Can you essentially slow an action down? If something is a swift action, can you use a move action to do it instead?
For example, if you have two swift actions you want to perform, can you do one as a move action?
As you can see by the discussion in the thread, this is something that the PDT needs to resolve. On one hand, it's clear that preventing substitution would create design space, failing to allow it creates a sea of idiocy or rather idiotic outcomes, within the game world.
To complicate this matter, one of the lead designers stated that the game must be GM'd with common sense. Dead characters can't take actions and humans don't walk around on their hands. But the nature of the rules has created a cult whose belief is that the rules are strictly Permissive, so if it doesn't say it, you can't do it. The PDT has shown a penchant for ignoring or invoking reality whenever it suits them, so common sense frequently gets hit with 12d6 sneak attack by the PDT because this is art, not science.
Let's look at what the rules say about actions:
An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated. There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, swift actions, immediate actions, and free actions.Emphasis mine. If we use that framework for adjudicating, then yes, in general any action that takes less time can be performed by consuming an action that takes more time. Why? Because we are operating under the paradigm of needing time to complete actions. Barring a rule preventing a specific substitution, the game has established actions as a function of time expenditure. That point is driven home here:
Move Action: A move action allows you to move up to your speed or perform an action that takes a similar amount of time. See Table: Actions in Combat for other move...
The PDT already resolved it, and it's clear as day as to how it is; Nauseated removes any ability to perform activities like Swift/Immediate Actions, Free Actions, Full-Round Actions, etc. And there are several (not one or two) listed exceptions as to what can and cannot be substituted in terms of actions, which gives us an exclusive precedent; that you cannot substitute actions unless an ability or rule says that you can. Therefore, this whole "Paladin can use Lay On Hands as a Move Action" is houseruling, because there is ZERO rules, FAQ or otherwise, that say you can do anything like that, and it's probably done because people think the Nauseated condition is too overpowered. It's just like people saying Dexterity-based characters are overpowered, and they're not.
You want overpowered conditions? Try being Paralyzed, Petrified, Stunned, Dazed, Unconscious, etc. Where you can't do anything at all.
I will FAQ this later if nobody else beats me to it.
To complicate this matter, one of the lead designers stated that the game must be GM'd with common sense. Dead characters can't take actions and humans don't walk around on their hands. But the nature of the rules has created a cult whose belief is that the rules are strictly Permissive, so if it doesn't say it, you can't do it. The PDT has shown a penchant for ignoring or invoking reality whenever it suits them, so common sense frequently gets hit with 12d6 sneak attack by the PDT because this is art, not science.
This idea that there is a cult following, and applying it as a broad and sweeping generalization to everyone who "Doesn't see it as you do" is sorely misplaced and out of line. It is certainly out of line in trying to characterize myself as such (which as one of the vocal in this thread, and your comments here, suggests that you may be trying to do so - if not, my misunderstanding, either way I'm not taking offense at it - just correcting a flaw in your perception of me if it is there :)
(If you read other of my posts in other threads I have stated on several occasions that the rules are neither wholly permissive or restrictive).
Let's look at what the rules say about actions:An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated. There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, swift actions, immediate actions, and free actions.Emphasis mine. If we use that framework for adjudicating, then yes, in general any action that takes less time can be performed by consuming an action that takes more time. Why? Because we are operating under the paradigm of needing time to complete actions. Barring a rule preventing a specific substitution, the game has established actions as a function of time expenditure. That point is driven home here:
Move Action: A move action allows you to move up to your speed or perform an action that takes a similar amount of time....Emphasis mine. The idea that one can perform actions that take a similar amount of time, but not actions that take less time, is not defensible given that the game is using time, in the real world sense, as the foundation for the action economy.
But as you can see from this thread, there are a host of arguments trying to impose or invent a strict formalism with regards to action economy that seem to treat each action as some unique type of action. While this seems contrary to the paradigm of how the action economy is provided, it is certainly possible the PDT could intend or decide to impose contrary rules. Specifically because the PDT seems willing to sacrifice internal consistency to block outcomes. To wit, many seem to believe that the whole reason to stop one from using their move action to perform a swift action is to stop Paladins from using Lay on Hands on themselves...but yet still be able to use it on others. Only in an RPG does this make any sense.
There are several ways of looking at the parts you highlighted from the rules. I'll focus on
Move Action: A move action allows you to move up to your speed or perform an action that takes a similar amount of time....
What other actions take a similar amount of time as moving your speed? Well other move actions do of course. Drawing a weapon. Getting something out of a bag. Opening a door. Standing from prone. Manipulating an item. Mounting/dismounting a steed. etc.
Some of these clearly take less time than moving 30' would. Some would probably take more (e.g, drawing a bow, and probably stringing it if you weren't expecting to need it - and thus would have had it unstrung to preserve the life of the bow). Mounting a steed for someone without experience may as well take more time. Time here is clearly a very rough measure.
As further example, many who talk about the time aspect suggest a standard action takes more time than move, takes more than swift, takes more than free. You even make this claim " Full, Standard, Move, Swift/Immediate, and Free" - yet this doesn't always logically fit with the real world - which is faster, throwing a dagger (standard action) or moving 30'? I'll bet on the dagger thrower every time in terms of which action is completed first. Given that, the claim of "common sense" to allow supposed larger action economy to allow all forms of smaller action economy doesn't fit.
Even more examples are easy to come by. What takes more time, shouting "Bob, look out behind you" (free action to talk) or pointing a gun a Bob and pulling the trigger (standard action).
So the rules regarding measurements of time are very rough broad categories. They could be used as guidelines for things that don't explicitly have a specified action. e.g, Writing a paragraph is not a move equivalent action. Cutting down a tree is not a move equivalent action - but we could extrapolate based on the thickness of the tree (HP of the log), how much damage we could do with a per attack with an axe, and come up with an average to fell a tree if we were playing world of lumberjacks to determine an average number of trees felled per hour (for those bored with rolling the dice for hours in the lumberjack simulation).
Second, I mentioned this in a previous post in this thread, but there are other criteria as well that can be looked at. Time is one measure of things, but not the only possible one.
...but represents a larger expenditure of effort than a free action.
What kind of effort does it take a paladin to use LoH on himself? Is it ONLY the time needed to do so? Or are there other aspects? Personally I feel there are other aspects. The paladin takes a moment to take in a calming breath, centering his/her thoughts on his divine right as a champion of his god, then applies the healing gift that comes from that. But that effort and expenditure of energy is also mentally taxing on him. If he wishes to do it each round he must refocus himself each round.
Same with a magus using his arcane pool to further enhance his blade. Find his center, then impart his own magical reserves into the blade. Or to use his arcane pool to restore a previously cast spell.
Similar examples can be used for many other swift actions.
Of course that is all fluff, just as the measurement of time as the yardstick is all fluff.
However, there are several aspects of Pathfinder that are very well defined in what you can do. Action economy, as the core mechanic around which combat is focused, is one of those very well defined areas - in fact I'd suggest it is the most fleshed out and defined of anything else within the game. Much of the spell system is another well defined area. Social interactions not so much. Use of skills has a lot of leeway as well.
The action economy of Pathfinder is not defined around realism. It is defined around game balance. Why does it take a bard a standard action to start a performance, but only a free to maintain it? Doesn't he need to perform the entire time (taking the same amount of time each round) to continue to inspire his allies? No truly inspiring performance in the real world is started with the performer focusing really intently the first few seconds, then continuing on for the next several minutes with a casual attitude about it. So its not about time, its about balance - so that bards get to do things in the game other than sing the entire time (1st and 2nd edition D&D, iirc, hated bards in that regard).
Swift actions are likewise a game balancing and tuning pivot point. Many swift actions provide much more powerful and dramatic effects then move actions do. Cast a second (quickened) spell. Or save the party/wizard from almost certain death at the last moment (feather fall, emergency force sphere). Restore a magus spell slot (normally requires a standard with a pearl of power, or getting 8 hours of rest and 1 hour of study prep time in the morning to get all the slots back). Or a paladin calling down the wrath of his deity to smite evil. You will find few (if any) move equivalent actions that can match any of these in terms of how much effect they have on the game.
You'll also note that things that reduce action economy skip over swift actions. Rapid reload goes full to standard to move to free, not move to swift to free. Quick draw reduces to free, not to swift. There are of course some exceptions, fast drinker, but it skips over two action types - standard to swift - but is a balance point to allow the alcoholic monk to become more effective - but this is in the same vein similar to the bard not having to spend a standard each round to maintain performance. But the monk doesn't need it as a free every round like the bard does, as the monk doesn't need to restore ki every round to continue doing his main shtick.
EDIT: Third, if the rules really intended to mean you can do a "smaller" action by consuming one of your "larger" actions, shouldn't they have spelled that out explicitly. The rules do state "You can always take a move action in place of a standard action." Wouldn't it have made more sense to state "You can always take any other action in place of a standard action." if that was the intent? The explicit "standard to move" strongly implies that standard to any other, or move to any smaller, is not a thing allowed by the rules on action economy.
(CB up thread pointed out some other action "conversion". I don't really want to get into that, but half of those aren't really conversions of action types, the other half are only loosely so, and none of them allow anything to be converted to swift - using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using your swift action, but you are still using your immediate action, so its not a conversion).
i would let them use a swift in place of a standard depending on what they were trying to do
And I would find that a perfectly reasonable house rule. "I have a quickened fireball, and its the only spell I'd like to cast (only standard action I want to take) this round, but I used an immediate prior to my turn so my swift is unavailable". Per RAW, no you couldn't, but I'd allow that sort of conversion.
As I at times point out in these forums. Understand what the rules actually say, then when you make house rules you can do so with an understanding of what you are changing and how it will impact the game. You don't have to like what they say to understand them - e.g, the FAQ on nauseated. I don't like what it says. I still understand what it says. I house rule it out of my games.
Can you essentially slow an action down? If something is a swift action, can you use a move action to do it instead?
For example, if you have two swift actions you want to perform, can you do one as a move action?
You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Here is the proposed FAQ.
I already have it in another tab, but I have not posted the new topic yet because I want to be sure that it is written clearly.
I am going to put it in a spoiler.
An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform
Here is the exact question.
Can you use an action type to perform an act that is normally assigned to an action type that normally takes up less time?
Examples:
Can I use a standard or move action to do an act that normally requires a swift action?
Cam I use a standard or move action to do an act that normally requires an immediate action.
--------------------
Situation where this might matter:
After Round 1 but before round 2: I use my immediate action to do something. By the rules I lose my swift action on my next turn if the immediate action is taken between turns.
Round 2: I want to use my move or standard action to do an act that normally requires a swift action.
PS: It is understood that a standard action can be used for a move action. This FAQ is more about replacing swift and immediate actions.
If you can't use a move action as a swift action then that already would answer that, but if they say you can I can ask what is labled below as "question 1" as an add on.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following assume I can use a move or standard as a swift action.
1. "If I can use a move action to perform a swift action can I still do so when I am limited to only a move action such as from the nauseated condition? <---would that be a good addition to the phrasing?
2. If I use a Swift action in a round, can I use a Move or Standard action to perform another act that calls for a swift action?
-------------------------------------------------------------
For the 2nd part of question 2 you don't have to take the shorter answer. The bard and slayer can both use their abilities as a swift or move action once they gain the ability to not require a move action. It does not remove the ability to use the longer action.
Also that is not really a swift action question so much as it is a "am I forced to use the faster action when an ability says I can do so" question. I know they don't like multiple question FAQ's so I can make the 2nd part of question 2 into into it's own FAQ to make the 1st FAQ get answered more quickly.
---------------------------------------------------------------
PS:The primary goal is to get the general answer, and then find out about special cases if the general answer is yes. If the answer is no then that will take care of the secondary questions.
The PDT already resolved it, and it's clear as day as to how it is;At worst, this is a flat out lie. At best, you're talking about B while the rest of us are talking about A.
The question I'm addressing is essentially whether one can use a move action to performa a free or swift action. Let's look at the actual FAQ you're trying to co-opt:
The nauseated condition really means what it says. You are limited to one move action per round, and not any other actions. Compare to the staggered condition, which says “A staggered creature may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can he take full-round actions). A staggered creature can still take free, swift, and immediate actions.”There's nothing in the FAQ that addresses this:
Move Action: A move action allows you to move up to your speed or perform an action that takes a similar amount of time.Nothing.
The FAQ says you can only take a move action. It does not say or even suggest that you cannot use a move action to perform an action that takes less time. The FAQ tells us that we don't get the normal allotment of free/swift actions in conjunction with our single move action. Attributing anything else to this FAQ is wishful thinking at best.
that you cannot substitute actions unless an ability or rule says that you can.And that's exactly what the Move action states: I can perform actions that takes a similar amount of time. By basic law of existence, you can also perform actions that take less time. Asserting otherwise is tantamount to people claiming you have to jump the number you rolled on your acrobatics roll and cannot jump less...and there were a number of people who insisted this was true. Why? Because then, just as now, people are focused on blind formalism when interpreting the rules.
If the PDT intends that I cannot use a Move action to perform any action,...
I'm not talking about B, I'm talking about A like the rest of you. And no, you can't substitute swift actions for move actions. You can substitute Standard Actions for Move Actions, and Standard+Move Actions for Full Round Actions, but that's because the rules already specifically say you can. This creates an exclusive precedent, which means in this case, you can't, unless something else specifically says otherwise. And guess what? You're lacking those very same specifics when it comes to Move->Swift/Immediate.
Your PRD quote is a giant misnomer; it only refers to other Move-equivalent actions, such as opening doors, drawing/sheathing weapons, and so on, because those, likewise, take "a similar amount of time" (which is a Move Action). If effects like Quickened Spells, Judgements, and so on, were to take "a similar amount of time," then quite frankly, why aren't they Move Actions too?
Also consider the definition of "similar," which is "almost the same of something else." You're trying to argue that Swift/Immediate Actions are "almost the same" as Move Actions. They're not. Swift/Immediates can only be done 1/round, are considered short-timed (akin to Free Actions in their description, which are nigh-limitless, unlike Move Actions, which can be done once, twice, or thrice at most,) and in the case of Immediate Actions (and certain Free Actions), can be taken outside your turn. How is that at all similar to a Move Action? It's not. Which means the ideal that you can use a Swift/Immediate Action in place of a Move Action because it's "a similar amount of time," is blatantly false, and therefore not allowable by the rules.
Lastly, the "law of existence" is a silly strawman that goes under the basic assumption that the rules are written to absolutely follow the real world to the letter. They're not. It's been said millions of times that the rules are abstract of real-world physics and ideals. Applying real-world physics to a game that has magic, and other rules that otherwise contradict the physics of the real world, make no sense. For example, drinking and moving at the same time is easy, and shouldn't require me to spend separate actions for them. Why can't I move as part of drinking a potion, when moving and drinking a potion takes just as much time as simply drinking a potion? And why can't I use Shocking Grasp to deal electricity damage to every creature in a body of water, because water conducts electricity? When we apply real-world ideals to the rules, the game falls apart and unwinds behind the madness that ensues. It's like summoning Cthulhu; you really don't want to do it, or you'll go insane.
The action economy of Pathfinder is not defined around realism. It is defined around game balance.It's designed around both. Otherwise, there is absolutely no reason to state that a round represents "six seconds." Think about it.
Let me rephrase that. I agree its designed around both. But when they conflict, balance trumps realism. It is clear this is about balance. Otherwise the rules could have been something more like:
- You have six seconds in a round.- It takes 6 seconds to make all your iterative attacks.
- It takes 3.5 seconds to make a single attack.
- It takes 2.5 seconds to take a move action.
- It takes 0.5 seconds to take a swift action.
- Divide your 6 seconds up however you want, including the option to take 12 swift actions.
Instead we are told you get 1 of each action type per round (except multiple free). And we are told you can substitute a standard for a move. (Plus some other things regarding full round actions, and splitting full round actions over multiple rounds). That is the sum total of the action economy rules.
As an aside, I'm not sure how you can say the above in one breath, then turn around and state
2. Realism is not a basis for arguing the rules.
So we should throw out your entire argument because we cannot use realism as a part of our argument?
The idea that one can perform actions that take a similar amount of time, but not actions that take less time, is not defensible given that the game is using time, in the real world sense, as the foundation for the action economy.
I agree with you that realism should not be the foundation for a rules argument, but it is not without its place as circumstantial evidence. I talked about realism though cause that is where you went with the argument. I showed that, at best, using real world time for things as you are trying to do, has some flaws to it. But again, if you want to state realism can't be used to argue the rules, then you better start over because you just removed a core component of your argument.
I totally get why you're making this assertion, but you're overlooking something extremely crucial. Normally, all Move actions provide for Free/Swift actions as well. So no, a Move action is more powerful than a Swift action because the Move action normally allows you to do both. Let's look at the actual rules.
Being able to take swift/free actions during a move action is not the same as a move action becoming a swift action. A move action does not grant a swift (or free) action. That is, if I convert my standard to a move - and then take 2 move actions, I do not get 2 swift actions as wel. So no, a move action is still not as powerful as a swift action. I'm not actually required to use a move (or standard) action at all and I can still perform a swift action. Being able to take a swift during my move does not make the move action more powerful. The power still comes from the swift action.
See, I understand your argument here
So yes, while I think the game designers shove things into the Swift category to limit the availability, allowing someone to use their Move action in place of a Swift action, doesn't violate this rule where as allowing someone to take a Swift action and then take another as a Move action would violate it (which is why I doubt the PDT wold allow it).
But you can't, with logical consistency, argue that you can convert a move to a swift, but cannot convert two moves to two swifts. That creates a lot more "...cognitive dissonance..." than a simple rule stating, "You get 1 swift action per round, unless something like nauseated prevents it. End of story (rule)" You either have a swift action available or you don't. If a move can be converted to a swift, then logical consistency requires that two moves can be converted to two swifts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. Paladins have an ability that they cannot use on themselves, but can use on others.You can't use a Swift Action to use Lay On Hands on yourself and remove the Nauseated condition via Mercies,So Paladins have an ability that cannot be used?
It's the poor samurai who have the ability that cannot actually be used:
** spoiler omitted **
Call me stupid but I'm not seeing where the ability can't be used at all, except for the twocases of nausea and exhaustion, he still retains standard actions. Those specific cases should be faq'ed, perhaps.
Interestingly enough, I wonder if the samurai determined power is an example of the specific trumping the general. It explicitly says you can use a standard action to remove the nauseated condition. If I were forced to go with a strict rules interpretation in a game, I would probably allow it to work, despite the FAQ, because of how explicit the power is; but this is almost certainly something that should be FAQed.
Unfortunately, you have to HAVE a standard action in order to use an ability which requires a standard action. The explicit exception rule doesn't really provide additional actions.
I think that they should have upgraded it to a move action at the same level that they added the abilities, but that would be an increase in the power level of the samurai and at this point the current PDT only seems interested only in reducing power levels of prior published things (excepting possibly two of the UC classes) if they are making changes rather than increasing them. This means that any FAQ is likely to just result in Nauseated being removed from the list, which would be unfortunate as it would make one of the abilities of one of the only three archtypes published by Paizo for the samurai (the Yojimbo) less useful.
EDIT to add:
Call me stupid but I'm not seeing where the ability can't be used at all, except for the twocases of nausea and exhaustion, he still retains standard actions. Those specific cases should be faq'ed, perhaps.
Harsh, sometimes, but not stupid. :)
Nausea is all we've been referring to in this case. An exhausted character, I believe, still has a standard action so can use the ability to remove that state.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't drop prone in the same square. Move action crawl requires you actually move. You also can't 5-foot step while nauseated then?
No rules say you can go prone as a move action. You can crawl 5 feet as a move action, which makes you prone, but that doesn't keep you in the same square.
So, while nauseated, you can't stop concentrating, you can't let go of something in your hands, you can't fall to the ground, and you can't speak. I too will be ignoring this FAQ.Cease Concentration on Spell
You can stop concentrating on a spell as a free action.Drop an Item
Dropping an item in your space or into an adjacent square is a free action.Drop Prone
Dropping to a prone position in your space is a free action.
SpeakIn general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.
I think this shows they need to look at that nauseating FAQ again. This is one where they should say certain free actions are allowed with GM discretion because the amount of free actions that not be allowed and still make sense vs those that would not be allowed is too large to list.
I'd say yes and no. Yes to your first question, but only sometimes. A definite no to your example. One immediate and one swift per turn. As long as there is not a ruling otherwise (usually there is i.e. nauseated), then i would allow action slow down, particularly in movement-oriented decision-making and time economy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will address this:
Also consider the definition of "similar," which is "almost the same of something else." You're trying to argue that Swift/Immediate Actions are "almost the same" as Move Actions. They're not.Yeah...you're not reading the rule. Let me quote it again:
Move Action: A move action allows you to move up to your speed or perform an action that takes a similar amount of time.Emphasis mine. It's not a similar "action" it's a similar "amount of time." I can perform actions that take a similar amount of time and by definition of how time works, I can perform actions that take less time. Your response is inapplicable as it focuses on arguing that the actions are not similar in type and ignores the fact that the rule is only providing a time criteria. How much time does a Swift action consume?
Swift Action: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time...Now, if the Move action said "similar time and effort." You could try to argue that a Swift action takes more effort than a Move action. But the rule doesn't say that, does it?
Yes, I am, and yes I have read the rule. You're trying to say that Move Actions are similar to Swift/Immediate Actions (most specifically, in relation to the amount of time they take). They are not similar by any means. They're defined as separate entities, with nothing in common with the Move Action entry besides being an Action itself; even the flavor text, in terms of defining how long each action takes, is separate from each other.
You're also assuming that the time for each action is pre-defined into being X or Y in the 6 second parameter, when it's not. A Swift Action could be 0.5 seconds, or it could be 2 seconds. It could be faster than a Move Action. It could be slower than it, too. The point is, the rules have no adjudication for this sort of thing, so positing that you can substitute actions when we already have an exclusive precedent in place means you're not correct unless you have hard evidence to prove your case.
And no, the "definition of how time works" isn't applicable evidence here, for the same reasons why using Shocking Grasp underwater doesn't automatically deal electricity damage to everything in it, why you can't move as part of drinking a potion, and so on; because the rules are abstract of real-life things, such as time being a linear thing (that is, if X > Y, then I can do Y in X time).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the meantime, I think of swift/immediate actions as taking a certain amount of effort such that you can only take one per round.
It is my opinion that for every free action, there is a functionally equivalent move action printed in the book. You can't take a free action as a move, but you can use a move action that does what you want instead.
You can't use a Swift Action to use Lay On Hands on yourself and remove the Nauseated condition via Mercies,So Paladins have an ability that cannot be used?
Only when nauseated. They also have a attack ability that cant be used when they are nauseated. And a spell casting.....
Note that in 4th Ed, iirc , you could do exactly what the Op wants. It's not a crazy idea by any means. Just not RAW in Pathfinder.
IF ONLY THEY HAD SOME SORT OF OPTIONAL RULES SYSTEM IN PLACE THAT DID AWAY WITH THE OLD ACTION ECONOMY!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think this shows they need to look at that nauseating FAQ again. This is one where they should say certain free actions are allowed with GM discretion because the amount of free actions that not be allowed and still make sense vs those that would not be allowed is too large to list.You can't drop prone in the same square. Move action crawl requires you actually move. You also can't 5-foot step while nauseated then?
No rules say you can go prone as a move action. You can crawl 5 feet as a move action, which makes you prone, but that doesn't keep you in the same square.
So, while nauseated, you can't stop concentrating, you can't let go of something in your hands, you can't fall to the ground, and you can't speak. I too will be ignoring this FAQ.Cease Concentration on Spell
You can stop concentrating on a spell as a free action.Drop an Item
Dropping an item in your space or into an adjacent square is a free action.Drop Prone
Dropping to a prone position in your space is a free action.
SpeakIn general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.
i'm pretty sure you can purposefully end it as a free action, so that way you can't purposefully end it between turns, if you can't perform the standard action, it's not concentrated on anymore.
Concentration
The spell lasts as long as you concentrate on it. Concentrating to maintain a spell is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Anything that could break your concentration when casting a spell can also break your concentration while you're maintaining one, causing the spell to end. See concentration.
splitting hairs over this isn't useful to anyone really.
IF ONLY THEY HAD SOME SORT OF OPTIONAL RULES SYSTEM IN PLACE THAT DID AWAY WITH THE OLD ACTION ECONOMY!!!!!!!!!!!!
If only it was any good.
IF ONLY THEY HAD SOME SORT OF OPTIONAL RULES SYSTEM IN PLACE THAT DID AWAY WITH THE OLD ACTION ECONOMY!!!!!!!!!!!!If only it was any good.
I linked my house rules/fixes earlier in the thread.
My players love it, been over a year using those rules.
If you're not saying a Swift Action takes similar time to a Move Action, then you can't do a Move Action as a Swift Action, because a Move Action can, per the wording, only be used to "move up to your speed or perform an action that takes a similar amount of time." That's it, full stop.
A Swift Action is neither of those things. Therefore, you can't use a Move Action to perform a Swift Action.
Then, because it's not quantified, you can't explicitly assume that X > Y, or that Y > X. All you can say for sure is that X = X, and Y = Y, which does nothing to solve the ideal that a Swift Action takes more (or less) time than a Move Action to perform. You have to prove that a Swift/Immediate Action takes less time than a Move Action to support the claim you're making, and you haven't even done that yet. Slow your roll, cowboy.
Speaking of reading for comprehension, there's no line to quote; that's simply the intent of the listed exceptions. That's what makes an exclusive precedent.
When there are specific exceptions listed, it is only those exceptions that are allowed in a general case as we are discussing currently (substituting actions). The exceptions are exclusive to the otherwise obvious polar opposite conclusion we'd normally draw, which is the precedent set by the exceptions listed. Hence, exclusive precedent.
It doesn't even have wording like "and so on," or "etc." to allow for other possible subject matter (which would then transform it into an inclusive precedent, where something that is identical to the listed exceptions also becomes part of the exceptions of that precedent).
I'm not grasping at anything. I'm simply taking your logic of applying realism to the obviously abstract and not realistic-at-all rules and extorting it to the levels of Reducto Ad Absurdum, even if only to prove a point. I mean, if we're going to say that the actions for time are a linear thing (which they aren't, especially in real life), then why can't we apply any other realism aspects to the rules as well, just as you're doing right now? After all, you already proved my point yourself with the Shocking Grasp example that you refuted.
Swift/immediate actions have their own action economy, and standard/move actions have theirs, and never the twain shall meet.
I feel like this is inscribed upon tablets stored in a vault at Paizo, along with others like "Dexterity shall not be easily used to deal damage."
Joking aside, allowing Swift actions to be bumped to other action types allows for quite a bit of play in the rules. There are quite a few abilities that use swift actions to activate and I can only imagine the horrors that would befall us under the current rules system if you could swap them to move/standard. It's an intentional restriction put in place to prevent multiple abilities from being used near-simultaneously, even if it does have the disadvantage of breaking immersion.
Can you essentially slow an action down? If something is a swift action, can you use a move action to do it instead?
For example, if you have two swift actions you want to perform, can you do one as a move action?
As you can see by the discussion in the thread, this is something that the PDT needs to resolve. On one hand, it's clear that preventing substitution would create design space, failing to allow it creates a sea of idiocy or rather idiotic outcomes, within the game world.
To complicate this matter, one of the lead designers stated that the game must be GM'd with common sense. Dead characters can't take actions and humans don't walk around on their hands. But the nature of the rules has created a cult whose belief is that the rules are strictly Permissive, so if it doesn't say it, you can't do it. The PDT has shown a penchant for ignoring or invoking reality whenever it suits them, so common sense frequently gets hit with 12d6 sneak attack by the PDT because this is art, not science.
Let's look at what the rules say about actions:
An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated. There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, swift actions, immediate actions, and free actions.Emphasis mine. If we use that framework for adjudicating, then yes, in general any action that takes less time can be performed by consuming an action that takes more time. Why? Because we are operating under the paradigm of needing time to complete actions. Barring a rule preventing a specific substitution, the game has established actions as a function of time expenditure. That point is driven home here:
Move Action: A move action allows you to move up to your speed or perform an action that takes a similar amount of time. See Table: Actions in Combat for other move...
Why do you assume that a swift action is faster than a move action?
There's no way the PDT is going to allow one to get multiple Swift actions in a single round. Even if someone came out with a 3.5 FAQ which explicitly allowed, I'm certain the Paizo staff would reject it...they've done that on two occasions already. So that question is not even worth FAQing.
You already can, the corset of delicate moves.
The OP doesn't explicitly state without use of magic items.
The corset shows that the PDT has allowed for one to get multiple swift actions in a single round, however they decided that 1/day was all you can get. The presence of that item is a clear indicator that trading a move for a swift without any additional item/skill required won't happen.
Swift Action: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform only a single swift action per turn.This is the clear indicator that getting two Swift actions in a turn won't happen without an exception to the rule.
It is clear you won't get two swift actions in a turn yes. What is most at consideration is conditions that allow for a move action but not swift or free actions. These are counter-intuitive, because swift actions are described as taking a very small amount of time but more effort than a free action. And free actions are of course free. It is hard to describe or visualize how such a condition (nauseated) can still allow you to perform a move action (move your speed in a round) but not something that is faster and easier to do (swift/free).