Pathfinder 1E So far not impressed with Pathfinder

sheadunne · Mar 14, 2013

SRD said:
A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.

A spell that takes 1 minute to cast comes into effect just before your turn 1 minute later (and for each of those 10 rounds, you are casting a spell as a full-round action, just as noted above for 1-round casting times). These actions must be consecutive and uninterrupted, or the spell automatically fails.

When you begin a spell that takes 1 round or longer to cast, you must continue the concentration from the current round to just before your turn in the next round (at least). If you lose concentration before the casting is complete, you lose the spell.

PRD said:
A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.

A spell that takes 1 minute to cast comes into effect just before your turn 1 minute later (and for each of those 10 rounds, you are casting a spell as a full-round action, just as noted above for 1-round casting times). These actions must be consecutive and uninterrupted, or the spell automatically fails.

When you begin a spell that takes 1 round or longer to cast, you must continue the concentration from the current round to just before your turn in the next round (at least). If you lose concentration before the casting is complete, you lose the spell.

Looks the same to me. Not seeing any difference between 3.5 and Pathfinder.

Ahnehnois · Mar 14, 2013

AFAIK summon monster spells took 1 round to cast, which was a full-round action, and the casting could be interrupted during any character's turn during the 1 round, and this was true in 3.0, 3.5, and PF.

3.5 FAQ:

Despite the similarity in wording, a spell that requires a
“full-round action” to cast (such as that required by a
metamagic-affected sorcerer spell) isn’t the same as a spell
with a “1-round casting time” (such as that of a summon
monster spell). The former takes your entire turn to complete,
while the latter takes your entire turn as well as the time
between the end of your turn and the start of your next turn.

ggeilman · Mar 14, 2013

Not going to argue with the FAQ.

Empirate · Mar 14, 2013

ggeilman said:
And I followed the link and replied. Yes it takes a round, however the casting action is a full round in 3.5. Please see my reply as to how a full round action is defined per PHB. Beyond that I am still bound by certain NDAs as to the how and whys of certain rules and their changes in 3.5.

Patently not the way it works. SRD quote follows:

SRD said:
[h=3]Casting Time[/h] Most spells have a casting time of 1 standard action. Others take 1 round or more, while a few require only a free action.
A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.
A spell that takes 1 minute to cast comes into effect just before your turn 1 minute later (and for each of those 10 rounds, you are casting a spell as a full-round action, just as noted above for 1-round casting times). These actions must be consecutive and uninterrupted, or the spell automatically fails.
When you begin a spell that takes 1 round or longer to cast, you must continue the concentration from the current round to just before your turn in the next round (at least). If you lose concentration before the casting is complete, you lose the spell.

A spell with a casting time of 1 free action doesn’t count against your normal limit of one spell per round. However, you may cast such a spell only once per round. Casting a spell with a casting time of 1 free action doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity.
You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect.

Important part highlighted.

EDIT: sorry, didn't see others had already replied to this.

JustinAlexander · Mar 14, 2013

Empirate said:
BTW: Lightning Bolt? Horrible spell. Worse than Fireball in every way. Having both is pure redundancy, so Lightning Bolt never registered above "forgettable" to me.

Vastly superior in long dungeon corridors and allows for more precise targeting to avoid allies.

billd91 · Mar 14, 2013

Empirate said:
BTW: Lightning Bolt? Horrible spell. Worse than Fireball in every way. Having both is pure redundancy, so Lightning Bolt never registered above "forgettable" to me.

3e's simplifications did leave lightning bolt a little behind fireball. In 1e/2e, lightning bolt didn't necessarily start right at the fingertips and could start farther along the line between the caster and his target. Lightning bolts could rebound off dungeon/castle walls allowing some targets to be hit twice. And, perhaps most importantly, lightning bolts didn't expand to fill the space like the fireball - they took effect along the area of effect and that was it. MUCH safer for dungeon corridors and caverns than the fireballs that filled 33 10' x 10' x 10' squares on the dungeon map. Many was the spellcaster whose range to the fireball eruption point was too short to avoid being in his own fireball...

3e was a lot tidier and easier to adjudicate, but lightning bolt didn't quite keep up with the non-expanding fireball in general utility.

Ahnehnois · Mar 14, 2013

Re: Lightning Bolt; the simplest thing about it is that it's not fire damage. Fire resistance/immunity is quite common. Not that there aren't other ways to address this issue, but in the core rules this does matter.

Empirate · Mar 14, 2013

Totally agree that in 2E and prior, Lightning Bolt had its place. And I was a little sad seeing the changes when I first pored over my then brand-new 3.0 PHB. However, "more precise targeting in long dungeon corridors" requires the caster to stand in the first line of battle, with no meatshields in between, so I'd be a little careful about that.

Don't completely agree on the damage type thingy, though. Fire has some utility uses ("I burn it to the ground!"), and also some monsters have vulnerability to fire, or regeneration overcome by fire etc., unlike for lightning. Both damage types have their uses.

Starfox · Mar 14, 2013

I am with Empirate here, Summon Monster always took a full round to cast.

Summon Monster is also a style thing. It kind of defines you. Some casters do it, most don't. I don't find that my casters mix in just a little summoning. Also, clerics are better summoners than arcane casters - they get the spells at the same level, have a wider selection of available critters if you use the Golarion gods or equivalents), they are better at buffing their critters, and they have a better base profile. Arcane casters are better off picking spells only they have access to.

Empirate · Mar 15, 2013

I'd agree with you there, [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION], except for the Malconvoker PrC, which is arcane, and turns your monster summoning up to eleven. But usually, every round in which a Wizard casts a spell that a Cleric could have cast, he's a sucker for that round. Coz being a Cleric is more awesome in every way unless you use the Wizard-only tricks.

Pathfinder 1E So far not impressed with Pathfinder

sheadunne

Explorer

Ahnehnois

First Post

ggeilman

First Post

Empirate

First Post

JustinAlexander

First Post

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)

Ahnehnois

First Post

Empirate

First Post

Starfox

Hero

Empirate

First Post

Similar Threads