Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sullivan" data-source="post: 1989480" data-attributes="member: 28152">Different sentence, same paragraph, same list, same implied possibility of incompleteness.  It's VERY explicitness can also support the possibility of Quickness being disrupted. Why? Because there is a need for naming 1 action casting time to ensure that you couldn't mistakenly assume that Quickened applied to the first part of that "OR" conjunctive, the AoO.  Total brevity is not where the SRD is coming from. There are other examples of "such as" sprinkled through out the combat section that are not complete. Further they might have wanted to highlight that 1 round spells don't provoke AoO.  It does inforce in negative way that this is not proof against Quicken not being disrupted, but not a positive proof sense outside of they didn't get around to listing a big list in an section that is not intended to delve into the full specifics of spell casting senarios. Further a Quickened spell casting does meet the criteria of or the action being taken (for activities requiring no more than a full-round action). albeit in a slightly oblique way, and once again it makes sense that it go in there because it is removed from the OR conjuctive that it's connection to would be incorrect.  EDIT: Grammer-slammer-bammered this paragraph."Thin ice" says you. "You be under that ice" says I! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> (my smilie face selection button is broken, i REALLY need a pirate smilie here) Once again the exapmles you provide only allow the possibility that Quicken may not be disruptable by readied attacks, but do not provide proof positive. While I provide a reference that leaves no such possibilities for Quickened not being disrupted, save for the possibility of a blatant error by the author that has somehow not been corrected over the years....which finds us back at where my last post concluded. I'll set aside the logic of consistancy arguement since it has a weak weighting at the level we are dealing at and, though I am sure I understand your point that there are places where you could say there is a possibility that there is no way to disrupt a Quickened spell by a simple readied damage dealing attack, I still feel overwhelmingly secure that you have not provided any entries, such that I have, that are explicit proof positive.  Yes, which is why I have been willing to go there. Just making sure we are talking at the same level. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification