Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mockingbird 06-30-04, 05:01 AM	In a 3.5 campaign. In our game players can research new spells (with dm's approval of course). Someone looking to research a new spell, which is actually the 3.0 version of haste, but now would be higher level, like 6th or 7th. I don't see a problem with this (maybe lower the ac bonus on it tho), but some are saying it would be too powerful, even with it being higher level. Just looking for some other input....if it would be too powerful at any level or not. Good gaming!
Seeker95 06-30-04, 07:44 AM	Making 3.0 haste available in 3.5 at a higher level just increases the amount of power a person has to have before abusing the hell out of it. Try it in your campaign, with you as the DM, and then get back to us.
Seyluun 06-30-04, 09:28 AM	3.0 Haste would be fine as a 9th level spell... maybe... Being able to cast another spell right after it and then cast two spells a round is really powerful... IMO, 6th seems way too low.
CaoSlayer 06-30-04, 09:47 AM	the question is this: if you were an epic caster, that would you cast in the first place? haste or anyother spell? (knowing that you can cast that other spell in the same round and you will be able to cast x2 spells in the next round). with that reason, haste it is without a doubt an epic spell.
RaistlinBN 06-30-04, 10:54 AM	I honestly think that Haste isn't so powerful a spell as to be barred from non-epic campaigns. I'm at work now, and so don't have any books to quote specifically, but I distinctly remember a 9th level spell for wiz/sorcs called something like "Two Minds" or "Split Mind" which allowed a spellcaster to split his conciousness in two, and take two mental actions at once (this bonus included the efforts of spellcasting). *grin* Now, I will admit that this spell may have been found in Relics and Rituals (which already is arguably too powerful a spell resource for most wizards/sorcs). But when it comes down to it, if I were a high level wizard looking for advantages over other wizards - Red Wizards for example - ...you better believe that I'm looking for ways to bypass the normal "one spell per round" limitation. Placed in a 9th level spell slot, I think the abuse an Improved Haste may be subject to pales in comparison to spells like Time Stop (which can allow almost half a dozen spells to be cast in one real time round). Remember too that unless someone's flaunting an Epic Ring of Wizardry IX, they're pretty effectively limited to the number of 9th level spells they can cast in one day (for wizards) and spells they can learn (for sorcs). So my call would be, as Seeker said, to test it out and get back to us. I honestly don't see 3.0 Haste as being a broken spell...it was just available FAR too soon in the grand scheme of things. Raist
meabolex 06-30-04, 11:15 AM	Originally posted by CaoSlayer with that reason, haste it is without a doubt an epic spell. I'm inclined to agree. Quicken Spell is the most powerful metamagic feat in the PH in terms of how much is required to apply a spell with it. It pushes up spells 4 levels. It's also the only feat in the PH that allows you to cast 2 spells in one round. Conceivably, you could have a metamagic feat that allows you to cast 2 spells in one round with a standard action. I guess twin spell (or something like that) would be a good model for power and effectiveness. Now, imagine that ALL your spells are given this bonus, without raising up the effective spell level. That makes all of your spells, across the board, more powerful. Add quicken spell and you have 3 spells in one round. Anyone who has seen 3 spells a round KNOWS that it's broken. Now add +4 dodge bonus to AC and double movement speed. And make it a third level spell. :rolleyes:
Dunbar 06-30-04, 12:58 PM	But what if we nerf haste a bit to limit what spells can be cast? Try this: Arcane Haste Transmutation Level: Brd 6, Sor/Wiz 6 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Targets: One creature Duration: 1 round/level Saving Throw: Fortitude negates (harmless) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless) The transmuted creatures move and act more quickly than normal. This extra speed has several effects. When casting spells, the recipient of this spell may choose to make a full spellcasting action. Doing so is a full round action that provokes attacks of opportunities as normal for each spell cast (though they may be cast defensively). In this full spellcasting action, the spellcaster may cast up to 2 spells, and the second spell must be 5 levels lower than the highest spell he can normally cast. So a level 12 wizard under the effects of this spell could cast cone of cold then magic missle in one round, or cast 2 magic missle spells, but not 2 cone of cold spells. In addition, the second spell has it's caster level reduced by 5 (so a magic missle from a 12th level wizard would do 4d4+4 damage instead of 5d4+5), any attack roll associated with it (such as a touch or ranged touch attack) has a -5 penalty, and its save DC (if any) reduced by 3. A hasted creature gains a +1 bonus on attack rolls and a +1 dodge bonus to AC and Reflex saves. Any condition that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes you lose dodge bonuses. All of the hasted creature’s modes of movement (including land movement, burrow, climb, fly, and swim) increase by 30 feet, to a maximum of twice the subject’s normal speed using that form of movement. This increase counts as an enhancement bonus, and it affects the creature’s jumping distance as normal for increased speed. Multiple haste effects don’t stack. Arcane Haste dispels and counters slow. Material Component: A shaving of licorice root and 300gps worth of diamond dust. What do you think? It's still a very powerful spell, but the extra spell you can cast is rather limited. I'm not sure if the save DC should also be reduced by 5...that seemed like it might be a bit much, so I decided on reducing it only by 3. Edit: edited to be easier to read
ksbsnowowl 06-30-04, 01:05 PM	You know, everyone that is saying it's broken as a non-epic (or epic) spell should remember that you can already get the effects of 3.0 haste (or 'worse') in 3.5. Shapechange into either a Choker (MM) to gain one extra Standard or Move action each round (exactly like 3.0 Haste), or shapechange into a Chronotryn from the Fiend Folio to gain an extra Standard and move action each round. And this lasts for 10 minutes per level. If this (and more) can be achieved with a 9th level spell, I don't see how a 7th level spell couldn't grant the extra standard action, like 3.0 Haste, for one round per level. This is of course only my opinion, but I think it has hefty evidence to support it.
Slippery Mind II 06-30-04, 01:16 PM	RaistlinBN is correct, there is a spell called two minds (or doublethink, depending on the source.) It effectively gives the character two rounds in one but since it is a 9th level spell AND has a very expensive material component for a round/level usage, it doesn't seem overly powerful to me (especially since I have used it agianst the players a couple of times). Edit: also, since it is a 9th level spell, keep in mind it is not easily augmentable, and since it was made during 3.0, it seems to me underpowered, but since 3.5, I think it's just right.
meabolex 06-30-04, 02:14 PM	Originally posted by ksbsnowowl Shapechange into either a Choker (MM) to gain one extra Standard or Move action each round (exactly like 3.0 Haste), or shapechange into a Chronotryn from the Fiend Folio to gain an extra Standard and move action each round. And this lasts for 10 minutes per level. If this (and more) can be achieved with a 9th level spell, I don't see how a 7th level spell couldn't grant the extra standard action, like 3.0 Haste, for one round per level. Well, you have to ask yourself, is that the monster's fault or the spell's fault? I think they could have worded the choker better. You may take another move action or make an extra melee attack during a full attack action -- for example. Do they really need two standard actions?
The Simbul 06-30-04, 11:12 PM	Multiple spells per round for a non-epic character doesnt really seem feasible in 3.5 given the gross and sometimes overcompensating extent to which 3.5 game designers have gone to in order to limit the effectiveness of such magical methods from 3rd edition. Haste is only one example: Timestop: since it can no longer enable you to directly harm or affect other beings until the duration ends, and instantaneous or targeted spells will not function unless you are willing to go to extreme measures (i.e. like wasting a Feat Slot on Delay Spell, a metamagic feat only truly useful with Timestop, and use it to Delay your offensive/targeted spells until the Timestop expires) effectively 3.5 Timestop has become little more than an undispellable and slightly more versatile version of a verbal-triggered Chain Contingency. The Simbul's Spell Trigger: in 3.0 this spell allowed you to link up to 4 spells of 4th level or lower, and unleash them all in the same round as if they were one big quickened spell. The Simbul's Spell Trigger in 3.5 allows you to store 3 spells of 3rd level or lower, and any two of them of 2nd level or lower can be linked together to be cast as a single quickened spell. Other than personal range contingencies, these two 9th level spells were the prime examples of 3rd edition methods to unleash more than one standard action spell and one quickened spell per round, and have been severely nerfed in 3.5, thus any example of a spell which would increase your spellcasting per round should by default be Epic Level.
Loren Pechtel 06-30-04, 11:47 PM	Another thing to keep in mind with Two Minds: It only gives you two *MINDS*. You still can't *DO* two things at once. Thus if you want to cast two spells in a round you have to ensure they have no overlapping components (other than XP). That means the spells cast under it are going to require metamagic in order to get two/round, further reducing the power, not to mention the need to prepare in advance. Thus it's only useful for a pre-planned encounter.
DungeonMaster 07-01-04, 12:02 AM	Originally posted by CaoSlayer (knowing that you can cast that other spell in the same round and you will be able to cast x2 spells in the next round). You get the partial action "on your turn", when you get a turn, not "during" the same turn you cast the spell. If you cast haste you need to wait till next round for it to come into effect. People have argued this incessantly so I won't belabor the issue. As to the original question there is a hard limit in 3.5 as to the number of spells you can cast during a round, as I've only recently learned. The casting time section of the SRD alludes to that you can only cast one non-quickened spell per round. This leads to funny/stupid situations where your contingency activates and you can't cast anything that round... If you look around in non-core books like 3.5 psionics (also available in the SRD) you'll find abilities like schism and fission that basically replicate 3rd edition haste in a 3.5 environment. Clearly not everyone, even game designers, think one-spell-a-round is some sort of religious mantra that must be adhered to at all costs. Besides, the core 3.5 books have metamagic rods, cheap and typically far more efficient than haste. You can for instance summon something which usually takes a round in a split second with a rod of quickening, and you don't waste a single spell-slot to boot and it works in one shot doses so you never "waste" any rounds. The lesser meta-rod of maximize is arguably the best item in all of 3.5. You don't need haste in 3.5, you just need the rods. If you really want it, look into fission and schism, 3.5 approved and adapt from there.
J. Grenemyer 07-01-04, 03:24 AM	Hello, Originally posted by Mockingbird Someone looking to research a new spell, which is actually the 3.0 version of haste.. <SNIP> Just looking for some other input....if it would be too powerful at any level or not. You know, I’ve toyed around with the idea of allowing Haste back into my game (as an 8th or 9th level spell). However, there are a variety of other 9th level spells close enough to it (such as the aforementioned Shapechange, as well as Two Minds from Relics and Rituals and Duplicate from The Complete Book of Eldritch Might) that I think my group’s bases are covered. I also believe Haste should be Epic. Originally posted by DungeonMaster You get the partial action "on your turn", when you get a turn, not "during" the same turn you cast the spell. If you cast haste you need to wait till next round for it to come into effect. People have argued this incessantly so I won't belabor the issue. It’s worth noting this isn’t true (on all accounts). 3E Haste’s effect begins the round it is cast, which is universally understood by the majority of gamers and all game designers. The question of when the effect takes place has never been a significant issue on these boards. Originally posted by DungeonMaster If you look around in non-core books like 3.5 psionics (also available in the SRD) you'll find abilities like schism and fission that basically replicate 3rd edition haste in a 3.5 environment. It’s worth noting that Fission got the nerf in the revised PsiHB, as the duplicate is now effectively 2 levels less than it’s creator. Of course, Fission still keeps all the old drawbacks (negative levels, level loss, swift Hit Point/Power Point loss and a duplicate possessing only mundane versions of the original’s gear and no active spell effects on it when created). Likewise Schism was nerfed, but massively. Now the purely mental actions allowed by Schism (such as manifesting another power per turn) take effect as though you were a manifester 6 levels lower than normal. Additionally, the power doesn’t even kick in until one round after you cast it. Let’s also not forget that, unlike Haste, each psion power has always had a personal range and a target of "you." What this shows is that game designers are willing to keep Haste-like effects in the revised versions of splat books, but at a higher cost and with greater limitations in utility than before. :D [Edit: Fixed Quote Tags]
Slippery Mind II 07-01-04, 03:33 AM	Originally posted by Loren Pechtel Another thing to keep in mind with Two Minds: It only gives you two *MINDS*. You still can't *DO* two things at once. Thus if you want to cast two spells in a round you have to ensure they have no overlapping components (other than XP). That means the spells cast under it are going to require metamagic in order to get two/round, further reducing the power, not to mention the need to prepare in advance. Thus it's only useful for a pre-planned encounter. I am somewhat confused about what you mean by the spells HAVING to be prepared as metamagic. I do understand the limitation that you can't cast the spell AT THE SAME time, but the spell clearly states that you may make a move action at the same time you are casting a spell, then cast a spell at the same time you are taking another move action. It says nothing about having to make them metamagic at all. In fact, it DOES day that you may cast two spells at the same exact time as long as those two spells do not require the use of the same body parts... I think you need to reread the spell.
Edward 07-01-04, 05:48 AM	3.0 hast 2 minds and the judicious use of still and silent spell. 6 spells a round and I don’t consider it unbalanced. Why because the average wizard can only sustain it for a couple of rounds. If every spell you have is set up for it with a int of 30 you can sustain this for a mere 9 rounds before you have expended every spell in your repitwar including cantrips. There are just to many ways to stuff up a wizard that uses this combo And the only reason that put it al level 9 with that expensive material component is because it stacks with haste. In light of schism and fission I believe 3.0 hast is workable as a 7th level spell Edward
noname_13 07-01-04, 11:05 AM	I am currently playing a wizard in a game where the DM has reintegrated 3.0 Haste. He uses a spell he modified into Greater Haste. It is essentially 3.0 Haste as a 7th level spell, with the added cost of an expensive focus, I believe around 1,500 gp. We have yet to have any problems with the spell, how it functions, game balance, or players thinking it's overpowered. I don't want it to seem as though my arguement is one-sided, in that I favor the spell because I play a wizard. The DM uses the spell against the party nearly every time we fight other wizards, so we see the other side of the arguement as well. I'm not going to argue that it's not a powerful spell, but it doesn't seem to be broken.
DungeonMaster 07-01-04, 12:39 PM	Hmm... I almost missed this because it was a misattributed quote... Originally posted by J. Grenemyer It’s worth noting this isn’t true (on all accounts). 3E Haste’s effect begins the round it is cast, which is universally understood by the majority of gamers and all game designers. Impressive, I never knew you spoke for both the majority of gamers and all the game designers! You're of course wrong on all accounts, not because of game designers or some sort of insinuated majority rule but because you simply can't find any reason for it to be written exactly like it is. Why would they need to specify "on your turn"? Likewise you clearly can't take the partial action before you cast haste on the round you cast haste so you can't fulfill the stipulations of the spell. After you have moved and cast a spell it's no longer your turn... The question of when the effect takes place has never been a significant issue on these boards. It only crops up about once a week or so. We've been here before many a time. Let's not clutter. It’s worth noting that Fission got the nerf in the revised PsiHB, as the duplicate is now effectively 2 levels less than it’s creator. Of course, Fission still keeps all the old drawbacks (negative levels, level loss, swift Hit Point/Power Point loss and a duplicate possessing only mundane versions of the original’s gear and no active spell effects on it when created). But you still gain PP from it, and you can shism + fission for 4 powers a round! :P And that personal range stuff it funny. There are powers like lion's charge that allow you to mimic haste for the warriors with a move and full attack.
Dunbar 07-01-04, 01:23 PM	DungeonMaster: you know, there's no need to be so rude. Really, we should all try to be a bit more civil on these boards. As for this: Why would they need to specify "on your turn"? Likewise you clearly can't take the partial action before you cast haste on the round you cast haste so you can't fulfill the stipulations of the spell. After you have moved and cast a spell it's no longer your turn... They specify in the text of the spell that the recipient gets an extra partial action "on it's turn." The reason for this is that haste can be cast on other creatures. If they say you get the haste action immediately, that results in other creatures taking a partial action during the caster's turn. To avoid this, they say that you get the action "on it's turn." Also, it is still your turn even if you have moved and cast a spell. You can take a free action at any time during your turn, and there is no reason you can't say something or cast a quickened spell after you have moved and cast a spell. Since you can only do those things on your turn, it is still your turn after you have used your move and partial action, if only for a very brief time. So you've cast the spell on yourself, the effects start on your turn, and since it is still your turn you get the partial action and other goodies. I looked in the 3.0 FAQ and saw no clarification of this. So it's all up to DM interpretation. However, I think there is more evidence to back up my interpretation. The effects of the spell take place immediately...at the very least, even with your ruling on the spell, the caster should get the +4 haste AC bonus immeditatly, right?
Slippery Mind II 07-01-04, 01:30 PM	Also, consider, the "move and cast a spell" is a poor example since one can "cast a spell and then move." I know I have always played that haste takes immediate affect...
J. Grenemyer 07-01-04, 03:26 PM	Hello D., Originally posted by DungeonMaster Impressive, I never knew you spoke for both the majority of gamers and all the game designers! Hey, I’m just making an informed observation based off of several years worth of Boards experience (both here and on other boards). The question of when 3.0 Haste kicks in has never, ever been a hot topic. Not even lukewarm. Not even tepid. As for game designers: Well go on then, write to them. Ask The Sage, any game designer (such as James Wyatt or Rich Baker, who wrote City of the Spider Queen and list Haste as a tactic to be used by NPCs in that adventure for casting extra spells starting on the same round Haste is cast), RPGA Judge or Human Resources employee at WotC (tasked with finding new game designers that actually know the rules prior to hiring them). In all cases if you claim 3E Haste starts the round after you cast it you will be told you are wrong (and will have a mark against you in the last case). Originally posted by DungeonMaster It only crops up about once a week or so. We've been here before many a time. Let's not clutter. Right, that would be you dropping in to any 3.0 Haste thread (such as this one) and telling others (incorrectly) how the spell works, at which point one of these side conversations crops up. Now if we exclude your typical opening Haste statement, we find that no, the topic of when Haste activates is not and never has been an RPG Boards community issue, much less a common topic of concern prior to 3.5’s release. Originally posted by DungeonMaster But you still gain PP from it, and you can shism + fission for 4 powers a round! :P And that personal range stuff it funny. There are powers like lion's charge that allow you to mimic haste for the warriors with a move and full attack. No, you don’t gain PP from it. You split power points. Further, the second duplicate will be effectively 8 levels lower than the original character, meaning this oddball tactic can only be effectively used by very high level psions with an untapped reserve of power points to burn; and even then the 4 powers per round don’t kick in until one round later. Oh, and while you’re laughing the rest of us will get the point by objectively noting that all of these psion powers (including Lion’s charge) have a range of personal. None of them can be used on other creatures. This is a significant difference from Haste. I’m not interested in this side conversation any more. Back to the topic: I like noname_13’s point about an expensive spell focus. Makes me imagine a Choker’s shrunken head with two round viles of quicksilver in its eyes for a focus. :D
Slippery Mind II 07-01-04, 03:39 PM	Originally posted by J. Grenemyer I like noname_13’s point about an expensive spell focus. Makes me imagine a Choker’s shrunken head with two round viles of quicksilver in its eyes for a focus. Out of curiosity, how expensive is that? hehe. All in all, I kinda like this thread. When 3.5 was originally coming out, the loss of an extra standard action from haste was something I lamented about quite a bit. I could have lived with the drop in AC, to be honest, but to me, it kinda tied the hands of spellcasters... I guess with haste, though, there was little reason to take quicken spell (unless you wanted to be able to cast 3 spells in a round.)
J. Grenemyer 07-01-04, 04:08 PM	Originally posted by Slippery Mind II Out of curiosity, how expensive is that? hehe. Well, first you've got to find the choker or pay someone to do it for you. Then there's the whole, "How much for your head, Mr. Choker?" negotiation to take care of... ;) Seriosly, you could dip the head in platinum and make the vials out of hollowed out diamonds with amber stoppers...that ought to make it expensive enough. :D
DungeonMaster 07-01-04, 05:43 PM	Hmm... I don't know how that was uncivil Dunbar but it's rather hostile on the other end... Also, it is still your turn even if you have moved and cast a spell. You can take a free action at any time during your turn, and there is no reason you can't say something or cast a quickened spell after you have moved and cast a spell. Since you can only do those things on your turn, it is still your turn after you have used your move and partial action, if only for a very brief time. No, that's really a stretch interpretation to say that. Free actions are specifically "while taking another action", not after or before. PHB p.121. There is no doubt that after having moved and cast the spell, it's no longer your turn and you cannot benefit from the extra partial action. You could perhaps use the interpretation that "on your turn" means "whenever it's your turn" rather then "when you get a turn" and then say that casting a spell then moving allows you to get the extra partial but it seems highly convoluted to me. So you've cast the spell on yourself, the effects start on your turn, and since it is still your turn you get the partial action and other goodies. The AC is certainly not dependant upon receiving a turn, but the partial action is specifically on your turn, when you get a turn - not during.
DungeonMaster 07-01-04, 06:01 PM	Originally posted by J. Grenemyer Hey, I’m just making an informed observation based off of several years worth of Boards experience (both here and on other boards). The question of when 3.0 Haste kicks in has never, ever been a hot topic. Not even lukewarm. Not even tepid. :rolleyes: My opinion is likewise informed and based off of several years worth of Boards experience and Haste crops up regularly, as well as schism and other similar abilities. It's a constant. Please, if I really wanted RPGA or "designer" advice as to how the rules are intended to be interpreted then I would go looking for it. But that's your game, I just work with what's on the page and in the books. You can, I am sure, find "qualified" advice that will tell you just about anything - up to and including that 3.5 "darkness" can't be used as a torch despite radiating "shadowy illumination". I'm 100% convinced of that. Now if we exclude your typical opening Haste statement, we find that no, the topic of when Haste activates is not and never has been an RPG Boards community issue, much less a common topic of concern prior to 3.5’s release. Well since I can't really access the old boards I can't really shoot that one down directly. Needless to say I saw it crop up very regularly and so I don't know what you're talking about. I found 6000+ references to haste by doing a search on the current boards, most of them not dealing with the mechanics of either rather just mentioning haste. I'll try and pull up some relevant ones shortly. As I was saying before being rudely interrupted, it's perfectly fine to take 3rd edition haste and put it into a 3.5 game so long as you clearly break the "casting time" rules section of the 3.5 SRD/PHB. You can do like the 3.5 EPH and introduce all sorts of "new" action types, like "immediate" actions to avoid the forbidden fruit of the partial action. You could for instance say as an "on your turn as an immediate action before or after your regular action you can cast an immediate action spell that does not count towards the 1 spell per round limit".
J. Grenemyer 07-01-04, 06:56 PM	Hello D., I don’t why you responded to my post. I already told you this side topic is of no interest to me. However, you’ve made some implications that I find puzzling and insulting and so need to be addressed. Originally posted by DungeonMaster …Haste crops up regularly, as well as schism and other similar abilities. It's a constant. ". Please note that in my last post I did not claim that Haste is an infrequent topic. I very specifically claimed that the topic of when haste activates is an infrequent topic. Originally posted by DungeonMaster Please, if I really wanted RPGA or "designer" advice as to how the rules are intended to be interpreted then I would go looking for it. But that's your game, I just work with what's on the page and in the books. So let’s get this straight. You’re basically saying the people that wrote the rules in the books that you “work with” aren’t qualified to clarify those rules? Could there be a more irrational attitude to take, particularly for a scientist such as yourself who (one would think) is able to identify experts on a given body of knowledge? Further, I find your implication that my game is all about substituting my better judgment for a game designer’s judgment to be insulting. Originally posted by DungeonMaster You can, I am sure, find "qualified" advice that will tell you just about anything - up to and including that 3.5 "darkness" can't be used as a torch despite radiating "shadowy illumination". I'm 100% convinced of that. [laughs] You’ve always deliberately misinterpreted that poorly worded section of the 3.5 PHB in order to ***** and moan about 3.5. However, please note that we are talking about 3.0 HASTE, which FYI was written by 3.0 designers. Can you try and stay on topic please? Finally, your interpretation of how Haste works is simply wrong. The vast majority of gamers don’t use it the way you do. The game designers that wrote the rules for the spell don’t use it the way you do, nor did they intend for your split effect interpretation to be drawn from the wording of the spell. What’s more, you’ve been at the center (both figuratively and literally) of every argument on the subject, and have constantly promoted your singular view in the face of consistent, repeated counter claims and evidence that have always shown you to be wrong. It’s far past time for you to grow up and accept it. :rolleyes:
Hypersmurf 07-01-04, 07:01 PM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster Besides, the core 3.5 books have metamagic rods, cheap and typically far more efficient than haste. You can for instance summon something which usually takes a round in a split second with a rod of quickening... Not in 3.5, you can't. You could in 3E. The text of Quicken Spell changed. 3E: "A spell whose casting time is more than 1 full round cannot be quickened." 3.5: "A spell whose casting time is more than 1 full round action cannot be quickened." Summon Monster is a spell whose casting time is more than 1 full round action. -Hyp.
Dunbar 07-01-04, 08:52 PM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster No, that's really a stretch interpretation to say that. Free actions are specifically "while taking another action", not after or before. PHB p.121. Not so sure about this. By that interpretation, if a wizard wanted to move and cast magic missle, then follow up with quickened magic missle if the opponent is still alive, that wouldn't be possible becuase he has to cast quickened magic missle while he is casting his normal magic missle. Are you saying that is how free actions are supposed to work? And to give another example, what if a wizard takes out a wand(move action), uses it (standard action), and then takes a 5ft step. Certainly it's still his turn while he takes that 5ft step, and that happens after he has used up his actions for the round. Or how about a wizard who casts haste first, then moves? Clearly it's his turn, so shouldn't haste kick in in that scenario? There is no doubt that after having moved and cast the spell, it's no longer your turn and you cannot benefit from the extra partial action. You could perhaps use the interpretation that "on your turn" means "whenever it's your turn" rather then "when you get a turn" and then say that casting a spell then moving allows you to get the extra partial but it seems highly convoluted to me. Well, see above for taking a 5ft step after you take a move action and cast. It's clearly still your turn, since you can't take a 5ft step outside of your turn. And if it's your turn after you have cast the spell, and the spell grants an extra partial action on your turn, then you get the partial action, right? It doesn't say on the creature's next turn, it just says on its turn. The AC is certainly not dependant upon receiving a turn, but the partial action is specifically on your turn, when you get a turn - not during. Well, at least we agree on the AC bit. There's one more way of looking at it, for me. When you cast haste, you get caster level in rounds of being speeded up, so you should get your caster level in extra partial actions, one for each round. So a 5th level wizard casting haste is hasted for 5 rounds. The spell runs out at the start of his 5th turn after he casts it. At that point, he would only have gotten 4 partial actions (with your interpretation), whereas if he cast it on an ally, that ally would have gotten 5 partial actions. But that's all I've got. There is nothing to "prove" that one interpretation is more right than the other; there is some ambiguity here. So if I haven't changed your mind, we'll just have to agree to disagree :cool:
DungeonMaster 07-01-04, 10:31 PM	Originally posted by J. Grenemyer I don’t why you responded to my post. I already told you this side topic is of no interest to me. However, you’ve made some implications that I find puzzling and insulting and so need to be addressed. Probably because the post is both inflamatory and without substance I feel an underlying need to suppress. So let’s get this straight. You’re basically saying the people that wrote the rules in the books that you “work with” aren’t qualified to clarify those rules? That is of course not what I've said. Their qualifications are not at all what's at question. Could there be a more irrational attitude to take, particularly for a scientist such as yourself who (one would think) is able to identify experts on a given body of knowledge? I warn you for the very last time J Grenmeyer that my profession has NOTHING to do with the analysis of arbitrary and untestable "rules". That is LAW. Get it through your skull. I am NOT a lawyer. We are not dealing with objective fact. PERIOD. You’ve always deliberately misinterpreted that poorly worded section of the 3.5 PHB in order to ***** and moan about 3.5. However, please note that we are talking about 3.0 HASTE, which FYI was written by 3.0 designers. Can you try and stay on topic please? It isn't deliberately misinterpreted. It's the way the book is written. Deal with it. The fact is I'm sure not one of them will tell you "that's how it works" because it's an abominably stupid thing isn't it? A darkness spell that lights up rooms? The point is that while you're arguing "all the X will say Y" I can quite quickly turn that around on you with this simple example. The vast majority of gamers don’t use it the way you do. The game designers that wrote the rules for the spell don’t use it the way you do, nor did they intend for your split effect interpretation to be drawn from the wording of the spell. Go get me the signature of the "vast majority of gamers" or even every game designer. There is no "split effect". It's perfectly 100% consistent to give the partial actions only when a character receives a turn. Your statements are vaccous and bely an unwillingness to discuss the rules as written. I won't even deign to offer a reply to the pathetic insipid insults about maturity. Good day to you, until you start proper discussion.
DungeonMaster 07-01-04, 10:36 PM	Originally posted by Hypersmurf The text of Quicken Spell changed. You're completely right Hyp, my mistake. I never noticed/heard of that. I learned the other day that you can't teleport/dimension door into open air in 3.5 as well because they made it a conjuration...
DungeonMaster 07-01-04, 10:52 PM	Originally posted by Dunbar Not so sure about this. By that interpretation, if a wizard wanted to move and cast magic missle, then follow up with quickened magic missle if the opponent is still alive, that wouldn't be possible becuase he has to cast quickened magic missle while he is casting his normal magic missle. Are you saying that is how free actions are supposed to work? Yup. That's exactly how they're supposed to work. Have you read to the contrary? And to give another example, what if a wizard takes out a wand(move action), uses it (standard action), and then takes a 5ft step. You can't do that. By the rules you can take a 5ft step before, during or after a move equivalent action. If you then cast a spell you forfeit the 5 foot step as you are taking a new action. You can move then cast a spell, cast a spell then move, but not move equivalent then cast a spell then move 5 ft. Or how about a wizard who casts haste first, then moves? Clearly it's his turn, so shouldn't haste kick in in that scenario? Some people say yes. My reading is that "on your turn" means "when you're given a turn" not just at any point. It makes situations like the above much much simpler. When you cast haste, you get caster level in rounds of being speeded up, so you should get your caster level in extra partial actions, one for each round. The spell does not say that. Nowhere does it grant you 5 partial actions for 5 rounds as a 5th level wizard. If it did, I would never even bother discussing it. But that's all I've got. There is nothing to "prove" that one interpretation is more right than the other; there is some ambiguity here. So if I haven't changed your mind, we'll just have to agree to disagree I can agree to disagree, I understand there's ambiguity and room for interpretation in many a spell and many a rule. I actually enjoy this sort of discussion and I'm definitely willing to admit I'm wrong when I can be clearly proven to be wrong!
Hypersmurf 07-01-04, 11:24 PM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster You can't do that. By the rules you can take a 5ft step before, during or after a move equivalent action. If you then cast a spell you forfeit the 5 foot step as you are taking a new action. You can move then cast a spell, cast a spell then move, but not move equivalent then cast a spell then move 5 ft. Oh, good grief. Then take your move equivalent action (load a crossbow, for example), Ready a partial action to cast a spell, with the condition "When I finish readying a partial action to cast a spell", and then when the Ready action immediately triggers, cast the spell and take the 5' step (since you can take a 5' step with a partial action, as long as you haven't moved...). -Hyp.
J. Grenemyer 07-02-04, 03:37 AM	Well, you asked for it: Originally posted by DungeonMaster Probably because the post is both inflammatory and without substance I feel an underlying need to suppress. Inflammatory? How’s that? Oh wait, you’re referring to the part where I stated quite clearly in my first post that you were simply wrong in your interpretation? Hate to break it to you but that’s not inflammatory (unless you can’t handle it yourself), not harassment and not against the CoC. As you like to say: Deal with it. Originally posted by DungeonMaster That is of course not what I've said. Their qualifications are not at all what's at question. So I’ll take that as your acceptance of the fact that designers are by and large qualified to clarify the rules they wrote. Originally posted by DungeonMaster …my profession has NOTHING to do with the analysis of arbitrary and untestable "rules". <SNIP> We are not dealing with objective fact. All talk of profession aside, you’re wrong again. We are dealing with objective fact. Yes, there is and will always be room for multiple interpretations for any given portion of game rules, no matter how hard people work at refining the rules. (In fact, this sort of leeway is good for the game.) This doesn’t change the fact that the rules are written to function in large part only one way for the sake of consistency. If there is uncertainty over how a rule works, we all of us will rely on our own gaming experience and common sense to make our own legitimate rulings as DMs and continue with play in our own campaigns, as is our right. However as soon as we move outside those campaigns and on to a public forum, there’s no good reason to represent a questionable interpretation as fact. This is why we rely on the people that wrote the books for official clarification; for a literal, “I wrote rule X and it works this way,” response. This doesn’t mean we suspend judgment or stop thinking critically (far from it!), nor does it mean we should set aside our ability to figure out which rules were not written as good as they could have been to properly convey their information; it just means if there is a rules issue, we get the official answer. The official answer is 3.0 Haste takes effect the round it is cast. Deal with it. Originally posted by DungeonMaster It isn't deliberately misinterpreted. It's the way the book is written. Are you actually claiming a game designer will tell you 3.5 Darkness lights up an area? Originally posted by DungeonMaster Go get me the signature of the "vast majority of gamers" or even every game designer. I don’t need to get you a signature. The lack of any noticeable debate on the subject (from as far back as the release of Third Edition) is proof enough. What’s more, I’ve already told you how Haste is treated by 3.0 game designers in City of the Spider Queen. FYI Rich Baker (CotSQ developer and creative director) was on the 3.0 design team and is credited for his work as a co-creator of Third Edition. Thus, he sat in on all the rules roundtable discussions the designers held on a continual basis during the development of Third Edition for the purpose of ensuring everyone was on the same page rules wise. The rules roundtable discussions are documented fact; they occurred. There is no good reason to believe any difference of opinion exists or existed amongst the designers who created 3E wrt how 3.0 Haste functions. Deal with it. Originally posted by DungeonMaster There is no "split effect". It's perfectly 100% consistent to give the partial actions only when a character receives a turn. Completely incorrect and 100% inconsistent with the 3.0 RAW. Your interpretation dictates the splitting of Haste’s spell effects, such that some of its effects (+4 Haste bonus to AC and increase in Jump distance) take effect immediately upon completion of the spell, while the remaining effect (the gaining of an extra partial action) are received at the beginning of a new “full turn.” However, there is no rule that exists (to my knowledge) that says 1 action spells must split their effect up between turns. Nor do a majority of any other 1 action spells (again, to my knowledge) say to do this. Thus, no rule, no precedent and no good reason to split up the effect beyond DM caveat. Like any other 1 action spell, Haste’s effects are “on” as soon as it is cast, specifically because the spell is completed on the turn it is cast. This is how the rules work for 1 action spells. Further, we see the spell does not use the words, “when you start your turn,” or “when you receive a turn.” It very specifically says otherwise (“On his turn, the subject may take an extra partial action, either before or after his regular turn.””). Thus, if a character chooses to cast this spell at the beginning of his turn, it’s still his turn and Haste is active before he decides what to do with his move. Once his move is complete and his regular turn ends, Haste says he can choose to take an extra partial action. If a character chooses to use his move action first and then cast Haste, Haste still takes effect on his turn. This means his regular allotted turn’s worth of actions are complete, but it does not change the fact that Haste –in addition to already increasing his jump distance and providing him a +4 bonus to AC–says he can choose to take a partial action at the end of his turn. Spells don’t take effect “half way.” There’s no rules precedent that leads DMs to believe Haste should be interpreted this way. I think what really happened was you thought you’d found a paradox in the 3.0 rules regarding Haste (cast it, then move, then get the extra partial action vs. move, then cast, then no extra partial action possible) and so house ruled it to fix the “problem.” Unfortunately, there is no paradox. Also, the spell makes mention of “On his turn..” because not doing so would leave the reader wondering when during the round the extra partial action could take place. That’s the only reason it’s there. Originally posted by DungeonMaster Your statements are vacuous and belie an unwillingness to discuss the rules as written. Hardly. My statements reflect the consensus of these message boards since well before you joined up under your first SN in 2003. My statements treat designer interpretation as reliable and have demonstrated source material that reflects their interpretations. Your statements on the other hand have been made with a firm willingness to disregard past precedent in favor of your own house rules and reflect your penchant for going to any length to support your position, regardless of topic. Your position has been refuted, your interpretation shown to be a house rule. Deal With It.
Slippery Mind II 07-02-04, 03:51 AM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster You can't do that. By the rules you can take a 5ft step before, during or after a move equivalent action. If you then cast a spell you forfeit the 5 foot step as you are taking a new action. You can move then cast a spell, cast a spell then move, but not move equivalent then cast a spell then move 5 ft. This is utterly incorrect. The only time you cannot get your free 5 foot move is if you have already moved or if you can only move 5 feet at a time. Even the glossary in the back of the book says otherwise. Yes, you can stand up from prone, cast a spell, then take a 5 foot step. I would encourage you to look up the glossary where it says 5 foot step for complete info...
bitnine 07-02-04, 04:09 AM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster You can't do that. By the rules you can take a 5ft step before, during or after a move equivalent action. If you then cast a spell you forfeit the 5 foot step as you are taking a new action. You can move then cast a spell, cast a spell then move, but not move equivalent then cast a spell then move 5 ft.Actually, check this out:Move Action: [...] You can take a move action in place of a standard action. If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move for one or more equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action.Now, reading this, it would seem to lead towards that reading. However, the fact that it refered to 'the' action seemed a little vague - so I went ahead and checked the primary source for it. And here it is:Take 5-Foot Step You can move 5 feet in any round when you don’t perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. You can’t take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can’t take a 5-foot step in the same round when you move any distance. You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.Emphasis mine. You can take a 5-foot step after your other actions for the round. Even if you read them as clearly in conflict, the 5-foot step entry is definately the primary source for your 5-foot step related needs and restrictions, not the move action entry. ;) No readied action required.
bitnine 07-02-04, 04:09 AM
Sweet Steph 07-02-04, 04:17 AM	My problem with 3.0 haste isn't that it is grossly overpowered. The problem I see is that the spell unfairly benefits spellcasters in comparison to warriors. A mage has her offensive output doubled while under the effect of the spell; a fighter gets a lousy extra attack. If 3.0 haste were tweaked to allow a number of extra attacks equal to that granted by one's BAB, it would be a little more fair in this regard, though it would still be deserving of 9th-level status.
Slippery Mind II 07-02-04, 04:28 AM	Originally posted by Sweet Steph My problem with 3.0 haste isn't that it is grossly overpowered. The problem I see is that the spell unfairly benefits spellcasters in comparison to warriors. A mage has her offensive output doubled while under the effect of the spell; a fighter gets a lousy extra attack. If 3.0 haste were tweaked to allow a number of extra attacks equal to that granted by one's BAB, it would be a little more fair in this regard, though it would still be deserving of 9th-level status. I had a rogue that loved haste placed on him in 3.0 becasue he had a ring of invisibility and the Expert tactician feat that allows an extra partial action when an oponent is denied dex. Essentially, this allowed two sneak attacks and he would go invisible by activating his ring. An extra attack isn't ALL that is allowed. The way it's written in 3.5 now, though, benefits the warriors more than the mage that casts the spell because all it does is add an extra attack if you do a full attack and there are not alot of wizards out there that want to be doing full attacks. I guess if you want to be fair about it, you can say the fighter types double their attacks if they do a full attack... But I am not sure that's being fair either.
bitnine 07-02-04, 04:29 AM	Originally posted by Sweet Steph a fighter gets a lousy extra attack.To be fair, more often than not, as a warrior with boots of speed in 3.0, when I played, I looked forward to a lousy partial charge followed by a full attack. Even the ability to just move and full attack may not be auto-quickening, but it's a very handy thing to have.
Sweet Steph 07-02-04, 04:39 AM	Originally posted by bitnine To be fair, more often than not, as a warrior with boots of speed in 3.0, when I played, I looked forward to a lousy partial charge followed by a full attack. Even the ability to just move and full attack may not be auto-quickening, but it's a very handy thing to have. Admittedly, haste's benefit to warriors isn't a bad one at all. It's definitely better than nothing. Compared to what spellcasters get, however, it seems rather pathetic.
DungeonMaster 07-02-04, 10:42 AM	Originally posted by Hypersmurf Then take your move equivalent action (load a crossbow, for example), Ready a partial action to cast a spell, with the condition "When I finish readying a partial action to cast a spell", and then when the Ready action immediately triggers, cast the spell and take the 5' step (since you can take a 5' step with a partial action, as long as you haven't moved...). Direct quote from the PHB p.134. The ready action lets you prepare an action later, after your turn is over . It has no influence on haste because specifically your turn is over.
DungeonMaster 07-02-04, 10:58 AM	Thank you for highlighting the appropriate section Bitnine, that's exactly what I'm referencing. I actually can't find the "take a 5 foot step" section in my PHB so a page number would be great. However here's a direct quote from the PHB: Move equivalent actions p.121: Taking a move equivalent action counts as moving your speed. It is in all ways "moving". By the rules, you can take a 5ft step after the move equivalent, then cast a spell but not take a move equivalent, cast a spell then take a 5ft step and still be on your turn.
DungeonMaster 07-02-04, 11:21 AM	Originally posted by J. Grenemyer Oh wait, you’re referring to the part where I stated quite clearly in my first post that you were simply wrong in your interpretation? You certainly can state I'm simply wrong, but until you table arguments rather than mountains of heresay I'm just going to continue calling what you say "without substance". I can state you're wrong too: "You're wrong J. Grenmeyer - simply very wrong". But stating things typically doesn't have the same impact as backing them up with arguments. You're arguing intent, and I'm arguing rules. Plain as day. You can tell me that Andy Collins never intended to light up dark rooms with his shadowy illumination darkness spell but I can tell you that it's not how the rules are written. Same thing with the 3.5 lance, Skip can tell us what it's "supposed" to work like but it remains that you can 2-for-1 power attack with it while carrying a sheild in your other hand. As I've stated numerous times, I'm not one whiff interested in "intent" as it is a clearly vacilating quantity. I read my 3rd edition MM and I see the solar has regeneration. I read the MM errata and it takes it away. I read the 3.5 MM and *poof* regeneration again. I take anything that isn't written in the books with a grain of salt - pick and choose what I like as a DM - and that's really it. No one, least of all you, is going to convince me to apply everything I hear from FAQ, heresay or non-core materiall. You can suggest all you want that darkness doesn't create light in 3.5 I'm just going to point to the relevant illumination chapter. Likewise I've scoured the PHB for spells that have effects with the words "on your turn" and about the only other one I can find is the sheild spell. All talk of profession aside, you’re wrong again. We are dealing with objective fact. Yes, there is and will always be room for multiple interpretations for any given portion of game rules, no matter how hard people work at refining the rules. (In fact, this sort of leeway is good for the game.) You're misconstruing what I've said. Objective fact is final. There are 2000 counts in the detector. Some words and statements are not objective because they have multiple meanings. These words are termed "equivocal" in linguistics and others, particularly scientific parlance are "univocal", one and only one meaning. Language is a complicated beast and law is complicated - I will not present myself as master of either. We are NOT dealing with objective fact. We are dealing with a sentance "on your turn" that I interpret as "when you get a turn" and you interpret as "at any point it's your turn". If I can lead you to a situation where your interpretation is nonsensical or needlessly complicated, then my interpretation stands as better from Occam's razor - which you are still free to regect. However as soon as we move outside those campaigns and on to a public forum, there’s no good reason to represent a questionable interpretation as fact. What is your final word on preparation with metamagic rods? What do you actually use in game? If a character chooses to use his move action first and then cast Haste, Haste still takes effect on his turn. This means his regular allotted turn’s worth of actions are complete, but it does not change the fact that Haste –in addition to already increasing his jump distance and providing him a +4 bonus to AC–says he can choose to take a partial action at the end of his turn. Prove it rather than blither. Move + cast haste, your turn is over. No extra partial action.
DungeonMaster 07-02-04, 11:29 AM	Originally posted by Slippery Mind II Even the glossary in the back of the book says otherwise. Yes, you can stand up from prone, cast a spell, then take a 5 foot step. I would encourage you to look up the glossary where it says 5 foot step for complete info... I have and it states specifically: A small position adjustment that does not count as a move in combat. Usually (but not always), a five foot step is permitted in conjunction with a full-round action and may be taken at any point in the round. Most partial actions also permit a a 5 foot step. Which I don't think contradicts anything I've said, bitnine has quoted the relevant passage.
J. Grenemyer 07-02-04, 01:15 PM	Double
J. Grenemyer 07-02-04, 01:16 PM	That was easy. Originally posted by DungeonMaster Prove it rather than blither. Move + cast haste, your turn is over. No extra partial action. I just did in my last post. I laid out the rules, your interpretation and I showed how your interpretation does not follow the RAW for spells. I'll take your snappy comment to mean you don't have any counter arguments worth posting. :D
Slippery Mind II 07-02-04, 01:33 PM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster I have and it states specifically: A small position adjustment that does not count as a move in combat. Usually (but not always), a five foot step is permitted in conjunction with a full-round action and may be taken at any point in the round. Most partial actions also permit a a 5 foot step. Which I don't think contradicts anything I've said, bitnine has quoted the relevant passage. Well, perhaps in the 3.5 PHB it cleared the language up a bit, but it specificly says the 5 foot step may be taken at ANY time during the turn, then goes on to say "before, during and after." All this being said, I am siding with the "adds a partial action" during the round you cast it reardless if you move first or second. Doing it your way adds a round of AC and movement to the duration of the spell. I'm all for that, but I do thin you are misinterpreting, perhaps for you own benefit (after all, moving then casting the spell DOES add 1 round of duration to some of the effects).
bitnine 07-02-04, 04:40 PM	Oh, righty, 3.0. In that event, you might want to check out:Not An Action: Some activities are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all and are considered an inherent part of doing something else.So keep in mind that the 5-foot step is considered a part of whatever action you take during the round, it is not a seperate action that is performed 'after' you take your other actions, even if it is resolved after, say, all of your attacks as part of a full attack action.
DungeonMaster 07-02-04, 04:59 PM	Originally posted by J. Grenemyer I just did in my last post. I laid out the rules, your interpretation and I showed how your interpretation does not follow the RAW for spells. :looloo: Well gollee gee gosh I guess I better accept you "laying out the rules" for me without page number reference or anything at all except for more J interpretation. Proof.
Slippery Mind II 07-02-04, 05:31 PM	From the 3.5 SRD (I am not sure how the 5 foot step rule has changed from 3.0 to 3.5...) Move Action: A move action allows you to move your speed or perform an action that takes a similar amount of time. See Table: Actions in Combat. You can take a move action in place of a standard action. If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move for one or more equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action. Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions (see below). Some full-round actions do not allow you to take a 5-foot step. Some full-round actions can be taken as standard actions, but only in situations when you are limited to performing only a standard action during your round. The descriptions of specific actions, below, detail which actions allow this option. Emphasis mine. I seem to recall a small section in a second print PHB where it discusses 5 foot moves and, except for moving or being unable to move at all, one can ALWAYS take a 5 foot step before, during or after any other action is performed.
Seeker95 07-02-04, 05:59 PM	Originally posted by Slippery Mind II one can ALWAYS take a 5 foot step before, during or after any other action is performed. Not quite. In the quote you provided, it explicitly states: If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move for one or more equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action. and Some full-round actions do not allow you to take a 5-foot step. I think the relevent point you are trying to make is that if you can take a 5-foot step then you can take it at any time during your turn, whether before, during, or after the action. If a 5-foot step is allowed (because you have not / will not move any actual distance that round), then you can take it at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end of your turn.
J. Grenemyer 07-02-04, 06:33 PM	Hello, Originally posted by DungeonMaster Well gollee gee gosh I guess I better accept you "laying out the rules" for me without page number reference or anything at all except for more J interpretation. How childish. You get what you ask for and then turn your nose at it. Here’s a suggestion: If my interpretation isn’t correct, act like a mature adult and break my argument down. Some things to consider before you get started (assuming you’re capable). 1 Action spells are Standard Actions (3.0 PHB page 140, if memory serves). 1 action spells resolve on the turn they occur (3.0 PHB, magic chapter). Haste takes full effect on the turn it’s cast, because it’s a 1 action spell. Thus: If a character takes a move action and then casts Haste, his regular turn is over and Haste gives him the option of taking an extra partial action at the end of his turn because the spell has already been cast. ********** What’s pathetic about all this is that you’ve always known this to be the case; you just plunk down your wrong interpretation in any thread about Haste in order to start an argument. A real benefit to the community, that. :rolleyes:
Slippery Mind II 07-02-04, 08:55 PM	Originally posted by Seeker95 Not quite. In the quote you provided, it explicitly states: If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move for one or more equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action. and Some full-round actions do not allow you to take a 5-foot step. I think the relevent point you are trying to make is that if you can take a 5-foot step then you can take it at any time during your turn, whether before, during, or after the action. If a 5-foot step is allowed (because you have not / will not move any actual distance that round), then you can take it at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end of your turn. Sorry about that, Seeker. You are, of course correct, and my previous posts should be clear in that regard, one can take a 5 foot step only if they haven't yet moved, are prevented from moving at all or if the only movement available is 5 feet (ie. crawling).
bitnine 07-02-04, 09:21 PM	Originally posted by Slippery Mind II Sorry about that, Seeker. You are, of course correct, and my previous posts should be clear in that regard, one can take a 5 foot step only if they haven't yet moved, are prevented from moving at all or if the only movement available is 5 feet (ie. crawling). If you are referencing 3.5 as to crawling or moving through difficult terrain, you should note:Move 5 Feet through Difficult Terrain In some situations, your movement may be so hampered that you don’t have sufficient speed even to move 5 feet (a single square). In such a case, you may spend a full-round action to move 5 feet (1 square) in any direction, even diagonally. Even though this looks like a 5-foot step, it’s not, and thus it provokes attacks of opportunity normally.You can only take a 5-foot-step if your movement isn’t hampered by difficult terrain or darkness. Any creature with a speed of 5 feet or less can’t take a 5-foot step, since moving even 5 feet requires a move action for such a slow creature.I don't know if there's similar text in 3.0, because that book is on a bookshelf across the room and I'm too lazy to get up.
Slippery Mind II 07-02-04, 10:34 PM	That is precisely what I am referring to, bitnine, though I was too lazy to get it out of the SRD. To my knowledge, there is no such rule in 3.0, however.
DungeonMaster 07-03-04, 12:14 AM	Originally posted by J. Grenemyer Some things to consider before you get started (assuming you’re capable). 1 Action spells are Standard Actions (3.0 PHB page 140, if memory serves). 1 action spells resolve on the turn they occur (3.0 PHB, magic chapter). Haste takes full effect on the turn it’s cast, because it’s a 1 action spell. Absolutely NOTHING in either of the quoted sections say ANYTHING about overidding the stipulations of the spells themselves. You do not for instance make the tentacles of Evard's black tentacles strike on the instant you cast it because the spell is a 1-action spell. The spell description specifically states "starting the round after they appear they attack". You have mordenkainen's sword which specifically states "the sword strikes starting on the round you cast the spell". You have eyebite that has the stipulation that "each round a gaze attack automatically works against one creature within range that is looking at the gazing creature" - as a free action you can use the gaze attack. These are seperate effects - one relying on your actual turn, the free action, the other not at all! You cannot ignore the sentance "on his turn" - that has everything to do with the effect of an additional partial action. It is a stipulation of the spell. OK? Thus: If a character takes a move action and then casts Haste, his regular turn is over and Haste gives him the option of taking an extra partial action at the end of his turn because the spell has already been cast. It does not. Your turn is over. Your interpretation is needlessly complicated - requiring a move only after casting the spell to acquire the partial action. "On his turn" means "when you get a turn". That is a self consistent reading and interpretation of the rules. What you're consistently demonstrating J is that you don't want to argue your case, don't understand the action sequence as defined by the rules of the book in front of you, and merely wave your hands and cross your fingers and hope I quit as a result of grandiose statements invoking the RPGA, designers and nothing short of the entire gaming community. And that's absolutely no benefit to anyone, not even yourself, and certainly not your arguments.
Slippery Mind II 07-03-04, 12:25 AM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster [BYou do not for instance make the tentacles of Evard's black tentacles strike on the instant you cast it because the spell is a 1-action spell. The spell description specifically states "starting the round after they appear they attack". You have mordenkainen's sword which specifically states "the sword strikes starting on the round you cast the spell". You have eyebite that has the stipulation that "each round a gaze attack automatically works against one creature within range that is looking at the gazing creature" - as a free action you can use the gaze attack. These are seperate effects - one relying on your actual turn, the free action, the other not at all! [/B] Um... did you notice on each of those spells you mentioned, you keep using the term "it specificly says." In 3.0 haste it does not "specificly" say on your NEXT turn, but rather on your turn. No "next" there. Sorry.
ORC_Tuhteth 07-03-04, 01:07 AM	Okay, guys: Some of you -- you know who you are -- are turning this discussion into a personal and increasingly heated argument. When you start mocking someone or calling them childish or otherwise doing anything but addressing the actual topic, you are breaking the CoC (trolling/baiting). If you think someone hasn't proven their point, just politely ask for more clarification, e.g., "I'm sorry, I really must be missing something -- can you give me some page references to go along with that so I can follow along?" It's polite and it's constructive. If you disagree with someone's interpretation of the rules, feel free to make your case -- but remember that the other person isn't stubborn and/or stupid just because they don't agree with your interpretation. These are opinions, people, so please don't act like you are the Purveyor of All Knowledge. (Only I get to do that. :D ) Now, I don't want to see any more of this -- consider yourself warned.
DungeonMaster 07-03-04, 09:15 AM	Will do the_Hutt. Sorry for any transgression, it is getting quite heated and I'll try and cool things down. I can edit away anything that is inappropriate (or you can do it at your end). Originally posted by Slippery Mind II Um... did you notice on each of those spells you mentioned, you keep using the term "it specificly says." In 3.0 haste it does not "specificly" say on your NEXT turn, but rather on your turn. No "next" there. Sorry. Evard's black tentacles states these attacks take place on your turn. It does not say "on your next turn" . It says on your turn. It works in this respect exactly like haste. Starting the round after they appear, on your turn, they attack. If it said "on your next turn" then I would have no case, no further arguments. Starting the round after you caste haste on yourself , you get an extra partial action. Eyebite does not even mention your turn. It doesn't have to. It's a free action to do so and you can only take free actions on your turn. The gaze attack on one creature isn't even dependant on your turn. With haste it does not have to be your character's turn that comes up. That is the difference between haste and Evard's black tentacles. You could, say haste a fighter in round 1 and when he gets a turn, in round1, he gets the extra partial action. That's the way it's supposed to work by the rules. Two wizards, wizard A and wizard B could conceivably have wiz A cast haste on wiz B who later in initiative casts haste on wiz A and gets another spell out. There's nothing wrong with this by the rules. Saying wiz A casts haste on himself and then gets to cast another spell from a granted partial action is incorrect, by the rules and stipulation of the partial action occuring on your turn. I'm away for a few days, traveling to Vancouver, but hopefully I've driven the stake through the heart of the argument validating my interpretation.
Seeker95 07-03-04, 11:12 AM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster I'm away for a few days, traveling to Vancouver, but hopefully I've driven the stake through the heart of the argument validating my interpretation. Yup. You've killed any validation of the argument you are putting forth. Unless it says "next turn" in the spell description, the default effect time of any given standard action spell occur in the same round the spell is cast.
J. Grenemyer 07-03-04, 04:25 PM	Hello, I've found yet another piece of evidence supporting the commonly understood interpretation of Haste. From Bastion of Broken Souls (the final adventure in WotC's adventure path adventure series) by Bruce R. Cordell, page 26: Tamion, hidden in the back of the crystal trees drinks his single potion of haste and uses his extra partial action to activate unholy aura. In the second round he teleports into combat... Here we see again an example where haste is used the round it comes into play. The evidence, as they say, is overwhelming. :P
bitnine 07-04-04, 01:29 AM	I don't know, perhaps the haste action gets put on the stack, but then the end of turn is resolved as a state-based effect and bypasses - Wait, that's the wrong game. Nevermind. ;)
Slippery Mind II 07-04-04, 01:48 AM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster Evard's black tentacles states these attacks take place on your turn. It does not say "on your next turn" . It says on your turn. It works in this respect exactly like haste. Starting the round after they appear, on your turn, they attack. If it said "on your next turn" then I would have no case, no further arguments. Starting the round after you caste haste on yourself , you get an extra partial action. From a previous post of yours: Originally posted by DungeonMaster You do not for instance make the tentacles of Evard's black tentacles strike on the instant you cast it because the spell is a 1-action spell. The spell description specifically states "starting the round after they appear they attack". Please note the red sections. There seems to be a contradiction here. Also note that Haste DOES NOT specificly state that the partial action gained starts on the next turn ANYWHERE in the text. Using the argument of Black Tentacles, which, according to YOUR own words SPECIFICLY says they do not start attacking until the round after they appear is not helping your case at all. One seems to have the stipulation written in the spell, but in the case of haste you are making assumptions. There is no reason to believe anywhere in the rules that there is a delay in the effect of the partial action simply because the spell is cast after a move action, though you would allow the spell to grant the partial action in the same round it is cast if it is cast before the move action... And this makes sense to you? What if I choose not to take my move action at all? Does my turn end at that moment becasue the last thing I am doing in the regular turn is casting haste? We have demonstrated that using a standard action after a move action does not mean it is the end of your turn, after all, one can still take a 5 foot step. Again, there is no reason to believe that haste does not allow the extra partial action the moment is is finished being cast. To give an example of how I feel this is flawed: Say my 5th level wizard stands up from prone and casts haste. By your rules, I get the AC bonus and the speed bonus (which doesn't mean anything because, according to you my turn just ended) and that's it. So, from the end of my turn to the beginning of my next turn I get a +4 bonus to AC and nothing else from the spell as of yet. Does that count toward my 5 rounds? If it does, you've just cheated me out of an extra partial action. If it doesn't, I have just gained a round of AC for no particular reason at all. This does not make sense, and I hope it doesn't make sense to you or anyone else, but it is something that you would have to deal with when the question came up...
J. Grenemyer 07-04-04, 02:21 AM	Originally posted by bitnine Wait, that's the wrong game. Nevermind. ;) Were it not for my mediocre MtG experience, I would've not gotten the joke. :D
J. Grenemyer 07-04-04, 04:23 AM	Hello, Originally posted by DungeonMaster Absolutely NOTHING in either of the quoted sections say ANYTHING about overriding the stipulations of the spells themselves. OK then. We can take this as your acceptance that all 1 action spells are successfully cast and completed within the time frame of a Standard Action. Originally posted by DungeonMaster You do not for instance make the tentacles of Evard's black tentacles strike on the instant you cast it because the spell is a 1-action spell. The spell description specifically states "starting the round after they appear they attack". I never said otherwise. I claimed 1 action spells are standard actions that are completely cast on the turn of the character that casts them. Just so there is no misunderstanding: I’m not claiming “successfully cast” always means, “can use any of a spells effects immediately,” because there are some spells that stipulate their effects can’t be used until a later time. However, I am claiming that any 1 action spell always makes its effects fully available to the caster or has its effect occur in the manner proscribed by the caster upon completion of the spell. Originally posted by DungeonMaster You have mordenkainen's sword which specifically states "the sword strikes starting on the round you cast the spell". You have eyebite that has the stipulation that "each round a gaze attack automatically works against one creature within range that is looking at the gazing creature" - as a free action you can use the gaze attack. These are seperate effects - one relying on your actual turn, the free action, the other not at all! You do realize that whether or not you can begin to use some or all of a spell’s effects has absolutely no bearing on whether or not a spell has been successfully cast? Do you allow enemies to try and disrupt a 1 action spell after the spellcaster’s turn is over, if some of the spell’s effects aren’t allowed to be used yet? Originally posted by DungeonMaster [B] You cannot ignore the sentence "on his turn" - that has everything to do with the effect of an additional partial action. It is a stipulation of the spell. OK? I’m not ignoring it. However, you are. Haste, like any other 1 action spell, is successfully cast before the regular turn is over. A character’s regular turn has to have ended before he can opt to use Haste after his regular turn (this last, mind, is one of two options available in the spell’s text). If we apply your ruling consistently, we see that a character can never use Haste at the end of his turn –regardless of the spell’s text– because by your ruling a turn is irrevocably over when the move and standard have both been used up. Originally posted by DungeonMaster It does not. Your turn is over. You’ve already shown you accept that Haste is successfully cast before a turn ends. The regular turn ending is a condition of Haste allowing the extra partial action to be taken after the regular turn. (This is in the spell’s text, BTW). Originally posted by DungeonMaster Your interpretation is needlessly complicated - requiring a move only after casting the spell to acquire the partial action. For that to be true, my interpretation would need to have adopted your assumption that casting Haste makes a turn end before it can be used. How is it not clear that I’ve been disagreeing with you about that assumption all this time? Originally posted by DungeonMaster "On his turn" means "when you get a turn". Then why didn’t they say, “when you get a turn?” Why is it necessary to reword the spell’s text to derive its meaning? Why not just read the spell as is? I feel you believe this is necessary only because you think Haste can’t be used in a move-then-cast sequence, which (for consistency’s sake) must also mean it can’t be used in a cast-then-move sequence. Thus you’ve altered Haste’s wording outside of what it actually says to fit your personal understanding of the rules. Originally posted by DungeonMaster Evard's black tentacles states these attacks take place on your turn. It does not say "on your next turn" . It says on your turn. It works in this respect exactly like haste. Starting the round after they appear, on your turn, they attack. Huh? When do the tentacles appear? The same turn the spell is cast. When do they start attacking? One round after the spell is cast, on the caster’s turn. How do we know this? It’s in the spell’s text. [Q] In layman’s terms, when is the earliest the effects of a just-cast spell can occur, when those effects can only occur on the caster’s turn and no sooner than one round after the caster has cast his spell? [A] On the caster’s next turn. Gotcha. :P To review: Haste is a 1 action spell. (3.0 PHB, page 212, under Haste) Haste is successfully cast within one Standard Action. (3.0 PHB, page 148, under Casting Time) The partial action from Haste may only be taken during the subject’s turn. (3.0 PHB, page 212, under Haste: ”On his turn, the subject may…”) The partial action granted from Haste may be taken only before or after the subject’s regular turn. (3.0 PHB, page 212, under Haste: “…the subject may take an extra partial action, either before or after his regular turn.” (The partial action granted by) Haste may be used on the same turn the spell is cast if the caster is the subject, because the caster is the subject and it is his turn. Haste may not be used on the same turn the spell is cast if the caster is not the subject, because it is not the subject’s turn. Haste may be used by a subject when it is the subject’s turn. There you have it: Conclusions drawn from rules interpretations and Haste’s own conditional stipulations for its use, all backed up by quoted rules text with page numbers for reference. I now request that Dalaeck provide a similar conclusion for his rebuttal, that details a step by step process for casting Haste and checking its conditionals, with supporting rules quotes and page number references for review. :D [Edit: Removed unused numbering from steps list]
DungeonMaster 07-05-04, 07:29 PM	I have limited internet access and limited time to spend on this. I'll only answer the salient points and pertinent arguments then. Originally posted by Slippery Mind II Please note the red sections. There seems to be a contradiction here. There is no contradiction. Both say the effect begins "on your turn". One states the attacks begin 1 round later. You see this as contradiction while I see this as reinforcement. The difference between haste and EBT is that someone can cast haste on another person, and they can get a turn in the same round . On your turn means literally "when you receive a turn" not "over the course of your turn". Otherwise you wouldn't know when to make the tentacles attack. This is highly relevant because the tentacles can (and have in my games at least) been the demise of their own caster. If the caster had the chance to move out of the way before hand, with the interpretation that "on your turn" means any point you so desire at whatever whim or DM fiat, then he would not die. A willy-nilly application of the "on your turn" statement leads to all sorts of problems. There is no reason to believe anywhere in the rules that there is a delay in the effect of the partial action ... I repeat, I am not arguing a delay in the effect by my interpretation. My interpretation is self consistent and works perfectly in all situations and all respects that I am aware of. I am arguing a delayed effect by the willy-nilly interpretation of what "on your turn" means. If you state that "on your turn" means "at any point it is your turn" then you have a delayed effect cropping up because after moving and casting the spell it is by the book, no longer your turn. We have demonstrated that using a standard action after a move action does not mean it is the end of your turn, after all, one can still take a 5 foot step. No, I've shot that down. You cannot, by the 3rd edition book. In 3.5, yes, by the 3rd edition rules, no. Does that count toward my 5 rounds? If it does, you've just cheated me out of an extra partial action. If it doesn't, I have just gained a round of AC for no particular reason at all. This does not make sense, and I hope it doesn't make sense to you or anyone else, but it is something that you would have to deal with when the question came up... You don't get the extra partial action. It's not "cheating" you out of anything, merely that getting the partial action is contingent upon you receiving a turn. You could stand up and cast it on someone else and they would get a partial action upon it being their turn, and they would get 5 partial actions. No where does the spell state "you get 5 partial actions". Heck if you're nauseated you don't get anything but a single move. Not even the AC is definitive, it's a dodge bonus and anytime you're denied your dex bonus you also lose your dodge bonus.
DungeonMaster 07-05-04, 07:50 PM	Originally posted by J. Grenemyer I never said otherwise. I claimed 1 action spells are standard actions that are completely cast on the turn of the character that casts them. Nope. I'm pretty sure it says immediately, not "on the character's turn", not simultaneously. Sorry. You can move, cast a spell and have it come into effect immediately but it's not necessarily still your turn. I think that's precisely my point that you've been trying unsuccessfully to disprove. To you it seems obvious that "immediately comes into effect" means "simultaneously with the tail peice of your turn" and I'm arguing that there's nothing in the rules to say that it's still your turn after you've cast your spell. If we apply your ruling consistently, we see that a character can never use Haste at the end of his turn –regardless of the spell’s text– because by your ruling a turn is irrevocably over when the move and standard have both been used up. That is the application of your interpretation, not mine. Mine is that he gets the ability to use an extra standard action upon receiving a turn. You never have any inconsistencies with that interpretation. What you are saying has numerous problems, above and beyond move+casting. When do you have Evard's black tentacles attack? Before the wizard moves? After? At your whim? At the player's whim? My reading of "on your turn" is unambigous and leads to no contradictions or problems. I will offer a complete list and more complete rebuttal as soon as I can get my PHB, which I don't have with me currently, likely tomorrow.
bitnine 07-05-04, 08:04 PM	All this makes me wonder... Would you rule it impossible for a character to stand up from prone, fire a bow, and drop back to prone?
Slippery Mind II 07-05-04, 09:00 PM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster There is no contradiction. Both say the effect begins "on your turn". One states the attacks begin 1 round later. You see this as contradiction while I see this as reinforcement. The difference between haste and EBT is that someone can cast haste on another person, and they can get a turn in the same round . On your turn means literally "when you receive a turn" not "over the course of your turn". Otherwise you wouldn't know when to make the tentacles attack. This is highly relevant because the tentacles can (and have in my games at least) been the demise of their own caster. If the caster had the chance to move out of the way before hand, with the interpretation that "on your turn" means any point you so desire at whatever whim or DM fiat, then he would not die. *sigh* There IS a contradiction because you are citing a spell that SPECIFICLY states IN the spell that it doesn't attack in the next round as proof that haste doesn't grant the partial action until the next round, but haste says nothing of the kind anywhere in the spell. Let me say it again because you seem to be missing something: There IS a contradiction because you are citing a spell that SPECIFICLY states IN the spell that it doesn't attack in the next round as proof that haste doesn't grant the partial action until the next round, but haste says nothing of the kind anywhere in the spell. For a third time, because something tells me you still don't get it. There IS a contradiction because you are citing a spell that SPECIFICLY states IN the spell that it doesn't attack in the next round as proof that haste doesn't grant the partial action until the next round, but haste says nothing of the kind anywhere in the spell. Do you get it now? Please say you do. Also, you have proven NOTHING except that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules. In fat, your arguments, in my mind, are contrary to your own postulations. I have argued my point several times already and as such, will no longer respond because I will not waste my time trying to convince the stuborn, but I would like to point out that you are the only one that seems to think this way (at least on this thread) and seem to be suggesting that the rest of us are "not getting it." That should give anyone pause to think.
J. Grenemyer 07-06-04, 04:43 AM	Hello, Originally posted by DungeonMaster You can move, cast a spell and have it come into effect immediately but it's not necessarily still your turn. Incorrect. Doubly so given the previous examples that have shown this not to be true. Also, could you please explain, in precise detail, whose turn it is when a 1 action spell is completed? As there’s nothing in the rules that says there is any sort of “in between” space between turns where spells come into effect, I'm curious to know on whose turn a 1 action spell completes. Also, please quote that part of the rules text that says “immediately” means, “right away, just not on your turn.” :rolleyes: Originally posted by DungeonMaster I think that's precisely my point that you've been trying unsuccessfully to disprove. To you it seems obvious that "immediately comes into effect" means "simultaneously with the tail piece of your turn" and I'm arguing that there's nothing in the rules to say that it's still your turn after you've cast your spell. What I am claiming is the same as I’ve been claiming for the last several posts; that 1 action spells are standard actions. A character completes a standard action on his regular turn, within the space of the standard action. A character successfully casts 1 action spells on his or her turn. Do you agree or disagree with this specific claim? Yes or no? If you disagree, please quote the page in the PHB that supplies proof to support your position. I’ve already posted the relevant pages that support mine. Originally posted by DungeonMaster What you are saying has numerous problems, above and beyond move+casting. When do you have Evard's black tentacles attack? Before the wizard moves? After? At your whim? At the player's whim? On the caster’s next turn. Nothing in my statements puts this fact in doubt. No statement in any of my arguments (when taken as a whole) suggests that successfully casting a 1 action spell frees a character from the stipulations of that spell. If so, please quote the part or part of my claims that do so, ‘cause I sure don’t see any. Originally posted by DungeonMaster That is the application of your interpretation, not mine. Mine is that he gets the ability to use an extra standard action upon receiving a turn. You never have any inconsistencies with that interpretation. <SNIP> My reading of "on your turn" is unambigous and leads to no contradictions or problems. Of my interpretation? How’s that? Yours says that a character can successfully cast a spell that lets him take an extra turn after his turn is over, yet somehow not be allowed to access to that ability when his turn ends, even though the spell already resolved on his regular turn. When we compare your interpretation to what the spell text says (which is “On his turn,” as opposed to, “When he gets a turn”), we see there’s plenty of ambiguity. Why should we not to allow a character to use Haste if he casts first before moving, since it is his turn, when the exact wording of the spell is “..his turn?” Why reword the spell’s text? Occam’s Razor won’t favor a theory that requires rewording instructions just to get a working interpretation. If a spell is successfully cast on your turn, you gain all the abilities the spell provides. You are still tied into the turn structure and the usage stipulations of the spell, unless the spell’s text says otherwise. Thus, if one of those abilities is to take an extra partial action during your turn after your regular turn ends, you have that option because you’ve already successfully cast the spell. You don’t suddenly “loose” the ability to take the option just because your regular turn ended when your spell completed. If you did, you’d never be able to use Haste at the end of a regular turn. Besides, you can’t use the extra partial action from Haste at the end of your turn until after your regular turn ends. When a character starts his turn, he has several options to choose from. Move then attack? Attack then move? Make a full attack then move 5’? Make a full attack, but move 5’ midway through if the first guy falls, etc… The very act of deciding amongst these options is not even a free action. Each of these decisions, for which more than one must be made per round, are undefined because they’re outside of measured game time. Deciding when to use the partial action from Haste is no different. Finally, I’ve provided two official, published sources that explain Haste as being used differently than your interpretation. How do you respond to that? :D
DungeonMaster 07-06-04, 04:22 PM	Originally posted by bitnine All this makes me wonder... Would you rule it impossible for a character to stand up from prone, fire a bow, and drop back to prone? Yep, in fact my players starting doing exactly this and I thought it was a bit cheap and unrealistic until I re-read the rules. If you want to fire from prone all the time you need a crossbow.
DungeonMaster 07-06-04, 04:32 PM	Originally posted by Slippery Mind II *sigh* There IS a contradiction because you are citing a spell that SPECIFICLY states IN the spell that it doesn't attack in the next round as proof that haste doesn't grant the partial action until the next round, but haste says nothing of the kind anywhere in the spell. No, you're not getting it. If haste said "you don't get the partial action until next round" then you couldn't haste your fighter ally and on his turn, in the same round, he wouldn't get the partial action. That's why it doesn't have the specific 1 round delay. What you fail to understand is that "On your turn" gives specific timing for the attacks, when read as "when you receive a turn". It isn't merely fluff. It isn't "at any point during your turn, at whim or wimsy". It is the precise timing of the condition - when you receive a turn, at that moment, they attack. When the target of the haste spell receives a turn, at that moment, you get the benefit of being able to use a partial action before or after your regular action. Clear?
DungeonMaster 07-06-04, 04:54 PM	I again don't have much time, so I'll cut to the chase. Originally posted by J. Grenemyer Also, could you please explain, in precise detail, whose turn it is when a 1 action spell is completed? As there’s nothing in the rules that says there is any sort of “in between” space between turns where spells come into effect, I'm curious to know on whose turn a 1 action spell completes. Direct quote from the PHB p.148: "The casting of a spell that takes 1 full 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". This does not say, and I repeat does not say, "comes into effect during the end of the turn of the creature who's turn is immediately before yours". I don't care whether you like the language or not but there is precedence for "gaps" between turns. It's not your turn but you're still doing something, can still be disrupted and for all intents and purposes is meaningful time. Your turn is a specific game term - which is when you get to act. Nothing anywhere says you get the spell effects during your turn. If you still have a move left, you clearly do. That does not remove the fact that the effects still are contingent with your reading of the words "on your turn". A character successfully casts 1 action spells on his or her turn. True, the effects are not necessarily on their turn. They may be immediate, but they're not necessarily on their turn. If the move then cast, then they're not. They're immediately after their turn in that case - before any other creature's actions. If they cast then move, then it does indeed occur on their turn. Get it? When we compare your interpretation to what the spell text says (which is “On his turn,” as opposed to, “When he gets a turn”), we see there’s plenty of ambiguity. Why should we not to allow a character to use Haste if he casts first before moving, since it is his turn, when the exact wording of the spell is “..his turn?” Nope, my interpretation is "when he receives a turn". Get it straight. You receive a turn before you do any actions. There is no ambiguity. It's a precise definite moment in time, not contingent upon moving, casting or anything the character does. The interpretation has no holes that I know of. Yours is full of holes and leaps of interpretation. Finally, I’ve provided two official, published sources that explain Haste as being used differently than your interpretation. How do you respond to that? I've told you I don't care a flying banana about what other people have since published as you're likely to get the same people tell you that darkness doesn't light up a dark room in 3.5. I'm not arguing intent - they may have intended the spell to work that way. I'm arguing the way the rules are written. You still refuse to answer my question. When do they attacks of EBT occur? If I cast EBT then move into it who goes first? Me or the tentacles? Do I die or live? Your wizard's life with your interpretation highly, um, uncertain. Kinda like a certain schroedinger's cat... To sum up: My reading: A turn is defined in the glossary p. 282 "is the portion of the combat round in which a particular character acts". The stipulation "On your turn" can be equivalently substituted with "when you receive a turn". The haste spell p.212. grants you a partial action that is contingent upon you receiving a turn. It then reads: When you receive a turn, then you can use a partial action before or after your regular action. The spell Evard's black tentacles have the tentacles attack "on your turn". The tentacles attack at the specific moment when you receive a turn - before you even get to act. A caster can haste himself in round 1, but does not get an extra partial action in that round. A caster can haste someone else in round 1, and if they receive a partial action in round 1, they get the extra partial action. Your reading: A turn is not really defined. It doesn't start and end with your actions, merely starts and ends with other creature's actions. Without proof, a 1 action spell's effects occur on your turn. Haste thus extends your turn, even beyond moving and casting haste. The stipulation "On your turn" means "at any point during your turn", which as above is ill-defined. A caster can haste himself in round 1, gets the extra partial action in round 1. The tentacles of Evard's black tentacles attack at some ill-defined time "at any point during your turn", DM whim really.
J. Grenemyer 07-06-04, 06:24 PM	Hello, Originally posted by DungeonMaster Direct quote from the PHB p.148: “The casting of a spell that takes 1 full round to cast is a full round action. I specifically asked you to respond to the following: Could you please explain, in precise detail, whose turn it is when a 1 action spell is completed? I did not ask you to talk about full round actions, because my claim did not involve full round actions. The challenge regarding my claim on 1 action spells remains open to you, waiting for your (on topic) rebuttal, to be supported by quoting relevant rules text with page numbers for reference. Do you have an on topic rebuttal or not? Originally posted by DungeonMaster They're immediately after their turn in that case - before any other creature's actions. There is no rule anywhere in the 3.0 rules that says this is the case for Standard Actions, much less 1 action spells. Please provide a page quote if you are aware of one. Originally posted by DungeonMaster If they cast then move, then it does indeed occur on their turn. So the same Standard Action (casting a 1 action spell) takes effect at different times depending on whether you move before or after performing the action? Where’s that in the rulebooks? We’ll need a page quote for that one too. Originally posted by DungeonMaster Yours is full of holes and leaps of interpretation. Uh, where? Please provide a direct quote if you choose to reply, with an example conclusion drawn from one or more of my claims. Originally posted by DungeonMaster I've told you I don't care a flying banana about what other people have since published as you're likely to get the same people tell you that darkness doesn't light up a dark room in 3.5. :rofl: And that’s somehow supposed to invalidate all game designer opinions? That’s supposed to be the evidence that makes us conclude all game designers don’t know what they are talking about? That’s supposed to make all gamers disregard every rule in any rulebook, sourcebook or adventure? How incredibly irrational. Bastion of Broken Souls and City of the Spider Queen are both 3.0 products, written in house at WotC by the same designers that created 3.0, and edited by those same individuals as well. And unlike the rules for light in 3.5, there was never, ever the hullabaloo of arguments over how 3.0 Haste works. (And before you claim otherwise, please provide evidence.) There’s no comparison. BTW, you do realize that designers write rules to match their intent, yes? Originally posted by DungeonMaster I'm not arguing intent - they may have intended the spell to work that way. I'm arguing the way the rules are written. For the last time: No, you are not. You are arguing your reworded interpretation. You’ve tried to claim the spell can only be interpreted your way because it can’t possibly be used on the same turn when the caster moves then casts (even though the spell’s text says exactly that), yet have not provided any evidence to support that claim. Until you actually provide real rules text, there’s no good reason for any gamer to reword the spell to match your highly modified interpretation of the phrase that begins with, “On his turn…” What’s more, if separate, official sources present a rule as functioning a certain way, not only is that an official example of how the rule works, but also evidence that there’s no good reason to believe the rule should function any other way -unless the text for that rule obviously runs counter to the official example given. Nowhere in Haste’s text is this the case. Originally posted by DungeonMaster You still refuse to answer my question. When do they attacks of EBT occur? Refused to answer it? Maybe you ought to pay more attention to my posts? I did answer your question, then went on to say that my interpretation doesn’t leave any doubt as to when EBT occurs. What’s more, I then asked you to specifically point to any of my claims that might raise doubt on the subject. Please do so, if you can find them. :rolleyes:
bitnine 07-06-04, 07:40 PM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster Yep, in fact my players starting doing exactly this and I thought it was a bit cheap and unrealistic until I re-read the rules. If you want to fire from prone all the time you need a crossbow. Hm. How about allowing a character full attacking with a reach weapon (after making all his attacks) to drop the weapon, quickdraw a short sword, and take a five foot step towards his opponent?
DungeonMaster 07-07-04, 09:03 PM	Originally posted by bitnine How about allowing a character full attacking with a reach weapon (after making all his attacks) to drop the weapon, quickdraw a short sword, and take a five foot step towards his opponent? Legit. The full attack action on p.124 top of the page says you can perform the 5 foot step before, after, or between your attacks. While taking the full attack action you are allowed any number of free actions (as many as the DM will allow), in this case you used 2 free actions during the full attack action droping the weapon and quickdrawing the other, then took the five foot step. Perfectly 100% legit.
bitnine 07-07-04, 09:22 PM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster Perfectly 100% legit. Now, would you allow the same thing if the character didn't use a 5 foot step? That is, if they made all of the attacks of their full attack and then dropped their reach weapon and quickdrew a shortsword?
DungeonMaster 07-07-04, 09:46 PM	Originally posted by J. Grenemyer I specifically asked you to respond to the following: Could you please explain, in precise detail, whose turn it is when a 1 action spell is completed? No one's turn. No one is acting. Is that so hard to understand? The challenge regarding my claim on 1 action spells remains open to you, waiting for your (on topic) rebuttal, to be supported by quoting relevant rules text with page numbers for reference. I have, and am waiting for you to find an actual quote somewhere that the 1-action spell comes into effect during your turn after you've moved and cast the spell. I'm patiently waiting. I've yet to see a shred of evidence for this other than your insistance that "it's so" because it occurs "immediately". Suprisingly 1 round casting time spells specifically mention the word turn. Odd that. So the same Standard Action (casting a 1 action spell) takes effect at different times depending on whether you move before or after performing the action? By your reading of "on your turn" meaning "during your turn" yes. The 1 action spell cast before moving is clearly still during your turn - you are still able to act. The 1 action spell cast after a move is not clearly still your turn, despite your claims to otherwise - you have finished to act, your turn is over. Try the glossary as mentioned above for the page reference as to the definition of a turn. And unlike the rules for light in 3.5, there was never, ever the hullabaloo of arguments over how 3.0 Haste works. (And before you claim otherwise, please provide evidence.) There’s no comparison. More unsuported claims that I can counter with a like amount of handwaiving. I've seen them, participated in some of them and yes, frequently people come here asking when the partial action is given. Maybe you didn't look into them? Could that be true? BTW, you do realize that designers write rules to match their intent, yes? That says alot about a certain light spell and holy word spell if true. Intent and what's written are two different things. The legal systems of the world are populated with inane and silly results of rules poorly worded but with good intent. I'm not truly interested in discovering other people's intent for a game I'm more than familiar with in 3 different incarnations. I'm more interested in understanding what's written and then going from there. If the intent was, as you say, to have it give an auto-free action to the caster, I think it's short sighted, that much I'll certainly agree. This rule is not particularly well worded by the phrasing of "on your turn". Let's pull out the dictionary.com definition of on. Nothing short of 13 of them. I mean to interpret "on" as #3.b "used to indicate particular circumstance" "on entering the room" "on your turn" You mean to interpret "on" as #3.a "used to indicate occurence at a given time" "on the fourth of july" "on your turn" In terms of the rules these are not of course equivalent, and my interpretation has the advantage that things are defined, like the attacks of evard's black tentacles, while yours does not have any such advantage. For the last time: No, you are not. You are arguing your reworded interpretation. It's not rewording. It's the consequence of a language that is not univocal. Your interpretation is no more rewording that mine. Not a drop. What’s more, if separate, official sources present a rule as functioning a certain way, not only is that an official example of how the rule works, but also evidence that there’s no good reason to believe the rule should function any other way -unless the text for that rule obviously runs counter to the official example given. Like 3.5 lances? Tell me J, 2-for-1 power attack with them while mounted or not? ;) Refused to answer it? Maybe you ought to pay more attention to my posts? I did answer your question, then went on to say that my interpretation doesn’t leave any doubt as to when EBT occurs. No, you've avoided the question entirely. WHEN DOES IT HAPPEN. If I cast Evard's black tentacles then move into them - when do the attacks occur? Can I move out of them before they strike? If you read "on your turn" as "during" your turn, these attacks are ill-defined in this scenario. It's a clear failure of your interpretation. If you read "on your turn" as "upon receiving a turn", these attacks are clearly defined, the wizard does not get to move out of them before they strike.
J. Grenemyer 07-08-04, 06:27 AM	Hello, I just noticed the edit in your previous post that included a “summary” (I use the term loosely) of my position. I find it troubling that your “summary” does not include any of the numbered points of fact I laid out in previous posts. I am sure I do not need to remind you that misrepresentation of another’s statements is against the CoC. Please note that I am not accusing you of deliberately engaging in such an intellectually dishonest action, however the near-total dissimilarity between your “summary” and my actual posts is probably grounds for WizO The Hut to come in and close the thread for failure to heed his warning. If you wish this discussion to continue, I respectfully ask that you not post in a manner that indicates otherwise. Originally posted by DungeonMaster No one's turn. No one is acting. The 3.0 player’s handbook makes no mention of a “null” time in between turns -anywhere within its text- where 1 action spells supposedly are successfully cast. Nor does it make any differentiation for when 1 action spells take effect if cast before or after the move. Please provide a direct quote from the rulebooks, including page references, to support your claim. If you cannot, your claim must be rejected as false. Originally posted by DungeonMaster I have, and am waiting for you to find an actual quote somewhere that the 1-action spell comes into effect during your turn after you've moved and cast the spell. I've yet to see a shred of evidence for this other than your insistence that "it's so" because it occurs "immediately". I hope you mean more proof beyond the numbered points I posted earlier in the thread (which, incidentally, you have yet to refute at all). Otherwise, your request might be misconstrued as a deliberate attempt to ignore my claims and a false statement about my behavior. Anyway, my quotes (and thus my proof) follows: The definition of turn, as found on page 282 of the 3.0 PHB: The portion of each combat round in which a particular character acts. (Emphasis mine.) From the 3.0 PBH page 121: Combat Chapter: Actions In Combat: Action Types: Standard Actions: A standard action allows you to do something and move your speed during a combat round. You may move before or after performing the activity. Doing this action takes the same time as casting a 1-action spell in terms of what else you can do in a round. (Emphasis mine.) From the 3.0 PHB page 125: Combat Chapter: Magic Actions: Casting Time: Most spells have a casting time of one action. These spells you can cast as a standard action. A spell cast in this manner immediately takes effect. (Emphasis mine). A 1 action spell is cast and takes effect immediately on the standard action of the character that casts it. I repeat my previous request (from this post and my last) for you to provide actual, quoted proof of your “null time” claim. Originally posted by DungeonMaster By your reading of "on your turn" meaning "during your turn" yes. The 1 action spell cast before moving is clearly still during your turn - you are still able to act. I did not ask for you to interpret my reading. I asked for yours. Thus I repeat my question from my last post: So the same Standard Action (casting a 1 action spell) takes effect at different times depending on whether you move before or after performing the action? I also add the following: A 1 action spell cast before a move takes effect when? On the standard action it was cast, in between the standard and the move, or during the move? Originally posted by DungeonMaster More unsupported claims that I can counter with a like amount of hand waiving. I've seen them, participated in some of them and yes, frequently people come here asking when the partial action is given. That’s strange. I only claimed there was never the same amount of controversy over 3.0 Haste as there was over 3.5 Lighting rules (and thus no good reason to believe 3.0 Haste indicates something wildly different than what the designers intent was) yet your response seems to indicate I claimed there never was any confusion over the topic and that it never really came up to begin with. I do not appreciate implications (including indirect ones) that I said or meant something I clearly did not. For the record: Yes, the question of when 3.0 Haste takes effect did come up on these boards. It was answered officially by WotC and included in Chonjurer’s 3.0 Spells and Magic Board FAQ (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44405), itself “revived” and reposted by the WizOs to the Boards FAQs & Archives in 2003: Q: What can I do with the extra partial action from Haste? Do I get it immediately or on my action next round? A: You get it immediately as a spell's effect starts as soon as you finish casting it. Some people house-rule otherwise, but the official ruling is that you get it right away. You can do anything in that partial action that is listed on pg. 128 of the PHB (including, but not limited to, casting another spell). The Sage has ruled that you can use your extra partial action in the round to finish off a full-round casting time spell (like a summon monster spell) and have it take effect that round. Note that the community FaQ answer is the same as mine. Anyway, did the question cause controversy or what it a hot topic? No, never. Is there good reason to believe the wording of 3.0 Haste is counterintuitive and/or runs counter to common sense (in the same manner as the wording for 3.5 lighting rules)? Nope. Originally posted by DungeonMaster Maybe you didn't look into them? Could that be true? Did you participate in such discussions as far back as 2001? Back when the rules were still new and people were really debating the basic rules hard? I believe you did not. Your first SN’s join date is 04-02-03. Mine is 07-21-01. A 20-21 month difference. Even allowing for time lurking before officially joining, that’s still almost a two year differential. There’s no doubt which of us has been here longer and seen more threads. It’s far more likely you never participated, much less witnessed enough Haste discussions to have formed a historically accurate opinion on their frequency and flame level than I never looked into any of them. Originally posted by DungeonMaster Intent and what's written are two different things. Why and how? I mean really, why and how? Do all game designers set out to write something other than what they intend to write? That’s a proposition that makes no sense. Originally posted by DungeonMaster I'm more interested in understanding what's written and then going from there. This can’t be true if you’re not interested in learning what the goal of a rule was to begin with. Originally posted by DungeonMaster In terms of the rules these are not of course equivalent, and my interpretation has the advantage that things are defined, like the attacks of evard's black tentacles, while yours does not have any such advantage. What? Originally posted by DungeonMaster It's not rewording. Except that your interpretation doesn’t use the actual phrase that’s in the spell’s description, while mine does. Your own summary of your position (found above) uses wording other than that found in Haste to explain its effect. So yes, rewording on your part. Originally posted by DungeonMaster Like 3.5 lances? Tell me J, 2-for-1 power attack with them while mounted or not? ;) Which adventures or sourcebooks beyond the 3.5 PHB demonstrate by example how the 3.5 Lance rules work? And do these sources contradict each other or are they the same? Redundant questions, as there are none (to my knowledge). Thus there is no similarity and no refutation of my original claim: There is no good reason to disregard as incorrect any group of separate, yet identical and official examples of how a given rule works unless the text for that rule obviously runs counter to the official example(s) given. Originally posted by DungeonMaster No, you've avoided the question entirely. WHEN DOES IT HAPPEN. If I cast Evard's black tentacles then move into them - when do the attacks occur? Can I move out of them before they strike? For the last time: I will no longer tolerate your false statements about my posts or my behavior. Nor will I tolerate you “shouting” at me. Please refrain from such uncivil behavior. Now then: I have not avoided your question entirely. My answer was, “On the caster’s next turn.” Originally posted by DungeonMaster If you read "on your turn" as "during" your turn, these attacks are ill-defined in this scenario. It's a clear failure of your interpretation. Noooooooo, that would be a failure of the spell’s description. Regardless, what EBT says (and says quite clearly) is that both the tentacles and the caster act at the same time. Originally posted by DungeonMaster If you read "on your turn" as "upon receiving a turn", these attacks are clearly defined, the wizard does not get to move out of them before they strike. What does my interpretation of Haste have to do with EBT? Particularly when -unlike Haste- EBT clearly spells out when the spell begins attacking (the tentacles can attack one round later on the caster’s next turn)? It would have been so much easier for me to understand what you were asking if you’d made the above comparison when you first brought EBT up, by the way. In closing: If one interpretation of 3.0 Haste requires rewording the spell’s text in order to follow a rule that doesn’t exist (null time between turns for 1 action spells to take effect if cast after a move action), while another interpretation does not require rewording because it follows rules that do exist (1 action spells take effect immediately on the caster’s turn), which of the interpretations is the simpler, and therefore more likely to be correct? Haste, like all 1 action spells, comes into effect on the turn it is cast. All of it’s effects are available the turn it is cast. It can be fully used the turn it is cast. :D
alexp 07-08-04, 11:32 AM	I totally agree with J. Grenemyer. When 3.0 first came out, my interpretation of Haste was that it didn't start until the following round. After reading the wording more carefully, all the players in our game, including the DM agreed that Haste takes effect right away, giving you the extra partial action at any time during your turn after you cast the spell. You have backed up your case with examples and logic. I think most people on the boards, especially in this thread, agree with your interpretation of the rules. How could the majority of people be wrong, and one persons skewed view of a rule become such a huge debate? It's just a game, and the rules are the not what the game is about. That being said, I miss 3.0 Haste, being a Sorcerer and all. It was one of the only realistic ways for a Sorcerer to be able to cast more than one spell in a round...
DungeonMaster 07-08-04, 04:50 PM	Originally posted by J. Grenemyer I just noticed the edit in your previous post that included a “summary” (I use the term loosely) of my position. *snip* Please, I have little time to devote to this thread as it is. You post about 3 times the information I'll give myself the time to address. Because you ask, I'll answer them specifically after this post if I have time today otherwise tommorow. There is not misrepresentation, I didn't quote you, it's up to you to clarify what you think I've reworded incorrectly. The 3.0 player’s handbook makes no mention of a “null” time in between turns -anywhere within its text- where 1 action spells supposedly are successfully cast. Nor does it make any differentiation for when 1 action spells take effect if cast before or after the move. The precedent for "null time" as you call it is well within the rules. Things happen that are not on any particular creature's turn. The example is clear with the casting of 1-round spells. The end of a 1-round casting time spell occurs before your turn, not during your turn, and not during the creature who is before you in initiative's turn. Period. I don't have my PHB with me today but it's under casting time in the spells and magic section plain as day. Anyway, my quotes (and thus my proof) follows: The definition of turn, as found on page 282 of the 3.0 PHB: The portion of each combat round in which a particular character acts. (Emphasis mine.) Correct. Once you have moved and cast a spell, you are no longer acting. You have yet to provide any proof to the contrary. Your turn is over in that circumstance. Actual rule: From the 3.0 PHB page 125: Combat Chapter: Magic Actions: ]Casting Time: Most spells have a casting time of one action. These spells you can cast as a standard action. A spell cast in this manner immediately akes effect. (Emphasis mine). Leap in interpretation, bolded: A 1 action spell is cast and takes effect immediately on the standard action of the character that casts it . There is specifically nothing to validate that. It's a pure leap of interpretation. There is specifically NOTHING that states that the effects come into effect on your turn. If you cast a 1-action spell then move, you have cast the spell while you still get to act . It is by definition still your turn. If you move then cast a 1-action spell, the effects do not by definition occur during your turn. It is a pure leap of interetation that there is some infinitesimal amount of time stilll associated with your turn. I repeat my previous request (from this post and my last) for you to provide actual, quoted proof of your “null time” claim. I have provided the proof in the casting time of a 1-round spell that effects can indeed occur in the instant before and after an actual turn. I repeat my previous request from the past 10 posts for you to provide actual, quoted proof that the effects of a 1-action spell necessarily occur on your turn, as defined as when you get to act. I am convinced now that you have no proof and no precedent. So the same Standard Action (casting a 1 action spell) takes effect at different times depending on whether you move before or after performing the action? One takes effect on your turn, the other does not necessarily by the rules as written. As clearly elaborated above. I also add the following: A 1 action spell cast before a move takes effect when? On the standard action it was cast, in between the standard and the move, or during the move? A 1 action spell before a move takes effect immediately. Because you still have a move action to perform, it can take effect on your turn (if you take the move action). A 1 action spell after a move takes effect immediately. Because you have no longer any actions to perform, it does not take effect on your turn. Clear. Concise. For the record: Yes, the question of when 3.0 Haste takes effect did come up on these boards. It was answered officially by WotC and included in Chonjurer’s Thank you, in the extremely busy state of my current life for a month or so while experiments and conferences run I forgot I could appeal to the previous boards' FAQ that is still readily accessible. Your claims that is was never a hot topic or ever interpreted the way I interpret the spell are further invalidated by alexp's statements that his group used this interpretation as well. I have personally never gamed with any group using this board's interpretation of haste over the past three years. Ever. I suggest you retract your claims that it was never a "hot" topic as baseless and unprovable. Did you participate in such discussions as far back as 2001? Back when the rules were still new and people were really debating the basic rules hard? I believe you did not. Your first SN’s join date is 04-02-03. Mine is 07-21-01. A 20-21 month difference. Even allowing for time lurking before officially joining, that’s still almost a two year differential. While you seem to take great offence at my minor trepidations you are somehow willing to criticize my "experience", which is an argument ad-hominen and inacceptable under the CoC and inacceptable in all proper debate. It's particularly silly to even suggest such things because I quite clearly could have had a different SN and a different ISP and you would never ever be able to know now would you? I've been on these and other boards as long as you have needlessly be said. Now I suggest that you refrain from any further pursuit of such arguments as it does literally nothing for your position, and nothing for your arguments. Except that your interpretation doesn’t use the actual phrase that’s in the spell’s description, while mine does. Your own summary of your position (found above) uses wording other than that found in Haste to explain its effect. Nope. I've appealed to the dictionary and it's clear that "on your turn" can be interpreted as a conditional statement as well as a temporal statement. I've provided a set application that is consistent and does not confict with any aspect of the rules. Which adventures or sourcebooks beyond the 3.5 PHB demonstrate by example how the 3.5 Lance rules work? And do these sources contradict each other or are they the same? I've answered your question J. Answer mine. Point blank. How does the 3.5 lance work as written. Does it do 2-for-1 damage with 3.5 power attack when used mounted in one hand? Point blank reply required. There is no good reason to disregard as incorrect any group of separate, yet identical and official examples of how a given rule works unless the text for that rule obviously runs counter to the official example(s) given. It does. And it introduces further complexity when you consider the statement as an interval of time rather than a condition, specifically with EBT. Now then: I have not avoided your question entirely. My answer was, “On the caster’s next turn.” That is avoiding the question. You ARE avoiding the question. I have answered your questions directly now answer mine: When exactly do the attacks from Evard's black tentacles occur? If my wizard casts EBT on round 1, then moves into them on round 1, round 2 who goes first - the tentacles or the wizard? This is an exact, precise example of what interpreting the prefix "on" as a duration rather than a condition yeilds undefined and undetermined circumstances. It is a clear and distinct failure of your interpretation and you cannot avoid it any longer. Noooooooo, that would be a failure of the spell’s description. That is avoiding the question because both haste and EBT have the exact same wording "on your turn" and is precisely at the center of this debate. Either they both have failure's in their spell description or neither do - not one or the other. So far it's merely a failure of your interpretation of the prefix "on". Answer my questions now, as I have done for yours, in good debating faith, precisely and clearly. I have no more time today and will perhaps get more time tonight but that's not looking probable. Tommorow, for sure, I will have more time.
bitnine 07-08-04, 05:54 PM	Originally posted by bitnine Now, would you allow the same thing if the character didn't use a 5 foot step? That is, if they made all of the attacks of their full attack and then dropped their reach weapon and quickdrew a shortsword? Actually, there's a much better one to ask: Let's say you have a sorcerer casting a heightened fly spell, and then taking a five foot step straight up. You allow it?
J. Grenemyer 07-09-04, 03:08 AM	Hello, I’ve just realized I don’t need to respond, because I’ve won the argument by deffault. None of my claims have been refuted; none of my questions have ever been answered with on topic responses. What a great segue way into the weekend! :D
Aimian Silverflash 07-09-04, 07:27 AM	Originally posted by bitnine I don't know, perhaps the haste action gets put on the stack, but then the end of turn is resolved as a state-based effect and bypasses - Wait, that's the wrong game. Nevermind. ;) LOL... On a side note, (speaking of MtG) back before 3.5 came out, it took me using the analogy of the power of the card "Time Walk" before some of my gamers would agree that Haste was too powerful. But I digress... I would definitely agree to allow Haste into the game as a higher level. Probably about 7th or 8th level. By that level, wizards/sorcerers have already started utilizing Quicken Spell anyway, so it would just allow them another option. I would probably re-add the old 2nd edition thing where the caster ages 1 year though. -Or maybe an exp penalty. (Which is the more 3rd edition style, lol) -Something to where it isn't cast like the candy that 3.0 Haste was.
Aimian Silverflash 07-09-04, 07:34 AM	By the way, I can see you two getting smacked with the "Moderator Stick of Negation" if you don't chill out some... BTW, I wanna say that the 3.0 SRD said that haste took effect immediately. -Like most spells. Thought I'd add my 2 cents. :angel:
jokotoko 07-09-04, 09:09 AM	I've seen this discussion a couple of times now. I've also never seen anyone besides dungeonmaster defend his weird opinion. I all my gaming years I've never seen anyone interpret haste like he does. Just leave him be.....some people just need their little niches to live in.
DungeonMaster 07-09-04, 08:38 PM	Originally posted by J. Grenemyer None of my claims have been refuted; none of my questions have ever been answered with on topic responses. So let's recap the salient points: If we read the prefix "on" as a duration, rather than a conditional statement we get: 1- no proof for 1-action spells occuring necessarily on your turn - leap of interpretation that "immediately" actually still belongs on your turn. 2- undefined sequence of attacks from Evard's black tentacles - a paradox can occur (chicken or the egg? which came first? probably the real reason you're backing out). If we read the prefix "on" as a conditional statement we get: Complete consistency. Enjoy your weekend J.
DungeonMaster 07-09-04, 09:03 PM	Because you asked for it specifically I will further elaborate: Originally posted by J. Grenemyer To review: Haste is a 1 action spell. (3.0 PHB, page 212, under Haste) Haste is successfully cast within one Standard Action. (3.0 PHB, page 148, under Casting Time) Correct, the effects of which are not necessarily within your turn. It is not "within" one standard action, it's "with" one standard action. The specifics of the spell description are not overridden by the casting time rules. The partial action from Haste may only be taken during the subject’s turn. (3.0 PHB, page 212, under Haste: ”On his turn, the subject may…”) Incorrect. "On" is a preposition and can denote both a conditional statement, "on my entering the room" which is a precise moment in time - or alternatively a duration: "on the 4th of July" which is an extent of time. The use of which is important in game terms because one use leads to a paradox and the other does not. The paradox of Evard's black tentacles is as follows: The attacks of Evard's black tentacles occur "on your turn", the exact same phrase as Haste. If a wizard casts EBT then steps into the tentacles, who gets to go first? The tentacles or the wizard? This is a classic chicken and egg paradox. By using "on" as a conditional statement then there is no paradox. The tentacles attack when the character acquires his turn. Plain and simple. The partial action granted from Haste may be taken only before or after the subject’s regular turn. (3.0 PHB, page 212, under Haste: “…the subject may take an extra partial action, either before or after his regular turn.” Incorrect again. You are misquoting the PHB! It specifically says before or after his regular action . The statement "on" is a conditional statement. Action implies it is your turn, by definition of turn in the glossary p.282 "the portion of a combat round in which a caracter acts". The statement "on your turn" is then redundant if read as a duration. The only consistent reading of the spell by the rules is that "on" is to indicate a conditional effect. There is no paradox, there is no problem.
DungeonMaster 07-09-04, 09:58 PM	Because I actually want J to reply to the paradox, I will, in good debating faith, now that I have time, reply to each and every question he has asked. I havn't had time to do so until now. I'll kill my signature to make which posts this comes from transparent. You do realize that whether or not you can begin to use some or all of a spell’s effects has absolutely no bearing on whether or not a spell has been successfully cast? Yup. The casting of the spell and it's effects are totally different. The tentacles don't attack on the round you cast them, mordenkainen's sword attacks immediately. The spell description trumps all. Do you allow enemies to try and disrupt a 1 action spell after the spellcaster’s turn is over, if some of the spell’s effects aren’t allowed to be used yet? Nope. The spell is cast, it's no longer his turn, disrupting a spell with an attack has to be a readied action that occurs during the turn of character who's casting the spell. Once his turn is over, the spell is cast, it is cast immediately, be that on his turn, while he still has a move left, or not on his turn when he does not. For that to be true, my interpretation would need to have adopted your assumption that casting Haste makes a turn end before it can be used. How is it not clear that I’ve been disagreeing with you about that assumption all this time? It is clear that you're dissagreeing. It's likewise clear you've never provided any evidence for your interpretation that the spell effects occur during the turn it is cast after a move action. You have merely equated "immediately" with "during your turn" which is not correct. The effects of a 1-round casting spell occur immediately as well, and they are not during your turn. There lies the precedent for actions occuring immediately and not on your turn. Then why didn’t they say, “when you get a turn?” Because on your turn is equivalent to that statement. The fact that the language has two potential meanings what we're arguing, not intent. I've stated this repeatedly. Why is it necessary to reword the spell’s text to derive its meaning? Why not just read the spell as is? Again, check dictionary.com, you have a web-browser clearly and read the definition of "on". There are 13 definitions, two of which can apply to this situation readily. Rewording is a way of elucidating the differences between these definitions. One yeilds my reading, with no paradox, the other yeilds your reading, with paradox.
DungeonMaster 07-09-04, 10:10 PM	Originally posted by J. Grenemyer A character successfully casts 1 action spells on his or her turn. Do you agree or disagree with this specific claim? Yes or no? You are using the word "on" again. As stated you mean to say "during". Yes. The spell is successfully cast during the character's turn, it is a standard action and a standard action occurs during the character's turn. The effects of a standard action do not necessarily occur during a character's turn. Readying an action is an example of a standard action that specficallly does not occur during the character's turn. The effects of a 1-action spell occur immediately but do not occur during a character's turn. There's nothing to indicate that, you have yet to provide proof of that statement. Why should we not to allow a character to use Haste if he casts first before moving, since it is his turn, when the exact wording of the spell is “..his turn?” The effect occurs immediately but not specifically during his turn. That's why. The stipulation by your reading is that it must occur during his turn, which it isn't. Finally, I’ve provided two official, published sources that explain Haste as being used differently than your interpretation. How do you respond to that? As stated previously, you're arguing intent, and I'm arguing the way the rules are written.
DungeonMaster 07-09-04, 10:45 PM	Originally posted by J. Grenemyer I specifically asked you to respond to the following: Could you please explain, in precise detail, whose turn it is when a 1 action spell is completed? p.125 of the PHB Casting time. These spells are cast as a standard action. The casting is completed on the turn of the character casting the spell, by definition of a standard action. The spell effects take effect immediately, which in no way means they occur during the turn of the character who casts the spell. They can, of course, if the character casts the spell then moves. But after moving and casting a spell, your turn is over. I did not ask you to talk about full round actions, because my claim did not involve full round actions. So the same Standard Action (casting a 1 action spell) takes effect at different times depending on whether you move before or after performing the action? Where’s that in the rulebooks? We’ll need a page quote for that one too. Your turn is defined as when you act. You can under p.125 magic actions: "You can move and then cast the spell, or cast the spell then move". If the spell is cast before your move, it is by definition still your turn, as defined in the glossary p.282 as "the portion of the combat round where a character acts". Not "the portion of a combat round where a character acts and his spells take effect". Sorry. It's clearly not written that way. If a character moves then casts a spell, there is nothing save a leap of interpretation that will allow his spell to come into effect during his turn. His turn, by the book, is over. And that’s somehow supposed to invalidate all game designer opinions? That’s supposed to be the evidence that makes us conclude all game designers don’t know what they are talking about? That’s supposed to make all gamers disregard every rule in any rulebook, sourcebook or adventure? Nope. You can take what you want from non-core sourcebooks. I don't see any disclaimers stating "this is the way you're supposed to play". I know you spend a fair amount of your time figuring out exactly what they intended for whatever. I don't care to do so. When in doubt, I rule something. If there's room for interpretation, I'll take it as I see fit. The things that bother me are rules without room for interpretation that are broken. Like certain 3.5 rules, but let's not go there. BTW, you do realize that designers write rules to match their intent, yes? People also make bloody stupid mistakes when writting rules. There are people who are legally "dead" in India because of rule books despite being quite clearly alive. There are darkness spells that create light, in some systems.
DungeonMaster 07-09-04, 10:55 PM	Originally posted by J. Grenemyer I also add the following: A 1 action spell cast before a move takes effect when? On the standard action it was cast, in between the standard and the move, or during the move? A 1 action spell cast before a move takes effect during the turn of the character casting the spell, specifically immediately before the move action and immediately after his standard action. He still has more actions, and there is no way it can be anything different. Did you participate in such discussions as far back as 2001? Back when the rules were still new and people were really debating the basic rules hard? Yup. Why and how? I mean really, why and how? Do all game designers set out to write something other than what they intend to write? That’s a proposition that makes no sense. Already addressed. What does my interpretation of Haste have to do with EBT? Particularly when -unlike Haste- EBT clearly spells out when the spell begins attacking (the tentacles can attack one round later on the caster’s next turn)? Everything, it's the same sentance. You can't read one differently than the other. If you say "on your turn" is not a precise moment in time, and rather a duration, then you end up with a paradox. If one interpretation of 3.0 Haste requires rewording the spell’s text in order to follow a rule that doesn’t exist (null time between turns for 1 action spells to take effect if cast after a move action), while another interpretation does not require rewording because it follows rules that do exist (1 action spells take effect immediately on the caster’s turn), which of the interpretations is the simpler, and therefore more likely to be correct? If one interpretation leads to paradox then it is clearly flawed and wrong. Rewording has already been discussed. I await patiently that you answer my few, simple, and poignant questions from my previous posts. Please do.
DungeonMaster 07-12-04, 04:50 PM	One final nail in the coffin: p.9 DMG: A rule in the player's handbook, monster manual, or dungeon master's guide takes precedence over any other published D&D product. I do feel validated in ignoring the adventure supplements claimed as proof of principle. 100% validated in fact.
J. Grenemyer 07-12-04, 05:56 PM	Yawn…. Originally posted by DungeonMaster p.9 DMG: A rule in the player's handbook, monster manual, or dungeon master's guide takes precedence over any other published D&D product. I do feel validated in ignoring the adventure supplements claimed as proof of principle. 100% validated in fact. So what? Adventures aren’t rulebooks (although they can and often do present new monsters and magic items). Rather, they demonstrate rules in action. Thus, by all means feel validated, so long as you realize that from an objective standpoint you haven’t helped your position, much less proved anything. Still waiting for an actual quote from the 3.0 PHB that says 1 action spells come into effect when it’s nobody’s turn….. :whatsthis
archcomponent 07-12-04, 08:44 PM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster A rule in the player's handbook, monster manual, or dungeon master's guide takes precedence over any other published D&D product.What rule exactly are you quoting that is taking precedence over the examples seen in adventures? I'd particularly appreciate seeing a raw quote or quotes, without extensive rephrasing or a paragraph explanation of how I should read those rules quotes.
pokemaniacbill 07-12-04, 09:09 PM	So, a seventh level spell sound fine?
Aimian Silverflash 07-13-04, 12:51 AM	Originally posted by pokemaniacbill So, a seventh level spell sound fine? Wow, an on-topic post! :angel: Personally, 7th level is where I would tentatively start it at, if I were to do it. Any adjustments from there would have to come from in-game experience. (For me, anyways.) Ummm... side note. (Cuz it's kinda been bugging me.) Not exactly sure how this thread turned into a thesis by Dungeonmaster on weather haste takes effect the turn it's cast... -Even though thats not even what this thread is suppose to be about... :looloo: -But it's cool. No ridicule here. It's just you might want to think about starting a thread properly titled, and take your arguements there. No offense intended, its just my two coppers. :D
Sphyre 07-13-04, 04:24 AM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster You're completely right Hyp, my mistake. I never noticed/heard of that. I learned the other day that you can't teleport/dimension door into open air in 3.5 as well because they made it a conjuration... Except that's not true. 3.5 PhB, pg 172, second paragraph under Conjuration A creature or object brought into being or transported toyour location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it. The creature or object must appear within the spell's range, but it does not have to remain within your range. You don't teleport yourself to yourself, thus you are excluded from this rule. You can still teleport yourself in the air - esspecially with dimention door where is explicitly mentions exact vertical teleportation. It is clarifying summoning spells, One cannot summon to the middle of the air, along with other teleportation spells that I don't care about looking up right now. On topic again, if i were to allow it, It'd be 8th or 9th level. Shapechange does the same thing kinda with more options, so 8th would seem good for me. One must balance within relations to other spells, because that's the only guidelines one really has for spells other than the dice caps, which arent even applied to some spells.
Snot-Elemental 07-13-04, 08:58 AM	Dunbar wrote (that's on page number 1 of this thread): "Arcane Haste Transmutation Level: Brd 6, Sor/Wiz 6 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Targets: One creature Duration: 1 round/level Saving Throw: Fortitude negates (harmless) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless) The transmuted creatures move and act more quickly than normal. This extra speed has several effects. When casting spells, the recipient of this spell may choose to make a full spellcasting action. Doing so is a full round action that provokes attacks of opportunities as normal for each spell cast (though they may be cast defensively). In this full spellcasting action, the spellcaster may cast up to 2 spells, and the second spell must be 5 levels lower than the highest spell he can normally cast. So a level 12 wizard under the effects of this spell could cast cone of cold then magic missle in one round, or cast 2 magic missle spells, but not 2 cone of cold spells. In addition, the second spell has it's caster level reduced by 5 (so a magic missle from a 12th level wizard would do 4d4+4 damage instead of 5d4+5), any attack roll associated with it (such as a touch or ranged touch attack) has a -5 penalty, and its save DC (if any) reduced by 3. A hasted creature gains a +1 bonus on attack rolls and a +1 dodge bonus to AC and Reflex saves. Any condition that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes you lose dodge bonuses. All of the hasted creature’s modes of movement (including land movement, burrow, climb, fly, and swim) increase by 30 feet, to a maximum of twice the subject’s normal speed using that form of movement. This increase counts as an enhancement bonus, and it affects the creature’s jumping distance as normal for increased speed. Multiple haste effects don’t stack. Arcane Haste dispels and counters slow. Material Component: A shaving of licorice root and 300gps worth of diamond dust." I really like the spell idea. It seems to me that he 3.5 version of Haste is more for the fighter-type, not the spellcasting creature. I also think that the spellcasting creatures among us need a spell that does something similar to haste without being too powerful (as 3.0 haste is, IMHO). However, there are some things that I would change about Dunbar's spell: 1. The second spell would have to be 4 levels lower (so a 9th level and a 5th level spell would be ok). To copy the quicken-effect. 2. I would play without this: "In addition, the second spell has it's caster level reduced by 5 (so a magic missle from a 12th level wizard would do 4d4+4 damage instead of 5d4+5), any attack roll associated with it (such as a touch or ranged touch attack) has a -5 penalty, and its save DC (if any) reduced by 3." Otherwise it's too complicated, IMO. Quicken doesn't have that effect either. 3. Make it a 7th level spell. Again, to copy the quicken-effect. But I think the spell idea in general is great.
Kyuketsukiouji 07-13-04, 11:34 AM	The problem with all your wasted diatribe is that, from a purely semantic point of view, Dungeonmaster's point is the most logical one. It is much better to treat "on his turn" as "At the instant his turn begins", since that gives a precise mechanical moment to work with. This is made particularily evident with Evard's Black Tentacles. Once this is resolved, consistency demands we apply this interpretation to all uses of the expression, which validates his approach. The problem is that Dungeonmaster's arguments are presented in such an offensive, arrogant and poorly structured manner that he kills whatever merits his own arguments might have. Thus: If one only looks at the printed spell description, ignoring designer intent, the wording of the rules, when viewed in the most logical manner, would seem to indicate that you do not get a partial action on the round you cast haste. However: This is a weakness in the printed spell description since it is clearly not the indended design of the rules, something which is confirmed by the modules quoted before. The intent is that the spell activates in the round it is cast, and that this allows the posibility of taking a partial action on that same round. It's particularily ironic that a company who's so intimately familiar with timing issues (which is the crux of Magic: The Gathering), would have messed up round division so poorly with D&D. Maybe we should start dividing rounds a la MTG, and say Black Tentacles attack on your upkeep? "on his turn" should not have been used. It should have been "during his turn", and Evard's should read "at the start of his turn". As to the main topic: I've always found that the ability to have mages cast an extra spell per round was a great deal weaker than the ability to have fighters move and full attack (or worse, partial charge and full attack). I've never really found a need to nerf Haste in the first place, since all it really did was allow mages to waste their spell slots twice as fast as normally, which isn't really that good. Then again, I tend to put more than 3-4 encounters per game day when I make dungeons and such, so maybe I'm not in the norm. If you really want to ressurect it, I'd place it somewhere around level 6 or 7.
Palin the Wizard 07-13-04, 01:49 PM	Dungeon Master: Stating that a spell with a casting time of 1 action does not execute on the caster's turn is wrong, regardless of when you take your move-equivalent action. You can cast a spell with a casting time of 1 action and then take a move-equivalent action, receiving all benefits of the spell just cast, such as armor bonuses or stat enhancements. Clearly the spell executes on the caster's turn. Stating otherwise is ignoring fundamental rules found in the Player's Handbook. Merely moving before you cast the spell does not change this fact. Also, your interpretation of the free action is grossly incorrect. Looking at the page in question--page 121 of the Player's Handbook--I read that a free action can be performed "while taking another action". However, it does not state that a free action is limited to this. Taking the context into account, it is clear that a free action can be taken at any time on your turn. The sentence merely clarifies that a free action can be made in conjuction with a standard action. As for your interpretation of the haste spell, the sentence upon which you base your entire argument is similar to the one mentioned above in that it is a clarification you have misunderstood. The sentence is simply there to clarify that the subject receives the partial action on his turn and not on the turn of an adversary or an ally, which would cause the spell to increase exponentially in power. The description of the haste spell states, "On his turn, the subject may take an extra partial action, either before or after his regular action." As it does not say "On his next turn, and on every turn thereafter until the duration has expired" it is clear that your interpretation is incorrect. As evidenced by the description of the spell in question, the interpretation of J. Grenemyer is correct. That being said, the problem with the haste spell is not even remotely about the level of the spell. Elevating the spell to the 9th tier would do nothing to remove the point of imbalance. The flaw of the haste spell is seen in conjuction with the Quicken Spell metamagic feat, as this allows the spellcaster to cast three spells in a single round--clearly an unbalanced endeavor. A simple sentence stating that a spell enhanced by the Quicken Spell feat cannot be used in conjucture with the partial action gained from the haste spell would remove the main point of imbalance. The spell remains a tad too powerful for a 3rd level spell, however. This can be solved by elevating the spell to the 4th--or perhaps 5th--tier.
pokemaniacbill 07-13-04, 07:19 PM	Thank you Silverflash... that's what I thought would make sense.
DungeonMaster 07-16-04, 04:46 PM	I've been so busy this week... Originally posted by J. Grenemyer *snip* Still waiting for an actual quote from the 3.0 PHB that says 1 action spells come into effect when it’s nobody’s turn….. And I'm still waiting for you to prove it happens on the turn. I'm also waiting for resolution of the paradox, but you clearly arn't able to provide and so I consider your arguments dead in the water.
DungeonMaster 07-16-04, 04:53 PM	Archcomponent: The DMG, specifically as mentioned on p.9. I've quoted it there. pokemaniacbill: That's a bit high in my opinion. However if you do plan on using it you explicitely have to remove the 3.5 casting time imposition that you can't cast more than one spell a round. It's the hard-coded rule that needs to be bent to get the effect, regardless of level. That's what I've been saying from the start of the thread. Kyuketsukiouji: Thank you. I'm actually quite a nice guy and it's very few people online that can drive me to that extent.
DungeonMaster 07-16-04, 05:13 PM	Originally posted by Palin the Wizard [B]Dungeon Master: Stating that a spell with a casting time of 1 action does not execute on the caster's turn is wrong, regardless of when you take your move-equivalent action. You can cast a spell with a casting time of 1 action and then take a move-equivalent action, receiving all benefits of the spell just cast, such as armor bonuses or stat enhancements. Clearly the spell executes on the caster's turn. Stating otherwise is ignoring fundamental rules found in the Player's Handbook. Merely moving before you cast the spell does not change this fact. You've missed out on the fundamental definition of a turn. A turn is when you act. Moving then casting a spell is all of your actions. It is no longer your "turn". The spell description of haste, and certain other spells have a stipulation on certain effects occuring specifically "on your turn". You can interpret this stipulation as being "during your turn" or "upon receiving your turn". One is a conditional statement that specifies an exact moment in time, the other is a duration. The duration interpretation hits the proverbial brick wall when it creates paradox. Looking at the page in question--page 121 of the Player's Handbook--I read that a free action can be performed "while taking another action". However, it does not state that a free action is limited to this. Taking the context into account, it is clear that a free action can be taken at any time on your turn. Nope, that's totally incorrect. While taking another action is the stipulation, not at any point during your turn. You cannot for instance take a free action after a standard action. Shoot your bow then fall prone. You can shoot your bow and fall prone. Your DM might not allow that to happen because it doesn't make sense. The previous one does make sense, it's just not allowed unless you still have a movement action left. The sentence is simply there to clarify that the subject receives the partial action on his turn and not on the turn of an adversary or an ally, which would cause the spell to increase exponentially in power. That's your interpretation. It's not any more valid than mine. You can certainly work with that interpretation but then I'll ask you when the attacks of Evard's black tentacles occur. This is again the paradox: a wizard casts EBT and moves into them on round 1- does he get to move out of them or do the tentacles attack him first on round 2? If you view "on your turn" as anything but a conditional statement, occuring precisely at the moment you acquire a turn, then the situation is undefined. As it does not say "On his next turn, and on every turn thereafter until the duration has expired" it is clear that your interpretation is incorrect. No, it doesn't say that because if the wizard hastes the fighter, then the fighter gets a turn in the same round, the fighter gets the benefit of the partial action in that round. If it said on your "next turn" that would be even more ill-defined. The flaw of the haste spell is seen in conjuction with the Quicken Spell metamagic feat, as this allows the spellcaster to cast three spells in a single round--clearly an unbalanced endeavor. Your definition of "balance" is very different than mine. 3 spells in a round is not "imbalance", no more so than 3 sword swings with a vorpal weapon. I will point you to the various wizard and warrior challenges I have run on these very forums in the classes threads. Haste has never been a decisive factor, not once - and I've been using the boards interpretation, not my own. I personally have only ever seen the quicken metamagic feat used once as a memorised spell. It's largely pointless because 4 spell levels is far far to much for so little effect. I can agree to disagree with you on this issue however.
Hypersmurf 07-16-04, 05:50 PM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster No, it doesn't say that because if the wizard hastes the fighter, then the fighter gets a turn in the same round, the fighter gets the benefit of the partial action in that round. If it said on your "next turn" that would be even more ill-defined. Uh... the fighter's turn in the same round is his 'next turn'... -Hyp.
J. Grenemyer 07-16-04, 06:13 PM	Hello, Originally posted by DungeonMaster And I'm still waiting for you to prove it happens on the turn. I already did. Re-read my last few posts (and be sure to pay particular attention to the parts that quote the word “immediately” as found in the PHB.) So, can you or can you not provide a direct quote from the PHB that says 1 action spells come into effect at some time in between turns or in between parts of actions? Yes or no? If you can’t, your entire argument falls flat on its face, as there’s no support for your assertion that immediately somehow means something other than immediately. If you can provide a quote, then please do so, immediately. :P Originally posted by DungeonMaster I'm also waiting for resolution of the paradox, but you clearly aren't able to provide and so I consider your arguments dead in the water. There’s no paradox, as EBT clearly states that both it and the caster act at the same time. You can hide behind EBT all day long, but it’ll be obvious to everyone that that’s what your doing. The ball is in your court now. Either provide direct proof to support your 1 action assertion or admit defeat. :D
DungeonMaster 07-17-04, 02:06 PM	Originally posted by J. Grenemyer I already did. Re-read my last few posts (and be sure to pay particular attention to the parts that quote the word “immediately” as found in the PHB.) I've answered every one of your questions in painstaking detail and you have not provided a single statement to that effect. I ask you again to please answer my questions and resolve the paradox. So, can you or can you not provide a direct quote from the PHB that says 1 action spells come into effect at some time in between turns or in between parts of actions? I have provided precedent in the casting of 1-round spells, you have however provided NOTHING to show that it does occur during the caster's turn. Nothing. You claim "immediately" means it's still your turn yet I have an example of an "immediate" spell effect that occurs NOT on your turn, explicitely. There’s no paradox, as EBT clearly states that both it and the caster act at the same time. Really? Who goes first? What portion exactly of "act at the same time" are you refering to? The movement action or the standard action? Please J, specify. You can hide behind EBT all day long, but it’ll be obvious to everyone that that’s what your doing. :bored: Nothing like using the actual book to prove you wrong. Your interpretation is dead in the water as a result of the paradox. The "ball" is in your court to find actual definitive proof that the effects of a spell occur during the character's turn after having moved and cast a spell. One can jump up and down claiming "immediately" means it's still your turn all one wants but that's not proof of it actually occuring during your turn. 1 round spell casting finishes "immediately" before your turn - a precedent of immediate actions not occuring on the character's turn. Provide actual proof and validation for your interpretation in your very next post, resolving all paradox or I will take that as an admission of defeat. Again, I specify: I want a quote that it occurs during your turn, not "immediately" which is clearly NOT necessarily your turn. I want a resolution of the EBT paradox from your interpretation of the prefix "on" stipulation of the haste spell as a "duration".
J. Grenemyer 07-17-04, 03:53 PM	Hello, Originally posted by DungeonMaster I have provided precedent in the casting of 1-round spells.. Incorrect. You provided proof that 1 round casting time spells work differently than 1 action spells, and are trying hard to convince us this is proof (your "precedent") of how 1 action spells work, which is silly since the rules for 1 action spells are clearly spelled out and written differently than that for 1 round spells. Further, you've created an extra portion of game time for 1 action spells to resolve in that simply does not exist, as there is no mention of it made in any of the three 3.0 Core Rulebooks, anywhere. Finally, you've consistently claimed a turn is over in a move then cast scenario, precisely after a spell is cast, when it is clear this is not the case. Free actions may be taken, the results of (for example) Fireballs are figured before the next turn occurs, attack rolls for touch range spells are made after they are cast, etc.... There is simply no direct proof to support any of your three assertions, and plenty of direct proof not to. With this the case, there's no good reason to believe every assertion later on in your chain of logic. There's not even enough proof to suspend judgement on the issue due to lingering doubt, particularly since we know from official published sources how 3.0 Haste works, and thus how the rules were meant to be interpreted. At best, you've shown solid justification for your own houserules, that's it. 1 action spells resolve on the turn of the character that casts them. It's in the rules. That's what the rules say. Oh, and one more thing: Originally posted by DungeonMaster: Who goes first? Ask the Sage. That's what he's there for. :P
DungeonMaster 07-17-04, 05:12 PM	I did not provide proof that 1 round casting time spells work differently than 1-action spells. I provided proof that there are indeed immediate events that occur not during the character's turn . That's all the proof I need to claim that the immediate event of the effects of a 1-action spell is not necessarily during the character's turn. You on the other hand have been adamantly affirming that the effects occur during the character's turn, to which you have zip-zero-nada-niet-rien proof. It's the fundamental leap in interpretation that does not exist in the rules as written . Finally, you've consistently claimed a turn is over in a move then cast scenario, precisely after a spell is cast, when it is clear this is not the case. Free actions may be taken, the results of (for example) Fireballs are figured before the next turn occurs, attack rolls for touch range spells are made after they are cast, etc.... Free actions may be taken only while performing another action normally PHB p.121. Not before, not after but during. 100% clear. Touch spells do not even reference your turn! It's on the same round you cast the spell, it could be as an attack of opportunity for instance. The attack certainly occurs during your turn with specific language that allows you to move before or after. This is further justification of my stance, not yours! (thank you though) No one said that the fireball doesn't occur before the next turn. It just doesn't necessarily occur on your turn. You have provided at very best arguments of authority on how haste works beyond the context of the rules as written. Within the context of the rules as written you have provided leaps in interpretation to further that claim and absolutely no justification for blatant paradox that results from such an interpretation. Your interpretation is struck down by the hammer of logic and common sense that paradox should be avoided at all costs for a consistent, working, reasonable interpretation . 1 action spells resolve on the turn of the character that casts them. It's in the rules. That's what the rules say. Nope, it's not in the rules, prove it - you havn't been able to so I'm going to henceforth assume you can't. I'm also going to henceforth assume you can't resolve the paradox. So this discussion is over until I see some actual consistency coming out of that interpretation - it is dead. You can certainly have the last word, I don't mind it at all. If you can come up with certain conclusion to outstanding problems with your interpretation then I'll reply of course. Otherwise this thread is done with me. I'm sorry J, I'm just not going to agree with you on the grounds you've presented.
Scion of Coldshard 07-17-04, 06:28 PM	I doubt it matters too much in this conversation but I thought I'd give my view on haste ;) My groups have always used it as starting at the beginning of the turn after you cast it (for the extra partial action). Now, something else to consider is that we have 'never' found haste to be overpowering. So perhaps all of those who feel haste is too strong is because they are chooseing to use haste in an unbalancing way. If we simply change the 3.0 haste to definately only start its partial actions on the next turn you get then perhaps most everyone would agree that it is fine as a 3rd level spell. (the only reason I have to doubt this is because there is so much haste hate out there.. but again, I have never seen it be a problem in any games I have been in.)
pokemaniacbill 07-17-04, 07:25 PM	It may be high, but I consider 7th to be sort of the 'Well, it's gotta go somewhere' level. Sixth MIGHT make sense, but... yes, you'd have to bend that rule, but ah well. Mobility reigns supreme.
DungeonMaster 07-17-04, 07:27 PM	Agreed Scion, I've never had a problem with it in my games either. Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard So perhaps all of those who feel haste is too strong is because they are chooseing to use haste in an unbalancing way. The key aspect there is choice.
J. Grenemyer 07-17-04, 07:38 PM	Hello Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard So perhaps all of those who feel haste is too strong is because they are choosing to use haste in an unbalancing way. Whether or not the person who casts Haste immediately gets to use the extra partial action is not what unbalances Haste. The extra partial action is what makes the spell unbalancing. Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard [B]If we simply change the 3.0 haste to definitely only start its partial actions on the next turn you get then perhaps most everyone would agree that it is fine as a 3rd level spell. I doubt it. Most DMs and game designers would disagree. :D
Scion of Coldshard 07-17-04, 07:48 PM	Originally posted by J. Grenemyer The extra partial action is what makes the spell unbalancing. Oh? First round: Cast haste. Second round: extra partial action (now you are caught up in spells for the rounds of action) Third round: this is the first round you actually see any real benefit from the partial action. How long do battles usually last in your games? If it is only a spell that grants a real bonus on the third round after casting it then there really isnt much of a problem.. after all, long term spells like that are almost universely stronger, just check out acid arrow. The spell only lasts for rounds per level to begin with and its main benefit only really kicks in for casters on the third turn. Not exactly a powerhouse there. Like I said, I have been playing 3rd effectively since it came out (slightly before in some ways ;) ) and I have never seen it be a problem at all.
J. Grenemyer 07-17-04, 08:07 PM	Hello, Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard Second round: extra partial action (now you are caught up in spells for the rounds of action) What? :confused:
Archtyrant Terevoth 07-17-04, 08:16 PM	You simply cannot have 3.0 haste in the game, at any level. The reason being that extra actions are priceless. However powerful you are, you become twice as powerful if you can do both. About all you could allow is something that let you cast a spell while doing something else, like making a full attack, but to flat out grant an extra spell on top of the existing normal spell + quickened action is far too good. Whatever level you get it at is unbalanced because you double your firepower at that level, and that's broke.
Scion of Coldshard 07-17-04, 08:24 PM	Originally posted by J. Grenemyer What? If the only part of the spell that is unbalancing is the extra partial action then you only get a benefit out of it on the third round. On round one you used up your action to cast the spell, so you are down by one action. Second round you get your action as normal and one bonus, now you are tied. Third round, this is the first time you actually have a benefit.
Scion of Coldshard 07-17-04, 08:32 PM	Originally posted by Archtyrant Terevoth You simply cannot have 3.0 haste in the game, at any level. Can you explain 'how'? In my example you dont even gain a benefit from it until the third round. That is a pretty long wait, seems like it 'should' be good if it takes so long to even set up. But really, why is it so overpowering? I have been in games for years now, with some casters who use it and others that dont.. it goes both on casters and noncasters alike.. but I have never seen it be overpowering, or even a must take. A good portion of the time casting slow is a much better option. or fireball, or... the list goes on and on. Immediate benefit vs long term gain.
the Horc 07-17-04, 08:56 PM	Is it my imagination, or has this thread been duplicated?