC (arcanist, etc)Do you then Perma-daze your opponent?
Turn 1. Mr.Shrieker Dazes orc 1 with ear piercing scream.
Turn 2. Mr. Orc Is dazed.
Turn 3. Since 1 whole run has passed, he screams again dazing the orc again.
Turn 4. Mr. Orc is still dazed.
repeat till Mr orc dies or passes his fort saveOr what about continually throwing sand into your opponents eyes with a dirty trick manuver?
Yes that is correct. What is the problem?
Yes that is correct. What is the problem?So just to clarify,
Let say you have ear piercing scream.
And you find a nifty way to boost the DC (arcanist, etc)Do you then Perma-daze your opponent?
Turn 1. Mr.Shrieker Dazes orc 1 with ear piercing scream.
Turn 2. Mr. Orc Is dazed.
Turn 3. Since 1 whole run has passed, he screams again dazing the orc again.
Turn 4. Mr. Orc is still dazed.
repeat till Mr orc dies or passes his fort saveOr what about continually throwing sand into your opponents eyes with a dirty trick manuver?
Well then that is pretty cool, A blinding rogue would be nifty
|
|
Continued chat with folks has helped assemble some impact analysis of the (a) interpretation.
(The default assumption here ignoring Quicken, spell combat, fervor, magic items enabling swift actions and other mechanisms, but purely looking at standard/Core/APG mechanics).
1. If you draw a wand of vanish as a move action, and use a standard to activate it, you won't be able to get any normal round actions (standard, move) yourself. Thus, no sneak attack using a CL1 wand of vanish.
2. Spells that last 1 minute (whether because they are 1 minute duration or fixed 1min/level and at CL1) like infernal healing, divine favor, gravity bow, hunter's howl) only apply to the caster for 9 rounds instead of 10. Thus, only 9 rounds of healing out of combat if you cast infernal healing on yourself. If you hand the wand to someone else to use on you though, you get the 10 rounds.
3. Certain clerics (ie. Strength/Good/War domain) can never derive any benefit from their level 1 domain power for themselves (i.e. taking a standard action to apply strength surge to yourself in order to take a subsequent standard action to break/lift/attack/etc something).
4. You gain no benefit from using a wand of ill omen yourself and then hoping to cast a standard action spell against a creature with the effect of ill omen active.
5. As a witch, you cannot end a turn with a standard action to apply a hex and hope to use a move action your next turn to extend it.
6. You cannot take a standard action to apply any 1-round effect (bleed, shaken, etc) and be able to act against a creature that effect has been applied to with another standard action (also includes the Dazzling Display example that started the thread).
I'm sure there's other examples of common "played wrong because the effect isn't active when you act but wanted it to be after activating it" examples...? I suppose I've seen the domain powers (#3) and witch hexes (#5) most often as the ones that have been played as still counting on the player's turn. The oddity of infernal healing only healing the caster if used on themselves for 9hp has actually never come up... (but should it?)
What else is there that's often overlooked here?
Well then that is pretty cool, A blinding rogue would be niftyYes that is correct. What is the problem?So just to clarify,
Let say you have ear piercing scream.
And you find a nifty way to boost the DC (arcanist, etc)Do you then Perma-daze your opponent?
Turn 1. Mr.Shrieker Dazes orc 1 with ear piercing scream.
Turn 2. Mr. Orc Is dazed.
Turn 3. Since 1 whole run has passed, he screams again dazing the orc again.
Turn 4. Mr. Orc is still dazed.
repeat till Mr orc dies or passes his fort saveOr what about continually throwing sand into your opponents eyes with a dirty trick manuver?
There is actually a whole dirty trick rogue build built around that. I think on the Zenith guides website but can't remember.
Its pretty clear that it works the way everyone here says it works, which would be option A. I just house ruled it for a way of the wicked game I am running to work like option B, however, so that the cleric undead domain ability actually does something for a negative energy channeling cleric before level 4.
EDIT: I think the way I'm going to do it is to allow the player to choose, if the action that creates an effect is the last action they take in their turn, for the effect's duration to begin on the next initiative count instead. That should stop possible shenanigans with getting an extra effect round's worth of stuff by ordering standard/free/swift/whatever actions after using an ability in a round, but lets Death's Kiss function from levels 1-3.
2. Spells that last 1 minute (whether because they are 1 minute duration or fixed 1min/level and at CL1) like infernal healing, divine favor, gravity bow, hunter's howl) only apply to the caster for 9 rounds instead of 10. Thus, only 9 rounds of healing out of combat if you cast infernal healing on yourself. If you hand the wand to someone else to use on you though, you get the 10 rounds.Where is this interpretation coming from, as I can't seem to follow it?
You use Infernal Healing, and you immediately heal one HP on that round. You heal another HP each of the following 9 rounds, for a total of ten rounds and ten HP.
What is the reasoning behind those who think the caster wouldn't gain the benefit on the round of casting as well as the following 9 rounds?
Right, I don't get that either. The counting is inclusive of the round in which the spell takes effect. So the round you cast it is round 1 and you get the benefit for 9 additional rounds, which is 10 rounds as expected.
.. the moment it is cast, that counts as a single "tick" of the duration. Yes this does mean that mage armor lasts for 1 "less" round ..I suppose this is an interesting consequence of Interpretation A. For the most part, if you're casting spells like infernal healing or divine favor on yourself, you're only getting 9 usable rounds (not 10) of the effect if the first round counts against the duration despite it not having any effect (either due to the timing of fast healing, or not having any standard actions left after casting divine favor).
(Barring things like a warpriest casting divine favor as a swift action, ~ going back to essentially Core rules; although I suppose even a Quickened Infernal Healing would potentially not "tick" the first round if you run that fast healing happens at the beginning of an initiative count)
Not quite what I said, you gain the effect ON THE ROUND IT IS CAST as the first count of the duration, then you get THE FULL REST OF THE DURATION AFTER, if it says 10 rounds you get 10 rounds, you state that it has no effect on the round cast AND a tick is wasted as a result of counting the first round, in effect giving 9 ticks for 10 rounds.
You get 10 ticks, 1 immediately following casting, then 9 following the count. 10 ticks go by and 10 uses are consumed.|
|
You get 10 ticks, 1 immediately following casting, then 9 following the count. 10 ticks go by and 10 uses are consumed.
Not debating here, but why would you think that? If you're running that a creature with "fast healing" heals at the beginning of their turns prior to taking any actions, why does a creature gain back 1hp if they gain fast healing during a turn in which the beginning has already passed? Aka, why is the first round of fast healing given a pass and allowed to tick somewhere in the middle (in between the standard and move, or after the standard and move)?
Wouldn't infernal healing need some wording within the spell that says it grants the first 1hp in the round it was cast versus just running "fast healing" rules and having the 1hp come consistently at the beginning of turns prior to any actions being taken?
There are several Cleric domain abilities that last "for the next round".
None of these are available for that cleric to take advantage of with standard actions?
Bit of Luck
Touch of Good
Touch of Law
Strength Surge
Battle RageThese abilities only work on other characters? Is that the consensus?
Correct, unless you get a way to activate them as a swift action or extend the duration. But by default if they are a standard to start and last 1 round they end the start of your next turn.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone in this thread so far is wrong about Infernal Healing, because you're all overlooking an important detail: It has a casting time of 1 round. It's not a standard action.
So round 1, initiative 15: Wizard begins casting Infernal Healing
Round 2, init 15: Wizard finishes casting just before his turn. At start of his turn, he heals 1 point, because he now has fast heal 1.
This healing continues for another 9 rounds after that.
But I agree that a spell like Divine Favor is only going to provide benefit for 9 rounds of attacks on your turn. In round 1, you cast it, and get the bonus immediately, but no longer have an action left with which to attack. So you have 9 rounds more after that in which to use it. Of course, it also applies to AOOs between you casting it in round 1 and using it for a standard action attack in round 2.
|
|
There are several Cleric domain abilities that last "for the next round".
None of these are available for that cleric to take advantage of with standard actions?
Bit of Luck
Touch of Good
Touch of Law
Strength Surge
Battle RageThese abilities only work on other characters? Is that the consensus?
Yes, that's the consensus. There's an entire "reach weapon cleric" guide that revolves around buffing yourself on your turn so you can use a reach weapon to AOO enemies to death between your turns which revolves around finding ways to make these useful for yourself.
I have a heal/buff cleric with the Luck domain who uses it to buff other PCs, because he's not bothering with attacking himself.