Can a wand be used more than once per round?

[Hypersmurf]

In other words, it's trivial to show that two people take full round actions, consecutively, but in the same round. That's clearly a paradox. Asking someone to agree to the "fact" that 12 seconds = 6 seconds is unreasonable. So, your example in trying to prove that a standard action is not more than half a round is not a good one. Am I making sense? I hope I am.

Your assumption is that a full round action takes six seconds.

A character cannot take two full round actions in a given six-second round, but since we know that two consecutive full round actions can occur in the same round (from different characters), we also know that a single full round action need not, necessarily, take up that whole six seconds.

The character is not prohibited from taking a second full round action by reason of it not fitting, temporally, into a round - we know that two full round actions do fit into a round. He's prohibited by the limitation on the actions available to him in a given round.

I'm not arguing that 12 seconds = 6 seconds. I'm arguing that a full round action for each character involved in a combat = 6 seconds.

-Hyp.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I think that all arguments based on a "move" "standard" or "full round" action taking up a set amount of time are hopelessly flawed. Command word activated items are a standard action, while speaking is a free action. Why? Why ask why, its the rules.

I'd go with either 2 or 3 possible activations of a single item in one round. Why can't one person do it 2 or 3 times then? I coud come up with a couple of narative descriptions, but the truth is its just the rules, deal.

 

[The Souljourner]

I think the two use rule is a good one. It fudges the time tables a little bit to enable one swap of an object, which seems pretty reasonable, but prevents ridiculous abuse like the line of wizards.

In general, I doubt that more than two uses of an object would be a common occurance anyway.

-The Souljourner

 

[The Souljourner]

With respect to how all the actions of a big fight fit into one 6 second round.... it's a game people. There are certain things you have to just accept as being fudged. This is one of them. We don't question that a barbarian with the run feat can run 22.7 miles an hour, but only as long as it's in a completely straight line.

Sure, you could make everything simultaneous, but that would suck. No one really wants everyone's action to happen simultaneously in the game, that would open up even more holes than there are right now. Want to be immune to attacks and spells? Simply move in a random direction every round... all attacks aimed at the square where you were would automatically miss.

This is why we have a DM... there's a time when you have to overrule the RAW and insert a little common sense.

Move actions don't take 3 seconds, standard actions don't either. You cannot assign them to any specific amount of linear time. The rule is that you get one of each or two moves in a round. Period. You can't quantify it in any other way.

-The Souljourner

 

[Infiniti2000]

Your assumption is that a full round action takes six seconds. ...
I'm arguing that a full round action for each character involved in a combat = 6 seconds.

That's not an assumption, that's a fact in the rules; and you agree to it in the same post.

A character cannot take two full round actions in a given six-second round, but since we know that two consecutive full round actions can occur in the same round (from different characters), we also know that a single full round action need not, necessarily, take up that whole six seconds.

The character is not prohibited from taking a second full round action by reason of it not fitting, temporally, into a round - we know that two full round actions do fit into a round. He's prohibited by the limitation on the actions available to him in a given round.

This is the assumption, as it were. Sure, you have impeccable logic, but adhering to this logic is what creates the paradox that we need to ignore for sake of the game. My purpose in entering this discussion at all is to argue that you cannot use this line of logic, despite being quite sound.

PS. Thanks for the clarification, Patryn. Do you know what term I am looking for then? I know there's a term for it. Ah well, no matter.

 

[Hypersmurf]

That's not an assumption, that's a fact in the rules; and you agree to it in the same post.

Huh? Where?

Sure, you have impeccable logic, but adhering to this logic is what creates the paradox that we need to ignore for sake of the game.

So are you suggesting that two characters can't take full round actions consecutively in the same round?

If they can, then we know two consecutive full round actions can occur ina six round period, and therefore the fact that a character cannot take two full round actions in the same round is not due to the length of time a full round action takes.

If you claim that the reason a character cannot take two full round actions in the same round is due to the length of time a full round action takes, you must for consistency prohibit two characters from taking consecutive full round actions in the same round.

-Hyp.

 

[dcollins]

I observe the effect of the missile, then decide whether I wish to use my Wand of Magic Missile... My standard action began after Bob's standard action completed. Simultaneity is not possible. Do both standard actions resolve within the same round? If so, how can both standard actions take up more than half a round each?

I'll quote the DMG again:

Although there's no way to avoid representing movement in a start-stop-start-stop fashion, try to keep in mind -- and try to stress to the players -- that actually all movement throughout an encounter is fluid and continuous.

Do both standard actions resolve within the same round? According to the preceding: "Representatively", yes. "Actually", no.

Did the character really observe the effect of the missile before acting? Perhaps in reality he was pulling out the alternative wand anyway -- regardless of how the player played it -- which narratively worked very nicely for him. The DMG suggests that "actually" that must have been what happened in-game.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Do both standard actions resolve within the same round? According to the preceding: "Representatively", yes. "Actually", no.

Did the character really observe the effect of the missile before acting? Perhaps in reality he was pulling out the alternative wand anyway -- regardless of how the player played it -- which narratively worked very nicely for him. The DMG suggests that "actually" that must have been what happened in-game.

I really don't feel the need to go to those sorts of lengths to maintain a fiction of simulataneous action that rarely, if ever, comes up in game play. The players and characters really did observe it and choose accordingly. Thats how people play the game. And its OK.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Do both standard actions resolve within the same round? According to the preceding: "Representatively", yes. "Actually", no.

Did the character really observe the effect of the missile before acting? Perhaps in reality he was pulling out the alternative wand anyway -- regardless of how the player played it -- which narratively worked very nicely for him. The DMG suggests that "actually" that must have been what happened in-game.

So if the second character takes an out of turn free action to say "Magic Missile him, so I can see which wand I should use!", followed by the sequence described, how then?

What about if one character takes a standard action to cast Remove Paralysis on another character, who then takes a standard action to cast Magic Missile? It was physically impossible for the second character to begin casting while he was paralyzed.

-Hyp.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

So if the second character takes an out of turn free action to say "Magic Missile him, so I can see which wand I should use!", followed by the sequence described, how then?

I may be misremembering, but I would have sworn that you can only take actions on your turn, excepting only the new Immediate Actions, and most certainly not excepting Free Actions. But perhaps I'm mistaken about that.[/QUOTE]

I really don't feel the need to go to those sorts of lengths to maintain a fiction of simulataneous action that rarely, if ever, comes up in game play. The players and characters really did observe it and choose accordingly. Thats how people play the game. And its OK.

I agree completely. I only use ad hoc simultenaity in the event that I need to prevent abuse of the gaming construct. Otherwise, I don't give it a second thought.