| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"your readied action is purely defensive, such as choosing the total defense action if a foe you are facing shoots at you, it occurs just before the event that triggered it. If the readied action is not a purely defensive action, such as shooting a foe if he shoots at you, it takes place immediately after the triggering event. If you come to your next turn and have not yet performed your readied action, you don’t get to take the readied action (though you can ready the same action again)."
Interpreting this passage that you can interrupt spells with a readied action by readying for 'starts to cast' means this passage is useless.
You could ready to shoot when someone aims at you instead of shoots at you. If you can do that, why bother with this distinction between purely defensive actions and not?
Though I would like some more clarification. Would this means you can't ready a bull rush to push someone off a cliff when they run by you? Your bull rush happens after their move action, but what if they are 30 feet away when their action ends?
Would this means you can't ready a bull rush to push someone off a cliff when they run by you?
I don't think so. Someone moving from square 3 into square 4 is a more granular event that happens in a definite sequence that you can react to and boop them off the cliff. It has planck time more divisible than the entire move action because movement from one square to another happens in a specific order.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like we have come to the place were you are convinced you are right and the rest of us that you are wrong. Arguing semantics, word play, synonyms is rather pointless at this point. I dont see a lot of support or reason to interoperate the rules they way Magyar5 is. To do so breaks the game in many ways to go with what seems like the obvious and literal meaning of the text makes the game work without issues..
I think part of the reason we get so few FAQ responses is that each point is argued and rationalized in minute detail in ways the designers never intended or considered. I have been guilty of it too. I feel like we require a guide book to be written to explain how to use the rules written. Some of this is that a few examples of how things work in action could have enlightened us to intent and function but im sure some things had to be cut for page count. I do not envy them.
Again, I am not arguing concepts or RAI. I am simply using the Rules as Written.
Pants, I concur that all these actions are a summation of other actions. However there is a distinction between an event and an action. In your example, any single one of those sub actions could be used as a triggering event.
Again, for EVERYONE who reads this posting. An action is NOT the same as an event.
The wording for a readied action is different than the wording for a reaction. Don't conflate the 2 actions as the same.
Garrett as to your point, I infer that the reason for the difference is that a purely defensive action is intended to give the player some kind of boost or assistance in stopping the action from landing. If the defensive action happens after the triggering event, then it could bypass the protection for the purpose of the defensive readied action. However, that's my inferring the purpose. I don't actually know the developers intention in differentiating the two.
As to Nimor. You are misquoting the CRB 331. CRB does not state that you can interrupt a spell with a casting time of 1 round/full round with a ready attack action.
It states that "you are most at risk of taking damage while casting when a spell's casting time is 1 round or longer, you have provoked an attack of opportunity, or a foe readied an action to attack you when you began to cast."
There are no rules which say you can't interrupt a spell whose casting time is 1 standard action. All claims to the contrary are RAI instead of RAW.
Which is my assertion. As it stands. RAW say that you can interupt a spell with a casting time of 1 standard action or even less IF you ready an action for the 'begins to cast' event.
That's why I have asked for the developers to sound off on this as we can say RAI all we want. We don't KNOW what the intent is. If I was a betting man, I would say the RAW are correct. Although I wouldn't like it as a GM. Spellcasting suffers enough problems as it is. Allowing a foe the option of interrupting a standard cast time spell as a readied action would just be even MORE painful. I don't mind being ruled against as long as it's the developers doing it as THEY are the ones with the capacity to know the RAI vs the RAW.
I feel like we have come to the place were you are convinced you are right and the rest of us that you are wrong. Arguing semantics, word play, synonyms is rather pointless at this point. I dont see a lot of support or reason to interoperate the rules they way Magyar5 is. To do so breaks the game in many ways to go with what seems like the obvious and literal meaning of the text makes the game work without issues..
I think part of the reason we get so few FAQ responses is that each point is argued and rationalized in minute detail in ways the designers never intended or considered. I have been guilty of it too. I feel like we require a guide book to be written to explain how to use the rules written. Some of this is that a few examples of how things work in action could have enlightened us to intent and function but im sure some things had to be cut for page count. I do not envy them.
I am not interpreting the rules in any way. I am using the rules as written. I challenge ANYONE to apply the rules as written using the words in the CRB and prove my point wrong. As written the TRIGGERING EVENT is what allows you to take your action, attack the spell caster, and potentially interrupt the spell. No portion of the rules state that the spell caster is allowed to complete the casting of the spell BEFORE the readied action occurs. (This is not true for a Reaction action as the Reaction text EXPLICITLY states that the reaction action occurs after the triggering ACTION.)
Again. Challenge is on the table. If anyone wants to accept, give me a scenario that applies the RAW to the Spell Cast action and a readied action which specifically uses the 'begins to cast' triggering event. The rules as written are CLEAR. The Rules as Intended are not as clear as a Reaction action shares eerily similar wording but is different.
Remember an Event is not the same as an Action. Casting a spell is a standard action. It's not instantaneous. The event which triggers your reaction however IS instantaneous. It either has occurred or NOT occurred. If the foe 'begins to cast' a spell. Bam.. Readied action occurs. Foe may now proceed to cast and finish casting the spell. Easy peasy.
I challenge ANYONE to apply the rules as written using the words in the CRB and prove my point wrong.
It's been done over a dozen times in this thread. The entertainment value of your inability to comprehend that is still pretty strong, though.
In any case, no one is arguing with you in an attempt to convince you. No one debates to change their opponents' mind, they debate to win over more of the audience. And that's undoubtedly working the way it should for the correct side of the argument. There's a certain unavoidable minority of cranks, fools, poor readers, trolls, egoists, and others with their own incentives or deficiencies who will adopt (or profess to adopt) the wrong position, but I feel like BNW and the rest of have done about as good a job as possible to make sure those capable of and desirous of understanding the rules have the information they need.
I challenge ANYONE to apply the rules as written using the words in the CRB and prove my point wrong.It's been done over a dozen times in this thread. The entertainment value of your inability to comprehend that is still pretty strong, though.
It hasn't been done ONCE. It's all been inference. It's a misconstrue between action and event. You don't WAIT for the cast action to complete. Your readied action fires off the INSTANT that the triggering event occurs. Either before or after and resolves before the event which caused it to trigger or resolves after the event which caused it to trigger.
And please don't attempt to attack my ability to comprehend something. My comprehension of these examples is clear. They are all fallacious examples as they conflate action with event. They assume that one is the same as the other. They are not. I fully comprehend the examples, better than you do it seems as I don't confuse the difference in an action and an event.
And please don't attempt to attack my ability to comprehend something.
I'm not attacking it, I'm acknowledging it. When I make special provisions to help someone on crutches evacuate a burning building I'm not attacking them for their inability to do it themselves. We all have to look out for and respect each other, whatever our limitations.
Xeno, if you recall, many folks also supported the claim that a Combat Maneuver could be substituted for an Attack of Opportunity. I claimed it could not. And what was the result of the developers response?
I am simply asking for a developers response on this as well. If it was their intent for a standard action cast time spell to not be interruptible all they have to do is come on here and say so. I have stated over and over that I FEEL that that is the appropriate ruling.
Regardless of your vitriolic rhetoric which implies I am some kind of crank, fool, poor reader, troll or egoist. (Which is an ugly thing to imply as you know nothing about me and have been posting here amicably for some time) I don't hold any animus towards you and would hope you would treat me with the quality of character I believe you possess.
There was already a developer clarification on June 2, 2017.
The CRB shipped to the printer on March 24, 2017.
https://m.facebook.com/paizo/posts/10154921580367530
Xeno, if you recall, many folks also supported the claim that a Combat Maneuver could be substituted for an Attack of Opportunity. I claimed it could not. And what was the result of the developers response?
Further support for the proposition that they're out of their depth and that maybe the CRB confusion and endlessly delayed FAQs weren't only a result of the rush to publish Starfinder by deadline.
Further support for the proposition that they're out of their depth and that maybe the CRB confusion and endlessly delayed FAQs weren't only a result of the rush to publish Starfinder by deadline.Xeno, if you recall, many folks also supported the claim that a Combat Maneuver could be substituted for an Attack of Opportunity. I claimed it could not. And what was the result of the developers response?
Hehe. Touche! I like your wit.
As to Nimor. You are misquoting the CRB 331. CRB does not state that you can interrupt a spell with a casting time of 1 round/full round with a ready attack action.It states that "you are most at risk of taking damage while casting when a spell's casting time is 1 round or longer, you have provoked an attack of opportunity, or a foe readied an action to attack you when you began to cast."
..
You are right, it’s not the ready attack action, that disrupts the spell, its if the caster takes damage from the ready attack action. In the paragraph right above the one quoted on page 331 it says that if you take damage when you cast a spell, the spell fails.
CRB 331: Normally, you can concentrate even in a distracting situation, but if you’re casting a spell and you take damage from either a successful attack that targeted your AC or from an effect that you failed a saving throw against, the spell fails.
You are vulnerable when casting full round spells because you have to concentrate until your next turn. If your casting is interrupted you lose the spell.
CRB 334: When you begin casting a spell that takes 1 round or longer to cast, you must maintain your concentration from the current round to just before your turn in the next round (at least). If you lose concentration or take another action (even a reaction) before the casting is complete, the spell fails.
So if I ready an offensive action to attack the caster when she casts a full round spell, I attack her after she cast the spell, but whilst she is concentrating to maintain it until her next turn. So she fails the spell if I damage her.
I don’t even have to ready an action to disrupt a 1round spell. If I simply attack and damage the caster after she has cast her spell, but whilst she is concentrating to maintain it - it disrupts the spell.
When you cast a spell that takes 1 round or longer you must maintain that concentration (the one necessary to cast the spell) until the start of your next turn. This means you haven't finished casting the spell until just before your turn on the next round (at least). Hence it can be interrupted with damage. In this case, an AoO could indeed interrupt a spell with such a long casting time.
You are correct in your assessment of not needing to ready an action to interrupt such a spell. As long as you act before spell caster's next turn in combat you could attack them and disrupt the spell.
Remarkably, if the RAI is that a standard or reaction cast time spell can't be interrupted that leaves ONLY spells with casting time of 1 round or longer on the table. As you eloquently pointed out, you don't need a readied action to interrupt such a spell. Which of course begs the question of; If the RAI is that a standard cast time spell can't be interrupted what is the point of the interaction of a readied action with spell casting? There's no point at all as the only options left on the table to be interrupted are spells with a cast time of 1 round or longer and you don't need to ready an action to interrupt those.
BigNorseWolf made a good point earlier about there not being much need to ready an attack action against spell casting, when there is better action economy in simply taking your turn.
That made me think that you can state triggers for ready actions to be as simple as: if the monster takes an offensive action against my party, I will shoot it! Its simplify things and the game moves forward.
I’m struggling to come up with a reason to ready an attack action. It’s late too, so the brain is no longer working. Can someone come up with some scenarios where ready offensive actions are better than standard actions?
I don't disagree with BMW on better opportunities by just taking your turn IF you ascribe to the camp of a standard casting time spell not being able to be interrupted by a readied action that causes damage to a casters AC. If you are in that camp then yea.. what's the point. None. The spell goes off anyways.
If you are not in that camp and follow RAW, then being able to potentially cost a spell caster their effectual turn and spell slot to boot... that's pretty damn powerful. Costing the caster a turn isn't what rubs me wrong. It's the loss of the spell slot on top of it. Taking damage, losing your effectual turn, and losing the spell slot as well is just harsh. The cost is to the player readying the action.. possibly your readied action if the enemy fails to supply the triggerung event. But.... that's the RAW. Basically you have a choice. Ready an action and hope the trigger occurs. If it does, then the potential gain for the ready action entity is enormous. If it doesn't happen. You basically cost yourself a turn.
That's why I opened this thread. To get an official ruling from the devs. If the intent is that a spell with a casting time of a standard action can not be interrupted by damage from a readied offensive action, please, will those who have the authority to make that ruling, do so.
Another interesting course of discussion as far as readied actions and spells go are combat maneuvers. These are offensive actions. Could they cause you to be interrupted and fail your spell casting? They don't do damage, nor are they an effect from which you have failed a saving throw. Could a trip CM readied as a standard action with the trigger of 'begins to cast a spell interrupt a spell and cause it to be lost?
I’m struggling to come up with a reason to ready an attack action. It’s late too, so the brain is no longer working. Can someone come up with some scenarios where ready offensive actions are better than standard actions?
Sure. Let's do some for fun with both spell casting and non spell casting.
Enemy is on a catwalk perpendicular to one you are on. To get to you, it must travel 10 feet to a T intersection turn onto your catwalk and advance 15 more feet. The railing at the t intersection of the catwalk has been melted by a plasma explosion. You the player ready an action (standard action. Bull rush manuever) with the triggering event of 'the enemy enters the t intersection of the catwalk'. You then move 10 feet towards the t intersection yourself. The enemy takes its turn, moves into the t intersection, the trigger has been met, you bull rush the enemy with the idea of pushing the enemy off the catwalk. The enemy could have been moving to attack you, or moving through the 9intersection. Doesn't matter. Trigger was met, your action resolves.
You are fighting an enemy Spell caster and through covert Intel gathering you have learned that this caster loves to use Mind Thrust Your will isn't spectacular. You ready an action with the following action (move action 15 feet through that doorway into another room out of the spell caster vision) with a trigger of, the caster begins to cast a spell. You finish your turn, the spell caster begins to cast a spell, immediately before the casting begins you move into the room. The spell caster can no longer choose you as a valid target. They can choose other valid targets when the casting ends.
You've set up some demolition charges and disguised them with a spell. Your enemies are chasing one of your allies down the alleyway towards the trap you have set. It's your turn. You ready an action (press the detonator for the charges) with a conditional trigger of, the enemy is in the blast radius of the charges and your ally is not. This could occur and it could not occur if the enemies aren't following your ally closely enough. You could lose your readied action if that trigger isn't met. Or if they are too close or even catch your ally while in the blast radius of the charges.
You are a lovely female Lashunta envoy. Your charisma and beauty are both 24. You are talking to a spell caster who is infamous for loving beautiful Lashuntas. The talking goes south and the spell caster attacks. You are at the top of the initiative order so you ready an action (move action to doff my shirt) with the trigger of, the spell caster begins to cast a spell. Your turn ends. The enemy starts casting a spell. Your shirt falls to the floor and the enemy Spell caster loses concentration due to a change in the environmental factors and loses his spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not interpreting the rules in any way. I am using the rules as written.
Horsefeathers.
You are. But you don't admit that you're doing it. Which is a big chunk of the reason you're mangling it so badly.
Regular English is not objectively parsable. Thats why we write laws in legalese. Legalese despite attempting to be objectively parsable is not, that's why lawyers make so much money.
But you are acting as if you can derive a platonic objective meaning from the rules. Right down to making up incredibly technical definitions out of whole cloth from two synonyms. Having derived that meaning, no amount of evidence that that meaning is incorrect can persuade you.
That kind of Aristotelian assurity only works in a perfect system with a perfect logician. The starfinder rules are lightyears multiple years through the drift. It doesn't work. And trying to think that you have a perfect reading of the rules very quickly gets in the way of having a good, or even coherent, reading of the rules.
The failure of that belief shows up in reams of cognitive dissonance here. Two very similar words absolutely can't mean the same thing for the sake of readability or something as simple as a different word choice when writing something (possibly by entirely different authors/editors). There HAS to be some deep mechanical underpinnings between the different word choices. Cat or Kitty might even be used interchangeably to refer to the exact same animal. You can't argue that synonyms can't apply to the same idea when they can apply to the same individual. So you reach for the absolute height of absurdity and are forced to argue that they can't be synonyms, they're nouns, as if something can't be two things.
This is a horrible way to try to read the rules. A far better way, in every way, from accuracy to usability to getting everyone on the same page, is to consider evidence both for and against an idea. Recognizing that even raw requires interpretation accepts the reality that what qualifies as a triggering action isn't perfectly clear. Instead of "starting to cast IS an event not an action they're totaly different" you can examine the rules and ASK
"is a triggering event different than a triggering action different than a smurf?"
"can I declare the start of a cast the action?"
And once you do that the clear answer is no. The rules purposefully distinguish between defensive and offensive readied actions. The interpretation (and thats a generous term for it if anything) that the two questions above are a yes completely negates what the rules say: that offensive actions go after and defensive actions go before.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m struggling to come up with a reason to ready an attack action. It’s late too, so the brain is no longer working. Can someone come up with some scenarios where ready offensive actions are better than standard actions?
Mostly with movement, either because you want to hit them before they get to you or because one bit of space is better than another. For example, shooting the blitz soldier 60 feet out has range penalties with a pistol, shooting them when they get in your face draws an AOO, so you shoot them in between. (its not even that big of an advantage, but you might get lucky and stun him, add enough damage that your party takes him down before he hits you twice, or heck, you could just be greasing the sucker in between two of your beatsticks.)
As a softer psycological answer, it lets the DM know that the NPC is hosed if they don't surrender. Once you've pointed the big giant gun at the mook and declared that you shoot him if he doesn't surrender that mooks player KNOWS you're locked into the action and there's NO way out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, we have a developer answer.
I have confirmed that the developer answer is from more than 2 months AFTER the CRB was finalized and sent to the printer.
So, why is it still being treated as a question?
I am not interpreting the rules in any way. I am using the rules as written.
Horsefeathers.
You are. But you don't admit that you're doing it. Which is a big chunk of the reason you're mangling it so badly.
Regular English is not objectively parsable. Thats why we write laws in legalese. Legalese despite attempting to be objectively parsable is not, that's why lawyers make so much money.
But you are acting as if you can derive a platonic objective meaning from the rules. Right down to making up incredibly technical definitions out of whole cloth from two synonyms. Having derived that meaning, no amount of evidence that that meaning is incorrect can persuade you.
That kind of Aristotelian assurity only works in a perfect system with a perfect logician. The starfinder rules are
lightyearsmultiple years through the drift. It doesn't work. And trying to think that you have a perfect reading of the rules very quickly gets in the way of having a good, or even coherent, reading of the rules.The failure of that belief shows up in reams of cognitive dissonance here. Two very similar words absolutely can't mean the same thing for the sake of readability or something as simple as a different word choice when writing something (possibly by entirely different authors/editors). There HAS to be some deep mechanical underpinnings between the different word choices. Cat or Kitty might even be used interchangeably to refer to the exact same animal. You can't argue that synonyms can't apply to the same idea when they can apply to the same individual. So you reach for the absolute height of absurdity and are forced to argue that they can't be synonyms, they're nouns, as if something can't be two things.
This is a horrible way to try to read the rules. A far better way, in every way, from accuracy to usability to getting everyone on the same page, is to consider evidence both for and against an idea. Recognizing that even raw requires interpretation accepts...
Oh.... where to even begin with this... How about I just say this.
If the extent of your argument is to malign what I have stated then you aren't proving your points in regard this discussion. I encourage to do a few things.
Ensure you know what a word means before you use it. Parsable means able to be parsed. The English language is, of course, objectively able to be parsed. And in this case it's the ONLY way to read the text. If you subjectively parse the language (the CRB) you must know the intent of the subjective party who wrote the language. One of the reasons I have asked for a ruling is BECAUSE I refuse to demonstrate the hubris necessary to say that i know WHAT the developers intent was. Platonic is another one... I am not attempting to a relationship absence of romance or sex with the meaning of the rules. lol. How did that even make sense?
I don't make up incredibly technical definitions. I quoted who that definition came from. I simply am adept at using the definition.
Thanks for the compliment of associating my assurity of the rules with Aristotle. Aristotle was a great philosopher and I am honored you consider me in his realm. (Although I don't think that was your intent.. I assume it was as some form of insult.)
Again, Im not trying to interpret the RAI. Only heeding the rules as written. As far as synonyms, go look in a Thesaurus. Action is a synonym to Event, event is NOT a synonym to action. This doesn't mean they can or should be used interchangeably. It only means that they share some meaning.
I have considered evidence for both points of view. My contention is two fold. First, the evidence points most firmly to the idea that the RAW are correct. That a spell with the standard cast time can be interrupted with a readied action. The evidence to support this is quite strong. 1). If it was the same as a Reaction action, why give it it's own entry. Words cost money in publishing. 2). If you could not interrupt a spell with a standard cast time, then there would be no point in using a readied action as the only spells left to be interrupted are spell with 1 round or longer as a casting time and you don't need a readied action to interrupt those. Again. Why bother creating an entry which SPECIFICALLY states that you can use the 'begin to cast' as a trigger to a readied action that interrupts a spell. 3). I've given MULTIPLE examples of how this works in combat and how it makes sense. I gave 4 examples above where a readied action and it's timing.. makes sense. Second is that the CRB is slightly ambiguous. It could be argued that the same language used in the Reaction action should apply to the Ready action as they are almost exactly the same.
I don't LIKE that the evidence points so heavily to an outcome I think damages spellcasting (one of the weakest, imo, aspects of this rule system). The only argument I have seen given to say otherwise is that action and event should be interchanged.... that's what the writers intended. This is specious and assumptive. I have asked for clarification and await it patiently.
If they say.. Hey.. Magyar5. You are dead wrong. We do intend to protect spells with a casting time of a standard action. I think that's fine. I don't have an ego in this matter, simply a concern for the players, GMs, and folks attempting to read through and understand the rules.
Again, we have a developer answer.
I have confirmed that the developer answer is from more than 2 months AFTER the CRB was finalized and sent to the printer.
So, why is it still being treated as a question?
1) Because the book being sent to the printer doesn't mean that there weren't changes prior to it's printing and publishing. When was the proof approved?
2). Owen's statement actually supports my reading of the rules. I was hoping not to use it due to it's age. Go back and read his statement. It pertains to Reactions.. not readied actions. He specifically states that readied actions resolve after the triggering event. An AoO won't interrupt a spell casting with a standard action as a cast time since it's a Reaction action.
I'll quote his text here. I will also include the original question he responded to as that will give context.
LordInsane wrote:
Yes, I'd heard if you take damage you lose the spell, no roll... which is the main reason I worried about some form of casting defensively, if obviously looking radically different (while reluctantly admitting that making it so spellcasters *cannot* cast a spell while threatened without being more likely than not to lose the spell does help in some ways).
Owen wrote
[Edit]Three things make this not an issue.
First, reactions resolve directly after the triggering action. So if you cast a spell and someone readied to shoot you if you cast, if the spell has a casting time of 1 standard action you get the spell off before the AoO gets made.
Secondly, most touch-range healing spells specify they do no provoke attacks of opportunity (as do a few other touch spells including some offensive ones).
Third, you lose the spell only if an attack successfully hits your AC or you fail a save against it. For example, if someone lobs a grenade and you are caught in the area while casting, but you make your save against it, that doesn't cause you to loose the spell.
[An earlier version of this post noted that all AoO were resolved after the triggering event, but while that is true for readied actions and most other reactions, it is not for attack of opportunity -- this is one reason we have to write down rules, especially after going through 6 versions of ho things work in development, rather than just trusting out memories].
https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5ljv8?Five-Differences-Between-Sta r%2520finder-Rules-and#29
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the extent of your argument is to malign what I have stated then you aren't proving your points in regard this discussion
Pointing out that you have said patently ridiculous things in order for you to avoid admitting that my points were proven is not maligning what you have said.
Ensure you know what a word means before you use it. Parsable means able to be parsed. The English language is, of course, objectively able to be parsed.
Take your own advice before you wind up attacking a strawman and proving my point. Objectively able to be parsed and able to be parsed objectively are NOT the same thing. Context matters in english, and you get the meaning of the sentence wrong when you miss that.
Your claims to not be interpreting the raw are patently absurd.
Again, Im not trying to interpret the RAI. Only heeding the rules as written. As far as synonyms, go look in a Thesaurus. Action is a synonym to Event, event is NOT a synonym to action. This doesn't mean they can or should be used interchangeably. It only means that they share some meaning.
That is absolutely not how synonyms work
A synonym is a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another lexeme (word or phrase) in the same language.
A cannot be a Synonym with B without B being a synonym with A. That it's not on the list in one thesaurus is completely meaningless.
don't make up incredibly technical definitions. I quoted who that definition came from. I simply am adept at using the definition.
You are adept at agreeing with yourself. Nothing more. You quoted a definition that said one thing, interpreted that to mean something completely differently, and then claimed you weren't interpreting
Thanks for the compliment of associating my assurity of the rules with Aristotle. Aristotle was a great philosopher and I am honored you consider me in his realm. (Although I don't think that was your intent.. I assume it was as some form of insult.)
Someone thats been around a while can tell you how i feel about philosophers. But here you're trying to program a windows machine with linux, parse english with german grammar rules or play chess with checkers rules. It simply gets you a nonsensical result. (the horsie is totally over powered on that last part)
Again, Im not trying to interpret the RAI. Only heeding the rules as written.
Rules as written still require interpretation. It's not avoidable. The definitions you pick to describe what the words mean, and then how you apply them are in fact interpretations. Yery very loose, very subjective interpretations at that.
Again, we have a developer answer.
I have confirmed that the developer answer is from more than 2 months AFTER the CRB was finalized and sent to the printer.
So, why is it still being treated as a question?
2). Owen's statement actually supports my reading of the rules. I was hoping not to use it due to it's age. Go back and read his statement. It pertains to Reactions.. not readied actions. He specifically states that readied actions resolve after the triggering event. An AoO won't interrupt a spell casting with a standard action as a cast time since it's a Reaction action.
Attack of Opportunities are resolved before the triggering event, not afterwards.
You left out a part of Owens quote at the bottom that specifically says that Attack of opportunities are not resolved after the triggering event. Here it is:
[An earlier version of this post noted that all AoO were resolved after the triggering event, but while that is true for readied actions and most other reactions, it is not for attack of opportunity -- this is one reason we have to write down rules, especially after going through 6 versions of ho things work in development, rather than just trusting out memories].
It even says in the CRB page 249 that AoOs are resolved before the triggering event:
Attacks of opportunity are always resolved before the action that triggers them. You don’t take a penalty to the attack roll when making an attack of opportunity in the same round you took a full attack, but you do take any other attack penalties that would normally apply to your attacks. Making an attack of opportunity does not affect your ability to make attacks normally when it is your turn.
So to bring this quote in to context, the original post writer was asking about the damage from attacks of opportunities. An attack of opportunity is a special action called a Reaction (CRB 248). Owen was attempting to clarify exactly how that worked with attacks of opportunity. Most reactions resolve immediately after the action that triggered them. The AoO as you pointed out on CRB 249 is an exception to this standard ruling.
It initially reads that Owen implied that an Aoo could not interrupt spell casting. However in his edit he clarifies that it would happen before the triggering action. All that being said, this post is specifically about Reactions and AoO. It briefly mentions readied actions and affirms what the CRB says about them.
Hence I said that the post supports my reading of the rules in regard to readied actions. A readied action occurs immediately after the triggering event.
I've posted a few examples in a prior post. If a readied action didn't resolve until after the entire action that triggered it resolved, none of those examples would work. Nor would readying an action make sense.
The original disagreement about readied actions and spell casting is as follows.
1). I claim that an action can be readied via the rules for readied actions with a trigger of 'begins to cast' (This is not my example of a trigger, it's Paizo. CRB 331). That readied offensive action would trigger once an enemy begins to cast a spell and potentially allow you to disrupt the casting of that spell by dealing damage to the foes AC.
2). Others claim that it is not possible to interrupt a spell in this manner as the offensive readied action would occur after the cast a spell action is complete and the spell has resolved.
I propose that if you adhere to the later you have misread and misinterpreted the rules by conflating an event with an action. Further, if you adhere to the later it makes readied actions almost pointless. If the entire action of a foe is allowed to resolve prior to your readied action, then the very narrow window of opportunity upon which the readied action hopes to capitalize will have passed by.
If you look at the 4 examples I posted previously and apply theorem 2, then everything falls apart. Your bull rush would have to exceed your opponents KAC by +23 to push the enemy off the catwalk. The spell would resolve before you could break line of sight to the caster. The demolition charges would require more luck than skill as it would basically be based off intiative count. And u would have a Lashunta who seems to enjoy dis-robing as a response to spell casting. Readied actions become almost useless,
However if you adhere to theorem one, it makes spell casting even worse as it subjects spells with a cast time of a standard action to being interuptable by readied actions. Yet readied actions become fun and applicable in a variety of situations.
Pointing out that you have said patently ridiculous things in order for you to avoid admitting that my points were proven is not maligning what you have said.
What have I said that is patently ridiculous?
Objectively able to be parsed and able to be parsed objectively are NOT the same thing.
Please. Take me to school on this one. What is the difference in those 2 statements?
A synonym is a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another lexeme (word or phrase) in the same language.
I admire you took my advice and looked this up. You did however leave off something that is quite applicable from your definition. Allow me to add it as it's relevant.
Miriam Webster states : one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses
That last part is important as words have different definitions and those different definitions may have some of the same meaning as another word. That's why word A may be a synonym of word B and B not be a synonym of word A.
That it's not on the list in one thesaurus is completely meaningless.
Valid point. Let's look in multiple Thesauruses.
You are adept at agreeing with yourself. Nothing more. You quoted a definition that said one thing, interpreted that to mean something completely differently, and then claimed you weren't interpreting
No I actually interpreted the definition correctly. An event is a single moment in time. It's binary. The event either exists or does not exist. It could potentially happen, but until it does, it has not occurred and thus the event doesn't exist. Cocked a hammer on a gun is such an event. It requires a series of actions to complete, however once complete that event of 'cocked a hammer on a gun' exists.
You should be grateful for most philosophers. They are the folks who gave us the incredibly modern world we live in. Aristotle, Plato, Nietsche are all worth reading IMO. Unfortunately I don't know you at all so I don't know how you feel about philosophers. I take it you don't like them so this compliment was meant as an insult?
Lastly. Rules require an understanding and an application based on that understanding. The understanding can be achieved by study of the language and applying the meaning of the language to the context. Interpretation is only required when you have a case that is not clearly covered by the rules. In this instance we have such a case. My goal, and I hope you will agree with this, is to turn to the people who are qualified to interpret the rules as they are the ones who made the rules and until such a time as they clear up the matter, understand the rules and abide by them.
Based on your previous post may I assume you are a fan of the legal profession? If so you will know that legal interpretation is only relevant if the laws aren't clear on a particular fringe example. If the law already covers the case in question, you don't need to interpret it. Further, if the author of the law is available, it makes sense to first ask the author of that law the intent before attempting to interpret that intent.
In this particular case I am in agreement with you that there is some difficulty in understanding the rules as written. The difference we have is that I don't wish to put words in to the mouth of the developers as they are available to offer insight. If they were all dead or if they weren't reviewing these boards we could have a discussion about the word 'action' and the precedence for understanding that word as it relates to the Starfinder rules, based on the CRB (Tactical rules section). However, my intent, once again is simply to understand the rules as written and apply them without prejudice.
There was already a developer clarification on June 2, 2017.
The CRB shipped to the printer on March 24, 2017.
https://m.facebook.com/paizo/posts/10154921580367530
I don't see the clarification at that link. If you already linked it previous would you point me to ware or link it again? Much appreciated.
In my mind this is settled if it has been answered until we hear different from a developer in a future FAQ. All we have to go on is what the majority of us read the text as saying & that the developers confirmed that this is indeed how it works.
Until there is a update or a future FAQ that changes that ruling then this is a done and dead subject in my mind.
Thanks in advance for the link to the clarification if you can.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Further: I understand you feeling that it seems a little pointless (I feel the same way), to ready an action against an offensive action. I That is why I asked people if they could come up with scenarios when it could be beneficial.
Readying a defensive action is perfectly valid against offensive triggers. For instance, if you readied the total defense action, you could still take attacks of opportunity until your action was triggered. Using dispel magic to counterspell is a purely defensive action. It says so right in the spell description.
Range increments, and cover are good reasons to ready offensive actions, but those are mostly in response to movement, not opposed offensive actions.
Also, for initiative order. If you are in some sort of standoff and all the PCs ready an action to shoot if an enemy shoots/casts/combat starts. They'll all be one after another in the initiative order. Back to back to back PC actions can wreck an encounter before it begins. Especially since now every last one of them is going second in the order.
All these rules mean is that readying to shoot if the opponent shoots or casts a spell is not a great use of actions.
Magyar5's Quote:
The original disagreement about readied actions and spell casting is as follows.
1). I claim that an action can be readied via the rules for readied actions with a trigger of 'begins to cast' (This is not my example of a trigger, it's Paizo. CRB 331). That readied offensive action would trigger once an enemy begins to cast a spell and potentially allow you to disrupt the casting of that spell by dealing damage to the foes AC.
2). Others claim that it is not possible to interrupt a spell in this manner as the offensive readied action would occur after the cast a spell action is complete and the spell has resolved.
My response:
Claim 1 is correct in regards to spells with a casting time of 1 round or more.
In regards to the wording in the CRB 331: Began to cast. The paragraph is referring to spells with a casting time of 1 round or more.
The CRB specifically says in regards to spells with a casting time of one round or more that the casters are more at risk if you ready an offensive action action to attack them and you damage them.In the CRB 331:
You are most at risk of taking damage while casting when a spell’s casting time is 1 round or longer, you have provoked an attack of opportunity, or a foe readied an action to attack you when you BEGAN TO CAST. However, if you are taking ongoing damage (such as if you are bleeding or on fire), your spells are not disrupted in this way.
Conclusion: So, YES, you are correct, you can interrupt a spell with a ready action under the condition that it has a casting time of 1 round or more.
Those statements could all be true or each be individually true.
Let's break them up so its easier to understand.You are most at risk of taking damage while casting a when a spells casting time is 1 round or longer.
You are most at risk of taking damage while you have provoked an attack of opportunity.
You are most at risk of taking damage while a foe readied an action to attack you when you began to cast.
As you can see the paragraph isn't referring to only spells with a casting time greater than 1 round. Each of those conditions refer to when you are most at risk of taking damage. Thus losing the spell.
The rules don't imply or state that a spell with a casting time of a standard action is immune. Those subsequent statements apply to the subject of the sentence, not one of the previous predicates.
So if you cast a spell with a casting time of a standard action, you are most at risk of taking damage while a foe readied an action to attack you when you began to cast.
Page 249 in the CRB says that the readied attack action resolves after the triggering event. The triggering event example is: If the Foe shoots at you. It could just as well been: If the foe casts a spell on you.
CRB page 249:
Ready an Action You can prepare to take an action when a certain trigger occurs by using a standard action. Decide on a standard, move, or swift action and a trigger. You can take the action you chose when the trigger happens. This changes your initiative count to the current initiative count for the remainder of the combat. If you used a reaction on your previous turn and then chose to ready an action, you still regain your reaction at the beginning of your original turn, not when you take your readied action. If your readied action is purely defensive, such as choosing the total defense action if a foe you are facing shoots at you, it occurs just before the event that triggered it. If the readied action is not a purely defensive action, such as shooting a foe if he shoots at you, it takes place immediately after the triggering event. If you come to your next turn and have not yet performed your readied action, you don’t get to take the readied action (though you can ready the same action again).Conclusion: the spell with a casting time of a standard action or less, resolves before your readied action, so you do not get to disrupt the targets spell.
Further: I understand you feeling that it seems a little pointless (I feel the same way), to ready an action against an offensive action. I That is why I asked people if they could come up with scenarios when it could be beneficial.
Nimor there are 2 aspects of this post which are problematic. Let's look at them together. The first is the wording of the triggering event. If you use the words 'casts a spell' it is vague enough to be interpreted many ways. Did you mean that he has cast a spell, ie.. finished casting. That's how it seems to read. Or did you mean that he is in the process of casting. Or did you mean that he has begun to cast a spell. Those are 3 distinct events in the series of actions required to cast a spell. Being clear on the wording is extremely important both for you and the GM.
The second is that you are doing what many here have done. You are interchanging the use of action with event. They are not the same thing in the context of these rules. If you read the Reaction section of the tactical rules in the CRB you will see what I mean. REACTIONS specify that they occur after the provoking action. Readied actions occur after the triggering event.
This distinction is subtle but immensely important. I listed 4 examples of using a readied action in a creative and useful way. Both vs spells and not vs spells. If you allow the triggering action to replace the triggering event in meaning, all of those examples become futile.
I encourage you to take a look at those examples. Read them through using theorem 1. Then read them through using theorem 2. You will see what I am talking about.
Also, for initiative order. If you are in some sort of standoff and all the PCs ready an action to shoot if an enemy shoots/casts/combat starts. They'll all be one after another in the initiative order. Back to back to back PC actions can wreck an encounter before it begins. Especially since now every last one of them is going second in the order.
All these rules mean is that readying to shoot if the opponent shoots or casts a spell is not a great use of actions.
Garret this is actually an interesting point about the abuse of the ready action and initiative count.
You can ready an action to basically shift your position in the initiative order. As you pointed out, and goes back to Claxons original posts about readied actions, this can be seriously abused by players.
Here's an example.
Your party is facing one significant enemy and 6 henchman. Once the initiative is rolled, the significant enemy goes first, followed by the henchman. You all got some unlucky rolls. So each of you decide on your first turn to ready an action to attack the significant enemy with a trigger of..'when he moves any muscle on his body`. Bam. Ur all now adjusted in the initiative count to the same position as the significant enemy and before the henchman and you all get to act in unison.
This is creative, but just down right ugly abuse of the ready action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, for initiative order. If you are in some sort of standoff and all the PCs ready an action to shoot if an enemy shoots/casts/combat starts. They'll all be one after another in the initiative order. Back to back to back PC actions can wreck an encounter before it begins. Especially since now every last one of them is going second in the order.
All these rules mean is that readying to shoot if the opponent shoots or casts a spell is not a great use of actions.
Garret this is actually an interesting point about the abuse of the ready action and initiative count.
You can ready an action to basically shift your position in the initiative order. As you pointed out, and goes back to Claxons original posts about readied actions, this can be seriously abused by players.
Here's an example.
Your party is facing one significant enemy and 6 henchman. Once the initiative is rolled, the significant enemy goes first, followed by the henchman. You all got some unlucky rolls. So each of you decide on your first turn to ready an action to attack the significant enemy with a trigger of..'when he moves any muscle on his body`. Bam. Ur all now adjusted in the initiative count to the same position as the significant enemy and before the henchman and you all get to act in unison.
This is creative, but just down right ugly abuse of the ready action.
You have to do that by not taking your first turn/readying during a surprise round, and giving the enemy a chance to spot what you're doing, and interrupt the readying. (Edit: Interrupt as in notice that a surprise round is happening before all your readied actions go off at once, not interrupt readied actions)
Spending a whole round doing nothing to change your initiative order has always been an option of readied actions or delaying. You are always either moving down in the initiative order, or not taking your standard action this turn. If you're taking an offensive reaction it may be better (outside a surprise round) to delay so you can have a full action available.
It's useful, but it's hardly abuse.
'Moving a muscle'/'twitching'/whatever, these are not defined terms in starfinder. Technically by the rules, they don't happen in combat. The only things that creatures do in combat are actions. If they don't make an action, they don't trigger anything.
Conclusion: the spell with a casting time of a standard action or less, resolves before your readied action, so you do not get to disrupt the targets spell.
Even a full round magic missile will resolve before you can shoot them.
Thankfully 'full round action' isn't actually a term in starfinder. I assume they changed it to full action to avoid the full-round vs 1-round action confusion.
Also, for initiative order. If you are in some sort of standoff and all the PCs ready an action to shoot if an enemy shoots/casts/combat starts. They'll all be one after another in the initiative order. Back to back to back PC actions can wreck an encounter before it begins. Especially since now every last one of them is going second in the order.
All these rules mean is that readying to shoot if the opponent shoots or casts a spell is not a great use of actions.
Garret this is actually an interesting point about the abuse of the ready action and initiative count.
You can ready an action to basically shift your position in the initiative order. As you pointed out, and goes back to Claxons original posts about readied actions, this can be seriously abused by players.
Here's an example.
Your party is facing one significant enemy and 6 henchman. Once the initiative is rolled, the significant enemy goes first, followed by the henchman. You all got some unlucky rolls. So each of you decide on your first turn to ready an action to attack the significant enemy with a trigger of..'when he moves any muscle on his body`. Bam. Ur all now adjusted in the initiative count to the same position as the significant enemy and before the henchman and you all get to act in unison.
This is creative, but just down right ugly abuse of the ready action.
You have to do that by not taking your first turn/readying during a surprise round, and giving the enemy a chance to spot what you're doing, and interrupt the readying. (Edit: Interrupt as in notice that a surprise round is happening before all your readied actions go off at once, not interrupt readied actions)
Spending a whole round doing nothing to change your initiative order has always been an option of readied actions or delaying. You are always either moving down in the initiative order, or not taking your standard action this turn. If you're taking an offensive reaction it may be better...
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying Garret. Let me give you an example with numbers and you tell me what I am missing.
Round 1 initiative count.
Significant enemy - 25.
Henchman - 18.
Players 1-4: 10,9,8,7.
Enemy shoots at players. Henchman shoots at players. Players move and perform a readied action to attack the henchman the instant he moves any muscle at all.
Round 2 initiative count.
Se 25
Henchman 18
Players 10,9,8,7
SE moves a muscle. Readied actions occur and the players initiative becomes the current initiative order. New initiative order is
SE 25
Players 25
Henchman 18.
Players take their turns normally before the henchman act.
In this case they have moved up the initiative count and lumped their actions together with some players possibly going before the SE on round 3.
Is this example correct?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What have I said that is patently ridiculous?
That they can't be synonyms they're nouns takes the cake. (it's an either or fallacy)
That the developer post directly contradicting you makes your point.
That word A can be a Synonym for word B without word B being a synonym for word A.
Please. Take me to school on this one. What is the difference in those 2 statements?
Objectively able to be parsed: You can prove that english can be written down by one human being and understood by another experimentally. It doesn't matter whether you believe it or not, its true.
Able to be parsed objectively: like machine code there is only one meaning to be had by the text. Very limited statements in english can be this way. The game rules? Definitely not. The developers will be the first ones to tell you that.
That last part is important as words have different definitions and those different definitions may have some of the same meaning as another word. That's why word A may be a synonym of word B and B not be a synonym of word A.
That doesn't remotely follow.
If they have the same definition or even nearly the same definition in some instances as each other (close enough that a writer might chose one or the other interchangeably) then its not possible to have no instances where you could swap A for B but not swap B for A. The only difference is which word you were starting with and going to.
Your sheer torture of logic and the english language here qualifies as an evil act.
An event is a single moment in time.
So a concert that is the event of the year starts and stops in plank time, and not 4 hours?
Googling News for a randomish sample
Next weekend, Pokémon Go will debut a new kind of global event
lasts 24 hours
Snow event triggered in Idaho Falls, so move your cars (even in idaho snow takes a while to fall)
Your insistence on this definition of event is unfounded and illogical.
The understanding can be achieved by study of the language and applying the meaning of the language to the context. Interpretation is only required when you have a case that is not clearly covered by the rules.
That would be interpolation.
You are assuming that your understanding the writer, and the medium are are perfect. They are not. Deriving the meaning from words in english is subjective.
Based on your previous post may I assume you are a fan of the legal profession?
My first act as dictator for life would be operation shakespere so...
Thankfully 'full round action' isn't actually a term in starfinder. I assume they changed it to full action to avoid the full-round vs 1-round action confusion.
Rose name. Iambic.. something.. yadda yadda
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is this example correct?
From my reading of the rules, no. Because 'moves any muscles at all' isn't a valid defined and concrete trigger. By the rules that trigger never happens because 'move any muscles at all' isn't a thing an enemy can do in combat. They can take actions, or they can choose not to take actions. There is noting in combat to react to besides an action.
Yes technically, an action probably involves moving a muscle at some point during that action. The rules never define when, how, or where a moved muscle happens, so you can't react to the moved muscle as it isn't defined, you can only react to the action.
The other issue... ready an action for reference:
Ready an Action
You can prepare to take an action when a certain trigger occurs
by using a standard action. Decide on a standard, move, or swift
action and a trigger. You can take the action you chose when the
trigger happens. This changes your initiative count to the current
initiative count for the remainder of the combat. If you used a
reaction on your previous turn and then chose to ready an action,
you still regain your reaction at the beginning of your original
turn, not when you take your readied action.
If your readied action is purely defensive, such as choosing
the total defense action if a foe you are facing shoots at you,
it occurs just before the event that triggered it. If the readied
action is not a purely defensive action, such as shooting a foe if
he shoots at you, it takes place immediately after the triggering
event. If you come to your next turn and have not yet performed
your readied action, you don’t get to take the readied action
(though you can ready the same action again).
When the trigger happens you take the action specified and your place in the initiative is now at this point instead of where you were. You don't get another round of actions immediately after a readied actions, but it does raise a couple of questions:
1)Can you take the rest of your actions? Probably not, it introduces weirdness with taking multiple actions in the middle of an enemy's turn.
2)Can the enemy you interrupted take the rest of their actions? Can they move if you shot them after casting a spell? Most likely. You reacted to them doing something, you didn't stop their other actions.
3)On the next turn, do you go before or after the enemy? Does it depend on when your readied action happened? Or is it determined the same as a tie in the initial initiative roll? I believe a readied action would go before on the next turn (turn 3) but I don't know the answer to this one.
The rounds would go:
Round 1 initiative count.
Significant enemy - 25.
Henchman - 18.
Players 1-4: 10,9,8,7.Enemy shoots at players. Henchman shoots at players. Players move and perform a readied action to attack the henchman
the instant he moves any muscle at all.when he shoots, or moves, or casts, or takes an attack of opportunity, some defined trigger.Round 2 initiative count.
Se 25
Henchman 18
Players 10,9,8,7SE
moves a muscle.performs the trigger Readied actions occur and the players initiative becomes the current initiative order. New initiative order is
SE 25
Players 25
Henchman 18.
or
Players 25
SE 25
Henchmen 28Either way, the player's actions have triggered, the SE finishes his turn, the henchmen shoot and now it is the top of the next round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even a full round magic missile will resolve before you can shoot them.
Conclusion: the spell with a casting time of a standard action or less, resolves before your readied action, so you do not get to disrupt the targets spell.
No, this is not true, because a 1 round spell casting action is the same as a full round action, and full round action casting spells do not resolve until the beginning of your next turn. You have to maintain your concentration (casting) until you’re next turn, and if that is interrupted, you lose the spell.
If a foe damages you after your turn but before your next turn, you lose the spell.CRB 334
When you begin casting a spell that takes 1 round or longer to cast, you must maintain your concentration from the current round to just before your turn in the next round (at least). If you lose concentration or take another action (even a reaction) before the casting is complete, the spell fails.
You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect.
1 round: Casting a spell with a casting time of 1 round is a full action. The spell comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell.If I am wrong, what am I missing?
A full round action was never the same as a 1 round action in pathfinder.
There is no such thing as a full round action in starfinder. There are full actions, and spells that take 1 round or longer to cast.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I am wrong, what am I missing?
Magic missile: You can cast this spell as a full action. If you do, you fire three missiles instead of two.
1 round: Casting a spell with a casting time of 1 round is a full action. The spell comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.
1 minute: A spell that takes 1 minute to cast comes into effect just before your turn 1 minute later (and for each of those 10 rounds, you are considered to be casting a spell as a full action, just as noted above for 1-round casting times). These actions must be consecutive and uninterrupted; otherwise the spell automatically fails.
The full barrel of magic missile is a full action, not a 1 round cast. So Tim the magic missile chucker Uses his swift move and standard action and fires off three missiles. Bob the summoner uses his swift move and standard action and STARTS dialing in a monster, and then stands there until his turn again still casting.
Full round and one round aren't the same thing. Its something you're used to if you play pathfinder.
Magic missile: You can cast this spell as a full action. If you do, you fire three missiles instead of two.
1 round: Casting a spell with a casting time of 1 round is a full action.
Full round and one round aren't the same thing. Its something you're used to if you play pathfinder.
In this case, it seems like they might be? Since "Full action" spell casting isn't a thing defined in the rules, and the only full action cast is 1 round. Unlike the readied action wording (which is pretty dang clear-cut if you're not trying to weirdly redefine english), there might be some actual ambiguity to clear up here.
Full acrion is absolutely defined in the rules, just not specific to spellcasting. It's what you use to full attack.
From CRB page 248
FULL ACTIONS
A full action requires your entire turn to complete. If you take a full action, you can’t take your usual standard, move, and swift actions. The following actions are full actions.
Full action is defined, just not as a casting time.
Full Action
A full action consumes all your effort during your turn, meaning if you choose to take a full action, you can’t take any other standard, move, or swift actions that turn. The most common full action is the full attack.
So if a spell references that as a casting time, that's what it is.
Magic missile: You can cast this spell as a full action. If you do, you fire three missiles instead of two.1 round: Casting a spell with a casting time of 1 round is a full action.Full round and one round aren't the same thing. Its something you're used to if you play pathfinder.In this case, it seems like they might be? Since "Full action" spell casting isn't a thing defined in the rules, and the only full action cast is 1 round. Unlike the readied action wording (which is pretty dang clear-cut if you're not trying to weirdly redefine english), there might be some actual ambiguity to clear up here.
A full attack is a full action that doesn't last until your next turn. As is coup de grace & withdraw.
Edit:
Thanks for pointing that out. You are correct. I was wrong when I called a spell with a 1 round casting time a full round action, when it should have been just called a full action.
However, that does not change the fact that spells with casting times 1 round or longer have to have concentration maintained until the casters next turn.
I thought we were specifically discussing magic missile with it's optional full action casting time. Which is distinct from a 1 round casting time.