Metamagic and sorcerors -- and haste!

[kreynolds]

Re: Thanks!

After re-reading tome & blood, I'm sure that it means it becomes a full-round action, like full attack action - spell goes off at end of turn. 5' step allowed.

Both the PH and T&B specifically state otherwise, but if I were to house rule it (doubt I will though), I would be inclined to allow it to complete at the end of the round, with a 5-foot step allowed.

 

[Iku Rex]

Re: Re: Thanks!

Both the PH and T&B specifically state otherwise,

Maybe you have special editions...

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: Thanks!

Maybe you have special editions...

Then refute my first post in this thread. It's either that, or you can stop running your mouth and try to remain civil. Your choice.

 

[Iku Rex]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks!

Then refute my first post in this thread. It's either that, or you can stop running your mouth and try to remain civil. Your choice.

I don't really have to "refute" anything, sine your first post doesn't contain any actual arguments. You are just making up rules to fit your claim.

Going strictly by the rules in the PH, the spell would go off just before your turn in the round after you began casting the spell (see page 148 of the PH, Casting time, top-right).

I don't have the book in front of me, but I assume this is the rule for spells with a casting time of 1 full round. Since a sorcerer using metamagic on a spell does not change the casting time of the spell to "1 full round", it is irrelevant.

When a sorcerer or bard casts a spell modified with a metamagic feat, the casting time becomes a full-round action (see page 78 of the PH, top-right paragraph).

It says casting the spell is a full-round action. It says nothing about changing the spell's casting time. In fact, there is no such thing as a "casting time" of a "full-round action". (Spells typically have a casting time of "1 action" or "1 full round".)

Edit: (Just to make sure you know the official ruling: http://homepage.mac.com/guyf/DnD/Sage/SorcererMetamatic.html )

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks!

I don't really have to "refute" anything, sine your first post doesn't contain any actual arguments. You are just making up rules to fit your claim.

Oh really? How embarrasing for you to make such an assumption.

I don't have the book in front of me

Well. That explains everything.

but I assume this is the rule for spells with a casting time of 1 full round.

The pages I referred to in my first post address spells with a casting time of a full-round, and metamagic extending the casting time of a 1-action spell into a full-round. I suggest you read those sections I referred to. I'd appreciate the courtesy, anyway.

Since a sorcerer using metamagic on a spell does not change the casting time of the spell to "1 full round", it is irrelevant.

You're right. It becomes a "full-round action". Again, see page 78 of the PH, top-right paragraph.

It says casting the spell is a full-round action.

Exactly.

It says nothing about changing the spell's casting time.

Semantics. You're desparately digging for an argument here. Besides, they are one and the same. See next answer.

In fact, there is no such thing as a "casting time" of a "full-round action". (Spells typically have a casting time of "1 action" or "1 full round".)

A spell that takes "1 full round" to cast is a "full-round action". Again, see page 148 of the PH, top-right paragraph.

Edit: (Just to make sure you know the official ruling: http://homepage.mac.com/guyf/DnD/Sage/SorcererMetamatic.html )

I haven't seen this before, though I had heard of it. I don't even have a problem accepting the ruling at all. In fact, I kinda welcome it. But that's not really the point, now is it?

Thanks for the link.

 

[Zhure]

PHB., page 78
"The sorcerer or bard, therefore, must take more time to cast a metamagic spell (one enhanced by a metamagic feat) than a regular spell. If its normal casting time is 1 action, casting a
metamagic spell is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. For spells with a longer casting time, it takes an extra full-round action to cast the spell."

and page 148
"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. 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)."

Thus it says (part 1) that a metamagicked spell is a FRA and (in part 2) that a full round spell is a full-round action, but not that FRA's become full-round spells.

Greg

 

[Petrosian]

"A spell that takes "1 full round" to cast is a "full-round action". Again, see page 148 of the PH, top-right paragraph."

KR... i thought you were claiming that

"a spell which takes a full round action to cast" is " a full round"to cast"

The quote you are given establishes a ONE WAY relationship.

Similar to

an "alleycat" is a "mammal"

I think the actual rule about spells taking longer is (rough quote)

" A spell with a casting time of 1 round requires a full round action to cast and the spell will conclude at the beginning of the character's next turn."

This rule provides TWO qualities for spells with 1 round casting times. Those spells, for instance "summon monster", will require FRAs to cast AND will delay its finish until the next action.

I think a similar statement is made in the glossary.

this equates to an "alleycat" is a "mammal" and "has a tail."

This does not equate to

a spell which requires a full round action to cast is a 1 round spell and takes until the next action to resolve"

anymore than a "mammal" is an "alleycat" and "has a tail"

Now is it common for this logic error to be made, sure.
Now is it possible that some see this as the right way, sure.

That does not support as strong a statement as that the rules "explicitly" state that it is the case.

Do you have an *explicit* statement that says "spells which require a full round action" get the delay? Is your *explicit* all based on your ASSUMPTION that the interaction is supposed to be two-way?

is this a new definition of "explicitly states" that i was heretofore unaware?

or just a sore subject with you leading to hyperbole

 

[Stalker0]

Damn, petrosian, I was going to say just all that

I completely agree. I've been playing the metamagic in the wait until next round school, but taking another look at the books, and at the sage advice (which I always take with 2 grains of salt, and half a cup of arsenic) I agree that this is a different case then summon monster schools.

 

[Caliban]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks!

Then refute my first post in this thread. It's either that, or you can stop running your mouth and try to remain civil. Your choice.

Your wrong kreynolds. You might want to take your own advice here.

(Hint: There is a difference between a spell cast as a full round action, and a spell with a full round casting time.)

 

[kreynolds]

"That does not support as strong a statement as that the rules "explicitly" state that it is the case.

Do you have an *explicit* statement that says "spells which require a full round action" get the delay? Is your *explicit* all based on your ASSUMPTION that the interaction is supposed to be two-way?

is this a new definition of "explicitly states" that i was heretofore unaware?

You do realize that I did not once say "explicity", don't you? "Strictly", yes. "explicitly", no. Sheesh, man. Take a breath.

or just a sore subject with you leading to hyperbole

A "sore" subject? Not that I'm aware of. If I seemed short, it was probably because Iku Rex was being rather uncivil, spouting his mouth off without actually providing any referrences whatsoever, thus not even providing a valid argument at all, when in fact, he was just being childish, and I was losing patience with him. *shrug*

True, I figured the statement worked TWO WAYS (and still do). Seemed logical, seeing as how there was nothing to say otherwise. Nothing. Notta. Zip. Zilch. Bupkuss.

The only thing that has made me question my own argument is the fact that a "full-round action" (such as climbing) in and of itself completes during the round in which it was executed. This is also why I don't have a problem accepting the Sage's ruling.

When you break down the wording like you did, his ruling makes even more sense.

But, do me a favor. Next time, before you go pointing fingers at me for bad behavior (such as the last four flame-war instigating sentences in your post), why don't first read the damn thread to figure out for yourself if I even instigated it in the first place? If that's too much to ask, oh well.

Thank you for the breakdown of terminology though.