| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, except that the Samuri:
"Determined: As a standard action, the samurai can spend one use of his resolve to remove the fatigued, shaken, or sickened condition. If the samurai is at least 8th level, he can alternatively remove the exhausted, frightened, nauseated, or staggered condition."
Is clearly meant to be able to remove nauseated even while nauseated.
And the paladin certainly seems to have been meant to remove that condition from himself... and as a swift action. Otherwise, they likely would have said so.
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.Do you know for a fact that the PDT created the corset? Do you know for a fact that all magic items need to get approved by the PDT before being published?
I looked this up for no particular reason, but the authors are freelance.
I don't think the swift as a standard is the big problem - the problem is swift as a move. Most swift actions are weaker than standard action moves. Maybe if a boss enemy smacks me first, I might want to Lay on Hands and Smite (for AC) in the same turn - if I died, my squishy, injured party members in the hallway behind me would quickly follow. However, that's not a serious problem. A serious problem is when a spellcaster lays out my entire party with a two quickened spells and a regular one, within a single round.
For the record, the above wouldn't be possible, as Swift Actions still have the 1/round clause to enforce. Plus, the Corset of Delicate Moves doesn't permit the ability to cast spells or SLAs, so...
It isn't even necessarily about balance. In a lot of cases, a Swift as a Move or a Swift as a Standard isn't necessarily overpowered. It's actually allotted if you were to do a Swift Action as part of a Readied Action (which is explicitly a Standard Action to do).
It's about whether the rules permit you to do so normally. Which, as they're written, only appear to do so under a realistic, yet presumptive, reading. It's not definitively proven, and until it is, at best, it's table variation.
I'm personally not in the least bit troubled that a condition that eliminates all standard actions would also eliminate them even if converted to swift actions. That a paladin would occasionally have to depend on his friends for healing isn't all that bad, surely. And what's utterly wrong is...
"You nauseated me! You abyss-hole!"
But why is everyone conflating swift and free actions? What's the action economy problem with permitting a nauseated character the choice of one move action or one free action?
The big measuring stick I can think of is the nauseated bard. Yes, then he could manage to keep inspiring his friends with his poetry performance while working hard not to toss his cookies -- but it would take everything he had in him for that round. He couldn't even take a 5-foot step. Compared to how normally, he could just toss his hackneyed verses off while running across a room and slicing at someone with his scimitar. In fact, before rehashing, dashing, & slashing, he could also have nauseated his target! (With a quickened Cacophonous Call.) But no, since the target got to him first, the best he can do now is to inspire his friends with the hatred to get the abyss-holes what done it.
(I hate to risk TMI here, but when I've been nauseated, I don't actually toss my cookies every three seconds. A lot of the time, I'm just too miserable to do much.)
I'd love to at least hear arguments against permitting the substitution of a single free action for a move action!
Per RAW, a Paladin can't use Lay On Hands on himself for anything except a Swift Action, so he couldn't use a Standard Action to use Lay On Hands on himself, unless he used a Readied Action to do so. RAI, I don't see why he can't use a Standard Action to Lay On Hands himself, since he can target other creatures as a Standard Action as well.
Let me repeat myself for the next part:
It isn't even necessarily about balance. In a lot of cases, a Swift as a Move or a Swift as a Standard isn't necessarily overpowered. It's actually allotted if you were to do a Swift Action as part of a Readied Action (which is explicitly a Standard Action to do).
It's about whether the rules permit you to do so normally. Which, as they're written, only appear to do so under a realistic, yet presumptive, reading. It's not definitively proven, and until it is, at best, it's table variation.
Nauseated Bard could start a Performance as a Move Action (assuming 7th level), but wouldn't be able to maintain as a Free Action. He would automatically cease the Performance (because he lacks the ability to take a Free Action that round), but he could reinstate it again as a Move Action, and so on. He could even take a 5-foot Step (as it's not an action to do) with it, but that's as good as it gets. Several players and GMs would even argue that a Nauseated Bard probably wouldn't even be able to start a performance, since a Bardic Performance can very easily be construed as something that "requires attention" to do, and it makes sense; you're required to spend Free Actions every round to continue the performance, which certainly requires attention on the Bard's part, but because it's left vague and lacks concise examples, all it does is give an open door for the GM to disallow if he so chooses, and just creates further table variation.
I've been Nauseated before. It's not fun. You feel like crap. You can hardly do much of anything that requires a bit of effort, especially without others who aren't-so-bad-off helping you out. So I can understand most every argument that says "you can't do X because Y," and that's primarily due that being Nauseated makes me quite incapable of doing...well...anything, really.
Per RAW, a Paladin can't use Lay On Hands on himself for anything except a Swift Action, so he couldn't use a Standard Action to use Lay On Hands on himself, unless he used a Readied Action to do so. RAI, I don't see why he can't use a Standard Action to Lay On Hands himself, since he can target other creatures as a Standard Action as well.
I fully agree with you. If he has both a swift & a standard action available to him, we would let him lay hands on himself twice in one turn, but consider: he can lay hands on himself & hands on a party member in the same turn by RAW. To my mind -- and yours, apparently -- the two situations have the same "weight." (Time, effort, however you want to measure what our characters manage to fit into 6 brief seconds.) OTOH, we're agreed that if he's nauseated he has to depend on his friends for healing. That's not that bad, compared to giving space in the rules for a nauseated caster to shoot back at his noxious foe.
Let me repeat myself for the next part:Nauseated Bard could start a Performance as a Move Action (assuming 7th level), but wouldn't be able to maintain as a Free Action. He would automatically cease the Performance (because he lacks the ability to take a Free Action that round), but he could reinstate it again as a Move Action, and so on.It isn't even necessarily about balance. In a lot of cases, a Swift as a Move or a Swift as a Standard isn't necessarily overpowered. It's actually allotted if you were to do a Swift Action as part of a Readied Action (which is explicitly a Standard Action to do).
It's about whether the rules permit you to do so normally. Which, as they're written, only appear to do so under a realistic, yet presumptive, reading. It's not definitively proven, and until it is, at best, it's table variation.
I'm not sure you're responding to me... Except you then go on to discuss my Nauseated Bard. Remember, what I asked for was:
But why is everyone conflating swift and free actions? What's the action economy problem with permitting a nauseated character the choice of one move action or one free action? (...)
I'd love to at least hear arguments against permitting the substitution of a single free action for a move action!
All you did previously was to conflate swift & free actions! I'm not trying to sneak swift actions in behind the devs backs. But some people here think that the FAQ can be interpreted as allowing a "shorter" action or one that requires "less effort" to be substituted for a move action. They're calling for a new or revised FAQ.
Wouldn't a free action always "weigh" less than the permitted move action?
As for my nauseated bard, two things. First, I did mean that he was trying to maintain a performance that he had started previously. I was talking about allowing him to substitute maintaining his performance (a free action) for his allowed single move action. If he hasn't already started rehashing his bad poetry, fine, he's out of luck. A high-enough level bard can start one as a move action, but he then trails off -- it takes being in full-swing to pull off maintaining a performance while trying not to toss one's cookies.
And as for how hard it is for him to recite even bad poetry while nauseated, again, RAW, if he's in fine form he can manage to rehash while dashing across the room and slashing at a foe -- and even casting a quickened spell on top of all that -- all in 6 brief seconds. So all I can say is that Pathfinder bards really do have magic at their disposal! Let's not look at RL for how hard it is to inspire one's friends to greatness...
I've been Nauseated before. It's not fun. You feel like crap. You can hardly do much of anything that requires a bit of effort
Right! One move action, or one action that "weighs" less, meaning one free action, that's it. No standard or swift actions.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Here's another question. Nauseated barbarian, not raging. Rage is a free action, barbarian happens to have the Internal Fortitude power.
Can the barbarian free action to rage, thus becoming immune to the nauseated condition? (Then allowing him to make a full attack, since he only used a free action for the turn?)
If he can't, can he use his move action instead to rage? (Leaving him with a standard, swift and free action(s) after entering the rage)
I know what my gut reaction is -- okay, next turn you'll get all those actions. At the start of this one, you just had one, which you've used. Still, potentially, depending on how long the nauseated was to last, a very good deal. But it took a whole class feature...
Here's another question. Nauseated barbarian, not raging. Rage is a free action, barbarian happens to have the Internal Fortitude power.
** spoiler omitted **Can the barbarian free action to rage, thus becoming immune to the nauseated condition? (Then allowing him to make a full attack, since he only used a free action for the turn?)
If he can't, can he use his move action instead to rage? (Leaving him with a standard, swift and free action(s) after entering the rage)
No, because a Free Action is required to activate the Rage, which he cannot take while he's Nauseated, just like how a Paladin can't use Lay On Hands on himself as a Swift Action to remove the Nauseated condition.
And no, he can't substitute a Move Action to Rage, because Rage has zero rules interactions for such. As far as I know, there are options that allow raging as a Swift/Immediate Action, but those are likewise disallowed via the Nauseated condition, and as such are equally grounds for disallowment.
There's no concept of "time" in the action economy either. All you know is that the sum of all the actions you and everyone else takes in a round (which could be no action at all) equals 6 seconds, which is what the text already tells us, and that's really only listed for things that are reliant for it (such as spell durations with minutes/hours per level, and so on). Outside of that, none of the action duration times are quantified as taking a certain amount of seconds to perform, or if they take 0 seconds (improbable, but plausible), or dare I say it, take less than 0 seconds (i.e. adding time to your round). Heck, even the aspect of every Swift and every Move action taking the same exact time to do, for each person, is physically impossible, and improbable. With the current rules set, at best you can say is that Move Actions are X, and that Swift Actions are Y, and as it stands, there's nothing in the rules that say or even imply that X > Y, or even that Y > X; until such evidence comes forth, the equation becomes impossible to solve due to lack of information, and therefore any "solution" that is proposed outside of "who knows" is just guesswork and speculation, something that is an unacceptable rules answer.
There's also the matter of why a person's 6 seconds of actions would take place before another person's 6 seconds of actions, if all of the activities in a round (which would vary from round to round depending on the actions that happen prior to or after a turn), especially if we go under the presumption that everybody operates under the same time frequency as everyone else (i.e. one person's 6 seconds is the same as the other person's 6 seconds). Sure, we could say that the duration of the round is split between all relevant parties in the combat, but then you're having combats where players are extremely fast, able to get 3-4 attacks in ~0.25 seconds (i.e. they're fighting over a dozen creatures), and then in another combat, they're getting the same exact number of attacks, but in a larger time frame, even though it's the same exact thing they did before. Point is, the rules don't explain why this is (or could be), and that's because the rules are abstract of realism, which, based on the subject matter, extends to your "time" concept of things being linear in both time to perform and time elapsed.
Spending money (which the rules better apply realism toward) and performing actions in a tactical war game manner (which has less realism, and is extremely abstract for balance and mechanical purposes) are not the same thing. Comparing them as such is a strawman argument that falls apart because you're wanting something ideal from something was simply not designed to be as such.
There are enough rules basii (is that right?) to deny Swift Actions for Move Actions, or even Free Actions. For starters, the exclusive precedent, which lists specific examples (such as Standard Actions for any Move Action) and limitations, meaning anything that doesn't fall under those pretenses are not allowed with the exceptions cited. Next, we have balance aspects (Arcanists being able to use special Exploit Powers, Quickened Spells, and some other Metamagic Spells, is stupidly broken). Third, magic item ramifications (why do you think people would purchase a Corset of Delicate Moves if you can already take a Swift Action as a Move Action, or even purchase a Quick Runner's Shirt?). That's just 3 off the top of my head; I'm sure others can come up with more to supplement my point(s).
Definitely not as a standard rule, otherwise you'd be able to cast 3 spells a round, one swift, one converted swift, and one standard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Definitely not as a standard rule, otherwise you'd be able to cast 3 spells a round, one swift, one converted swift, and one standard.
A spell with a casting time of 1 swift action doesn't count against your normal limit of one spell per round. However, you may cast such a spell only once per round. Casting a spell with a casting time of 1 swift action doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.
The magic chapter casting time section limits you to 1 spell per round. It exempts swift actions from this limit, but instead limits swift action spells to 1 per round. Even if you had 3 swift actions, you could not cast 3 spells with them.
For starters, the exclusive precedent, which lists specific examples (such as Standard Actions for any Move Action) and limitations, meaning anything that doesn't fall under those pretenses are not allowed with the exceptions citedNowhere in any rule book or any FAQ is the term "exclusive precedent" used or identified as an aspect of how the rules are suppose to work. PF is not a court of law. The PDT ignores any previous rules (even their own) when it suits them. Nowhere, in any rulebook or FAQ is anything you've said in the above quote put forth.
Comparing them as such is a strawman argument that falls apart because you're wanting something ideal from something was simply not designed to be as such.You also need to look up the term "strawman" as you've consistently misused it.
Of course it's not explicitly defined or mentioned, nor would I expect it to. It's not something people normally pick up, but it's something that needs to be learned if we are trying to understand the intent behind a rule, because it gives the insight needed to determine whether the rules as they stand would or would not allow it. I've already defined what an exclusive precedent is, and the limited citations of action substitution fits that very bill.
They don't have to put up a FAQ or a rule or whatever to point it out, just like how they didn't have to mention the Nauseated condition limited Swift/Immediate and Free Actions as well, but they did anyway, because people didn't understand the exclusive precedent that the Nauseated condition presented.
And of course they can change the rules if they so want. They do it all the time with Errata, and with certain FAQs. But until any change comes to something such as this, it's quite clear that action substitutions aren't typically allowed unless something says you can.
I've misused "strawman" before, I'm not denying that. But when you're comparing spending money on merchandise (which consists of 150 units of currency, the "Gold Piece," and prices varying based on how much units of currency they cost) to action economy in combat (which is quantified in Actions, split into several "currencies" [read: action types], which you get only so much of, and each subject costs 1 of a certain action type), I'd have to say it fits the definition of being irrelevant, as you're comparing X (spending money) to Y (performing actions in combat), which is what is commonly referred to as being a "strawman."
And yes, I've read the item. I'm actually the one who pointed out that the item doesn't let you circumvent the ability to perform a Swift Action as a Move Action, because it doesn't say you're spending a Move Action to perform it, it says you're spending a Move Action to have the ability to perform an additional Swift Action. Any other person would probably tell you that you'd need the item to be able to use a Swift Action while Nauseated. And they'd be wrong.
Also, "Additional" means "extra or supplementary to what is already present or available," so no, you don't have to spend a Swift Action in order to be able to make use of the item, because it's increasing the number of Swift Actions you can perform that round to 2, instead of 1.
Nice try. Your move, Snarky-Sparky.
Ok, here's another weird case.
Nauseated Paladin with Reactive Healing.
While nauseated, the paladin cannot use LoH on themself, because it is a swift action and they are restricted to a single move action.
They are attacked, and dropped below 0 hitpoints. Can they use an immediate action (as allowed from the feat) to LoH? If they have the mercy which cures nauseated would that also apply? Does being nauseated preclude taking immediate actions (which normally have to be specifically allowed anyway?)
I ask this because normally being below 0 hitpoints means you are dying, which states you can take NO actions. The feat obviously means you are allowed an immediate action when otherwise you would have none, so does it also allow for it past nauseated?
Channel Energy for a Paladin is its own feature separate from Lay On Hands. Mercies only apply to the Lay On Hands feature, not the Channel Energy feature, even if the Paladin expends Lay On Hands uses to perform it. Therefore, you can't apply Mercies to Channel Energy. (There may be archetypes or feats that allow it otherwise, but normally, no.) **EDIT** But, because the feat states Lay On Hands as a means to heal yourself, the Mercy could apply that way. However...
Immediate Actions are like Swift Actions (and count as Swift Actions for the purposes of restrictions, such as by taking 1 per round), but the only difference is that Immediate Actions can be taken outside of your turn (and would consume the Swift Action of your next turn if you already used it for the round), and as such, would likewise not be usable while Nauseated. The big thing is that Immediate Actions usually trigger right before an effect or activity occurs (in the case of Reactive Healing, before the damage takes effect), which is where the sole attraction of the feature comes from; it saves you from being dropped (or even killed, if it's enough damage).
With the Corset of Delicate Moves, you could, for example, use the Corset, perform a Lay On Hands by spending the extra Swift Action, and then be able to perform the Reactive Healing ability outside their turn to heal themselves. You'd still have a Standard Action to either attack, cast a spell, and so on.
Channel Energy for a Paladin is its own feature separate from Lay On Hands. Mercies only apply to the Lay On Hands feature, not the Channel Energy feature, even if the Paladin expends Lay On Hands uses to perform it. Therefore, you can't apply Mercies to Channel Energy. (There may be archetypes or feats that allow it otherwise, but normally, no.)
I think you misread.
Benefit: When the damage from an attack or an effect would reduce you to 0 or fewer hit points, you can expend one use of channel energy (of a form that would heal you) or lay on hands as an immediate action to heal yourself. The healing affects only you, even if it would normally affect others.
I caught that. I made the edit.
But immediate actions use your next swift action.
Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action and counts as your swift action for that turn. You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn). You also cannot use an immediate action if you are flat-footed.
Since the using of that immediate action will cure the nauseated condition, then the future swift action that it takes to use will be available for use in some weird time bending manner.
But immediate actions use your next swift action.
Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action and counts as your swift action for that turn. You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn). You also cannot use an immediate action if you are flat-footed.Since the using of that immediate action will cure the nauseated condition, then the future swift action that it takes to use will be available for use in some weird time bending manner.
The Nauseated condition doesn't allow you to take Immediate Actions anyway, so what you're proposing is impossible from the get-go.
Also, the bolded part would really only be relevant in cases such as the surprise round, or the first round of combat, or in rounds where you haven't used your Swift Action.
@ N N 959: Wait, you're calling the real-world definition of additional incorrect, because you have to expend something in order to be considered having a surplus of the original value?
There's no concept of "time" in the action economy either.That's just flat incorrect. Since you're willfully refusing to acknowledge what is actually printed in the book, this discussion will bear no fruit.
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.
I did acknowledge it, and I pointed out that it's not correct, because an action type does nothing to denote how long it takes to perform it, as the rules apparently say they do. Are Standard Actions 2 seconds? 3 seconds? 4 seconds? No one knows, because the rules don't say.
So, show me where in the book that demonstrates each action's specified duration within the 6 second combat round. Surely, if an action is quantified based on its type, as you claim, then its duration within the combat round likewise would be quantified (and therefore listed within the rules).
Until you do, that's about as much hard evidence for your case as fluff text.
And that's an incorrect analogy too. You don't get the extra shot unless you A. have the feat and fulfill its pre-requisites, and B. make a full attack action with a ranged weapon. There are no pre-requisites for how many attacks you make. You could make 1, 2, 4, or even 0 attacks (some features let you remove or subtract attacks to reroll other attacks), but that's not relevant to the requirements here.. Until you have/do those things, you don't get the extra shot.
Same applies to the Corset. You don't get the extra Swift Action unless you A. have the item equipped in the proper slot, and B. activate it by spending a Move Action.
|
I'm just going to add this-
Corset of Delicate Moves: Once a day, you may expend a move action to gain an additional swift action.
not all that great, but for when it matters.
The Nauseated condition doesn't allow you to take Immediate Actions anyway, so what you're proposing is impossible from the get-go.
Neither does the dying condition, which is what you are when you use the ability.
Look, the FAQ was badly written. They need to correct it.
Even that corset may not work, for sure you do get a additional swift action- but you cant use it by the RAW.
Comparing them as such is a strawman argument that falls apart because you're wanting something ideal from something was simply not designed to be as such.You also need to look up the term "strawman" as you've consistently misused it.
for no real reason i'll point out what described in this quote is the "wishful thinking" fallacy.
I've misused "strawman" before, I'm not denying that. But when you're comparing spending money on merchandise (which consists of 150 units of currency, the "Gold Piece," and prices varying based on how much units of currency they cost) to action economy in combat (which is quantified in Actions, split into several "currencies" [read: action types], which you get only so much of, and each subject costs 1 of a certain action type), I'd have to say it fits the definition of being irrelevant, as you're comparing X (spending money) to Y (performing actions in combat), which is what is commonly referred to as being a "strawman."
and this, is a non sequitur.
i have too much knowledge of logical fallacies for it to be useful so i just spill it out on the internet,
I did acknowledge it, and I pointed out that it's not correct, because an action type does nothing to denote how long it takes to perform it, as the rules apparently say they do. Are Standard Actions 2 seconds? 3 seconds? 4 seconds? No one knows, because the rules don't say.That's a fundamentally different argument than claiming there is "no concept of time."
You see that word "essentially"? It means your argument is unavailing. It's irrelevant that we do not know the exact duration. Nothing requires that we do. What is pointed out is that a Swift/Free actions takes "very little time." All we need are relative durations to know that I can perform a Swift/Free if I have the time to perform a Move.
You have no grounds to refute that other than continuing to argue "exclusive precedent." Which, I hate to break it to you, is RAI, not RAW. Arguing about precedent is an argument about what is intended, not what is stated. And as you already acknowledged, the PDT doesn't give a whip about what was intended, not even when the rule author themselves says what was intended. So while precedent may be a valuable tool in the world of law, it means butkus in Pathfinder. This is art, not legislation.
So, show me where in the book that demonstrates each action's specified duration within the 6 second combat round. Surely, if an action is quantified based on its type, as you claim, then its duration within the combat round likewise would be quantified (and therefore listed within the rules).Your logic doesn't follow. You're inventing criteria and requirements that are not necessary for my assertion to be true. Nor does anything in the rules or the FAQs support your assertion that the absence of specific durations has any meaning whatsoever.
Until you do, that's about as much hard evidence for your case as fluff text.My hard evidence is RAW. Actions types "essentially tell you how long the action takes to perform."...
The illusion of something is not actually that something. At best, it's a mock-concept, in which case the aspect of being able to apply realism to it (AKA what you've been doing this whole time) results in a rules answer that is approximate and by no means relatively accurate every time. In other words, table variation. Which is not an authentic rules answer. Which you're trying to say is, because realism. Which is likewise a silly claim to make on a rules set that is purposely abstract in numerous situations (and can actually be quite easily quantified and applied in accordance to the rules).
Cute that you think the definition of "essentially" is "an argument that is unavailing." The actual definition, in this case, is that it "pertains to or constitutes the essence of a thing." So an action type "pertains to" or "constitutes the essence of" telling us how long it takes to perform. Which, by its very nature, is incorrect verbiage, because the durations of actions are not properly defined, especially in relation to its duration. It's not stated that a Standard Action takes 2-4 seconds, or that a Move Action takes 1-3 seconds, and so on. And you're trying to say that it doesn't matter, but it does. Because that very "hard evidence" that you're using to claim that action types tell you how long it takes to perform the action, doesn't even do what it says it does, which is to tell how long each action type takes, in the scale of the 6 second combat round.
And no, I'm not inventing any criteria. You're inventing that Swift/Free Actions are faster than Move Actions, and therefore can be done in place of them, something which the rules say nothing about doing in a general scenario except in the case of what's already listed (remember that exclusive precedent? That's what this is).
I'm not inventing anything like what you're inventing. All I'm doing is asking for your hard evidence to support the claim that you make. Which you haven't properly provided yet, because the evidence you have provided currently is easily dismissable, on the grounds of it being inaccurate in relation to the claim being made, and as such becomes evidence that is, to use your own word, "unavailing."
You're suggesting that I think the Corset could allow a Swift Action that isn't in addition to what you could already take? That's not only silly, but also not what I was saying at all. What I said was that the Swift Action granted through the Corset, no matter if you did or did not take your 1 Swift Action to begin with, would be additional to the Swift Action that you did or did not take. My point was that, no matter if you have or have not taken the Swift Action normally allotted to you (or even if you haven't taken the Swift Action allottable via the Corset), it would still constitute as being additional in relation to the real-world definition I provided.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
You're suggesting that I think the Corset could allow a Swift Action that isn't in addition to what you could already take? That's not only silly, but also not what I was saying at all. What I said was that the Swift Action granted through the Corset, no matter if you did or did not take your 1 Swift Action to begin with, would be additional to the Swift Action that you did or did not take. My point was that, no matter if you have or have not taken the Swift Action normally allotted to you (or even if you haven't taken the Swift Action allottable via the Corset), it would still constitute as being additional in relation to the real-world definition I provided.
Huh? But in any case, it is now a swift action right? And you cant take a swift action when nauseated. So the corset is a red herring here.
Look, the PDT messed up with that definition, forgetting things like the Paladin, the samurai, etc. Rather that argue the RAW or the RAI, let us just get them to correct it.
I've been ignoring posting in this thread as I haven't seen any value in arguing it further with N N 959, but I need to respond to this.
The action types have been leveraged to provide a level of restriction independent of their relative time.
Which is exactly why just because I might have a move actions worth of time to do something (and only a move action), does not mean I can take a swift action instead. As stated both by myself and Darksol - because the rules specifically tell us we can do a move in place of a standard, and we can do a full-action instead of a move+standard, but are notably silent on being able to trade out anything for a swift - then a move to swift is not allowed - at least certainly not based upon the argument that it is allowed because it takes less time. Time is not the only requirement.
This tells us that speech is a Free action so long as it is limited in time. What Darksol is proposing would mean that you can't speak only a few sentences while Nauseated...you could only speak for longer. That's nonsensical and it means that any interpretation which compels this result must be wrong...at least until the PDT says that's how it works...lol.
While I agree with your overall argument here, it is flawed in that you are making an assumption that the next level of action from free to speak is move to speak. The rules do not provide any explicit guidance on it. Personally I'd be more inclined to say it goes from free action to full-round, or even multiple round, action to speak more than a few sentences. So could a nauseated character speak four sentences but not two? Who knows - the rules don't tell us enough about upgrading from free action to speak to determine that outside of individual GMs adjudicating how they see fit.
But I'll point out to anyone who is still reading, do you really think the rules are written so that a creature cannot use up a Move action to continue to take Free actions?
I will also answer this, from my own perspective.
1) How I think it should work does not change what the rules actually are.2) I don't have to like a rule to understand how it works (I don't like the nauseated FAQ).
3) In my games it would never been an issue, not because I think you could take a swift if you were restricted to move only due to nauseated, but because:
a) I ignore that FAQ for my games.
b) Swift actions, IMO, would require sufficient attention and thus are already restricted by the nauseated condition.
c) Because of (a), a player in my game would be allowed free actions (that I ruled did not require attention - looking at you bardic performance) in addition to their move action, so its a moot point.
If there were some other condition that disallowed all actions types save a move action, I would not allow a swift action.
for no real reason i'll point out what described in this quote is the "wishful thinking" fallacy.Yes, that's what he's trying to articulate, that doesn't mean he's correct.
and this, is a non sequitur.Yes, that's what he thinks it is. But he is not correct.
i have too much knowledge of logical fallacies for it to be useful so i just spill it out on the internet,Please keep providing insight. I'm certain I've misused labels as well.
the only thing i was claiming was right or wrong is what fallacies people were claiming to use.
:P
|
On the topic of "end concentration is a free action," I think that there is actually a benefit to allowing people to immediately cease concentration as an action. The spell ends if you go a whole round without concentrating on it, but you also have the option to immediately cause the spell to cease mid-turn, whenever you want. What if you had a spell that created an impenetrable wall, which had a duration of "concentration." You might want that wall to be up for the first half of your turn (perhaps you're standing on that wall, and intend to take a move action to get off of it), but you instantly want the wall gone as soon as you move. Allowing casters to immediately cease concentration as a free action is a useful functionality to include.
Just to throw fuel on the fire -
You can already get 3 swift actions in a round (not turn). First is your own swift. Second is through a magic item. End your turn and use an immediate action (which is a swift action but uses your next turns swift now).
Bam - 3 swifts used in a single round.
They have gone out of their way to not allow action degrading - I believe this is because the vast horde of rules and character concepts that use swift and immediate as balancing factors and the testing/edge/corner cases that would come up if action swaps were allowed. Would it break the game? Who knows - and so it's not allowed.
For what it's worth the most common argument is about casting more than two spells per round - which is already theoretically possible as seen above. Standard action spell, quickened spell... before round is over pit happens and feather fall (immediate action) although by RAW the feather fall can't happen I believe due to the 1 spell (or 2 with quicken) hard rule - but figuring out a corner case that would make it work scares everyone - spells change the game after all.
They have gone out of their way to not allow action degradingI disagree. In fact, I would argue the opposite as they invoke concepts duration and provide us with information to convert one into another. I quoted the text on "Speak" and one can argue that it allows us to extend Free actions into other actions.
I would argue that it was ambiguous at best and even though this topic comes up over and over the language of rule books continues to tighten and reflect the 'non-conversion' principle. Example is any new class, and new feats that go out of their way to say 'swift' and then 'swift or move'. They didn't move away from the ambiguous language and instead have been making things very specific (to avoid the question) which explains how they view the rules, even without a direct statement as such.