There are various game features that use this jargon.
If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell...
If your next action is to cast a cantrip composition...
I contemplated whether it was possible for actions on other turns to fulfil this requirement. In the case of these examples, it's not.
You must use a metamagic action directly before Casting the Spell you want to alter.
Is it possible If I use Widen Spell then end my turn, could a reaction spell I cast benefit from Widen Spell? If I successfully cast Lingering Composition, could a spell I cast on my next turn qualify as long as I don't use any actions until then? The answer is no, because the spell to be altered wasn't cast directly after the metamagic in either case. But metamagic isn't the only thing in the game to use this sort of jargon.
Requirements The monster's last action was a success with a Strike that lists Grab in its damage entry, or it has a creature grabbed using this action.
So, if a dire wolf successfully Strikes a creature with its third action, could it automatically grab the target on its next turn, or is it assumed that the monster must immediately follow its Strike with Grab so the monster cannot Grab this target due to not having any actions left?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anything that relies on next/last actions only apply to actions on your current turn.
Do we have an official statement on that? Because I remember we were lacking one, but maybe I missed it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, same for me, it's an official statement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, as far as I know, we only have unofficial YouTube errata for that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find the explanation video kind of unsatisfying.
Logan Bonner seems to be treating the game as if 3 people have their turn after you, that your next turn won't be until 18 seconds later, He even says "the last thing you did needs to not have you know three more minutes of stuff in between them"
In the game world I think it is supposed to narratively be almost instantaneous when your third action ends on one turn and your first action begins on the next.
Anyway, I get rules-wise why it makes sense, but it doesn't make sense in world.
Yeah. But as far as YouTube errata goes, this one isn't too bad.
Sure it would be nice from a narrative sense to be able to treat your turns as flowing smoothly and continuously. But from game mechanics it doesn't really work that way.
It becomes quite a buff to a Zombie Shambler if they can ◆Stride, ◆Claw on their first turn, then ◆Grab, ◆Jaws on their second. Especially if their target moved during their turn in between when the Zombie was able to act.
In the game world I think it is supposed to narratively be almost instantaneous when your third action ends on one turn and your first action begins on the next.
If your turns were really chained together, then MAP would make no sense.
And casters would be able to cast 3 2-action spells in 2 rounds as they have 6 actions.If you consider that, for example, a metamagic must happen just before the casting of the spell, that it's nearly "part of casting the spell", then it makes total sense to forbid it between turns the same way you forbid a caster to start a spellcasting during one turn and end it during the next one.
I've always applied this rule, even if it goes against strict RAW.
I'm with SuperBidi in this. You cannot use the time notion to these rules once they aren't really developed to be attached in to verossimilitude instead they are gameplay abstraction rule like MAP is.
For example, do 3 Strikes in single turn doesn't really mean that you do every Strike each 2 seconds then take a breath and do again. It's just a way to balance the game. Same happens to "next / last action you use" rules. It's doesn't mean that when you cast an action with a metamagic that this action is an especifc gesture that you are making before cast. Instead is a complex on the fly casting modification and to keep things on the road the game requires that you use it into the same turn.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes I get it. The reason you can't carry over actions in encounter mode is due to the game mechanics falling apart. That was never in doubt for me.
The reason given in the video was that actions don't carry over because of all the time that passes between turns, which is a different and less satisfying reason to me.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Logan's point was that it could be a hassle to constantly have to remember what exactly everyone's last action was.
Think of that other player who's always going "whaaaaat it's my turn? Oh gosh, what am I going to do... hmm, let's start thinking now... oh I could... no I also could... hmm, what's the range on the spell I use all the time again..."
Now imagine that they're also having to think about whether the last thing they did last turn qualified for the thing they want to do now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Logan's point was that it could be a hassle to constantly have to remember what exactly everyone's last action was.
Think of that other player who's always going "whaaaaat it's my turn? Oh gosh, what am I going to do... hmm, let's start thinking now... oh I could... no I also could... hmm, what's the range on the spell I use all the time again..."
Now imagine that they're also having to think about whether the last thing they did last turn qualified for the thing they want to do now.
It is a bad argument from Logan. If you can't remember what your last action was they why are you playing this game?
It's not an argument. It's an explanation for why the rule is the way it is.
All sorts of people play this game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every game is aimed at an audience. PF2 is not aimed at people who have trouble with simple memory tasks. There is far more complexity elsewhere in the game that need to be tackled first before anything like this would be an issue. As an explanation it is a bad one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will say that the advent of virtual table tops has largely made remembering actions a non-issue for a sizeable portion of the ttrpg market. Probably not the majority by any stretch, unless we go back to the bad times of 2020, but a large enough number that it bears consideration.
I would be interested to see a TTRPG specifically designed with VTT's in mind, and what sorts of things that system would do differently taking automation and automated record keeping into account.
Or I guess I could just go play a CRPG. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
>it is a bad one
That's just, like, your opinion, man
Of course everything I say is just my opinion! That doesn't make it invalid.
But I regularly play with players for whom remembering basic stuff like using their class's core features like Hunt Prey, Rage, and Arcane Cascade are challenging, let alone what happened last turn.
and I know some people who play in retirement homes where dementia is a big issue.
PF2 is a more complex game. If your gaming group is struggling, then finding a better game they can cope with is the right approach, rather than dumbing down the game we have. There are beer and pretzels games out there that are pefectly good and would be a better fit for your group. Let each game have its niche.
As it is we already have effects that count from your last turn. Dozens of them. There is a lot to keep track of in this game.
There are already spells that can take 6 actions to cast. Allowing larger activities to cross turn barriers is already in the game.
Yes anything extra is something extra but on the scale of what is already in the game the complexity increase of it is fairly minor to non existent. Most people in most situations would not use it anyway. So in that sense it would be totally optional
A better reason to say no would have been to say it was a design restriction to stop certain combinations with 3 action spells. That might have made some sense.
I strongly disagree with you Gortle.
First, PF2 is quite accessible from a player point of view. Of course, not if you play an Alchemist. But if you play a Fighter or Barbarian, the complexity of the game is quite low. Also, one player may prefer bear and pretzels games while the rest of the table wants more crunch. So adding crunch has a cost.
Second, your last action is not the same than your last action on the previous turn. If you speak in character in between turns, then your last action is talking. And considering the amount of chit chat that can happen during combat (quite table dependent) determining if a character has actually talked is tough. The last action your character made during the last ten minutes is not that simple to remember.
I personally sometimes mess up with reactions, forgetting when they have been used, and it's far easier to remember than the last action of a character. And the worst is as a GM: I can't remember exactly what every character does. So if the Magus decides to use Arcane Cascade as first action I have to take it at face value, something I dislike as a GM (I'm a bit of a control freak).
If you speak in character in between turns, then your last action is talking.
This isn't true: "You don’t need to spend any type of action to speak, but because a round represents 6 seconds of time, you can usually speak at most a single sentence or so per round."
If you speak in character in between turns, then your last action is talking.This isn't true: "You don’t need to spend any type of action to speak, but because a round represents 6 seconds of time, you can usually speak at most a single sentence or so per round."
The 2 meanings of action give different meanings to this sentence. By stating that you don't need to spend any type of action, do they speak of actions that you can spend (action and reactions) or do they state that speaking is not an action with a weird formulation (as you don't "spend" an action, you use it).
From the rules about free actions: "Free actions don’t cost you any of your actions per turn, nor do they cost your reaction."
And those about actions: "You affect the world around you primarily by using actions, which produce effects."
So I think speaking is a free action, and not "not an action". But I just side with one interpretation as the fact that speaking is not listed with the other actions can be considered a hint at speaking not being an action.
If you speak in character in between turns, then your last action is talking.This isn't true: "You don’t need to spend any type of action to speak, but because a round represents 6 seconds of time, you can usually speak at most a single sentence or so per round."The 2 meanings of action give different meanings to this sentence. By stating that you don't need to spend any type of action, do they speak of actions that you can spend (action and reactions) or do they state that speaking is not an action with a weird formulation (as you don't "spend" an action, you use it).
From the rules about free actions: "Free actions don’t cost you any of your actions per turn, nor do they cost your reaction."
And those about actions: "You affect the world around you primarily by using actions, which produce effects."
So I think speaking is a free action, and not "not an action". But I just side with one interpretation as the fact that speaking is not listed with the other actions can be considered a hint at speaking not being an action.
If it's a free action, then you can't use it outside your turn making your point moot: "If a free action doesn’t have a trigger, you use it like a single action, just without spending any of your actions for the turn." Speaking does not have a trigger.
If it's a free action, then you can't use it outside your turn making your point moot: "If a free action doesn’t have a trigger, you use it like a single action, just without spending any of your actions for the turn." Speaking does not have a trigger.
I fully understand your interpretation. I just say there's room to multiple interpretations.
And anyway, I don't really care as I don't think it'll have any kind of impact with Logan Bonner's clarification.
If it's a free action, then you can't use it outside your turn making your point moot: "If a free action doesn’t have a trigger, you use it like a single action, just without spending any of your actions for the turn." Speaking does not have a trigger.I fully understand your interpretation. I just say there's room to multiple interpretations.
And anyway, I don't really care as I don't think it'll have any kind of impact with Logan Bonner's clarification.
You missed my point: if it's a free action it can't happen out of your turn so it's not inserting itself between your actions as you stated. If it's not any type of action, it also doesn't insert itself between the actions. So no matter which way you interpret it, speaking doesn't impact the debate here.
depends the length ( and the eventual trigger ) I think it may be at the beginning, in the middle or at the end.
Yes, if you speak on your own turn, it could matter. I'm not sure why someone wouldn't time it so it doesn't though.
You missed my point: if it's a free action it can't happen out of your turn so it's not inserting itself between your actions as you stated. If it's not any type of action, it also doesn't insert itself between the actions. So no matter which way you interpret it does speaking impact the debate here.
I didn't miss your point, I didn't want to enter a debate.
Speaking says: "As long as you can act, you can also speak.". As you can act outside your turn it can be read as the fact that you can speak outside your turn. So speaking could be a free action that can be done outside your turn (specific beats general).Also, it says that Speech has the auditory trait. But to have a trait, it needs to be "something". If it's not an action then what is it?
We can have a long discussion on that, I'm not sure there's a clear interpretation and an obviously wrong one, and in any case it's not really important to the discussion.
Speaking says: "As long as you can act, you can also speak.". As you can act outside your turn it can be read as the fact that you can speak outside your turn. So speaking could be a free action that can be done outside your turn (specific beats general).
IMO, a reading that just works trumps one that requires a specific beats general debate.
Also, it says that Speech has the auditory trait. But to have a trait, it needs to be "something".
Effects can have traits: "A spell or effect with the auditory trait has its effect only if the target can hear it."
in any case it's not really important to the discussion.
We got semi-official youtube answer: what discussion is left that we're interrupting?
IMO, a reading that just works trumps one that requires a specific beats general debate.
Your reading is based on an implication: As speaking doesn't fall ideally into one of the basic action categories then it's not an action.
First, speaking is an action (in common English). Also, I don't think there's any other example of a character "acting" by doing something that is not an action. So your reading creates a whole thing on its own which is not covered by the rules.My interpretation tries to put Speaking into the closest box: Free actions.
Effects can have traits: "A spell or effect with the auditory trait has its effect only if the target can hear it."
Effects: "Anything you do in the game has an effect."
So the rules don't really speak of an effect without a cause. Once again, your "not an action" rule puts us in some vacuum.We got semi-official youtube answer: what discussion is left that we're interrupting?
It was a polite way to say that as much as I enjoy debating I find this debate to be inconsequential and as such quite useless. I agree that your interpretation is a correct one and as such I won't try to make you change your mind. And I don't care if I change my mind on this. So why are we debating?
I could even ask you this question: Why do you want to debate on that when I repeat after each of my posts that I don't really want? :) (smiley added as there's no bad feeling)
Your reading is based on an implication: As speaking doesn't fall ideally into one of the basic action categories then it's not an action.
Well, when it could easily be spelled out as a free action you can take whenever you can act, it's the sensible conclusion IMO.
First, speaking is an action (in common English). Also, I don't think there's any other example of a character "acting" by doing something that is not an action. So your reading creates a whole thing on its own which is not covered by the rules.
My interpretation tries to put Speaking into the closest box: Free actions.
Well BREATHING and holding your breath are actions in English so I'm not sure how far that gets you. As to "acting", holding your breath fits that. IMO, not an action is what fits, especially a it'd need a specific trumps general exception by a rule that could have pointed out that it's free.
FEffects: "Anything you do in the game has an effect."
So the rules don't really speak of an effect without a cause. Once again, your "not an action" rule puts us in some vacuum.
Hold breath. Not everything needs to be in h action box, especially when it specifically tells you it' not an action.
I could even ask you this question: Why do you want to debate on that when I repeat after each of my posts that I don't really want? :) (smiley added as there's no bad feeling)
Well, if you REALLY meant it, you wouldn't reply. ;)
"Well, who ya gonna believe me or your own eyes?": Chico Marx
Well, when it could easily be spelled out as a free action you can take whenever you can act, it's the sensible conclusion IMO.
It's described in the action page.
Well BREATHING and holding your breath are actions in English so I'm not sure how far that gets you.
Breathing is no action, you can (and will) do it while unable to act. Holding your breath is an action, you can't do it if you can't act.
There's a notion of "you can't act". Anything you can do while under this condition is definitely not an action. Anything you can't do while under this condition is a good candidate for being an action.Hold breath. Not everything needs to be in h action box, especially when it specifically tells you it' not an action.
I consider holding one's breath to be a free action. I won't allow a character to hold their breath in response to the use of an inhaled poison and get away with it. So it's a free action to me.
I do think the in game concept of "action" is pretty close to what most people will consider an "action".Well, if you REALLY meant it, you wouldn't reply. ;)
I haven't said I wanted not to reply, I said I'd prefer to avoid the debate. But you insist, and I feel drawn to it, not because I like that but because I don't want to lie and say "Ok, I'm wrong" to stop the debate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't said I wanted not to reply, I said I'd prefer to avoid the debate. But you insist, and I feel drawn to it, not because I like that but because I don't want to lie and say "Ok, I'm wrong" to stop the debate.
What I try to do for that now is wording to the effect of, 'I have stated my position and I stand by my previous statements'.
It's described in the action page.
Sounds like the perfect place to explain what is and isn't an action. Where would you want a non-action placed? I'm not seeing this as an indicator of either.
Well BREATHING and holding your breath are actions in English so I'm not sure how far that gets you.
Breathing is no action
I know but it falls under the common use of an action, which contradicts your 'if it's an action for common use, it must be an in-game action'.
I consider holding one's breath to be a free action. I won't allow a character to hold their breath in response to the use of an inhaled poison and get away with it. So it's a free action to me.
I do think the in game concept of "action" is pretty close to what most people will consider an "action".
You might consider holding one's breath to be a free action, but that isn't how the game thinks of it. This'd mean if someone is pulled into water outside of their turn, say a Bregdi pulls you underwater, you instantly fall unconscious and start suffocating. At the very least, I'd treat it as a free action with a trigger for obviously dangerous situations.
But you insist, and I feel drawn to it, not because I like that but because I don't want to lie and say "Ok, I'm wrong" to stop the debate.
Well, we're similar then because "I don't want to lie and say "Ok, I'm wrong" to stop the debate" too.
I know but it falls under the common use of an action, which contradicts your 'if it's an action for common use, it must be an in-game action'.
I don't consider breathing an action. But we may face cultural differences then.
You might consider holding one's breath to be a free action, but that isn't how the game thinks of it. This'd mean if someone is pulled into water outside of their turn, say a Bregdi pulls you underwater, you instantly fall unconscious and start suffocating. At the very least, I'd treat it as a free action with a trigger for obviously dangerous situations.
Well, looks like this one is complicated (as you shouldn't be able to avoid an inhaled poison by holding your breath just when it is used).
Well, we're similar then because "I don't want to lie and say "Ok, I'm wrong" to stop the debate" too.
Well, this time I stop the debate. In my opinion, we are heading nowhere anyway.
I don't consider breathing an action. But we may face cultural differences then.
There are active breathing methods/techniques: The breathing muscles are controlled automatically from the brainstem during normal breathing but can also be controlled voluntarily from the motor cortex. You couldn't hold your breath if you can't control your breathing. Heck THINKING in game can be an action [Envision activation: This component is a specific image or phenomenon you need to imagine.].
Well, this time I stop the debate. In my opinion, we are heading nowhere anyway.
No problem then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The four types of actions are single actions, activities, free actions, and reactions. Even though talking has the auditory trait and cannot be performed if you can't act, is not a type of action, so it is therefore not even a free action. Talking has no impact on whether you can satisfy "If your next/last action" effects.
Is there anything within the rules or official FAQ that specifically states action sequences (the "if the next/last action" statements specifically) are self contained to a given turn?
No?
Then in my games they aren't.