Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dracorat" data-source="post: 3097980" data-attributes="member: 40170">But you *are* saying it's not reasonable, by attempting to convert swift actions in to some sort of effort they are not. They used to be free actions which are adjudicated as &quot;allowed to perform as many times in a round as your DM allows&quot; and so quickened actions were explicitly restricted to one.But by quickening a spell and casting it, over casting it as regular, in a standard action, you gain nothing, but lose a higher level spell slot, so your arguments are grounded in bad logic. You are only supported in that this situation was not explicitly addressed and so the higher level of default rules supports your claim.But it doesn't mean the rules make sense. They are just rules.So, we disagree. But instead of simply placing both of our opinions out there, to allow the individuals of the community form their own opinions, I get the distinct message that there is a requirement to prove my position as flawed.And my simple statement to the entire issue is that neither position is flawed. They are simply positions. One is a strict and cold adherance to rules. A position that I will uphold on any RPGA event I partake in.And the other is a position of interpretation to spirit of the law. One I will uphold on any non-RPGA.Positions. Of difference, but not of superiority, inferioirity, or of a need to be &quot;right or wrong&quot;. Simply. Positions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dracorat, post: 3097980, member: 40170"] But you *are* saying it's not reasonable, by attempting to convert swift actions in to some sort of effort they are not. They used to be free actions which are adjudicated as "allowed to perform as many times in a round as your DM allows" and so quickened actions were explicitly restricted to one. But by quickening a spell and casting it, over casting it as regular, in a standard action, you gain nothing, but lose a higher level spell slot, so your arguments are grounded in bad logic. You are only supported in that this situation was not explicitly addressed and so the higher level of default rules supports your claim. But it doesn't mean the rules make sense. They are just rules. So, we disagree. But instead of simply placing both of our opinions out there, to allow the individuals of the community form their own opinions, I get the distinct message that there is a requirement to prove my position as flawed. And my simple statement to the entire issue is that neither position is flawed. They are simply positions. One is a strict and cold adherance to rules. A position that I will uphold on any RPGA event I partake in. And the other is a position of interpretation to spirit of the law. One I will uphold on any non-RPGA. Positions. Of difference, but not of superiority, inferioirity, or of a need to be "right or wrong". Simply. Positions. [/QUOTE]

Verification