Metamagic, Cast Times, Etc.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

I'm with TML here. One Round takes a longer amount of time then a Full Round Action. If this is not explicitly said then it is sure as fuck implied. Arguing differently is playing a silly game of "dead isn't a status effect! i can still act!"

No, it isn't. The rules explicitly define what type of action you use to cast a 1-round spell (hint: it's a full-round action). That's the exact opposite of "the rules don't say I can't!".

YES.  THAT IS THE TYPE OF ACTION.

However.

Type of Action IS NOT the same thing as "casting time".

[wotmaniac]

So, did these have no relevance?:
- "A round [...] usually means a span of time from one round to the same initiative count in the next round."
- "A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round."

I think that you guys are getting too caught up in the "must continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration", and seem to be ignoring the "from one round to just before your turn in the next round".  It's like you're getting distracted by the fact that it's not all tied up in a neat little bow (i.e., not differentiating between "turn" and "round").  It's called an exception -- in this case, the exception is how the particular order-of-operations is handled .... it's still a full-round; just a specific exception of when in that round certain things occure.  In light of the aforementioned bullets, everything appears to fit perfectly within the definition.  I'm not trying to play ticky-tack here -- I'm genuinely just trying to do what the rules say.

YES.  THAT IS THE TYPE OF ACTION.

However.

Type of Action IS NOT the same thing as "casting time".

Right, but the casting time is specifically and explicitly defined as being a certain type of action.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

When you begin a spell that takes 1 round or longer to cast, you must continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration from one round to just before your turn in the next round (at least).

IE: There is a period of time where you're doing " the invocations, gestures, and concentration " in a 1 round casting time spell, where you are NOT required to in a full-round action casting time spell

Seriously, the rules even explicitly say that a 1-round casting time and full-round action are different.

[wotmaniac]

When you begin a spell that takes 1 round or longer to cast, you must continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration from one round to just before your turn in the next round (at least).

IE: There is a period of time where you're doing " the invocations, gestures, and concentration " in a 1 round casting time spell, where you are NOT required to in a full-round action casting time spell

It's called the rest of the round -- I already covered this when I reprinted the definitions

If a spell’s normal casting time is 1 standard action, casting a metamagic version of the spell is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. Note that this isn’t the same as a spell with a 1-round casting time—the spell takes effect in the same round that you begin casting, and you aren’t required to continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration until your next turn. For spells with a longer casting time, it takes an extra full-round action to cast the metamagic spell.

Seriously, the rules even explicitly say that a 1-round casting time and full-round action are different.

No.   (I thought I already covered that paragraph already -- please address my commentary of it from above)
They say they are different from a normal full-round action -- that doesn't mean that it not a full-round action; it simply means that it is just a specific instance of different adjudication.  and then they describe what that adjudication is -- that being that the action is not fully contained within the neat little package called a "turn". 
Again, what do you have to say about the 2 bullet-points I repeated in my last post.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

A full round action doesn't actually consume all your effort.  After all, you have swift and free actions you can still do, as well as 5' steps.  In context in the PHB, the sentence means "you don't get a full-round and a standard action or a full-round and a move action"

Oh, and time certainly is passing even if it isn't your turn.  Observe:

So let's see.  We have a wizard at initiative count 15.  He casts a full-round action casting time spell.  At initiative count 14 on the same round, he's done casting.

Now compare.  We have a wizard at initiativec count 15.  He casts a 1-round casting time spell.  At initiative count 14 of the same round, he's still casting.  At initiative count 15 on the next round, he finishes casting.

The name of a "full-round action" is misleading on multiple levels.  First, it isn't "full" - you can still take a 5' step and free actions.  Second, it doesn't qualify as a "round", since it takes up your whole turn, but doesn't do shit about out-of-turn actions in-or-out of core..

[wotmaniac]

So let's see.  We have a wizard at initiative count 15.  He casts a full-round action casting time spell.  At initiative count 14 on the same round, he's done casting.

Now compare.  We have a wizard at initiativec count 15.  He casts a 1-round casting time spell.  At initiative count 14 of the same round, he's still casting.  At initiative count 15 on the next round, he finishes casting.

1st, initiative count is an abstract, artificial construct.  It is also the glaring shortcoming of the turn-based action-resolution system.  The thing is, the only "fix" requires that you over-complicate game play -- that's the trade-off.  It is what it is.

Crack open your DMG, and turn to page 24:
[spoiler]

Simultaneous Activity
When you play out a combat scene or some other activity for
which time is measured in rounds, it can be important to remember
that all the PCs’ and NPCs’ actions are occurring simultaneously.
For instance, in one 6-second round, Mialee might be trying
to cast a spell at the same time that Lidda is moving in to make a
sneak attack.
However, when everyone at the table plays out a combat round,
each individual acts in turn according to the initiative count for
his character. Obviously, this is necessary, because if every individual
took his turn at the same time, mass confusion would
result. However, this sequential order of play can occasionally lead
to situations when something significant happens to a character at
the end of his turn but before other characters have acted in the
same round.
For instance, suppose Tordek hustles 15 feet ahead of his
friends down a corridor, turns a corner, and hustles another 10
feet down a branching corridor, only to trigger a trap at the end of
his turn. In order to maintain the appearance of simultaneous
activity, you’re within your rights to rule that Tordek doesn’t trigger
the trap until the end of the round. After all, it takes him some
time to get down the corridor, and in an actual real-time situation
the other characters who have yet to act in the round would be
taking their actions during this same time.

[/spoiler]
(side note: this is the kind of stuff you miss if you rely on the SRD)
Now juxtapose that with this, which I present once again (and now we've both posted it):

a round [...] means a span of time from one round to the same initiative count in the next round.

In light of the previously-discussed actual given definitions, I think the example given in the 3rd paragraph is quite analogous to this one (insofar as adjudicating effects and activity).

When you begin a spell that takes 1 round or longer to cast, you must continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration from one round to just before your turn in the next round (at least).

IE: There is a period of time where you're doing " the invocations, gestures, and concentration " in a 1 round casting time spell, where you are NOT required to in a full-round action casting time spell

(this is covered in the DMG quote above; but ...) the only spells that have a "full-round action" casting time are ones that are spontaneously metamagiced.  Spontaneously applying a metamagic feat to a spell is actually an exception to the "casting time for spells" rule -- since it is itself a specific and isolated exception, it cannot be used as the standard by which to judge other elements of spellcasting.

If a spell’s normal casting time is 1 standard action, casting a metamagic version of the spell is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. Note that this isn’t the same as a spell with a 1-round casting time—the spell takes effect in the same round that you begin casting, and you aren’t required to continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration until your next turn. For spells with a longer casting time, it takes an extra full-round action to cast the metamagic spell.

Seriously, the rules even explicitly say that a 1-round casting time and full-round action are different.

No, no they don't.  The rules say that casting a spontaneously metamagiced spell and casting a "1 round casting time" spell are different.  That is a very different thing than saying that a 1-round casting time and full-round action are different.  To the contrary, they rules actually do explicitly define a 1-round casting time spell as being a full-round action (albeit with an exception).
In both cases, they are each an exception to a "normal" rule; but they are each exceptions to different rules.  Since the rules for which each are exceptions are completely different, the comparison is invalid.

Speaking of exceptions -- (given the definition) the 1-round casting time is simply an exception to the "full-round actions are resolved on the character's turn" rule.
Which has been the biggest part of my point all along.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

Immediate actions render that type of officially encouraged DM fiat far less useful.  It's also a more specific environment based example.  If Mialee succeeded on hitting an ogre with "charm monster" as the last action of her turn, for example, the ogre is charmed on his turn even if he's at her initiative -1.

Within the game mechanics themselves, the illusion of simultaneity is just that - an illusion.  It's like HP - just because losing HP doesn't always mean getting injured, somehow injury poisons work every single time you deal HP damage.

[MalcolmSprye]

For full articulation, I'll start by reposting my take on it:

1) As per PHB p.174 and RC p.8, casting a spell with a casting time of "1 round" is explicitly defined as being a "full-round action".
  -- the only exception that these spells present to the "full-round action" rule is how the order-of-operations is adjudicated.  that's it. 

2) Quicken Spell = "A spell whose casting time is more than 1 full round action cannot be quickened" (emphasis mine).
  -- by definition, you should be able to Quicken a "1 round" spell.

While Quicken explicitly changes how long it takes you to perform the casting action, it does not, however, change the effect.  Part of the effect of a "1 round casting time" spell is that it comes in to effect immediately before your next turn.

The part that really bothers me is the sidebar on p.125 of RC -- the opening sentence is just flat-out definitionally wrong.  The rest of the sidebar simply articulates the nature of the specific exception presented in "1 round" spells and the meta-game aspect of that exception; however, it still does not change the definition of "1 round" or "full-round action".  In other words, not only does his explanation do nothing to support his thesis statement; but it also shows his ignorance of both the nature of an exception-based rule set and the explicit definition of "1 round".

Now, I've been seeing for quite some time the idea that "you can't quicken '1 round' spells" (a concept that I never heard of until I started frequenting the various forums) .... with the explanation being pretty-much what the OP says.  However, given my explanation + the glaring absence of any literature explicitly barring such, I'm hard-pressed to see how you can't.

I'm certainly not trying to play the contrarian; nor am I trying to apply RAITAYCPIWN.  I'm simply not able understand how the alternative is reached.  Sure, I'm able understand the reasoning ... I just feel that it is faulty reasoning, as I've seen it presented (again, based on the arguments that I have presented).

I am, however, willing to consider a disassembly of my arguments or a different articulation of the opposing position.

Forgive me for asking, but are there any casting times between a standard action and a full round?  Not as far as I know.

If there aren't, then the intention is blatantly obvious.  If they wanted to exclude full round spells, they would have said "A spell whose casting time is more than 1 standard action cannot be quickened".  As it stands, they specifically wrote the full round action.  The arguments in favor of standard only sound as if I said "I'm going to Newark, New York", and rather than thinking I've mis-spoken and mean "New York, New York" or "Newark, New Jersey", you assume I meant "Milwaukee, Wisconsin" .  Yes, I guess the designers could have meant something totally different, but the small mistake is more likely.

I assume that this was a purely semantic argument, though.  In that vein, aren't there spells with casting time: standard action, that still require concentration to keep functioning?  One could look at a full round spell as something that takes a full round action to cast, but requires concentration for a round to achieve the effect.  I'm just grasping at straws here... trying to "justify" what seems like a pretty clear cut intention.

[wotmaniac]

In that vein, aren't there spells with casting time: standard action, that still require concentration to keep functioning? 

do you mean like many divination spells?  yes.  (I just grabbed that off the top of my head -- if you can give a better example, please do)

One could look at a full round spell as something that takes a full round action to cast, but requires concentration for a round to achieve the effect.  I'm just grasping at straws here... trying to "justify" what seems like a pretty clear cut intention.

I don't see that as grasping at all .... seems like your just quantifying the narrative and further explaining the nature of the exception presented in the casting time (i.e., the exception I noted above)


side note: full-round actions are rife with exceptions.  this is yet another example.

[cru]

random rant:

actions spent to cast a 1 round casting time spell: 1 full round action
actions spent to cast a 1 full round action casting time spell: 1 full round action

In both cases, you're spending your 6 seconds for casting.
You're not spending any extra action for 1 round spells.

Whether a sorcerer at 00:00:00 starts casting a spontaneously applied empowered fireball or casts a summon monster 1, in both cases he must spend a full round action on his round. Both take 6 seconds. Actually, both effects would happen almost in the same moment of time at the end of 00:00:05 (first happens at the end of his 6 seconds, the second one before the start of his next 6 seconds).


Anyway, I like MalcolmSprye's point that there are actually no 1 full round action casting time spells; this makes the intent of the description of quicken spell clearer.

BTW I don't think we're going to reach a consensus here

[wotmaniac]

BTW I don't think we're going to reach a consensus here

... and I don't know why.  I mean, how hard is it?  The definitions are as clear as the nose on my face.  Coupled with my analysis of the relevant exception-based stuff and adjudication of effects, this should be a no-brainer.

Anyway, I like MalcolmSprye's point that there are actually no 1 full round action casting time spells; this makes the intent of the description of quicken spell clearer.

actually, I happened to point that out 2 posts earlier  (not that it matters .... now I'm just being silly)

[cru]

actually, I happened to point that out 2 posts earlier  (not that it matters .... now I'm just being silly)

I know you did (I actually read some of the posts in this thread before responding!)
Perhaps facebook corrupted me, I just wanted to express my attitude ("I like this").
Also, it's nice to see that it's still possible to find new arguments after 30 posts.

[wotmaniac]

actually, I happened to point that out 2 posts earlier  (not that it matters .... now I'm just being silly)

I know you did (I actually read some of the posts in this thread before responding!)
Perhaps facebook corrupted me, I just wanted to express my attitude ("I like this").
Also, it's nice to see that it's still possible to find new arguments after 30 posts.

like I said, I was just being silly (lack of sleep tends to do that to me).