Post/Author/DateTime	Post
RayJ 12-12-05, 10:11 AM	Started looking at the wands in Complete Adventure and noticed all these swift action spells placed in spell trigger items. Are there any weird rules allowing a swift action spell to be cast through a wand as a swift action, or are most of these wands worthless? I have a daggerspell shaper that might be interested in wands of golemstrike and gravestrike if he can get the appropriate benefit. Would these same rules allow for another magic item that grants the ability with a certain number of uses per day as a swift action? As far as I'm aware command words are standard actions too.
DarknessEternal 12-12-05, 10:22 AM	Scrolls, staves, and wands use the casting time listed on the spell. Any other items require a standard action.
tarkin 12-12-05, 11:57 AM	It should be noted, that the actual rule is: Except for some significant exceptions, the default times are: Scrolls, staves and wands take one standard action or the time neccesary to cast the spell, whichever is longer. All other items usually take a standard action.
Puca 12-12-05, 12:37 PM	Tarkins right, which makes the wands worthless in instances where the spells only have a one-round duration. You cast Golem Strike (I think I have the duration of one-round correct with this exapmle) as a standard action, and you cant make another attack that round, and the spell expires at the begining of your next turn, before you can take advantage of it. The sheer uselessness of these items leads me to believe that some swift activation was intended or at least assumed, but it isnt there. :weep: Unless I suppose you are counting on getting some SA AoOs in. Just thought of that. Not completely useless, but close enough.
The_Ditto 12-12-05, 01:18 PM	[QUOTE=tarkin]Except for some significant exceptions, the default times are: Scrolls, staves and wands take one standard action or the time neccesary to cast the spell, whichever is longer. QUOTE] Be careful ... the way actual rule is specified lists the "if the spell is longer, it takes longer", is listed in brackets, and is worded such as to be more of an example of an exception .. but not the only exception. By the RAW, there is nothing that says: "Minimum standard action" .. only "usually standard action" .. and yes, most spells are "usually a standard action". Add to that, the simple fact that they published Wands of Swift action spells .. and seriously .. people .. it doesn't take a genius to connect the dots!! ;) Wand of Golem Strike = Swift action ... And agreed .. if they aren't then they are really useless .. hence 1 more reason to chalk up why they must be a swift action ...
Puca 12-12-05, 01:42 PM	Id love to agree. I think that, in the spirit of the wand, they were either meant to be swift-action, or this is a big goof. But: Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity. (If the spell being cast, however, has a longer casting time than 1 action, it takes that long to cast the spell from a wand.)It reads “usually” and then explains an exception. This could easily be ruled as the exception. But Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.This makes it pretty clear that, without an explicit exception, they cant be swift. Sad and silly though it may be.
wonlee76 12-12-05, 01:45 PM	Add to that, the simple fact that they published Wands of Swift action spells .. and seriously .. people .. it doesn't take a genius to connect the dots!! ;) I'm just curious but is there any published wands that take a swift action to activate? I don't recall seeing any examples of such. If they do have such examples, can I get a citation for it? I'm curious how they priced it. (I'm away from my copy of Complete Adventurer so forgive me if a swift action wand is contained therein). I believe the rules on activating a wand is Standard Action or Longer. The rule does not explicitly state whether activating a wand can be shorter then a standard action. I would trump this up to DM interpretation. As a DM, I might allow it but I would definitely refuse to price it as a level 1 or level 2 spell (or whatever the levels are for golemstrike and gravestrike). I would suggest upping the price as if the quicken metamagic feat was applied to the spell but the problem with that is wands are limited to level 4 spells. Maybe scrolls of "quicken" gravestrike for pricing purposes would be appropriate to get some use out of gravestrike and golemstrike through UMD.
Puca 12-12-05, 02:06 PM	I'm just curious but is there any published wands that take a swift action to activate? I don't recall seeing any examples of such. If they do have such examples, can I get a citation for it? I'm curious how they priced it. (I'm away from my copy of Complete Adventurer so forgive me if a swift action wand is contained therein).That is where the list is. I cant recall for certain, but I believe that they are priced as the level of the spell, following the standard rules.
The_Ditto 12-12-05, 07:26 PM	But: It reads “usually” and then explains an exception. This could easily be ruled as the exception. But This makes it pretty clear that, without an explicit exception, they cant be swift. Sad and silly though it may be. Trick is you're reading them in the wrong order .. First, read the section on Magic Items in general: we get: Spell Trigger = Standard Action. Kewl, we cringe at the silliness of WoTC ... continue .. We read Wands: usually standard action .. then shows an example ... examples are just that plural .. they are presented because of the limitless possibilities of complex rules overlapping .. they exist only to show the intent of the exception .. not the sole exception. If they wanted it to only be that, they would have worded it: "Wands take at least a standard action or more to activate" ... or something along those lines. We continue to read further into more specific items, and alas, nothing "specifically" tells us "Hey, this Wand of Golem Strike is a swift action to activate" .. Except that is .. For page 136 of Complete Adventurer. Read the notes on Swift actions: Swift actions usually involve spellcasting or the activation of magic items; Seriously .. rule all you want guys .. but by the RAW ... there is nothing that prevents swift/immediate actions in items. Go ahead, send a question to Skippy or CustServ .. you won't because you already know the answer you'll get: Yes. ;) Yes, Wand of Golem strike is a swift action to activate .. again, this is the only conclusion you can make based on all the information available. If you focus only on 1 part of the rules .. (ie the Spell Trigger description only) . then sure, you'll be mislead .. .. but then again, how do you explain Boots of Speed (free action to activate - not use activated), or spell storing swords ?? You can't make exceptions when they're convenient . use all the info you have available .. :tiphat:
Tony Vargas 12-12-05, 07:56 PM	IIRC, isn't the Swift action, itself, a term not used in the PH or SRD, in the first place? You can hardly expect an explicit exception for something that doesn't exist... Anyway, assuming the wand is a swift action, it's still not quite as convenient as the spell - you do have to hold a want to activate it, AFAIK, so you're at least giving up using a THW or TWF with that Gravestrike, or giving up a full attack if you put the wand away - or dropping the wand. Unless I'm missing something...
The_Ditto 12-13-05, 08:22 AM	IIRC, isn't the Swift action, itself, a term not used in the PH or SRD, in the first place? You can hardly expect an explicit exception for something that doesn't exist... Two points: a) just because you only want to look at the SRD doesn't mean something "doesn't exist" . it just means it not "open-game content" .. subtle difference. b) In any case, yes, it is in the SRD .. New Action Types Swift Action: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. However, you can perform only a single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action any time you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Swift actions usually involve psionics or the activation of psionic items; many characters (especially those who don’t use psionics) never have an opportunity to take a swift action. Manifesting a quickened power is a swift action. In addition, manifesting any power with a casting time of 1 swift action is a swift action. Manifesting a power with a manifesting time of 1 swift action does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Immediate Action: Much like a swift action, an immediate action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. However, unlike a swift action, an immediate action can be performed at any time—even if it’s not your turn. Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action, and counts as your swift action for that turn. You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn). You also cannot use an immediate action if you are currently flat-footed. Anyway, assuming the wand is a swift action, it's still not quite as convenient as the spell - you do have to hold a want to activate it, Agreed, 100% ... :tiphat:
Puca 12-13-05, 10:00 AM	Trick is you're reading them in the wrong order .. First, read the section on Magic Items in general: we get: Spell Trigger = Standard Action. Kewl, we cringe at the silliness of WoTC ...Great, so read them in the “correct” order: First they say it is a standard action; then they say it usually is; then they say that when the casting time is longer, the activation time is longer. They dont suggest that it is based on casting time in general though. We read Wands: usually standard action .. then shows an example ... examples are just that plural .. But in this instance, they provided an exception, which is not necessarily an example of an exception. There is nothing in the actual text to suggest that this was meant to be one of “limitless possibilities.” They say "usually," then explain an/the exception. You can argue that there are other exceptions, but you arent getting them from the text. (Admittedly, you cant since swift actions are not in the PHB or DMG at all, as Tony pointed out.) But based on the core rules, there are to my knowledge no other exceptions. If that is true, then longer casting times is the exception. And if longer casting times is the exception, a new exception for shorter casting times would need to be explicitly stated. Read the notes on Swift actions:Swift actions usually involve spellcasting or the activation of magic items;Seriously .. rule all you want guys .. but by the RAW ... there is nothing that prevents swift/immediate actions in items.Except the text. All wands are items, but not all items are wands. For wands, it says that it is a standard action and there exists only one unambiguous exception. There is still noting to suggest that an item with a named, and defined, activation method doesnt still function exactly as it is defined. :weep: Seriously, this example from CAdv you provided is good. It at least establishes that they meant for some magic item, somewhere, some how, to be activated swiftly. But, this could easily apply to wondrous items or some other magical item with something other than a spell trigger activation method, such as your example of Boots of Speed. You still have one more step to go to make your case though. Go ahead, send a question to Skippy or CustServ .. you won't because you already know the answer you'll get: Yes.When there is a definitive answer in the afirmative, Ill be as pleased with the result as anyone. Like I said above, having them function as swift items makes sense. I think they probably should work that way. But this is not about what should be but what is, and until there is some form of official clarification, the interpretation that they are not swift is more consistent with the existing rules. You can't make exceptions when they're convenient . use all the info you have available .. But dont add your assumptions to that info and claim they are there for all to see either. The claim that since there is one exception there must be more is an assumption and adds exceptions not in evidence. Assuming that since some magic items can be activated swiftly, wands with swift spells can is also adding something to what is there.
The_Ditto 12-13-05, 01:24 PM	You still have one more step to go to make your case though. The one step I already made that people like to ignore is simply this: Show me anywhere in the rules which says: Magic Items (or heck even Wands): Cannot have an activation shorter than Standard action ... - doesn't exist - rules states: "usually" - ok, great ... then an exception is listed .. kewl .. thanks - nothing .. absolutely nothing .. ever says: "nope, can't have swift action activation on wands". Even with that, I'll agree .. it's not clear .. could go either way .. But then we toss in the Wand of Golem Strike ... Hmm .. it is a published item ... and as pointed out .. assuming that it is a standard action (or longer) to activate .. the item would be useless .. completely and utterly worthless ... .. and yet it isn't ... why? Because it must be a swift action to activate .. Again ... you are free to rule anyway you want .. I'm not trying to convince you .. just pointing out that facts ... take 'em as you will .. :tiphat: Me .. I look at the whole entire picture and use all information available to me ... I don't focus on that one line and refuse to look around anywhere else crying foul whenever anyone uses something "non-core" :eek: Seriously ... do you look out your window, see a stop sign at the corner, and conclude that all intersections have stop signs?? .. I hope not ... ;)
Tony Vargas 12-13-05, 01:45 PM	just because you only want to look at the SRD doesn't mean something "doesn't exist" . it just means it not "open-game content" .. subtle difference.Not the point I was making, actually. IIRC, Swift Actions weren't in the PH, when the section on Wands that doesn't grant Swift Actions an exception was presumably written - I can't recall what suplement added them, but they've obviously been cannonized. That they're in the SRD shows that clearly enough - and they're a fine idea. I'd just hesitate to read too much into a passage that's written before they were formalized. You can't expect the section on wands to say "Wands of Swift Action spells take a Swift Action to use" if the term hasn't been coined yet... Of course, I could be remembering this wrong, maybe I'm thinking of 3.0... :rolleyes:
Puca 12-13-05, 02:37 PM	Show me anywhere in the rules which says: Magic Items (or heck even Wands): Cannot have an activation shorter than Standard action ... - doesn't exist - rules states: "usually" - ok, great ... then an exception is listed .. kewl .. thanks - nothing .. absolutely nothing .. ever says: "nope, can't have swift action activation on wands". Youre asking me to prove a negative. Bad form. Of course there is never going to be a comprehensive list of all the things you cannot do. Please! Youre making a case that something, something not covered in the core rules or explicitly allowed in the supplements is permissible. Youre making a case that, in spite of the fact that it clearly says spell-triggers are standard actions, with only one exception, an exception that makes it impossible to cast a spell faster than the spell with a wand, that you can make use wands as a swift action. The burden of proof is on you, and youve yet to meet it. Hmm .. it is a published item ... and as pointed out .. assuming that it is a standard action (or longer) to activate .. the item would be useless .. completely and utterly worthless ... .. and yet it isn't ... why? Because it must be a swift action to activate ..Suggestive, but not actually proof. Maybe they are useless? Wouldnt be the first time a table was screwed up. And, as I pointed out above, someone with AoOs could still get plenty of use from them. Me .. I look at the whole entire picture and use all information available to me ... I don't focus on that one line and Cute. Saying you dont, implying that that is what I am doing. Unfortunately, that “entire picture” of which you speak seems to include a lot of assumptions that arent necessarily held by anyone else. Moreover, the more-than-one lines I point to are the only published lines of any relevance. If youve got something on paper, point it out. …refuse to look around anywhere else crying foul whenever anyone uses something "non-core" No one is crying foul about what anyone else does. Making a B.S. accusation like that is beneath you. Ive said several times what my opinion on the matter of should is. But the OP, assuming that he is still interested, didnt ask about a house rule. Again ... you are free to rule anyway you want .. I'm not trying to convince you .. just pointing out that facts ... take 'em as you will ..Well you surely have some motivation for continuing to press your case? Seriously ... do you look out your window, see a stop sign at the corner, and conclude that all intersections have stop signs?? .. I hope not ... Ill end with a compliment: youre capable of writing a better analogy than that. I also think youre capable of understanding my actual point. In fact, I think you could write a decent analogy that actually illustrates my actual point. Please dont prove me wrong.
phantarch 12-13-05, 02:57 PM	No offense to anyone but it kind of cracks me up how much this is argued. Please check out the excerpt from spell compendium... http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20051202a&page=1 Magic Items: Activating a spell completion item, activating a spell trigger item, or drinking a potion is a standard action even if the spell from which the scroll, potion, or item is made can be cast as a swift action. In other words, it takes a standard action to drink a potion of quick march(page 164), even though casting the spell itself requires only a swift action. This rule is also very explicitly published in the Miniature's Handbook, where swift actions were first introduced. It may not be Open Content, but it's pretty obvious from these two sources that Wizard's original intent was that wands of swift action spells take a standard action, and they reinforced this with their most recent publication, Spell Compendium.
Puca 12-13-05, 04:44 PM	Well we wouldnt have argued so long if youd have just gotten off your ass and provided the proper answer a bit sooner! :D Seriously though, thanks for providing that link. Ive not gotten the new book yet but am looking forward to it.
DarknessEternal 12-13-05, 05:09 PM	Magic Items: Activating a spell completion item, activating a spell trigger item, or drinking a potion is a standard action even if the spell from which the scroll, potion, or item is made can be cast as a swift action. In other words, it takes a standard action to drink a potion of quick march(page 164), even though casting the spell itself requires only a swift action. So basically this clobbers the crap out of Artificers and Incantatricies? In case you don't know why I say that: Metamagic Spell Trigger, Metamagic Spell Completion, Metamagic Item.
phantarch 12-13-05, 05:15 PM	Puca: Not a problem, glad to help. :D Darkness Eternal: It does make it vague, but I'd say that metamagic spell trigger and such override standard rules, and you could still use quicken spell on them by blowing 5 charges (I believe that's how it works).
Wyrd Bearer 12-13-05, 05:26 PM	It just means that arcane tricksters are pretty much the only characters who can sneak attack golems and undead then, as any other way to get golem- and gravestrike on yourself is going to take a standard action.
Good 12-13-05, 09:19 PM	Customer Service answered this one for me and their ruling was that it's a standard action for the wand. It's noteworthy that the one round duration, though, lasts till your next action; so you could grave strike or golem strike on the round after...I suppose, if you had flanking or suprise. Despite this, my GM hates that ruling and is allowing swift action wands. Good.
The_Ditto 12-14-05, 08:33 AM	Suggestive, but not actually proof. Maybe they are useless? Wouldnt be the first time a table was screwed up. And, as I pointed out above, someone with AoOs could still get plenty of use from them. Possibly .. but I like to believe that things are not put into print deliberately because they're useless and someone's back there thinking: "Hey, let's make these wands because they're useless and some poor schmuck is going to waste time on them". I like to be a bit more optimistic about it and think "hey, there's nothing in the rules preventing it, and why would they publish them if they're uselss?" Proof .. maybe not ... but logical? To me, anyway .. yes. No one is crying foul about what anyone else does. Making a B.S. accusation like that is beneath you. Ive said several times what my opinion on the matter of should is. But the OP, assuming that he is still interested, didnt ask about a house rule. Uh .. you used the "C" word right here: (Admittedly, you cant since swift actions are not in the PHB or DMG at all, as Tony pointed out.) But based on the core rules, That's all I'm saying ... stop crying "core" ... IMHO that's a lousy stance to take, since the Wands we're talking about are from Complete Adventurer and aren't even "Core" by definition ... and likewise, as I stated, anyone claiming the "Core vs Non-Core" argument is simply looking for an "easy out" ... But that's neither here nor there ... I'm just pointing this out because you accuse me of BS .. it's not BS .. the "C" word is right there in your own quote .. :tiphat: Well you surely have some motivation for continuing to press your case? Not really, just making sure all the points are made ... I honestly don't care what rule other's want to believe .. to me, anyway .. it makes perfect sense that they are a swift action ... and in the event that Cust Serv actually says: "Nope, they're at least a Standard Action" .. Then I'll likely houserule myself anyway .. *Shrug* .. No big deal ... I just hope people don't get into a big pickle over this ... it's just a discussion .. (Apologies if I come across .. "strong" .. sometimes .. bad habit .. heh ;) ) Ill end with a compliment: youre capable of writing a better analogy than that. Probably .. but just too busy at work and at home at the moment ... *sigh* I also think youre capable of understanding my actual point. Yep .. just don't agree with it .. :P Please dont prove me wrong. No problem . I'll just prove myself lazy ... ok? ;) No offense to anyone but it kind of cracks me up how much this is argued. Please check out the excerpt from spell compendium... :blink: This rule is also very explicitly published in the Miniature's Handbook, where swift actions were first introduced. Really?? hrmph .. I admit, I must have missed it!! :D It may not be Open Content, but it's pretty obvious from these two sources that Wizard's original intent was that wands of swift action spells take a standard action, and they reinforced this with their most recent publication, Spell Compendium. True, and agree ... I guess I fall back onto my house rule then .. because, IMHO, I think this is "stupid" .. but at least now it's official .. it's just me .. ;) heh Maybe they should issue an errata or something to reduce the cost of the wands in Complete Adventurer .. there's no way they're worth that much then!!! :rofl:
Puca 12-14-05, 11:38 AM	Possibly .. but I like to believe that things are not put into print deliberately because they're useless and someone's back there thinking: "Hey, let's make these wands because they're useless and some poor schmuck is going to waste time on them".You dont know why they chose to do what they did, and neither do I. I like to be a bit more optimistic about it and think "hey, there's nothing in the rules preventing it,…”Thats not optimism; it is willfully blinding yourself to what is there and has been repeatedly pointed out. Proof .. maybe not ... but logical? To me, anyway .. yes.Logic is not subjective. That's all I'm saying ... stop crying "core" ... IMHO that's a lousy stance to take, since the Wands we're talking about are from Complete Adventurer and aren't even "Core" by definition ... and likewise, as I stated, anyone claiming the "Core vs Non-Core" argument is simply looking for an "easy out" ... I thought this was pretty obvious, so my mistake. When they ask about rules in supplements, as the OP did, you have to look at the relevant rules in the core books, and rules in relevant supplements. Your interpretation is in neither. Uh .. you used the "C" word right here:(Admittedly, you cant since swift actions are not in the PHB or DMG at all, as Tony pointed out.) But based on the core rules, Are you impaired? Look at my whole quotation: You can argue that there are other exceptions, but you arent getting them from the text. (Admittedly, you cant since swift actions are not in the PHB or DMG at all, as Tony pointed out.) But based on the core rules, there are to my knowledge no other exceptions. If that is true, then longer casting times is the exception. And if longer casting times is the exception, a new exception for shorter casting times would need to be explicitly stated.I said that in the “core” rules, where spell-trigger items are described, explained, and defined, there isnt going to be any mention of swift-action spells or items because there arent swift actions. Saying that you cant find them because they dont exist is not making a core v. non-core argument. Were discussing non-core material in the first place. Your theory needed to be supported somewhere besides your skull, either in the core rules or a supplement. And it isnt in the core because it cant be, so, if the exception you sought was going to be anywhere, it would have been in a supplement. That isnt me be anti-supplementary material. Its me pointing out a fact about where answers are likely to be found. Not really, just making sure all the points are made ... I honestly don't care what rule other's want to believe .. to me, anyway .. it makes perfect sense that they are a swift action ... and in the event that Cust Serv actually says: "Nope, they're at least a Standard Action" .. Then I'll likely houserule myself anyway Youve made your case. Mene, mene, tekel, buddy. Oh, so tekel. Yep .. just don't agree with it .. I dont know. The way you pulled that “core” quote out of context, twisted it to mean something it did not, and gave it as an example of me “crying about something being non-core” leads me to believe that you either dont or you deliberately misconstrued the argument to make your (otherwise indefensible) point: bad form or poor comprehension. No problem . I'll just prove myself lazy ... ok? ;) I get it. ;) Edit: The matter is settled, but it is your reasoning that disturbs me. In addition, I have strong feelings about pulling quotations out of context, and using them to support arguments that otherwise lack substance.
The_Ditto 12-14-05, 01:02 PM	You dont know why they chose to do what they did, and neither do I. No kidding, that's why I chose the words: ".. I like to believe ..." Thats not optimism; it is willfully blinding yourself to what is there and has been repeatedly pointed out. :waits: Logic is not subjective. :waits: I thought this was pretty obvious, so my mistake. When they ask about rules in supplements, as the OP did, you have to look at the relevant rules in the core books, and rules in relevant supplements. Your interpretation is in neither. My interpretation lies in that the rules nowhere mentioned that the activation time could not fall below standard action ... phantarch finally pointed out a spot where this do mention it ... kewl ... thank-you .. done ... go home. :rolleyes: Are you impaired? Was that a flame? Or a troll? Sorry, I guess I didn't get the full context of that again ... :rolleyes: Look at my whole quotation: I saw it ... and I saw people veering towards (as I put it) the "core vs non-core" argument .. I wanted to prevent that line of argument before we got there ... Take a heart pill .. :nonono: if the exception you sought was going to be anywhere, it would have been in a supplement. Correct, but I didn't want people saying: "Swift isn't core, so we don't care" ... I've seen too many threads degenerate into that kinda thing ... maybe I got too trigger happy ... *shrug* Quit taking it so personal ... we're done here, and you're still ranting!! :P I dont know. The way you pulled that “core” quote out of context, twisted it to mean something it did not, and gave it as an example of me “crying about something being non-core” leads me to believe that you either dont or you deliberately misconstrued the argument to make your (otherwise indefensible) point: bad form or poor comprehension. Ahh .. more flame .. yes that solves arguments .. :rolleyes: I get it. ;) After reading that last post of yours, I now seriously doubt it .. :rolleyes: Not that it matters ... Edit: The matter is settled, but it is your reasoning that disturbs me. *shrug* .. do not care. In addition, I have strong feelings about pulling quotations out of context, and using them to support arguments that otherwise lack substance. Uh .. point to me where I "used them to support arguments" ?? I only mentioned core vs non-core to avoid it being used ... I never used it as an argument .. now who's taking things out of context?? ;) Btw .. why are you still arguing??
Puca 12-14-05, 02:30 PM	Btw .. why are you still arguing??Its a character flaw. People ask questions or make criticisms or comments about something I said, and I cannot help but respond even when it is pointless to do so. Youre free to be the bigger man. My interpretation lies in that the rules nowhere mentioned that the activation time could not fall below standard actionExcept, of course in that place where it clearly says, spell trigger items require a standard action to activate? I mean, the quote is up there. Really. Was that a flame? Or a troll? Sorry, I guess I didn't get the full context of that again ...Seriously. You made me wonder. Like I said, its either a comprehension problem or deliberate deceit. You tell me. I saw it ... and I saw people veering towards (as I put it) the "core vs non-core" argument .. I wanted to prevent that line of argument before we got there ...People? What people? I wrote that. Just me. Was I veering? Who could possibly be veering toward that argument in a thread that is specifically about a supplement? I really fail to see how accusing me of veering toward a core v. non-core argument in a tread about a non-core work is not somehow implying that Im a fool or an ass. You asked if was flaming or trolling, then you post this? Correct, but I didn't want people saying: "Swift isn't core, so we don't care" ... maybe I got too trigger happy ... *shrug*Ya thnk?Quit taking it so personal ... we're done here, and you're still ranting!!Err, so are you. Dont make responsed that are designed to elicit a response or ask questions and them say, "we're done." You wanna be done; be done. You make a response, and Ill respond. Ahh .. more flame .. yes that solves arguments .. Youre right. I failed to consider the third possibility: that you think I am dumb enough or a big enough jackass that I would “veer” toward that asinine unrelated core v. non-core B.S. So sorry you had such low expectations. Ill try to live up to them. *shrug* .. do not care.You cared enough to respond though. Uh .. point to me where I "used them to support arguments" ??ok: I don't focus on that one line and refuse to look around anywhere else crying foul whenever anyone uses something "non-core"Now, when you said this, were referring to me right? Cuz that looks an awful lot like it considering that you referenced my posts before that and I was focusing on that (those) relevant line(s.) I really didnt think that amounted to “crying foul” about using something non-core, so much crying foul about using something non-existent. Hence, my reply to that effect. To that reply, you responded with an argument that I was in fact doing that (i.e. crying foul about using non-core material) and to prove that this was true, you quoted me: “(Admittedly, you cant since swift actions are not in the PHB or DMG at all, as Tony pointed out.)” When you did so, you made it appear that the think you “cant” do is cast swift-spells from wands swiftly. But, in the context, the thing I was saying you cannot do is find rules about swift actions in the core books. That was an argument. You made it. You supported it with a quotation of mine, which was taken out of context and, by accident or design, made it appear that I was saying something I was most obviously not. Q.E.D. and youre welcome. now who's taking things out of context??Show me where I did that?
The_Ditto 12-15-05, 11:37 AM	Its a character flaw. People ask questions or make criticisms or comments about something I said, and I cannot help but respond even when it is pointless to do so. Youre free to be the bigger man. Believe me .. I'm trying ... but I'm curious .. if that's why you're still posting, why are you not defending my "critism" .. why are you still trying to discuss the standard action issue?? :confused: You're not being consistent .. People? What people? sorry, I guess I wasn't specific enough .. people on these boards .. other threads ... over the years, I've seen so many "people" (not you .. other "people") using the "core" vs "non-core" as a cop-op .. as I stated earlier, it was not directed specifically at you ... hence my confusion as to why you are claiming I have criticized something you said? What did I criticize? I've already tried to establish that this "core" thingy wasn't directed at you ... was there something else I missed?? :confused: Err, so are you. No, I am defending myself against someone who is attacking my character rather than discussing the issue ... Youre right. I failed to consider the third possibility: that you think I am dumb enough or a big enough jackass that I would “veer” toward that asinine unrelated core v. non-core B.S. So sorry you had such low expectations. Ill try to live up to them. :blink: .. heck, now you're insulting yourself as well as me ... I'm sooo confused!!! :banghead: Now, when you said this, were referring to me right? nope, but I apologize if you thought I was ... poor choice of wording on my part, jumping to conclusions on your part ... can we go home, now? :confused: To that reply, you responded with an argument that I was in fact doing that not you specifically .. I never directly referred to you in those posts .. just referred to that argument in general .. Show me where I did that? question ... answer ... character flaw of my own .. *sigh* pulling quotations out of context, and using them to support arguments that otherwise lack substance. I never used that quotation as support to an argument .. I referred tot he quotation to head off any cop-out - of anyone - regarding core vs non-core. You took it out of context, and focused it on yourself ..
Puca 12-15-05, 04:52 PM	Believe me .. I'm trying ... but I'm curious .. if that's why you're still posting, why are you not defending my "critism" .. why are you still trying to discuss the standard action issue??Um, er, read the thread. Preceding each of my replies is a quotation from you, all of which were made after phantarch resolved the question at hand with a published rule? As I (in post number 23 for easy reference)said:The matter is settled, but it is your reasoning that disturbs me. In addition, I have strong feelings about pulling quotations out of context, and using them to support arguments that otherwise lack substance.You're not being consistent ..Consistent with what? Which of my criticisms have been inconsistent? sorry, I guess I wasn't specific enough .. people on these boards .. other threads ... over the years, I've seen so many "people" (not you .. other "people") using the "core" vs "non-core" as a cop-op ..But you said all that in response to something I said? If I were to mention at this point that some people backpedal pretty damn poorly and would be better off just saying, “Hey, yes, I made a criticism and it was misplaced” youd think I was talking about you, right? Even if I phrase it in general terms like that? as I stated earlier, it was not directed specifically at you ... hence my confusion as to why you are claiming I have criticized something you said? What did I criticize? I've already tried to establish that this "core" thingy wasn't directed at you ... was there something else I missed??Well, you sure made it appear that way. My apologies for not recognizing that you were interjecting a response to an argument that was never made. I should have realized that even though it used the same “one-line” argument youd accused me of earier and was on a post the specifically cited me that it was to something else entirely. My bad. No, wait: nope, but I apologize if you thought I was ... poor choice of wording on my part, jumping to conclusions on your part ... can we go home, now?Why did I jump to that conclusion? Was it a direct result of your poor wording? Or was I supposed to come to the correct conclusion in spite of that? Quit taking it so personal ... we're done here, and you're still ranting!! Err, so are you.No, I am defending myself against someone who is attacking my character rather than discussing the issue ... When I said, “so are you” it was in reference to ranting. And, well, you are. But I also see you are taking it personally. Ive never attacked your character. Ive attacked your reasoning. Moreover, I specifically said that, in spite of your reasoning, I thought you were better than it and capable of better work. Now, friend, thats not an attack on your character, so dont take it that way. Youre right. I failed to consider the third possibility: that you think I am dumb enough or a big enough jackass that I would “veer” toward that asinine unrelated core v. non-core B.S. So sorry you had such low expectations. Ill try to live up to them.heck, now you're insulting yourself as well as me ... I'm sooo confused!!!No, that wasnt insulting myself. It was accusing you of holding me in ridiculously low esteem. In contrast, I have proceeded from the assumption that you are bright enough to see what youve done incorrectly. I never used that quotation as support to an argument .. I referred tot he quotation to head off any cop-out - of anyone - regarding core vs non-core.Riiiiiiiiiiight. No one is crying foul about what anyone else does. Making a B.S. accusation like that is beneath you. Ive said several times what my opinion on the matter of should is. But the OP, assuming that he is still interested, didnt ask about a house rule.Uh .. you used the "C" word right here: You can argue that there are other exceptions, but you arent getting them from the text. (Admittedly, you cant since swift actions are not in the PHB or DMG at all, as Tony pointed out.) But based on the core rules, there are to my knowledge no other exceptions. If that is true, then longer casting times is the exception. And if longer casting times is the exception, a new exception for shorter casting times would need to be explicitly stated. That's all I'm saying ... stop crying "core" ... IMHO that's a lousy stance to take, since the Wands we're talking about are from Complete Adventurer and aren't even "Core" by definition ... and likewise, as I stated, anyone claiming the "Core vs Non-Core" argument is simply looking for an "easy out" ... But that's neither here nor there ... I'm just pointing this out because you accuse me of BS .. it's not BS .. the "C" word is right there in your own quote .The parts in bold font are the parts that you left out of the quote where you supported the claim that I (you did quote ME) used the "C-word" which I assume was not a euphemism for a part of the female anatomy but to the word “core.” Clearly, it was taken out of context, and clearly it was in reference to me. Just how stupid do you think I am? Is your computer capable of letting you go back and look at previous posts? Mine does. Are you still going to maintain that you werent addressing me? You quoted me? Or do you think that saying "You used the C-word here:" is not claim which you then attempted to support? Or are you insisting that the quote you used was actually me crying about core? What? Im not ticked off at you. I am genuinely baffled. Its like we are reading a different freaking thread here? Really, this thread is dead. I suggest that if you want to go on with this charade, we do in with PM instead of here. But its up to you.