Post/Author/DateTime	Post
GreatSiron 03-22-06, 11:04 PM	I got a convention coming up, and I'm trying to decide weither or not I want to run a cleric or favored soul in the intro mod. I have no experience with divine characters outside my druid. I have already decide that he will worship tritherion. I like that a favored soul can cast more often and spontaniously, but the fact he knows only 3 spells and, more importantly, can't turn undead, is something I'm not to fond of. That and the cleric of Tritherion gets the summoner and mysticism domains. Any ideas from anyone who has played either?
Jay_Ibero_911 03-22-06, 11:29 PM	Cleric is better off in the long run. Take Craft Wondrous, make a ton of pearls of power. Plus the divine feats, specifically divine metamagic, or divine spellpower.
redgamer 03-23-06, 12:44 AM	Favored soul only really works with a melee build. Pick a god with a good weapon and good buff spells. Even then cleric is likely stronger.
Kheldren 03-23-06, 03:13 AM	Unless you want Favoured Soul for flavour/rp reasons take cleric (I have a FS2/Barb2 of Kord). Apart from saving throws Favoured Souls are useless compared with clerics - I server as a main fighter and cleric healer. What you don't get as a FS: domains, heavy armour, turn undead, divine metamagic, Knowledge Religion (Yes they get Know. Arcane instead - I think the Sorceror skill list was copied without being editied).
Lightblade 03-23-06, 03:17 PM	Just to play devil's advocate on this one, I have a question I should ask. How high do you plan to level this character? If it's going to be your main LG character, then yes, go with Cleric. However, if you don't see yourself playing very much at all and just want a low-level character to bring to the occasional convention, Favored Soul is not a bad choice. At low levels, people expect healing from a cleric, and the Favored Soul can provide that quite well. Also, if your god's favored weapon is martial, the free proficiency is nice. (Yes, I know the War domain offers that, but not all gods support that domain). The lack of heavy armor proficienty will hurt in the long run, but at low levels it's not really an issue. Masterwork breastplate is something you can buy after your first adventure if you are so inclined, and not dumping dex means your reflex saves will be better than a cleric. In fact, they will probably be significantly better, since the Favored Soul has good reflex saves, which can be important when playing at low levels (high level characters can often compensate for bad reflex saves with lots of HP).
kjenks 03-23-06, 03:31 PM	If healing is what you're after, Favored Soul out-performs a cleric at every level except 11.
GreatSiron 03-23-06, 04:33 PM	I've decided to go with a cleric after all. This is going to be my secondary character, and the summoning domain is too hard to pass up, not to mention the mysticism domain kinda makes up for the lower saves with it's special ability. But now I have a new question: should I take Spell focus Conjeration and Augment summoning? Or would my feats be better spent elsewhere?
Lightblade 03-23-06, 04:47 PM	If you're going to be a summoner, have you considered being a Druid instead? They get spontaneous summons, and I believe most people prefer the Summon Nature's Ally progression to the Summon Monster progression. If you're really intent on being a cleric, are there multiple domains that give +1 caster level to conjurations? I seem to remember that there was more than the Summoner domain, but I may be mistaken. Remember that you can't cherry-pick domains; you must find an LG legal god that gives both domains you want. Check the LG-Deities document. Also, keep in mind that it's good to be part of a church that's prevalent in your region for both in-game and RP reasons. Finally, it's my understanding that summoners do want SF:Conj and Augment Summoning. Of course, you can't take both at first level unless you're a human. That's probably the best way to go; you want to save your non-first level feats for stuff out of the Complete series; they're generally better than PHB stuff. Then again, i've never played a true summoner. I've got a druid, but he tends to do other things. Anyone else have comments on my opinions?
GreatSiron 03-23-06, 05:06 PM	I didn't intend to make him a summoner, but +2 to conjuration (calling) and (summoning) is pretty good, and its my domain spell, which I don't think I can convert to a cure. I plan on augment healing at 3. As for my choice in god's, he does have a meta-org here in the yeomanry, but I wouldn't exactly call it prevalent. More like a pain in the butt to the other religions. And thats why I made him, for role-play reasons. (My friend plays a lawful good paladin of Heironeous, and the followers of Heironeous don't like the clerigy of Trithereon to much, so that should be fun to role-play). I also can wait to get to lvl 3 and get the spell defific vengance. It's conjuration (calling), so it gets the boost too. (5d6 to undead, and 2d6 or 3d6 to everything else).
delewobmesid 03-23-06, 05:11 PM	For cheesy summoning druid, combine Human, Wis 16+, Augment Summoning/SF Conj, Enchrew Material Components 3rd, Natural Spell 6th; this is a heavy combat version; for a more balanced approach, consider Track over enscrew components. be sure to be intelligent enough to handle your animal companion as they do very little left to their own devices... Cleric is nice, but I prefer Improved Turning/Extra Turning with the domains of Sun/Glory taking Divine Spell Power at 3rd (complete divine): with 12, 14, 12, 10, 16, 10 (reallocate to taste) all 'empowered' spells will be at character level + up to 5 bonus for variable effects (5th lvl cleric dispelling as a 10lvl caster is a good thing). This aims at Radiant Servant (the Cheesiest cleric class around).
copper_wyrmling 03-23-06, 06:28 PM	Cleric is nice, but I prefer Improved Turning/Extra Turning with the domains of Sun/Glory taking Divine Spell Power at 3rd (complete divine): with 12, 14, 12, 10, 16, 10 (reallocate to taste) all 'empowered' spells will be at character level + up to 5 bonus for variable effects (5th lvl cleric dispelling as a 10lvl caster is a good thing). This aims at Radiant Servant (the Cheesiest cleric class around). Divine Spell Power is nice, but not *that* nice. First, to get +4 CL every time, you need +21 on your turning check. That's not especially easy to get. More importantly, it doesn't reset your caster level to the result of your turning check, it gives you a bonus or penalty to CL equal to the number you got on the turning check table (ranging from -3 to +4). In particular, this means that Improved Turning doesn't help (and nor does a Phylactery of Undead Turning). To get back to the original point of the thread, a summoner cleric can be quite effective, especially once you hit L5 and start summoning celestial bisons. However, be aware that as a follower of Trithereon, you can't summon any of the Lawful or Evil creatures, which restricts your options somewhat. I guess Domain Spontaneity (Summoning) would also help you be a better summoner, if you want to go that route. Augment Healing is a really good feat for most cleric builds. Ditto for Craft Wondrous Item. Divine Spell Power is useful once you have a decent turning check, and Extra Turning + Divine Metamagic can be very powerful. One option for a summoner might be Divine Metamagic (Rapid Spell), allowing you to summon creatures within your own turn: other divine feats don't interact well with Domain Spontaneity though, since you can only use one divine feat per turn.
Jay_Ibero_911 03-23-06, 08:56 PM	For cheesy summoning druid, combine Human, Wis 16+, Augment Summoning/SF Conj, Enchrew Material Components 3rd, Natural Spell 6th; this is a heavy combat version; for a more balanced approach, consider Track over enscrew components. be sure to be intelligent enough to handle your animal companion as they do very little left to their own devices... Cleric is nice, but I prefer Improved Turning/Extra Turning with the domains of Sun/Glory taking Divine Spell Power at 3rd (complete divine): with 12, 14, 12, 10, 16, 10 (reallocate to taste) all 'empowered' spells will be at character level + up to 5 bonus for variable effects (5th lvl cleric dispelling as a 10lvl caster is a good thing). This aims at Radiant Servant (the Cheesiest cleric class around). Eschew Materials is a wasted feat in that build, because Natural Spell states "You can also use any material components or focuses you possess, even if such items are melded within your current form."
JohnduBois 03-23-06, 09:11 PM	Divine Spell Power is nice, but not *that* nice. First, to get +4 CL every time, you need +21 on your turning check. That's not especially easy to get. More importantly, it doesn't reset your caster level to the result of your turning check, it gives you a bonus or penalty to CL equal to the number you got on the turning check table (ranging from -3 to +4). In particular, this means that Improved Turning doesn't help (and nor does a Phylactery of Undead Turning). To get back to the original point of the thread, a summoner cleric can be quite effective, especially once you hit L5 and start summoning celestial bisons. However, be aware that as a follower of Trithereon, you can't summon any of the Lawful or Evil creatures, which restricts your options somewhat. I guess Domain Spontaneity (Summoning) would also help you be a better summoner, if you want to go that route. Augment Healing is a really good feat for most cleric builds. Ditto for Craft Wondrous Item. Divine Spell Power is useful once you have a decent turning check, and Extra Turning + Divine Metamagic can be very powerful. One option for a summoner might be Divine Metamagic (Rapid Spell), allowing you to summon creatures within your own turn: other divine feats don't interact well with Domain Spontaneity though, since you can only use one divine feat per turn. Most summoning clerics should consider a level of Alienist if they can find access. They should already be taking the prerequisites (Knowledge: the Planes and Augment Summoning), and it grants a better template and opens up summoning options (pseudonatural creatures are nonaligned). As long as you use the creatures to fight the forces of oppression everywhere, The Summoner would approve.
Lomiat 03-24-06, 11:16 AM	My cleric is head toward a summoner route (sort of). I'm not going to waste any time with Spell Focus (Conj.) and Augment Summoning, but instead have taken Extra Turning and Quicken Spell at 1st level. Currently at 2nd level. At 3rd level, I'll take Divine Metamagic: Quicken Spell and be able to Quicken both of my normal 2nd-level spells. The nice part is casting Summon Monster II as a free action before casting Spiritual Weapon. That's the best possible opening round for 1 combat, though it heavily depletes what the character can do elsewhere (except to turn undead). Eventually, though my cleric will continue to take more Extra Turnings, with only one other feat given over to Divine Spellpower (or possibly Craft Wondrous, depending on the access I find). When he can keep summoning his highest level Summon Monster spells at the onset of each fight (and then follow those up with Flame Strikes or such), it won't matter so much if those monsters are augmented. The more important consideration will simply be that they're already in the combat.
redgamer 03-24-06, 11:39 AM	I don't think quickened summons works at most tables. It's a rules issue that comes up once in a while. I think most people say you need rapid first. I don't think its been clarified completely anywhere but there are a lot of judges who won't let this work.
Lomiat 03-24-06, 12:20 PM	The description of Quicken Spell allows you to Quicken any spell with a casting time equal to or less than one full round.
JohnduBois 03-24-06, 12:52 PM	The feat description is pretty explicit... if judges are denying quickened summon spells (or any other spell with a "1 round" casting time), I'd like to know how they're justifying their position...
amnuxoll 03-24-06, 02:29 PM	The feat allows you to quicken spells with a casting time up to a full round action. That means you can not quicken spells with a casting time of 1 full round. There is a difference and it is very clearly laid out in the PHB. Thus, you can quicken a magic missile (or even an empowered magic missile) but you can not quicken summon monster I. FWIW, you can also quicken a rapid summon monster I. I can't remember what the cost of the Rapid Spell feat is (in terms of spell levels) but a quickened rapid summon monster I is a 6th or 7th level spell. As funny as it sounds, I can actually imagine situations in an APL 12 mod where you would NEED a celestial badger and you need it RIGHT NOW. ;) But probably it's a waste of a high level spell slot. Any judge who is allowing you to quicken spells with a casting time of "1 round" is making an error. It's an easy error to make though. :AMN:
JohnduBois 03-24-06, 02:43 PM	Andy, initially I had the same response you did... then I looked in the PHB (granted, while in class) and found the following quotations: PHB Page 174, "Casting Time": A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. PHB Page 98, "Quicken Spell": A spell whose casting time is MORE than 1 full-round action cannot be quickened. (emphasis mine) I looked for a rules source that made the distinction I thought I saw in an earlier reading, but I couldn't find it.
solbergb 03-24-06, 03:31 PM	That's one of the classic "is/is not" rules discussions. You can't convince the "can't quicken enlarge" folks that it can be. (I am one of those...also see Rapid Spell for further support) You can't convince the "can quicken enlarge" folks that it can't be. It is a purely religious discussion, it can not be resolved with logic. Either interpretation is possible from the text, although I find the "all actions in a round are simultaneous" kinds of judges tend to the "Can quicken" thought and the "there is cause and effect based on initiative order" types of judges favor the "can't quicken enlarge". The rules support both points of view. Barring a FAQ entry, you simply have to accept that at some tables a Judge won't agree with you, and you'll have to abide by his ruling.
mowaca 03-24-06, 06:00 PM	Complete divine has a feat called Rapid Spell - it turns a full round spell into a standard action, with the cost of a single spell level. You can't really use it with spontaneous casting, because adding a metamagic feat to a spontaneous spell makes it take one round to cast. So you'll have to take a slot each level to memorize Summon Nature's Ally w/Rapid spell. But there are a millon situations where a wolf now is better than a crocodile next round - I've found it was a good choice. I'm not sure I understand why DMs won't let you Quicken a full round spell - it explicitly says MORE than one. Qucken Spell takes a slot 4 levels higher, so you'll be casting wolves instantly at 9th level - that doesn't sound very useful to me. But a wolf instantly who trips a spellcaster followed by a rapid spell flamebrother who flanks and clobbers the spellcaster would be a nice combo. Andy, initially I had the same response you did... then I looked in the PHB (granted, while in class) and found the following quotations: PHB Page 174, "Casting Time": A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. PHB Page 98, "Quicken Spell": A spell whose casting time is MORE than 1 full-round action cannot be quickened. (emphasis mine) I looked for a rules source that made the distinction I thought I saw in an earlier reading, but I couldn't find it.
mowaca 03-24-06, 06:18 PM	This article sort of answers the question why you can't quicken enlarge - there's a difference between a full-round action and a 1 round action. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050705a "Spells with 1 round casting times break the rule about completing full-round actions during your turn. You use a full-round action to cast the spell, but the spell comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell." That's one of the classic "is/is not" rules discussions. You can't convince the "can't quicken enlarge" folks that it can be. (I am one of those...also see Rapid Spell for further support) You can't convince the "can quicken enlarge" folks that it can't be. It is a purely religious discussion, it can not be resolved with logic. Either interpretation is possible from the text, although I find the "all actions in a round are simultaneous" kinds of judges tend to the "Can quicken" thought and the "there is cause and effect based on initiative order" types of judges favor the "can't quicken enlarge". The rules support both points of view. Barring a FAQ entry, you simply have to accept that at some tables a Judge won't agree with you, and you'll have to abide by his ruling.
Mommy was an Orc 03-24-06, 06:42 PM	The feat allows you to quicken spells with a casting time up to a full round action. That means you can not quicken spells with a casting time of 1 full round. Page 143 of PHB: "A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action." There is no such thing as the term '1 full round' in 3.5, that's a 3.0 artifact...
JohnduBois 03-24-06, 06:46 PM	This article sort of answers the question why you can't quicken enlarge - there's a difference between a full-round action and a 1 round action. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050705a "Spells with 1 round casting times break the rule about completing full-round actions during your turn. You use a full-round action to cast the spell, but the spell comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell." I read this as it is stated: an exception to what full-round actions normally do. The casting of the spell is still a full-round action, and the Quicken Spell feat says it cannot be used on spells that take MORE than a full-round action...
Mommy was an Orc 03-24-06, 07:12 PM	It isn't even an exception. A full-round action simply refers to all the actions you can take in a round, not on your initiative count. Disable Device on a simple device is an action that is both a full round action and it takes one round as an example(from PHB under Disable Device, the skill) While it is usually true that your actions will take place on your initiative count, there is no imperative anywhere that they must take place on your initiative count and only on your initiative count. I read this as it is stated: an exception to what full-round actions normally do. The casting of the spell is still a full-round action, and the Quicken Spell feat says it cannot be used on spells that take MORE than a full-round action...
Mommy was an Orc 03-24-06, 07:15 PM	I have no experience with divine characters outside my druid. I have already decide that he will worship tritherion. Just so you're aware, Tritherion is a lousy Summoning Deity - you're not allowed to cast Lawful or Evil spells, which means as an example, you can only summon a Celestial Badger, Porpoise, Giant Fire Beetle and Monkey off the Summon Monster 1 list.
solbergb 03-24-06, 08:07 PM	Andy, you're proving my point. The two sides on this can not agree. To me, an action that begins and ends on your initiative (a full round action) takes less time than an action that begins on your init and ends just before your next init (1 full round)...and the reason it takes more time is that you violate causality. Ie, if druid starts summoning on initiative count 23, round 1, sorceress can cast an enlarged magic missile (full round action) or archer can volley fire at the druid (full round action) and interrupt it BEFORE IT FINISHES. Yes, an action that starts later, finishes before. That to me is the definition of an action that takes less time. And yes....there IS a "1 full round" in 3.5. It's in the magic section and it is quite distinct from a "full round action". The PHB even says it is...repeatedly (see the metamagic section. See the magic overview section). But that logic isn't convincing to the folks who say "but a full round action IS one full round, it says so on page XXX". To me, what it says on that page is "you can take a 5' step and free actions in addition to casting your 1 full round spell, because it consumes a full round action of your init" Just as if you are concentrating on a spell, which will last several init counts, but only consume a std action of each particular init count, letting you do move+free actions. You can't convince anyone. You can talk till you are blue in the face, and you can type till your fingers get sore. But I have never EVER seen anyone change their mind on this topic. It baffles me. I can't figure out why this particular issue is so divisive and so resistant to either side convincing the other. But I'm just saying what I observe. Unless you take the most conservative view, you WILL see table variation (and even if you do take the conservative view, some judge or author might have the other view and equip his enemies with quickened enlarges etc...nobody is immune)
mowaca 03-24-06, 08:29 PM	This all makes sense to me & I haven't been playing long enough to encounter a quickened spell. You've convinced me! Regarding your frustration - I'm sure the triads look at this board - do you think it would help if they said something official about this issue? Andy, you're proving my point. The two sides on this can not agree. To me, an action that begins and ends on your initiative (a full round action) takes less time than an action that begins on your init and ends just before your next init (1 full round)...and the reason it takes more time is that you violate causality. Ie, if druid starts summoning on initiative count 23, round 1, sorceress can cast an enlarged magic missile (full round action) or archer can volley fire at the druid (full round action) and interrupt it BEFORE IT FINISHES. Yes, an action that starts later, finishes before. That to me is the definition of an action that takes less time. And yes....there IS a "1 full round" in 3.5. It's in the magic section and it is quite distinct from a "full round action". The PHB even says it is...repeatedly (see the metamagic section. See the magic overview section). But that logic isn't convincing to the folks who say "but a full round action IS one full round, it says so on page XXX". To me, what it says on that page is "you can take a 5' step and free actions in addition to casting your 1 full round spell, because it consumes a full round action of your init" Just as if you are concentrating on a spell, which will last several init counts, but only consume a std action of each particular init count, letting you do move+free actions. You can't convince anyone. You can talk till you are blue in the face, and you can type till your fingers get sore. But I have never EVER seen anyone change their mind on this topic. It baffles me. I can't figure out why this particular issue is so divisive and so resistant to either side convincing the other. But I'm just saying what I observe. Unless you take the most conservative view, you WILL see table variation (and even if you do take the conservative view, some judge or author might have the other view and equip his enemies with quickened enlarges etc...nobody is immune)
Mommy was an Orc 03-24-06, 08:57 PM	And yes....there IS a "1 full round" in 3.5. It's in the magic section and it is quite distinct from a "full round action". The PHB even says it is...repeatedly (see the metamagic section. See the magic overview section). No, there isn't. Find me a quote where it specifically says, "1 full round" The term "1 full round" got lopped out of 3.5 because it was causing confusion about what it meant in relationship to a full-round action. People were thinking that if a Sorcerer casting a spell spontaneously had to spend a full round doing it. So they killed it. That's what I'm talking about when I say 3.0 artifact...
Mommy was an Orc 03-24-06, 09:01 PM	Try what Andy Collins says...(10 or so down) (http://p198.ezboard.com/fgameschat19968frm12?page=2) This all makes sense to me & I haven't been playing long enough to encounter a quickened spell. You've convinced me!
PaulH 03-25-06, 02:55 PM	Hi Just to clarify the Quickened/Rapid Spell debate: 1) Quicken Spell can only be used for spells that do not take more than one round to cast. They also can't be used by Spontaneous casters. (Pg 98 PHB) 2) Rapid Spell works for spells that take more than one standard action to cast. (Pg 84 CD). So yes, as a GM I would allow Quickened Summoning spells, but not from a spontaneous caster. (Favoured Soul, etc). Cheers Paul H
solbergb 03-27-06, 12:34 PM	No, there isn't. Find me a quote where it specifically says, "1 full round" The term "1 full round" got lopped out of 3.5 because it was causing confusion about what it meant in relationship to a full-round action. People were thinking that if a Sorcerer casting a spell spontaneously had to spend a full round doing it. So they killed it. That's what I'm talking about when I say 3.0 artifact... Here are the relevant PHB quotes. It is true, the "1 full round" verbage is gone. Instead they call it "1 round casting time". It is still DIFFERENT from the full round action that you do when casting metamagic, and it explicitly says so twice. (you have to gesture/incant outside of your init, and the effect begins just before your next init, instead of at the end of your current init). I'm not sure how many more ways they could have said it. *shrug*. Feats, Metamagic section: "If the spell's normal casting time is 1 action, casting a metamagic version is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. (This isn't the same as a 1-round casting time.)" Magic overview, Casting time) "A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed" Combat section, full round actions: "A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed." "Casting a Metamagic Spell:Sorcerers and bards must take more time to cast a metamagic spell (one enhanced by a metamagic feat) than a regular spell. If a spell's normal casting time is 1 standard action, casting a metamagic version of the spell is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. Note that this isn't the same as a spell with a 1-round casting time-the spell takes effect in the same round that you begin casting, and you aren't required to continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration until your next turn. "
Mommy was an Orc 03-28-06, 12:05 AM	Here are the relevant PHB quotes. It is true, the "1 full round" verbage is gone. Instead they call it "1 round casting time". It is still DIFFERENT from the full round action that you do when casting metamagic, and it explicitly says so twice. (you have to gesture/incant outside of your init, and the effect begins just before your next init, instead of at the end of your current init). How is that relevant? Ignoring the problem of Andy Collins saying you're not right, the definition of a full round action is simply something which takes an entire round to complete. That some full round actions finish on your initiative count and some don't isn't relevant to the definition of a full round action. It might be to the definition of a round, but Quicken spell doesn't refer to round, it refers to spells that take a full round action to cast. And full round action spells that are not Sorcerer/Bard metamagic. Your interpretation means there are no spells that take a full round action to cast that can be quickened. Obviously, the writer of Quicken Spell thought some core full round action spell in 3.0/3.5 could be quickened or they just would have written 1 action/1 standard action and be done with it. There's also the Disable Device problem: 3.0: "Disabling a simple device takes 1 round (and is at least a full-round action)" 3.5: "Disabling a simple device takes 1 round and is a full-round action." Your interpretation hinges on the concept that nothing can violate the init count and still be counted as a real full-round action. Yet Disable Device does just that and in plain English(time is defined first, full-round action second in particular). Why is that okay, but spells are not?
solbergb 03-28-06, 12:30 PM	Because like many things in D&D, the same words are used in different contexts. When doing things that take longer than your init count, there are rules for how much of each init count you lose by continuing the action. For maintaining concentration on a concentration spell, it's a standard action. For casting a spell with 1 round duration or longer, it's a full round action. This is distinct from a full round action like a full attack, or a sorc casting a metamagic spell, that begins AND ENDS in your initiative. I already mentioned that nobody ever convinces anyone else on this topic. Mommy was an Orc continues to prove my point. I don't find his argument convincing. He doesn't find mine convincing. This has been true every time I have seen this discussed, with every single person involved in the argument. I have NEVER seen an opinion shift on this. It comes down to a very basic philosophical difference about what rounds mean in D&D, and how the init count figures in. Rounds are theoretically simultaneous. There is supporting text for this argument. Rounds however are mechanically broken up into initiative counts, that occur in order, with cause and effect taking place in a way exactly as if they are NOT simultaneous. Some things begin and end in a single init, with no chance of somebody moving later interfering. Some other things, with the SAME WORD USAGE, take longer than a single init, but no longer than a round. Which did they mean when they were talking about what could be quickened? Those who believe there is no such thing as time order in the initiative round, except as an artificial game convenience tend to come down on the side that "1 round" spells were inteded to be quickened. Those that believe that the distinction between a full round action and the time it takes to do a "1 round" spell is that a full round action takes LESS time (as evidenced by the game mechanics, what actually happens in play) believe "1 round" spells were NOT intended to be quickend. This is supported in addition by the wording of the rapid spell feat, which implies you have to use it on a 1 round spell before you can quicken it. Nobody ever agrees. Nobody ever changes their mind. You will look at the arguments, and you will think one is obviously right, and that will be your opinion forever. Maybe someday, someone will be an exception to this. For now, just accept that it is true. (as for Andy Collins, he's just a guy with an opinion, like Skip Williams was and is, until he officially posts in the FAQ. You will note that game designers ALSO don't agree on many topics, note how many of Skips FAQ entries have been contradicted or replaced since Andy took over. If he ever comes down one way or the other, half of the D&D population in LG will suck it up, and the other half will be happy. *shrug*. Until then, it is the opinion of your judge that matters, and trust me you will NOT change his mind at the table)
Mommy was an Orc 03-28-06, 03:27 PM	Those that believe that the distinction between a full round action and the time it takes to do a "1 round" spell is that a full round action takes LESS time (as evidenced by the game mechanics, what actually happens in play) believe "1 round" spells were NOT intended to be quickend. Again, explain Disable Device on a simple device. It is a counterexample to your interpretation. It is an action that 'takes 1 round and is a full-round action'. They specifically went in and edited the language to that for 3.5. There is no fuzzy language there, nothing to interpret. It clearly goes outside of initiative count by taking 1 round and it clearly is still a full-round action that does not take less time than a 1 round spell. You keep avoiding that one...
solbergb 03-28-06, 04:46 PM	And now that we've thoroughly hijacked the thread... I "avoid" disable device because it is irrelevant, except to say that if it was a spell, it also couldn't be quickened. Some actions consume a full round action and begin and end in your initiative. Examples would be a full round attack, or a metamagicked sorcerer spell. Some actions consume a full round action each round and begin in your initiative but end later. Examples of this are 1 round spells, 10 minute casting time spells, and from the sound of it, disable device. Things like charge actions, rapid shot, power attack and combat expertise have effect for the full round, not just your initiative count. Other things only apply while you are doing them, and may or may not continue to the next round (climbing dex bonus to AC loss..if you aren't climbing at the end of your init, and you aren't climbing at the beginning, you only are vulnerable during your init. Things like run are debatable, it isn't clear from the text which is intended (how long does the dex bonus to AC penalty last). Some actions use "all actions take place in the same round" logic. Some do not. Some carry over to future rounds without consuming your entire full round action (concentrating on spells, for example, or completing a jump action) Quicken spell doesn't say "any spell with casting time longer than 1 round is excluded". It says any with casting time longer than a full round ACTION can not be done. The question is, can you have a full round action that is shorter than the time it takes to cast a 1 round spell? The answer is clearly yes, if you believe that an action that ends on your init is shorter than an action that ends only before your next init. SOME full round actions are obviously shorter than the time it takes to cast a 1 round spell, because they can start and finish while the spell is still being cast. The answer is clearly no, if you believe that the fact that some actions begin and end in a single init is just a game mechanical artifact for ease of play. There are numerous places where 1 round+ actions refer to consuming a full round action. The two points of view can't be reconciled, and they both have rules support.
Gelth 04-07-06, 08:40 AM	Combat section, full round actions: "A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed." Quicken spell doesn't say "any spell with casting time longer than 1 round is excluded". It says any with casting time longer than a full round ACTION can not be done. So, putting these two quotes together, both from your posts, where's the arguement? The rules for Quicken say that you can quicken a spell that takes a full round action, and they also say that a spell that has a 1 round casting time takes a full round action. Sure, it may make sense that spells that take until right before your next round to go off take longer to cast than spells that finish right away, but the rules (which you quoted from the books) don't appear to support that. I will note that I've gone back and forth several times on which way I'd rule at the table, and currently I'm leaning towards alling quickening of 1-round spells. This is partly because it doesn't seem to be broken, partly because I can't find any text that explicitly prohibits it, and partly because with Andy Collins ruling that way, it's more likely than not to make it into the FAQ. I could still be convinced otherwise again by a good arguement. :) --Penn, Ket Triad
solbergb 04-07-06, 02:08 PM	Penn, the fact that you can't see why the quoted text addresses different points again reinforces my point. It is obvious to both sides what the truth should be. Neither side can easily see the opposite point of view. I hope Andy does make an unambiguous call on this in the FAQ, just to end the debate for LG. You can't get an answer from the rules alone.
JamesMaissen 04-07-06, 04:20 PM	So, putting these two quotes together, both from your posts, where's the arguement? The rules for Quicken say that you can quicken a spell that takes a full round action, and they also say that a spell that has a 1 round casting time takes a full round action. Sure, it may make sense that spells that take until right before your next round to go off take longer to cast than spells that finish right away, but the rules (which you quoted from the books) don't appear to support that. --Penn, Ket Triad Make a list of the various different casting times possible for a spell to have. Arrange them in 'increasing order' of time. In the middle of this list you will have the following pair: 1 full round action and 1 round casting. The former currently only occuring from spontaneously cast metamagic'd spells and the later's most typical occurance is from the summoning spells. Are they the same or does one take longer than the other? -James
Mommy was an Orc 04-07-06, 05:04 PM	In the middle of this list you will have the following pair: 1 full round action and 1 round casting. The former currently only occuring from spontaneously cast metamagic'd spells and the later's most typical occurance is from the summoning spells. Actually, no, you don't have that pair. There are no full round action only spells except by spontaneous metamagic and you are specifically barred from Quickening them. From PHB page 174: "Most spells have a casting time of 1 standard action. Others take 1 round or more, while a few require only a free action." That wording, for reference, is new to 3.5. Someone had to deliberately go in there and leave out full round action. While one can't actually prove a negative, the very fact that there are no full round action-only spells given all the various editing goofs over the past 3 years of 3.5 is pretty strong evidence that the quote from PHB is deliberate.
JamesMaissen 04-07-06, 11:13 PM	As Brad said, People really aren't going to change opinions on this. But since Penn asked I figured I'd tilt at windmills, so to speak. Actually, no, you don't have that pair. There are no full round action only spells except by spontaneous metamagic and you are specifically barred from Quickening them. So, we actually DO have both. As even you admit some spells can be cast as just full round actions and not 1 round casts. So I really can't understand this, other than an attempt to rehash the debate. And as to debating which is actually correct, I would pro-offer that trying to read the entrails of word choice in these books is not all that helpful, nor meaningful. What was meant by this or that.. From PHB page 174: "Most spells have a casting time of 1 standard action. Others take 1 round or more, while a few require only a free action." That wording, for reference, is new to 3.5. Someone had to deliberately go in there and leave out full round action. While one can't actually prove a negative, the very fact that there are no full round action-only spells given all the various editing goofs over the past 3 years of 3.5 is pretty strong evidence that the quote from PHB is deliberate. The same arguement would lead one to think that Quicken Spell would be written with the phrase longer than a 1 round casting time rather than how it is were that the intent. But then again, you know there are things that take 1 full round action to cast but do not take 1 round to cast. You give the example yourself. But I'm not going to convince you, nor you convince me. As an attempt to help Penn see how I read it, I made the suggestion. Simple as that and meaning nothing more by it. If you wish to rehash the debate on it, we can do so, but I would suggest either its own thread here or going to Infinite Monkeys with it. -James
Mommy was an Orc 04-08-06, 03:51 PM	So, we actually DO have both. As even you admit some spells can be cast as just full round actions and not 1 round casts. So I really can't understand this, other than an attempt to rehash the debate. -James No, I actually don't admit that at all. There is no spell that by itself can be cast as a full round action that is not also a 1 round spell. The sentence from PHB backs me up on this as does the complete lack of spells that can be cast as full round actions on their own. The one exception is completely devoid of spells that can be Quickened. You were the one rehashing the debate, I simply am responding to something that you said which is not in the rules. You are implying that it is possible to have a full round action only spell which is Quickenable by your use of currently. The rules say that it is not possible.