The target gains a +2 morale bonus on attack rolls and weapon damage rolls, 1d6 temporary hit points, and a +4 morale bonus on saving throws against fear effects and to the DC of Intimidate checks attempted against her. Once per round, the target can select one other creature to gain this bonus as well.
The question is. Where it says "Once per round, the target can select one other creature to gain this bonus as well."
What kind of action is used "Once Per Round"?
As the Spell mentions no kind of action (standard, move,swift) I would say I takes a free action (or no action at all).
If it would say "once per turn" you could only choose to spread the effect when it's your turn.
As it says once per round I'm inclined to say that the target can spread the effect whenever he wants in any given round.
Example (how I understand it):
Round 1
My turn:
I cast Contagious Zeal on myself
Round 2
My turn again:
I choose to spread the effect to my party's barbarian.
Round 3
Enemy's turn, before its my turn again:
I have witnessed him using fear effects and I expect him to use it on the fighter, as the fighter dealt massive damage to the enemy in his turn.
I choose to spread the effect to the fighter (basically interrupting the enemy) to bolster him against a possible fear effect.
My turn:
I can't spread the effect, as I already did this round, so I'll have to wait till at least top of the initiative order (Beginning Round 4) to spread it again.
That's how I would rule it, but I might corrected. I could be wrong about being able to spread the effect when it's not your turn.
RAI may be, that you can only do so when it's your turn, and the "once per round" limitation was written to prevent some ready-action-shennanigans. Since it RAW takes no action to spread the effect, if it would only say once per turn you could theoretically on your turn (e.g. initiative 20) spread the effect, ready an action to go off let's say after the barbarian (e.g. initiative 15) and when this action triggers it would be a new turn allowing you to spread it again.
As the Spell mentions no kind of action (standard, move,swift) I would say I takes a free action (or no action at all).
The counterargument is that the spell doesn't say that selecting another person who will gain the spell benefits is a free action, so it defaults to a standard action.
It is hard to evaluate what was the intended balance.
Looking at the "level" row, most characters will be able to cast it at level 5.
For a level 3 spell (level 2 for some classes), being able to spread the effect for free is a bit too powerful.
On the other hand, spending a standard action is a too steep cost.
For comparison, Hast, one of the strongest 3rd-level spells, can affect 1 creature/level from the start, but they must all be valid targets and within a 30' spare ("Targets one creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart").
In my playing group that has required characters to delay their initiative and stay in a compact formation until the wizard or bard was able to cast the spell.
Honestly, I don't know what is the intended action you need to use. For my gaming group, I probably would go for a swift action.
I am fairly sure that you can't spread the spell outside your turn during the round. Things that can be done outside of your turn have specific permission, and this spell doesn't give it.
contagious zeal:E3
the spell doesn't state an explicit action/time. So... time to review the basics to see if it is there...
see Magic Basics Aiming a Spell, Some spells allow you to redirect the effect to new targets or areas after you cast the spell. Redirecting a spell is a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Yeah, worse than most Home Rulez but... there it is. Move action, does not provoke.
It is important to note that the first target gets to choose, not anyone else (aka do not initially target your martials that rely on movement).
Looking at the spell description it says once per round the target can select one other creature to gain the bonus as well.
The description does not say that the target can grant the bonus, it says one other creature gains the bonus. To me this indicates it does not require any effort from the target for it to happen. If that is the case it would not require any sort of action to spread. The name of the spell is Contagious Zeal, which kind of reinforces the idea that this is something that just happens. This is how I would have it, but there does not seem to be any clear RAW interpretation.
I disagree with the idea that it is spreading for free makes it more powerful. The spell only affects a single target in the first round, and only adds one beneficiary per round after that. That makes it less powerful than most group buffs. Haste for example will affect the same number of targets but affects all of them in the first round. With Contagious Zeal it takes a lot longer to affect the full number of targets. For example, a 5th level caster casting Haste will affect 5 targets for 5 rounds, which means 25 rounds of effect. Compare that to Contagious Zeal and that spell only get 15 rounds of effect.
The question is. Where it says "Once per round, the target can select one other creature to gain this bonus as well."
What kind of action is used "Once Per Round"?
It is not an action. As long as it's your turn or you're otherwise able to take actions (and you haven't otherwise done it during the round), you can choose a recipient to benefit from the spell's effects for the remaining duration. You can't use it as a reaction or immediate action. You could Ready an action to do so at some later triggering action, but that would require a standard action to Ready even though normally doing so wouldn't be an action.
Looking at the spell description it says once per round the target can select one other creature to gain the bonus as well.
The description does not say that the target can grant the bonus, it says one other creature gains the bonus. To me this indicates it does not require any effort from the target for it to happen. If that is the case it would not require any sort of action to spread. The name of the spell is Contagious Zeal, which kind of reinforces the idea that this is something that just happens. This is how I would have it, but there does not seem to be any clear RAW interpretation.
I disagree with the idea that it is spreading for free makes it more powerful. The spell only affects a single target in the first round, and only adds one beneficiary per round after that. That makes it less powerful than most group buffs. Haste for example will affect the same number of targets but affects all of them in the first round. With Contagious Zeal it takes a lot longer to affect the full number of targets. For example, a 5th level caster casting Haste will affect 5 targets for 5 rounds, which means 25 rounds of effect. Compare that to Contagious Zeal and that spell only get 15 rounds of effect.
Counterargument: Haste is limited to a 30ì sphere. A way smaller area than that covered by "Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)" plus your movement. And it allows you to target creatures that were invalid targets at the start of the spell (like a stealthed or invisible friend).
"The name of the spell is Contagious Zeal, which kind of reinforces the idea that this is something that just happens." Following that idea, it would "happen" to the nearest valid target, not someone you choose.
I think we can only agree that we will disagree on how it works. Too little information in the spell.
Azothath has a good argument about retargeting a spell and the only relevant rule citation.
Looking at the spell description it says once per round the target can select one other creature to gain the bonus as well.
The description does not say that the target can grant the bonus, it says one other creature gains the bonus. To me this indicates it does not require any effort from the target for it to happen. If that is the case it would not require any sort of action to spread. The name of the spell is Contagious Zeal, which kind of reinforces the idea that this is something that just happens. This is how I would have it, but there does not seem to be any clear RAW interpretation.
I disagree with the idea that it is spreading for free makes it more powerful. The spell only affects a single target in the first round, and only adds one beneficiary per round after that. That makes it less powerful than most group buffs. Haste for example will affect the same number of targets but affects all of them in the first round. With Contagious Zeal it takes a lot longer to affect the full number of targets. For example, a 5th level caster casting Haste will affect 5 targets for 5 rounds, which means 25 rounds of effect. Compare that to Contagious Zeal and that spell only get 15 rounds of effect.
Counterargument: Haste is limited to a 30ì sphere. A way smaller area than that covered by "Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)" plus your movement. And it allows you to target creatures that were invalid targets at the start of the spell (like a stealthed or invisible friend).
"The name of the spell is Contagious Zeal, which kind of reinforces the idea that this is something that just happens." Following that idea, it would "happen" to the nearest valid target, not someone you choose.
I think we can only agree that we will disagree on how it works. Too little information in the spell.
Azothath has a good argument about retargeting a spell and the only relevant rule citation.
Alternate counterpoint: This spell is most similar to a version of Good Hope that lasts for a single encounter (being round/level instead of minute/level) and doesn't affect saving throws (except against fear, to which it gives a large bonus). Good Hope is of the same spell level, though it is of course a Bard-exclusive spell and a high water mark for buff power for a spell of this level, outclassing Heroism in all ways except duration. Contagious Zeal is a way to get an AoE morale bonus across multiple party members for attacks and weapon damage, but it affects the party gradually. Having a buff come online rounds late can be the same as not receiving it at all; the delayed activation period for Contagious Zeal is already an incredible penalty to its use.
We can agree to disagree on how it works, but I have a hard time seeing the spell as ever being worth casting if spreading it is ever more than a free action. It is a more universally-available way to access party-wide morale bonuses, except that it lasts for a single fight and takes a long time to affect the entire party. I believe that is more than balanced as-is against other best in slot options (like Haste and Heroism). If you have a four member party, you can eventually just use 4 slots to grant a very similar benefit to all party members (including universally buffed saving throws) using Heroism for 10 minutes/level. Contagious Zeal could do this instead for four fights per day, but at the additional expense of activating very slowly. If you were required to use a standard (or even a move) action to spread it each turn, it wouldn't even succeed in the small number of niche cases that favor it. If the party has a Cleric or Warpriest and lacks a Wizard, Sorcerer, or Bard, then Contagious Zeal might be the best option to fill in that gap even if it does a worse job at it, much like using Blessing of Fervor in lieu of Haste or Hallucinogenic Smoke in lieu of Stinking Cloud.
commentary -
I'd want the spell to have a little better action economy (for a Third level spell the bonus is very good) but this is the Rules Forum and that is what Paizo did (move actn & !provoke). Not all spells are created equal. Basically, "as is", it is about wisdom in choosing a first target.
I find it humorous that the writer basically didn't understand or intentionally followed the norms hobbling the first target (who is likely the caster themselves as they don't move much and generally don't use full actions to attack). Maybe it got its action economy clipped in editing. With most parties being 4, that's just 3 rounds of selection which is not a big hindrance so the party will get the benefit IF the combat lasts that long(lol). Notice the spell midway suddenly assumes it will be used on allies which could have been an original restriction before editing.
You can Home Rule it as needed.
It is the same level as Prayer:E3 40ft rad +1/-1, which is iconic and a good spell.
note: "!" is used for not/does not. I tried ¬ & 🛇.
Both Haste and Contagious Zeal are 3rd level spells. Both have a range of short and a duration of 1 round per level. The benefits from Haste are a lot stronger than those granted by Contagious Zeal. Both spells can affect up to 1 target per level, but Haste has the advantage of being able to grant its bonus to all targets at once. At caster level 5 Haste affects 5 targets for 5 rounds giving you 25 rounds of effect, Contagious Zeal on the other had will have 15 rounds of effect. 1 Target gets 5 rounds, 1 target gets 4 rounds, 1 target gets 3 rounds etc.… Haste is definitely the stronger spell.
If it takes a standard action to grant the bonus the original target is pretty much unable to do anything but grant the bonus and move. That further reduces the number of targets that can gain the bonus. That means that the original target of the spell cannot act and grant the bonus in the same round. So, now at caster level 5 you only get 11 rounds of effect compared to 25 from haste. If Contagious Zeal works this way it should not be a 3rd level spell.
Alternate counterpoint: This spell is most similar to a version of Good Hope that lasts for a single encounter (being round/level instead of minute/level) and doesn't affect saving throws (except against fear, to which it gives a large bonus). Good Hope is of the same spell level, though it is of course a Bard-exclusive spell and a high water mark for buff power for a spell of this level, outclassing Heroism in all ways except duration.
They are of the same spell level. Compare things within the same class.
Both Haste and Contagious Zeal are 3rd level spells. Both have a range of short and a duration of 1 round per level. The benefits from Haste are a lot stronger than those granted by Contagious Zeal. Both spells can affect up to 1 target per level, but Haste has the advantage of being able to grant its bonus to all targets at once. At caster level 5 Haste affects 5 targets for 5 rounds giving you 25 rounds of effect, Contagious Zeal on the other had will have 15 rounds of effect. 1 Target gets 5 rounds, 1 target gets 4 rounds, 1 target gets 3 rounds etc.… Haste is definitely the stronger spell.
If it takes a standard action to grant the bonus the original target is pretty much unable to do anything but grant the bonus and move. That further reduces the number of targets that can gain the bonus. That means that the original target of the spell cannot act and grant the bonus in the same round. So, now at caster level 5 you only get 11 rounds of effect compared to 25 from haste. If Contagious Zeal works this way it should not be a 3rd level spell.
As Azatoth explained with the only rule citation, it is a move action to retarget the spell:
the spell doesn't state an explicit action/time. So... time to review the basics to see if it is there...
see Magic Basics Aiming a Spell, Some spells allow you to redirect the effect to new targets or areas after you cast the spell. Redirecting a spell is a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Yeah, worse than most Home Rulez but... there it is. Move action, does not provoke.
It is important to note that the first target gets to choose, not anyone else (aka do not initially target your martials that rely on movement).
To disprove his point, you must cite something that disproves it.
Alternate counterpoint: This spell is most similar to a version of Good Hope that lasts for a single encounter (being round/level instead of minute/level) and doesn't affect saving throws (except against fear, to which it gives a large bonus). Good Hope is of the same spell level, though it is of course a Bard-exclusive spell and a high water mark for buff power for a spell of this level, outclassing Heroism in all ways except duration.
They are of the same spell level. Compare things within the same class.
School enchantment (compulsion) [emotion, mind-affecting]; Level bard 3, skald 3
Yes. This is why my post references Good Hope as the absolute top of the line benchmark; it essentially a stronger than natural option as a 3rd-level buff spell, which Bards gain access to at L7. It would be concerning for any 3rd-level buff spell (of any class) to place above this upon examination, so there are no issues aside from establishing the maximum value from a 3rd-level spell slot used to buff.
I also compare Heroism to alternative 3rd-level options available to other classes. On par with duration is Haste, a spell that buffs multiple targets simultaneously (though even if it applied the buff at the same rate, the effect of Haste is stronger). Exceeding the statistical benefits of Contagious Zeal is Heroism, a spell which provides an equivalent morale bonus to a more desirable set of rolls, and lasts for 10 minutes/level. It can only target a single creature, but due to its duration, it has a casting time in battle of "no actions" when used to pre-buff. You could use Contagious Zeal, spending 1 standard action (at a premium, as the earliest actions in battle are the most important and getting up Contagious Zeal early is essential to its function) in each of 4 fights (I am treating this behavior from my perspective, the most favorable case for Contagious Zeal, and not adding on the suggested action cost per additional target to spread), or you could use Heroism 4 times to provide its benefits to 4 party members, spending zero actions in battle to apply the buff and likely sustaining them through many fights. Depending on the table playstyle, this could last an entire dungeon. In a worst-case scenario, it could theoretically fail to provide any benefit (if the party encounters nothing, because the buffs were cast too early or the party takes a very long time moving between locations), though that does not match my personal experiences nor a majority of those I've seen expressed as to how dungeon exploration typically goes, especially in published modules and APs.
Additionally, I provided the cases of Hallucinogenic Smoke and Blessing of Fervor as spells that mimic more desirable effects one spell level higher on "weaker" spell lists. Air Walk vs. Fly is another such comparison. None of these spells are identical, but they occupy many of the same tactical niches. A spell that requires 1 standard action to begin and 1 move action (at a rate of no more than once per round) to affect each additional party member is no longer competing for an alternative tactical niche to Heroism. It is simply too much worse to warrant consideration.
It all depends on how highly you evaluate a +2 to damage rolls (Heroism doesn't give it), +4 to saves vs Fear, and a +4 to the DC of Intimidate (AFAIK, nothing does that directly), against a +2 to save and skilled (both excellent benefits).
The +1d6 temporary hit points are almost negligible.
It is not a top-of-the-line spell, but it can be worth it for a class (like a wizard) that mostly uses standard actions (I am using Azatoth interpretation).
BTW, where I say that you can't give the bonus to another creature in the first round?
If doing that uses a move action (or even a free action as some people wish), the only limitation is "Once per round, the target can select one other creature to gain this bonus as well."
As Azathoth explained with the only rule citation, it is a move action to retarget the spell:
...
To disprove his point, you must cite something that disproves it.
Merely citing a rule doesn't mean it is germane to the specific instance, even if what's being cited is true, when it can be pointed out that what is being cited is not necessarily linked to the question. (Nothing against the citation or Azothath's view on whether it should be a move, a standard, a swift, or no action at all, only pointing out that it isn't a monolithic and definitive answer.)
There is a difference between redirecting a spell effect, and a spell or effect that has other targets or things being included in it after the fact. Telling a spiritual weapon to focus on a new target is redirecting the spell, moving a flaming sphere around could count as redirecting it, moving an illusion within its area of effect can be considered redirecting.
Space Saver:
-------------------------------------------
When you use call lightning and call down a bolt (as a standard action) each round, that is not redirecting the spell, that's just using the spell. The spell hasn't been moved to a new target, it's just affecting a different one (this round).
Contagious Zeal reads more like how 3.X's Dodge feat worked, where its bonus only applied again one opponent, but you could choose the opponent it applied to anytime on your turn. The target can just choose another creature to share in the spell's effect once per round, and the effect spreads contagiously. This is not redirecting the spell at all or changing its target to a different target (whether it takes an action or not). The fact that redirecting a spell is stated as using a move-action is not applicable, since it isn't what's happening. That said, it can still be debated what action is required.
I, however, feel that the way it's written is clear that it's just a choice made by the target once per round and (unless their choice makes a save against the harmless effect of contagious zeal), the new target is just included in the effects.
For me, it's akin to nature's paths, where you cast it on a target and they go wandering off across the desert (completely away from you, leaving you behind) towards some city on the other side, and they bring along 4 other people with them that all benefit (up to one other creature per your caster level, let's assume you're 5th). Then, halfway across the desert, they meet two other people and those people talk about a bandit camp way off in some other direction. So then your target of nature's paths changes his destination and heads that way, and still benefits. But he decides to bring those two new people along, and leaves the other four who were gaining all the benefits behind to continue their way towards the city (at a slower pace). He isn't redirecting the spell or its effects. He's still the target, there's just other people or things being affected at that particular time. It's not an action for him to choose it (though he does have to choose who will benefit). And he can do this as many times as he wishes and to whomever, whenever, he wishes during the duration and neither he nor you, the caster, have to expend any actions during any of this time.
It's akin to using path of glory, where every round you can just choose to have the affected area extend around you. Yes, that takes a swift action, as stated, but that doesn't mean that it's just a Redirect a Spell action with a different action cost. It's not redirecting the spell, it's just what the spell does with the cost it states.
It's like looking at the magic item bubble vault. We can clearly read that the command word to retrieve it must be spoken three times within 30 feet of it. No reasonable reader should assume that you have to wait 6 seconds between speaking the command word, even if we can look at and cite that a Command Word use of an item is a standard action that doesn't provoke an AoO. We can assume it works that way when you send it down, but not that you have to wait 18 seconds to a say "Arise!" (or whatever the word is) three time over three rounds. Or that if someone just happens to be standing on the shore and speaks the word once, even unknowingly, that they suddenly lose their standard action and go, "That's weird... that word I said must be a magical command word for some magical item in this area. I say it again next round."
That would be absurd. I would make a dozen relatively harmless magical objects with various common words an enemy or opponent might say, and as long as they were in a reasonable range (because the rules say they can be accidently triggered by the words being spoken), they've now attempted a standard action and have lost their action for the round, because I made an object that glows on and turns off when someone speaks the command word "You" or "The" within 30 feet. It's not common sense or reasonable, even citing the specific, real, and correct ruling. Not when you look at the specific instance, spell, or object being discussed.
-------------------------------------------
Contagious zeal's effects are not redirecting a spell, and do not fall under the purview of its action cost. That can certainly be cited as a rubric, but it does not require citing some other rule to dispute it, only a reasonable, common sense observation that it doesn't strictly apply to the case being looked at.
Does that mean it shouldn't be a move action? Or a standard, or a swift, or free, or even no action? That's certainly debatable, but claiming that because someone cites something, that means it's inviolate and must be unquestionably accepted is not.
My view is, the way the choice is written and referred to in the spell, is that it's not an action, it's just something being chosen and does not have an action listed. But that does not mean it defaults to what a spell or other action that it isn't would default to, any more than citing that an attack action defaults to standard or casting a spell is normally a standard action that provokes. This specific thing is not either of those, nor is it Redirecting a Spell.
BTW, where I say that you can't give the bonus to another creature in the first round?
This is true. There's nothing stating the target can't do this on the same round they receive the spell effect. Whether it's the caster or not, they can cast contagious zeal and, as long as it's their turn to make the choice (whether it costs an action or not), they can apply it to an additional target. So it would seem the caster can actually potentially affect two targets with the spell within the first round of casting, and then an additional target (if the original target wishes) each additional round.
The only thing stopping it would be the GM declaring it to cost an action that they don't have. Taking that into account, a caster using contagious zeal on an ally gives them full duration of the effect, then on that ally's turn (assuming it's in the same round, just after the casting), they apply it to someone else (maybe the caster), who will potentially benefit from it for the full duration as well. Next round, the original target adds another, and so on. I'd still prefer haste myself, but if the situation called for contagious zeal (which I've never used or seen used), it's not quite as bad, considering a typical 4 person party.
Merely citing a rule doesn't mean it is germane to the specific instance, ...
implying I state random-ish RAW is kinda not-so-nice
I think it is obvious that it is redirecting (some) spell effects while the spell effects also (separately) remain on the first target. RAW is going to be rather difficult to ignore or argue it is not applicable/germane or somehow different as there is no contrary wording in the spell description (and that is the "problem").
I have posted comments on Game Balance and Practical usage to help GMs and casters. Some GMs will tweak it as they want to help their players (not a bad thing). IMO lowering the action to affect another target faster than a swift action makes the spell overpowered. I think the spell is fine "as is" with good initial target selection as the bonus is more than double the usual and another spell can double existing morale bonuses... besides, the caster (as first target) can select another target after casting to complete his std & mov actions with only 2 more rounds to cover 4 party members. Is it really that onerous or are we just nitpicking to nitpick?
implying I state random-ish RAW is kinda not-so-nice
First of all, no one implied that. No one said it was random. No one said it in an impolite or not so nice way.
Pizza Lord wrote:
(Nothing against the citation or Azothath's view on whether it should be a move, a standard, a swift, or no action at all, only pointing out that it isn't a monolithic and definitive answer.)
To Azothath: Because it's getting off-topic:
----------------------------------
Unless you're somehow saying that because someone implies your view on a subject is not the Be-All-End-All, Word-of-God, Absolute answer is being 'not-so-nice'. That is some issue I am not even delving into, and I would reiterate that you're misreading and misinterpreting that reply to someone else's post.
I could obviously point out that when someone's first response and instinct to someone with a perceived different of opinion is to declare to all, far and wide, on the forums that the person with an opposing opinion clearly must be 'not-so-nice' and that, by definition, means their opinions, viewpoints, thoughts, comments, and examples are not even worth addressing in a reply to them at all... is kind of similarly disappointing to observe. When you then just repeat that your opinion 'is so obvious' that clearly no one could find a flaw or opposing point of view that it doesn't even bear addressing and just continue on why you have your opinion when no one was questioning your opinion or your reasons for it. You made no effort to participate in a discussion or address anything from the post your replying to.
In fact, it was very clearly said in response to someone else using the fact that it's merely being a citation as a definitive and discussion-ending absolute was the issue.
It has some tangential relationship to the conversation, to actions, to spells. But a spell doing what it does is not 'Redirecting a Spell'. No one is claiming you just made a random rule citation like,
Quote:
You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions.
And somehow you claimed it was a swift action. That would be random.
Your posting of the Redirect entry was fine as a basis for your opinion on what you think would be fair, in your game. No one is questioning your belief in that. I don't agree with Diego's use of it as a bludgeon against everyone else. I think that how the Redirect a Spell action listing relates to how the contagious zeal spell works; its mechanics and intent, is not at all similar because I don't view it as redirecting a spell's effects. And then I even gave examples of why and how. Maybe others agree, maybe they don't.
It was when someone else tried to use your citation as a reason that no one else could have an opinion on it that was the issue without them having to specifically cite some other rule that was somehow made to specifically address contagious zeal when it's both known, accepted, and encouraged that players use common sense, reasoning, and looking at the intent and design of specific things before falling to the 'General Rules must always be followed' logic.
I don't think it's an action. Once per round, the target chooses a new person to be included in the benefits of the spell. That is not Redirecting. Once per round, as a standard action after casting call lightning can call down a bolt of lightning. Once per round, as a swift action, you can use eyebite on a target, even if you've already hit a different target last round and they're still being affected by it. That's not Redirecting (tm) the spell. You are perfectly welcome to claim you think it's such an action based on Redirect or a developer post, or the Magic 8-Ball. But when someone else claims that because no one else has an 'official' Magic 8-Ball' they can't use their own judgement, that's an issue.
So, just to be clear, despite being very clear in the above post, no one is being mean because of your opinion. And no one was being mean to Diego for using your opinion as a bludgeon. Pointing out the perceived flaws in his response was just sharing thoughts and contributing to the ongoing debate and discussion.
------------------------------------------------
Azothath wrote:
IMO lowering the action to affect another target faster than a swift action makes the spell overpowered. I think the spell is fine "as is"
That's fine. I read your posts and thought that was a fine opinion to have (we can debate your view on what 'as is' means, since clearly there's differing opinions). I don't agree. I can see why you have it. I do not agree that it is Redirecting a Spell effect, so I am not using that as a basis for my opinion. It's as silly as if you said teleport trap costs the caster a standard action when it triggers and someone's teleport effect is 'redirected'. And then you quote Redirect a Spell, and then quote that teleport trap specifically uses the word 'redirect', and that clearly there's a spell being redirected. Every single one of those things can be true, and cited, and quoted, and it still would be silly for someone to say that no one else can point out that it might just not apply in that case because there's a general citation.
You are welcome to start a new thread on what Redirecting a Spell effect means and bring all sorts of different spells into question and have people comment on what is and isn't Redirecting a Spell. Again, I gave examples of my reasons.
@Pizza Lord, there is a huge difference between the word redirect in a description and redirect in a RAW term.
I hope you know that that comparrision doesnt count and nobody who has the last bit of knowledge about the rules would ever read it like that and that you just used a really bad example.
If there is an action to use (and non action is an action for that) to do something (and even speaking as an action) it has to be in the description of the feat/spell/ability.
If thats not the case you have to look for a general rule that covers it.
Like the using of all abilites is a standard action, unless otherwise noted.
If you look at the spell you wont find an action in its description. As said above, if you missing a specific rule/action, you have to look for a general rule, if you like it or not, thats how things work.
That may not be RAI in some cases, but its how rules work.
So you can argue, its a move action like redirecting a spell or using an ability (that the spell gives you) and its a standard action.
And spells can give abilitys like form of the dragon and breath weapon.
There is no action in the spells description for the ability which action you have to use, so you might argue that it can be used as a non-action.
Even breath weapons in general doesnt say what action a breath weapon is, and there are monsters with full-round, standard, move and swift action breath weapons.
So you look for the genreal rule (cause there is no specific rule) and you will find out: Using and ability is a standard action, so if you wanna use the breath weapon that you get from form of the dragon, you have to use a standard action.
And I'm pretty sure most if not all have ruled it that way.
If you start to argue: "no mentioned action in the spell means a "non-action", than the breath weapon of form of the dragon (which doesnt mention an action) should also be a non-action and thats not something which sounds or feels right.
So either you redirect Contagiuos Zeal(move action) or you say the spell gives you the ability to share it (standard action).
Thats the only thing that the rules cover and you can debate what of the two cases is right.
I never used the spell and i would have said standard action, cause every action that doesnt have an specific action is a standard action.
Thanks to Azothath I was remined that you could also say that it gets redirect, which makes the spell more worth it.
Since there's no specific/explicit wording in the spell it is common practice to review the basics to see if the information is detailed there (a case of general rules). In this case it is there (see my first post) and it is pretty clear. So without other RAW directives and using Rules Forum practice it should be used. That's all. It's just a Game and that's what the rules say (as far as I can figure out/reference at this point).
The rules are in descriptive english so there's always going to be wiggle room as to exactly what it means. People have done the same with other books as to what's right or just for many many years... I've advocated that the game is a Work of Art and not a Technical Manual for several decades (obviously including previous editions). The Game also requires a GM to interpret the inconsistent and somewhat eccentric rules (as it is a Work of Art using a descriptive model). I'll add that the rules are not always indexed that well, it's a complicated and somewhat messy system.
It is also common practice to fill in the apparent or real lack of RAW direction with Home Game rules and posters/people are trying to be helpful. I just wish they'd review RAW before posting in *this* forum (I didn't do anything special in my first post, just a standard process). So if you want to post helpful info or advice and advocate it, that's fine, but we do try to stick to simple RAW in the Rules Forum if it is available. It is also valuable to compare spells as that brings added insight.
I've commented more than enough in this thread so hopefully readers will review the whole thread and make their decisions.
I hope you know that that comparrision doesnt count and nobody who has the last bit of knowledge about the rules would ever read it like that and that you just used a really bad example.
No, that's why it is the perfect example. Because it is obvious that no one should be forced to accept it, even though you can quote exact wording and make direct, and 100% true statements about why it counts as redirecting a spell. Thank you for proving the point, which is that because you can cite something, even something completely true, does not make it the absolute correct answer (for an opinion) and more specifically, that no one else could possibly have their own valid point.
Ju-Mo. wrote:
So you can argue, its a move action like redirecting a spell or using an ability (that the spell gives you) and its a standard action.
Exactly, except that I am arguing that it very specifically is not Redirecting a Spell action, and thus using that as definitive, debate-stifling decree is not persuasive. However, stating that no one else can have any possible reason for having a differing opinion (which is what Diego Rossi, not Azothath, implied), is not arguing. It is not letting others share their thoughts in a good faith discussion without being preemptively belittled for wanting to speak up (or as a backhand dismissal for those that have). He didn't say "Azothath makes a good point on why his opinion makes sense" or "I think that rule citing is persuasive". It was equivalently "This rules citation must be countered with a similarly Divinely-mandated rules citation to even be considered" that is the issue. I think pointing out that it doesn't apply to this specific mechanic of this specific spell is an equally fair point of refutal.
Space Saver:
----------------------------------------------
Ju-Mo. wrote:
So you look for the genreal rule (cause there is no specific rule) and you will find out: Using and ability is a standard action,
This is the problem with your argument. You cite and point out something that is true, and then try to equate or link it to what is being discussed specifically that is not necessarily correlated.
Using an ability is typically an action... except when it's not, in a reasonably understood and common sense use. Spider climb gives you an ability. The ability to climb walls, the ability of a Climb speed. Using the spell is neither Directing it towards a wall when you decide to climb it or Redirecting it towards the ceiling when you get to the top of the wall and want to hang upside-down. Nor is it an action to use it. Not a standard, not a move, not a swift. It is part of making another action, most notably moving with a move action, but it is not an action to use the ability.
That is 100% true. Does that mean that suddenly NO ABILITIES REQUIRE AN ACTION?! Of course not! But some actions, such as breathing (which can be done purposefully), not breathing/holding your breath, blinking, or deciding you're in the mood for a hamburger (ie. choosing something) are not actions. It equally doesn't mean that such actions, which are undeniably free action and don't require an action, are always free either, such as when breathing from a bottle of air.
A player can nod their head to a companion and it need not be a move action or cost a standard action. It can even be done as part of another action, such as when you're grappling an opponent or running past them. A GM can certainly say there's a limit to how many times you can nod your head or blink in one round (at which point they might say it uses up an action), but that doesn't make every action cost an 'x-equivalent action'. You certainly must be able to act to nod your head, you must be able to actively make a choice to make a choice, but that doesn't make every action default to a standard action because the design team didn't want to list every single possible action that could occur. They very reasonably said, "Some things aren't actions or take any actual effort or time. Use common sense." If you need something cited, then take that to heart.
It is like any of the spell examples I gave, or even like dancing lights where they move as you desire. All that spell says it 'no concentration required'. It doesn't give an action, but suddenly we're to assume from the intent and the wording that it takes a standard action or a move action (just not one requiring 'concentration on the spell', which is a defined action with a cost), because they're either using an 'ability' of the spell or redirecting it? And that those are the only two possible determinations that would every be allowed or acceptable by RAW?! Poppycock to you declaring that is the only possible thing in the entire world that could be concluded as being an equivalent action to making a choice to include someone.
Telepathy gives you an ability (let's call it Telepathy). That lets you, using the spell, communicate telepathically with creatures within 100 feet. You can use that ability, to talk to one, two, or more creatures, even multiple at the same time. If you direct one message to one creature, than another message to another (because you didn't want to give the same message to both, otherwise you'd just include them together), THAT IS NOT REDIRECTING A SPELL! It's just doing what the spell allows you to do. It doesn't give an action required either (it states that holding multiple conversations with 'talking' and listening being as difficult as having a real conversation, but that is not declaring an action). Common sense reading tells us that it shouldn't be an action, even though by your example you're using an ability and it should require a standard action, because one isn't stated.
I apologize if my examples are so dead-on that it's obvious why they're being used as examples, because doing it the other way would obviously be outrageously strange and contrary to how things should work and that it's obvious that's why [not everything] is done that way. That does not make them bad examples. It makes them the perfect examples. I, however, am not going to tell others that they can't come to their own conclusion using their own reasonings.
----------------------------------------------
Ju-Mo wrote:
So either you redirect Contagiuos Zeal(move action) or you say the spell gives you the ability to share it (standard action).
Oh, thank you. It's very nice of you to lay out the only possible way anyone is allowed to have an opinion. The only two possible choices. One of them being that, despite numerous reasons and explanations of why this specific mechanic of this specific spell is not Redirecting a Spell. It is not Redirecting a Spell. Yes, the target of contagious zeal must be able to act, and must be able to actively choose to include a new person in the spell's effect, that does not make the act of choosing equal a standard Action or a move action. It may, it may not, but because it's Redirecting a Spell is not the reason.
The counterargument is that the spell doesn't say that selecting another person who will gain the spell benefits is a free action, so it defaults to a standard action
Why do you think a standard action is the default in this case? I’d say it’s a “not an action”.
The counterargument is that the spell doesn't say that selecting another person who will gain the spell benefits is a free action, so it defaults to a standard action
Why do you think a standard action is the default in this case? I’d say it’s a “not an action”.
Azothath and Ju-Mo have made good arguments. After what they wrote, I think it is a move action.
The rule about retargeting a spell is the closest thing to a rule about adding targets to a spell that we have.
Normally the spell should define when it can be done and what action it entails. As we have nothing we should default to the closest actual rule.
A side point:
Contagious Zeal is a valid spell for a potion. Seeing how it works, in potion form it is more useful than other spells that target multiple creatures, as the person who imbibes it can still share the benefit with other people.
It is curious to have a spell that is more useful as a potion than as a cast spell. Sadly, an Alchemist can't learn it. An extract of it would be good.
No, that's why it is the perfect example. Because it is obvious that no one should be forced to accept it, even though you can quote exact wording and make direct, and 100% true statements about why it counts as redirecting a spell. Thank you for proving the point, which is that because you can cite something, even something completely true, does not make it the absolute correct answer (for an opinion) and more specifically, that no one else could possibly have their own valid point.
No its a nonsense example.
You are confusing a normal word and a game term.
Even though they are the same word, they are used in a very differnt meaning.
And to be honest, if you dont know the difference, I dont have to time or motivation to explain it.
PizzaLord wrote:
Oh, thank you. It's very nice of you to lay out the only possible way anyone is allowed to have an opinion. The only two possible choices.
Well if you ask in the rules forum, how big the BAB of a Fighter 5 is, my answear would be 5.
And it would be the only true statement, you wouldnt even be given an option. Ofc in your homegame, you can get the Fighter 5 a BAB of 4 or even 10. But thats not a rules question.
I explained why there are two choices.
I prefer the choice of a standard action. It goes much more with the general rule, that if there is no action mentioned, its a standard action.
I can see Azothaths point that its only a redirect implendet in a spell, which would make it a move action. I dont know and I would never dare to say which on of these two is the right one.
But if you wanna talk rules, you only have two available.
First the genreal rule, that using abilites without an mentioned action is a standard action.
Second the rule to redirect a spell with a move action.
Thats two rules and you can chose which you wann ably. If you like you can argue days after days which is better/righter, I dont know it.
However I know (or at least I´m pretty sure) that there are no other general rules for actions.
Melkiador wrote:
Why do you think a standard action is the default in this case? I’d say it’s a “not an action”.
Because there is no rule for anything else. As far as i know, if you can do something extra with a spell (Draconic Reservoir, Fire Breath etc) there is normally an action mentioned.
If there isnt anything mentioned, like with Form of the Dragon and the breath weapon you get, than you ably the general rule:
"Is there no action mentioned, than use a standard action."
Doesnt matter if its a feat, class ability, spell or anything else.
If you need to use an action, you use either the action that mentioned or if nothing is mentioned a standard action.
So if a get the ability to do something thanks to a spell, it doesnt matter WHAT, but I have to use an action (and non-action is an action) to do it, than I use the action that is mentioned in the spell.
So neither Form of the Dragon nor Contagious Zeal mention an action.
Both give me an ability (breath weapon/sharing the benefits) that i can use.
So I look at the only rule that I know of that tells me what to do if their isnt an action mentioned, and that rule tells me to use an standard action.
So I need to use an standard action to use the breath weapon and I need to use a standard action to share the benefits.
If anyone (PizzaLord for example) has another rule that is either more specific or has another reason to be applied, please tell me.
But please use a rule and not a:" I think its a non action, because I fell like it". Its a rules question use rules.
Azothath says that its just redirecting a spell.
Ok maybe. Thats also a rule and another way to look at it.
As said above, I dont know if its just redirecting a spell (move action) or just using an ability the spell gives me (standard action).
And I wont really argue for any one of the two sides to be honest.
Because as I see it, their is no possibilty to know which of the two rules has to be applied. For that the spell is to vague at least imo.
However it doesnt matter how much I look through the rules I dont find anything that would support a full-round, swift, immidiate, free or "non-action" action.
So:
If no action is mentioned its a standard action.
If you argue its just redirecting a spell (which can be done, but not from me) use the action (move action) you need for that.
As long as there is no other rule/possibilty to apply another rule, I dont see any other option than these two.
Contagious Zeal is a valid spell for a potion. Seeing how it works, in potion form it is more useful than other spells that target multiple creatures, as the person who imbibes it can still share the benefit with other people.
It is curious to have a spell that is more useful as a potion than as a cast spell. Sadly, an Alchemist can't learn it. An extract of it would be good.
Thats a way I would never have seen it, but you are right.
It makes a really well used potion, a Fighter while waiting for the enemy to come close can use it, to buff himself and the rouge (if its a move action), while the bard starts to sing and cast haste on them.
Only works for four rounds, however by than either herosim is applied (if its a harder fight) or the fight is over.
Its in the combat section under using a special ability.
Just open the combat section and search for "standard action".
I dont have my books at hand, so sadly I cant give you the page. However it shouldnt be that hard to find.
Its the only rule that I know of that gives a general action to interaction if their is no other action mentioned.
And as said with the breath weapon and Form of the Dragon, in nearly all cases you have to use the rule, normally it will be applied without much thought. At least in my experience, its kinda a normal thing.
Nobody would have ever argued that the breath weapon you get is anything less/other than a standard action.
I respectfully disagree that this must be a standard or move action. Under the assumption that benefits should be beneficial, if the target had to sacrifice their attack to spread the zeal, then that should have been explicit.
Argument for move: the spell is being redirected.
From aiming a spell - "Some spells allow you to redirect the effect to new targets or areas after you cast the spell. Redirecting a spell is a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity."
However, this applies to the caster. The target is the one making a selection, and that selection is not casting a spell. The spell even avoids referring to any of the additional beneficiaries as targets. The only target is the initial creature to gain benefits.
Argument for standard: if not specified, it is a standard action. Ju-mo quotes Using a special ability, but it does come up as a phrase in several places such as warpriest's using a blessing, or oracle's revelations, so it can feel like a general rule.
But the spell's effect is not a special ability, nor any of the other categories, so these defaults do not necessarily apply.
The only other spell that I could find in my totally-not-at-all-exhaustive search that had targets making per -round choices without a specified action is blessing of fervor, which similar to the warpriest minor war blessing. These choices would not make any sense if they required a standard action to choose. So a free or not an action rulings would be reasonable. One notable difference is that blessing of fervor specifies start of turn, while contagious zeal just states once per round. This would allow the selection to happen, say, after moving closer to the creature.
I think the idea (not necessarily RAW or RAI) behind the spell was for it be cast on a frontline combatant, who would then "inspire" additional allies in the fray with a direct shout out. I don't think this being a free or even not an action is unbalanced, but wouldn't say a GM ruling it as a standard action is in the wrong either.
Don't worry everyone, someday everything published in Occult Adventures will be perfectly understood, and all rule disputes definitively settled. Until then, GM's call!
However it doesnt matter how much I look through the rules I dont find anything that would support a full-round, swift, immidiate, free or "non-action" action.
So:
If no action is mentioned its a standard action.
If you argue its just redirecting a spell (which can be done, but not from me) use the action (move action) you need for that.
As long as there is no other rule/possibilty to apply another rule, I dont see any other option than these two.
What one does, in the case of something that doesn't specify, like this specific spell and topic being discussed, is they look for other examples of similar spells or feats or actions. They look for precedent. They look for existing circumstances that are more clear, that are more tested, that have been utilized and would have been called out a decade ago.
Numerous example spells have been pointed out as reasons why it would be detrimental, harshly restrictive, pointless, unbalanced (or fine), and at times silly if certain actions were required to utilize the effects of a spell, just like numerous examples of blindly and dogmatically applying a rule to a situation would be ludicrous.
Space Saver:
------------------------------------------
Analyze dweomer is a spell that you can shift your focus with. I wouldn't call it redirecting a spell, but by the parameters of Azothath or yourself, every round that's redirecting. Yet it's a free action. We know that, because the spell says so in this case. You can claim they just decided not to follow their rules, and I would say that's because it's not redirecting a spell, so it just utilizes an action (free action) that most closely resembles the amount of effort an act takes (looking at something or examining something, as opposed to studying something or appraising something or searching something).
Retrieve item requires only speaking a special word (not a command word) and snapping your fingers. It doesn't give an action, but we know the user must be able to act (specifically speak and snap their fingers) to do it. If they were tied up, gagged, or had no fingers, they couldn't use the spell's effect, regardless of whether it was a verbal or somatic spell, or if it took a free action or a full-round action.
--------------------------------------
You do not just look for the closest rule, you also look for actual, in game uses and related spells, feats, or items and how they work, how they were play-tested, how they were balanced, and how they've been understood to work despite the existence of a rule that might otherwise seem to apply. Also, while things have definitely been neglected or omitted in the works, equally often they don't get mentioned because when viewed from the design standpoints they aren't needed to be mentioned, because existing examples are in game and it's reasonable to believe someone will have seen one of the many other precedents. (It's equally likely the spell designer just assumed things worked one way or that a specific precedent applied, so... yeah, GM call in a lot of cases too.)
In this case, the target of contagious zeal can choose to include a target once per round, they can also choose not to, which is also not an action (at least, not a standard or move). The act and its required action is not casting a spell on a target, they are not making a touch attack on the target, they are not breathing a breath weapon of contagious zeal on the added target, they are not mounting a horse to imbue the additional target. They are not redirecting a spell. They are not concentrating on a spell. They are merely deciding to do so.
The required act:
----------------------------------------
No action was listed, because they stated the 'act' needed to do so. In other words, the requirement, step, ritual, or situation or activity needed by the target of the spell, to utilize the extra or added effect of the spell. If it said that once per round you could sheathe or draw a weapon to add to the effect, that's the action needed. Normally a move, but if someone had Quick Draw, drawing would be a free action and that's what's needed. The act is required, not the action (though the act might require an action).
If the required act was to move 30 feet towards the target to add them to the spell's effect, they still wouldn't need to list the type of action, because it's potentially different for each individual. For most, they would say that's a move action to benefit from the extra effect of the spell. Others, like a halfling, might require it to be a full round action, or take two move actions, or they might state that it was a standard and a move, and all would be correct. If the spell said it added the effect to any creature that the original target mounted, it still wouldn't need to list the action required. It would be whatever action mounting the new target took (which could be a free action if fast mount is used with a Ride check).
If it said the target had to blink twice at someone to include them, then that's what would need to be done. Blinking twice is not something any GM would rule as a move action or a standard action. If it said the target could point at a new target once each round and they're added, that's all they need to do.
If your GM declares that pointing is a full-round action in his game, then that's the action required (in that game, but I think we can all agree that pointing, or looking, or deciding or choosing is not generally considered an action), but also if you had some issue where pointing was not an option (or you couldn't see someone to point at them), it would be equally different for the amount of effort (or the success) of trying to point at someone. Same if they were bound and couldn't point, regardless of it being a standard, move, or even free action, they couldn't do the act. In this specific case, the only thing the target needs to do is choose to select an additional target. In this instance, if they're mentally compromised, such as confused or dazed, or even blinded and unable to select a target, that could stop them, regardless of the action or lack of an action needed to make the decision.
-----------------------------------------------
Using contagious zeal's effect is not redirecting a spell, it is not using an ability. It is just being under an effect/spell, which grants certain added and additional effects when the target does something. The action required to do that thing is not listed, because that act may or may not cost the same action for every user based on individual circumstances. Speaking a word (or multiple words), snapping your fingers, pivoting in place or even spinning in a quick circle, looking at something, holding your breath, deciding if an unknown individual that just entered the fight is considered an ally, enemy, or otherwise for the purpose of the spell you're about to cast, etc. are all things that don't necessitate the amount of effort needed to require a move action or a standard action, just like looking at a new object or creature with analyze dweomer doesn't require the expenditure of such an action. And it isn't just because they couldn't help themselves from breaking their own rules on Redirecting a Spell action, it's because it's not Redirecting a Spell and the act required is not typically worthy of an action.
Ultimately it will be the GM's call, but not because it's Redirecting a Spell or Using an ability, but because the specific act will be determined by them (though I think most can agree that making a decision is a free action, unless some mental block is imposed).
But the spell's effect is not a special ability, nor any of the other categories, so these defaults do not necessarily apply.
If it isnt an ability you get, than one could argue, that the breath weapon that you get with Form of the Dragon is also not a standard action to use. It never says that it is a SP or SU ability.
As said, it is the ONLY reference you have in the rules what to do if no action is given.
And as before, none of you can give me any other rule.
All you say is:" If its that, than it is a bad spell", which doesnt really matter in a rules question.
It doesnt really matter if you like it or not, the spell could be a spell which will never ever gets used (like some other really bad spells i have never seen in a gameplay).
For Blessing of Favor, you are right.
However if you look for the phrase: "choose" you will see that every spell that use it, doesnt use an extra action for it. Because choosing something isnt an action.
Selecting something is. It may sound the same, however as said before, game terms and normal word are different.
And to be honest, I dont think you will ever acknowledge what rules are given in this situation.
Which I kinda understand, as a standard it is really weak and as a move action its just "ok".
I would prefer to have another action that can be used, but thats not what the rules are for. My preferences are not to debate.
Only rules are, preferences are for the advice forum, or because I´m not really strict, to ask after a rules question is answered.
The question: "Which action is it?"
Can be answered with: "There is no clarification, ask you GM." (Only really true answer)
In a second sentence you can/should say:
"There are rules for using unmentioned actions, and thats always a standard action."
and/or
"There are rules for redirecting a spell, which would be a move action"
Thats the answer to this question. Nothing else has a rule backing it up.
If you want to aplly on of this two rules or not, or if you want to make a houserule, please be my guest.
But there are nor rules for it, this are just advices.
If you wanna argue, that the rule:"In doubt use standard action" doesnt work/shouldnt be apllied its ok.
As said many times above: Its the only rule I know that deals with this kind of thing. If you have another on, please share it.
If not, maybe its the right thing to do, even if you dont like it.
My only goal was to give the information that their is a rule for unmentioned action and that it COULD be apllied.
I dont really wanna discuss it, just because I think we will NEVER be on the same page.
And I bet if I ask 100 players there are 10 for this, 10 for this, 10 for this solotion, and so on. So its ok to not be on the same page.
If this spell ever comes up, I will rule it in my best knowledge and most likely with a houserule. I kinda like the move action and the potion scnario. (Maybe its wrong with the rules, but it sounds fun for me)
So their is no real use to argue the same thing over and over again.
If there is a new rule I never heard of before, I would be really pleased to learn it, until than its just: "I like this, I want this and no I dont have a rule" between a handful of people.
But the spell's effect is not a special ability, nor any of the other categories, so these defaults do not necessarily apply.
If it isnt an ability you get, than one could argue, that the breath weapon that you get with Form of the Dragon is also not a standard action to use. It never says that it is a SP or SU ability.
Form of the Dragon:
--------------------------------------------
You seem really hung up on form of the dragon. You are only reinforcing what is being said. Using the claws, bite, wings, breath weapon, natural armor, or flying granted by the spell is not part of the spell. It an an added effect of the spell, which is specifically to give you the form of the dragon and the options to act or take actions that form grants. If taking the act requires a specific action, that's the action. The recipient does not need to use a standard action to fly, they use a move action.
Even though Flying is an ability, the ability itself (because we can see how it's used in numerous examples), would be used as a move action. Similarly, we would require a standard action to attack with a claw, with a bite, with a wing, etc. But we don't require 5 standard actions to attack with them all, because we know we can make a full round action and use them all. We don't need the spell to waste wordcount telling us that using them follows the required actions for using them. Similarly, using the darkvision ability (and it is an ability) granted by the spell doesn't require a standard action, or any action other than being able to see (and it being dark). When those situation are true, the recipient of the spell gets to use it.
Regardless, form of the dragon gives the target a form, that's what it does. The form has capabilities defined by the spell, but they otherwise are treated as normal. Just like the create pit spell creates a magical hole, an extradimensional space that is not a real hole, doesn't take up the space a real hole does, etc. but when someone fails their check against it, it isn't (you fail and take 3d6 damage), it's your fail [to jump to safety] and fall, taking 3d6 damage (barring effects that reduce falling damage). It would be like you claiming that summoning a creature (that you can communicate with) and each round telling it to attack a new target is redirecting the spell. No one is claiming that (including you, because it would be silly), because attacking targets, while the main use of summon spells, is not what they do, it's summoning a creature that can act/take actions, and those actions have their own action costs.
------------------------------------------------
We don't need the spell to tell us common sense, pre-existing, or commonly existing concepts of what action an act takes (in general, obviously individuals can be confused and ask for clarification at times). We also know that the recipient of form of the dragon will receive bonuses and benefits not listed by the spell specifically, such as bonuses to CMD for having more than two legs, or you having a base speed (presumably of a medium dragon), even though the spell doesn't list granting such a thing.
Using your logic, a spell that granted you form of the choker and gave you the Quickness ability of a choker (but didn't say what action it cost), would require a standard action to gain the extra move action a choker gets per round.
