Reactions/immediate actions: 3e or 5e style?

[Elves]

You don't want too many reactions/immediate actions in play or else each round becomes convoluted and full of interruptions.

3e's solution was to make immediate actions overlap with swift actions. 5e and PF2, by contrast, solved it by putting AoOs on the reaction (something that was a nonaction previously).

Both have an upside and a downside. It's elegant how the AoO=immediate action solution naturally creates a 1/round AoO limit, and how it folds something that was previously its own independent rule -- AOOs -- into the action framework. On the other hand, it means everyone always needs a minor action ability every turn, and it disadvantages martials in comparison to casters.

Collapsing swift and immediate actions is also clever, and creates tactical choice -- can I afford to use a reaction this round, or do I need my swift action next round? The downside is it's more complicated.

Which solution do you think is better?

[Troacctid]

I don't like the memory issues that this edition's immediate actions create. It's too easy to use an immediate action, wait 5 to minutes for your turn to come around, and then forget about your immediate action and try to use a swift. I do it all the time! "...And then I'll cast a quickened spell...wait, no, I just cast nerveskitter, whoops, scratch that."

To be fair, I suppose 5e has this issue as well. In larger combats, it's not uncommon for a wizard to absentmindedly attempt to cast two reaction spells in the same round without realizing it.

[Beni-Kujaku]

I think it really depends on the importance of swift actions. In 5e, bonus actions are the standard go-to for a lot of abilities, and everyone uses them from level 1or 2 to level 20. In 3.5, swift actions are generally way weaker than standard actions, and often not really used until at least level 5, or even higher. Having swift and immediate (or in this case, bonus and reaction) overlap in 5e would just make nobody use reactions, since bonus actions are so important to one's turn. On the other hand, having AoO be an immediate action in 3.5 would make Combat Reflexes hardly implementable, and make AoO optimization impossible or useless. In a system who prides itself on allowing to optimize literally anything, that would make less sense.

So my answer is, perhaps unsurprisingly: the reaction system for 5e, and the immediate action system for 3.5.

[Elves]

On the other hand, having AoO be an immediate action in 3.5 would make Combat Reflexes hardly implementable, and make AoO optimization impossible or useless. In a system who prides itself on allowing to optimize literally anything, that would make less sense.
Combining both solutions would be a disaster since it means martials don't get swifts or immediates if they use AoOs.

The balance problem that remains with the 5e solution is you're letting casters cast an additional spell each turn, while not giving martials anything new (they could already both use a swift action and make an AoO). That's a pretty big skew.

I suppose the balancer is that 5e martials can full attack with a standard action. And to be fair, Travel Devotion is one of the most frequently recommended things for martials and is just trading a swift for a move each round -- so if that's the standard, giving them back their move equates to adding a swift, which evens things out.

OTOH, pounce charging solves a lot of the full attack problem in 3.5. IDK if travel devotion is really the gold standard here.

[Eldonauran]

I use a modified Action Economy (in Pathfinder 1e) that is structured similar to the version in their Unchained book, and a mix of what I like from PF2e and D&D 5e.

We still have swift actions, but they are limited to very specific things: declared targets for abilities like Smite Evil, Studied Target, etc, etc. Spells only use swift actions when explicitly listed as a swift action, and quickened spells use 1 action (out of the 3 you have every round), and are limited to one quickened spell a round. They also don't provoke, because they become 'verbal' only spells.

Immediate actions/AoO become reactions and the Combat Reflexes feat allows you to take more than one reaction a turn, but only to make AoO's. They do not interact with or use your swift action on your next turn.

Otherwise, its generally 3 actions a round like PF2e with some minor tweaking to give full BAB classes with little spellcasting an edge with attacking. Once they reach 6 BAB, they can make two attacks with their first attack action (one at full, one at -5) and when they use their second action to attack, they don't suffer the penalty for a third attack, but use the normal -5 for the second attack. When they get 11 BAB, something similar happens with first (full/-5) and second (-5/-10) and then their third attack is at -10. At 16 BAB is it first (full/-5), second (-5/-10) and third (-10/-10). The penalty doesn't get worse than -10. Other classes with more spellcasting ability get a modified version of this, but only once at BAB 11 and they only get the ability to make two attacks on their first action with no improvements later. So fullcasters NEVER get this bonus without multiclassing and 'gish' characters get some benefit.

[Fizban]

The balance problem that remains with the 5e solution is you're letting casters cast an additional spell each turn, while not giving martials anything new (they could already both use a swift action and make an AoO). That's a pretty big skew.
Are you? It's been a while since I read the 5e spells, but I don't recall there being very many minor/reaction spells- the biggest I remember was a hellfire counter that required you to be attacked (something you shouldn't want), and dealt okay damage. And 5e massively reduces spells per day while increasing encounters per day, so that rationing of non-cantrip spells should be way more important- to the point that the few reaction spells I read, seemed like a waste.

[Lilapop]

Having swift and immediate (or in this case, bonus and reaction) overlap in 5e would just make nobody use reactions, since bonus actions are so important to one's turn.

This is partly why swifts/immediates reset explicitly on the end of your turn, while everything else is on some implicit "at the same point along the duration of your turn": You can use your wraithstrikes and your sudden leaps and your travel devotion moves without blocking your oh-[its the other word, not crap, bloody censorship]-button.


It's elegant how the AoO=immediate action solution naturally creates a 1/round AoO limit

The AoO limit is supposed to be overcome by characters who specialize in overcoming it. The swift action limit is absolutely bloody not intended to be overcome. So I wouldn't call combining them really elegant, as they are very different.

How does combat reflexes work in 5th anyway? Does it even exist in the first place, or did it die like everything else that wasn't turned into one of three-ish premade subclasses per class? Can we agree that 4th was a necessary data point (though not exactly a necessary product), while 5th should have been burned down from the start?

[Darg]

Why is 3.5 complicated? Baseline you get 1 AoO and 1 immediate/swift other than your move and standard a round. 4 actions per round not counting any non-actions and free actions taken during your turn, but you don't have to keep track of those. My groups use coins or tokens that we flip when we use our AoO or immediate action. If you get Combat Reflexes, use a countdown die to keep track. You get your AoOs back at the beginning of the round not your turn. So everyone gets theirs back at the same time. 3.5 didn't start with swifts/immediates and the only reason there is a differentiation between the two is so that the player knows they can't cast a swift off of their turn.

TLDR, use 2 coins or tokens (countdown die for combat reflexes). Reset AoO at the beginning of the round. Reset immediate/swift at the end of your turn. If everyone does it, people will be able to help you remember.

[Troacctid]

Are you? It's been a while since I read the 5e spells, but I don't recall there being very many minor/reaction spells- the biggest I remember was a hellfire counter that required you to be attacked (something you shouldn't want), and dealt okay damage. And 5e massively reduces spells per day while increasing encounters per day, so that rationing of non-cantrip spells should be way more important- to the point that the few reaction spells I read, seemed like a waste.
There's a decent number of good bonus action spells. Rangers and warlocks are infamous for spamming hunter's mark and hex respectively, and paladins often use bonus action smite spells. Spiritual weapon is a staple for clerics. Sorcerers have quickened spells. Etc.

Reaction spells comprise some of the most powerful spells in the game. In particular, counterspell is broken AF, and shield and absorb elements are awesome on defense.


How does combat reflexes work in 5th anyway? Does it even exist in the first place, or did it die like everything else that wasn't turned into one of three-ish premade subclasses per class?
5e does not have Combat Reflexes. The main AoO feat instead is Sentinel:

You have mastered techniques to take advantage of every drop in any enemy's guard, gaining the following benefits:

When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, the creature's speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn.
Creatures provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach.
When a creature within 5 feet of you makes an attack against a target other than you (and that target doesn't have this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature.
...which, honestly, seems like it does a much better job of supporting that type of character, tbh?

[rrwoods]

5e does not have Combat Reflexes. The main AoO feat instead is Sentinel:

You have mastered techniques to take advantage of every drop in any enemy's guard, gaining the following benefits:

When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, the creature's speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn.
Creatures provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach.
When a creature within 5 feet of you makes an attack against a target other than you (and that target doesn't have this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature.
...which, honestly, seems like it does a much better job of supporting that type of character, tbh?
It's like Stand Still + Thicket of Blades + (i feel like there's a name for this but i can't think of it), all rolled into one feat. Then again feats in 5e are a more-scarce resource

[Crake]

The swift action limit is absolutely bloody not intended to be overcome.

Can I introduce you to the ruby knight vindicator?

[RandomPeasant]

...which, honestly, seems like it does a much better job of supporting that type of character, tbh?

You need both to be effective. Your AoOs need to trigger on things enemies are actually doing, and there need to be enough of them that you can credibly control territory. It's like an XCOM Overwatch build, and those guys don't fully work until they have both "shoot on most actions" and "shoot multiple times".

[Lilapop]

(i feel like there's a name for this but i can't think of it)
Defensive rebuke, another ToB maneuver.


You need both to be effective.
This. Its all the other goodies, but the main ingredient is missing.


Can I introduce you to the ruby knight vindicator?
Eh, that one is widely considered to be brokenly overpowered for this very reason and should be hit with some kinda nerf by every DM who allows it. Combat reflexes, not so much. So I guess my statement still stands?

[Crake]

Eh, that one is widely considered to be brokenly overpowered for this very reason and should be hit with some kinda nerf by every DM who allows it. Combat reflexes, not so much. So I guess my statement still stands?

I've not really heard of it having such a reputation in all honesty.

[Kitsuneymg]

I've not really heard of it having such a reputation in all honesty.

That’s because SU abilities that don’t say what type of action they require always default to a standard action. So divine impetus is a way to burn your standard and a turn to get a second swift. Maybe so you can change stances twice or counter then still boost/change stance?

If you ignore the text and make up your own “this is a non-action” clause, the RKV and Night Sticks leads to things like white ravens tactic-ing yourself on an idiot crusader to take dozens of full round actions in a row.

RAW, there’s absolutely no question about how it works. It’s just not great. When people ignore the RAW in an attempt to make it better, but don’t apply limits, it gets broken fast.

Even with the commonly used “once a round, but free action” reading, you’re still giving a caster/initiator with access to DMM Quicken a second swift action. So it’s easy to see how people consider it broken/very powerful.

[Kitsuneymg]

As for the topic.

I like the simplicity of 5e’s approach, but it’s *simplistic*. Like 5e itself. When playing a simplistic game, simple rules work best. When playing something with more complexity, simple rules leave people unsatisfied. As an example, I’ve seen a number of people wanting more verisimilitude than AC/HP can give them, and grapple rules often either fall to the “too simple” side, or require actual flowcharts to use.

I do not think you could dumb down the action economy of 3.X to allow for a combine reaction without fundamentally changing the game. At the least, it removes a whole combat tactic from the game and makes it far easier to cast spells in combat.

I like the idea of P2’s three action system. But, like everything I’ve seen of P2, the implementation is awful. I wish it were not, because two sets of beads for actions/AoOs sounds like the simplest way to give choice and complexity to actions.

[Elves]

RAW, there’s absolutely no question about how it works. It’s just not great.
It's worse than not great, it's completely worthless. Anyone can spend a standard action to ready a swift action from level 1 without spending a turn attempt.

You're right it's the strict RAW reading, but 1/round free action is probably better. It's a complete moodkiller for the meme class to actually suck.

[Darg]

That’s because SU abilities that don’t say what type of action they require always default to a standard action. So divine impetus is a way to burn your standard and a turn to get a second swift. Maybe so you can change stances twice or counter then still boost/change stance?

The problem with this reading is that it doesn't differentiate between passive abilities and active abilities. By RAW, there would be no passive supernatural ability which is definitely not RAI. Psionic feats are supernatural abilities. Do all of them require a standard action when not stated? WotC is simply not consistent with this rule.

[Elves]

The problem with this reading is that it doesn't differentiate between passive abilities and active abilities. By RAW, there would be no passive supernatural ability which is definitely not RAI. Psionic feats are supernatural abilities. Do all of them require a standard action when not stated? WotC is simply not consistent with this rule.

Well, it's an active ability either way, question is whether it's free or standard. Passives don't take an action which will typically be clear from how the ability works.

Are there examples elsewhere of Su abilities that are implicitly a free action but never stated as such?

[RandomPeasant]

Are there examples elsewhere of Su abilities that are implicitly a free action but never stated as such?

How would you be able to tell? There are certainly SU abilities that don't make sense, or are very bad, if they have to be activated as a standard action, but if the ability doesn't say it takes some other action type, it would default to a standard action.

[Lilapop]

Are there examples elsewhere of Su abilities that are implicitly a free action but never stated as such?

Smite would be borderline - its not dysfunctional as a single attack with the bonus, but it certainly pales compared to just making a full attack.

[Kitsuneymg]

Smite would be borderline - its not dysfunctional as a single attack with the bonus, but it certainly pales compared to just making a full attack.

Smite says it’s part of a “normal attack.” Continuous abilities might count? And I’d love to see the rules on swift actions being readied as standards, considering swift actions were not in the phb, but were added in one of the complete books (arcane? Mage?) before that book, there “spells that count as your quickened spell for the round.”

In pathfinder, you absolutely can ready a swift action. It doesn’t let you cast a second swift action spell though. Where as I don’t recall that language being in 3.5.

[sreservoir]

Smite says it’s part of a “normal attack.” Continuous abilities might count? And I’d love to see the rules on swift actions being readied as standards, considering swift actions were not in the phb, but were added in one of the complete books (arcane? Mage?) before that book, there “spells that count as your quickened spell for the round.”

In pathfinder, you absolutely can ready a swift action. It doesn’t let you cast a second swift action spell though. Where as I don’t recall that language being in 3.5.

You can take a swift action whenever you could normally take a free actions, and you can ready a free action as a standard action. However, you can only perform one swift action per turn, explicitly "regardless of what other actions you take", and the ready action makes no special exception to that limit...

There's language against casting a second "quickened"/"free action" spell in multiple places around PH:

Cast a Quickened Spell
You can cast a quickened spell (see the Quicken Spell feat, page 98) or any spell whose casting time is designated as a free action (such as the feather fall spell) as a free action. Only one such spell can be cast in any round, and such spells don’t count toward your normal limit of one spell per round. Casting a spell with a casting time of a free action doesn’t incur an attack of opportunity.

A spell with a casting time of 1 free action (such as feather fall) doesn’t count against your normal limit of one spell per round. However, you may cast such a spell only once per round. Casting a spell with a casting time of 1 free action doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity.
One curious thing you might notice is that this text refers to a "normal limit of one spell per round" which ... isn't really spelled out as a rule anywhere else? What's extra curious is that this is new 3.5e text, so idk what's up with that, maybe vestiges of a backed-out precursor to the haste nerf?

[RandomPeasant]

One curious thing you might notice is that this text refers to a "normal limit of one spell per round" which ... isn't really spelled out as a rule anywhere else? What's extra curious is that this is new 3.5e text, so idk what's up with that, maybe vestiges of a backed-out precursor to the haste nerf?

I've always read that as a strangely-worded reference to the fact that you only get one standard action per round by default. It's far from the only 3.5 change that wasn't thought out terribly well.

[Darg]

Well, it's an active ability either way, question is whether it's free or standard. Passives don't take an action which will typically be clear from how the ability works.

Are there examples elsewhere of Su abilities that are implicitly a free action but never stated as such?

Psionic feats are supernatural abilities. Which means to use them, you would need to use a standard action unless stated otherwise. Psionic meditation does not state that it doesn't take a standard action to activate. So you spend a standard to shorten focus to a move action which negates the entire benefit. Psionic weapon/shot/fist are the same way. Spend a standard to get to expend your focus on an attack your next turn.

A wilder's wild surge ability is an implied free action. So are pretty much most class abilities that are Su and don't state what action they are.

It makes the most sense to have the default action type remain with monsters and monster abilities as it is found in the MM. PC abilities don't follow that rule for the most part. They tend to imply a passive benefit unless there is a trigger or it states an action type. Take uncanny dodge for example. If it were a free action as dictated by the MM, then by RAW it could only be activated on the player's turn and be pretty worthless.

[Elves]

Psionic meditation does not state that it doesn't take a standard action to activate. So you spend a standard to shorten focus to a move action which negates the entire benefit.
Don't think these work. Psi Meditation says it takes a move action. The other feats clearly describe that they augment an attack. "A wilder can choose to invoke a wild surge whenever she manifests a power."

Intent for all of them is indicated. It's unclear what the actual intent was for divine impetus.

[Darg]

Don't think these work. Psi Meditation says it takes a move action. The other feats clearly describe that they augment an attack. "A wilder can choose to invoke a wild surge whenever she manifests a power."

Intent for all of them is indicated. It's unclear what the actual intent was for divine impetus.

Let's put the intent in perspective. Boosts end at the end of your turn. There is no point in using a boost if you have to spend your standard action activating the boost. Using a boost is the example used for the ability. It seems intended that expending your turn attempt is meant to be part of making the extra swift.

[RandomPeasant]

Let's put the intent in perspective. Boosts end at the end of your turn. There is no point in using a boost if you have to spend your standard action activating the boost. Using a boost is the example used for the ability. It seems intended that expending your turn attempt is meant to be part of making the extra swift.

I don't see the need to dance around with "intent". The ability is obviously stupid if it works the way RAW says it works, therefore it should be changed. Trying to divine the contents of the designers minds seems ultimately unhelpful to me, and frankly like a worse idea than just figuring out what the ability should say and houseruling it to say that.

[Elves]

Let's put the intent in perspective. Boosts end at the end of your turn. There is no point in using a boost if you have to spend your standard action activating the boost. Using a boost is the example used for the ability.
That's a fair point -- it's true for some -- but half or more work fine used on their own.


I don't see the need to dance around with "intent". The ability is obviously stupid if it works the way RAW says it works, therefore it should be changed.
Is it? Again, at the time there was no explicit statement that you could ready a swift action, and in any case, WOTC's treatment of readied actions seems to assume some DM adjudication that prevents them from being purely "when I say so" (otherwise, there would rarely be a reason to set the trigger as anything other than a speech command or similar). In that context, it may have seemed useful.

[Darg]

I don't see the need to dance around with "intent". The ability is obviously stupid if it works the way RAW says it works, therefore it should be changed. Trying to divine the contents of the designers minds seems ultimately unhelpful to me, and frankly like a worse idea than just figuring out what the ability should say and houseruling it to say that.

When we talk about intent, it's about what is actually the most likely way the ability is supposed to function. The fact is that the ability gives the example of using a boost and changing stances with the context of boosts ending when your turn does and only being able to use swift actions during your turn. This gives more credibility to the reading that Divine Impetus is either a free action or is triggered by attempting another swift action. Having clear evidence of something helps make rulings more digestible and tend to not cause problems with other rules.

That said, I personally only use book PRCs as templates to build custom PRCs, as is the written intent for them, and rarely if ever take a PRC as written.

[Elves]

The fact is that the ability gives the example of using a boost and changing stances with the context of boosts ending when your turn does and only being able to use swift actions during your turn. This gives more credibility to the reading that Divine Impetus is either a free action or is triggered by attempting another swift action.
It's useless to change stances and then use white raven tactics, sudden leap, dancing mongoose, iron heart endurance, etc?

[Darg]

It's useless to change stances and then use white raven tactics, sudden leap, dancing mongoose, iron heart endurance, etc?

Sudden leap is meant to be extra movement. Using a move action would be better than trading your standard for a subpar movement with variable results and strict directional requirements. Dancing mongoose requires the full attack action to make use of it.

I haven't said trading your standard for a swift is useless. It's just extremely limited. WotC mentions what action it takes to activate an ability when those are abilities players use. When they don't, it usually is meant to be triggered with the action being modified or the benefit is gotten at the specified level. Could there be an exception here? Possibly, but it seems extremely unlikely. The ability not being a standard action is the most consistent interpretation. Either way, the ability can only be used on your turn as it doesn't give you back the use of an immediate action.

[RandomPeasant]

When we talk about intent, it's about what is actually the most likely way the ability is supposed to function.

Sure, I get what RAI means, I just don't think it's a terribly useful mode of analysis. We can all, notionally at least, agree what the text of the ability says in the context of the rules of the game. But once we start asking "what does this imply about what the author thought they were saying", we lose any objectivity that the rules might have, and I don't see terribly much value in asking "what did this person who was clearly not able to express their intent effectively mean" when deciding how rules should work. RAW is a Schelling Point, RAI is not.

[Darg]

Sure, RAW is a selling point. However, RAI is evidence that points to the likely interaction with the rules. RAW says that magical training + versatile spellcaster = any 9th level spellcaster can cast any spell written into their spellbook. RAI would say to hold up and explain that there are other interactions that need to be addressed such as minimum caster level (*cough*divine metamagic*cough*) and whether the spells are actually known to even be able to cast them. Specific trumps general, but if it has a reading that doesn't conflict with the general rule then it should be given due consideration for a ruling to minimize rule conflicts and consistency.

[rrwoods]

Anyone can spend a standard action to ready a swift action from level 1 without spending a turn attempt.
Citation needed. I don't think this is possible.

You can ready a standard action, a move action, or a free action.

[Troacctid]

Sure, RAW is a selling point. However, RAI is evidence that points to the likely interaction with the rules. RAW says that magical training + versatile spellcaster = any 9th level spellcaster can cast any spell written into their spellbook. RAI would say to hold up and explain that there are other interactions that need to be addressed such as minimum caster level (*cough*divine metamagic*cough*) and whether the spells are actually known to even be able to cast them. Specific trumps general, but if it has a reading that doesn't conflict with the general rule then it should be given due consideration for a ruling to minimize rule conflicts and consistency.
You can already cast any spell written into your spellbook. That's kind of the point of a spellbook.


Citation needed. I don't think this is possible.
Swift actions are a subset of free actions, but you don't need to fall back on that because it was clarified in RC, page 110.

[RandomPeasant]

However, RAI is evidence that points to the likely interaction with the rules.

No, it isn't. The rules are the rules. Nothing outside the rules is evidence about what the rules say, because that's not how rules work. RAI is evidence about what the authors intended the rules to say (and generally fairly shaky evidence at that), but the only evidence about what the rules do say is what the rules say. Even your example is a demonstration of this. You appeal to "RAI" because the rules have produced an unsatisfying outcome. But nothing says the rules have to produce satisfying outcomes. In many cases the rules quite clearly do not. If the rules are bad, the mature thing to do is to openly and knowingly change the rules, not appeal to increasing esoteric justifications for why the rules aren't bad.

[Segev]

Honestly, as is mentioned in I think the second post in this thread, the fact that people usually forget about having taken an immediate action by the time their turn comes around again often means that they de facto have an immediate and swift action.

For 3.PF, having a move action, a swift action, an action-action, an AoO, and an immediate action isn't a problem. It's a slight inflation of power over the RAW, but it's easier to remember in play and I don't think it grossly increases the action economy.

[Elves]

For 3.PF, having a move action, a swift action, an action-action, an AoO, and an immediate action isn't a problem. It's a slight inflation of power over the RAW, but it's easier to remember in play and I don't think it grossly increases the action economy.

The problem isn't power inflation but gameplay. If everyone's action quota includes an interrupt, which will be necessary to fill for optimal play, each round becomes much more convoluted. It works if you fold AoOs into reactions/immediates, but otherwise it's too complex for a mass market game.

[RandomPeasant]

The problem isn't power inflation but gameplay. If everyone's action quota includes an interrupt, which will be necessary to fill for optimal play, each round becomes much more convoluted. It works if you fold AoOs into reactions/immediates, but otherwise it's too complex for a mass market game.

I'm not sure why you think folding AoOs into interrupts fixes the problem. By far the biggest cost of an interrupt ability is the context switch, not the ability itself.

[Remuko]

Sure, RAW is a selling point.

just in hope of pre-empting confusion, in case this wasnt a typo, he said Schelling Point, not selling point.


In game theory, a focal point (or Schelling point) is a solution that people tend to choose by default in the absence of communication.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Honestly, as is mentioned in I think the second post in this thread, the fact that people usually forget about having taken an immediate action by the time their turn comes around again often means that they de facto have an immediate and swift action.

For 3.PF, having a move action, a swift action, an action-action, an AoO, and an immediate action isn't a problem. It's a slight inflation of power over the RAW, but it's easier to remember in play and I don't think it grossly increases the action economy.

I've houseruled out the immediates-consume-swifts rule in my games for years and there have been zero balance issues. Considering that a PC can already take both a swift and an immediate on the same turn if they want to, by going "Okay, I take all my actions, I end my turn, now I use my immediate action," it's only a power boost if a PC wants to continually use both on the same turn round after round, and that's very rarely the case--and if it is, they can often just pick up sources of extra actions to achieve the same effect.


The problem isn't power inflation but gameplay. If everyone's action quota includes an interrupt, which will be necessary to fill for optimal play, each round becomes much more convoluted. It works if you fold AoOs into reactions/immediates, but otherwise it's too complex for a mass market game.

It's hardly the case that filling reactive actions are necessary for optimal play, because:

1) Immediate-action stuff is competing for resource slots with on-turn stuff. A Crusader can pick up three counters to guarantee he can do something with his immediate action every single turn between maneuver refreshes, but that's three maneuver slots spent on counters instead of boosts or strikes and that's a definite tradeoff. A Wizard can fill his prepared spells with feather fall, deflect, permeable form, and other immediate-action spells, but those are slots he's not filling with mage armor, scorching ray, or fly instead.

2) Reactive abilities have to react to something, and a PC often won't be in a situation where they can deploy those abilities. A Swordsage who knows Mind Over Body, Moment of Perfect Mind, Action Before Thought, and Leaping Flame can't do anything with his immediate action in a given round if he's not attacked or forced to make a save that turn--or if he has to make a Reflex save the round after he used Action Before Thought, or if he's attacked from farther away than 100 feet, and so on. A Wizard who knows celerity spell can use it any time he wants without having to react to a specific trigger, but if he wants to cast a spell after a teammate does something to set it up, he wants to move before casting a spell, or the like, the fact that he can take that extra standard action regardless of triggering conditions doesn't matter.


As far as complexity for a mass-market game goes, take a look at Star Wars Saga Edition. That doesn't have swift-consuming immediate actions like 3e or reactions-once-per-round like 5e, it has reactions that can be taken an unlimited number of times per round so long as you only use one reaction per triggering event, and many things that grant reactions are talents and feats with no usage limitations rather than Force powers, piloting maneuvers, etc. that are expended when used...yet far from being too complicated, many of its players feel that it's a faster and more intuitive action setup than 3e or 5e.

And even then, Jedi taking Deflect, Elite Troopers taking Unarmed Counterstrike, and other builds taking quite powerful off-turn abilities isn't seen as necessary because those talents are competing over limited slots with other similarly-cool and -powerful stuff (as in point 1 above) and situational abilities aren't necessarily as good as ones that are always applicable (as in point 2 above). So I don't feel the number or allocation of off-turn actions has a noticeable effect on optimal play so long as build resource constraints and situational triggers for off-turn actions still exist.

[Elves]

No, it isn't. The rules are the rules. Nothing outside the rules is evidence about what the rules say, because that's not how rules work. RAI is evidence about what the authors intended the rules to say (and generally fairly shaky evidence at that), but the only evidence about what the rules do say is what the rules say. Even your example is a demonstration of this. You appeal to "RAI" because the rules have produced an unsatisfying outcome. But nothing says the rules have to produce satisfying outcomes. In many cases the rules quite clearly do not. If the rules are bad, the mature thing to do is to openly and knowingly change the rules, not appeal to increasing esoteric justifications for why the rules aren't bad.

Intent does matter. The rules are nothing but the designers trying to communicate their intent.
You resort to RAW parsing where intent is unclear or where there's a situation that wasn't anticipated.

I agree and I've made this point myself that where the rules fall short it's cleaner to admit it and houserule them than to twist up some justification, as if they must be proved infallible.

But I don't think that means you need to read the rules as robo-text. They're fallible human communication. In this case, if there are examples of abilities that are implicitly active free actions but would be standard by default, that makes a free action ruling for divine impetus more plausible. I see a difference between an informed ruling and "I don't like this, I'm changing it" if what you want is consensus.


I'm not sure why you think folding AoOs into interrupts fixes the problem.
Because then you only have one set of off-turn actions, not two.


1) Immediate-action stuff is competing for resource slots with on-turn stuff.
2) Reactive abilities have to react to something, and a PC often won't be in a situation where they can deploy those abilities.
re 1: That's not always the case, and in 3.5 it's easy to pick up immediate action magic items to fill any gaps. Re 2: there are plenty of immediate actions, magic items among them, that are useful trigger or no.

Sure, if you were designing a new game, you could make sure either or both points were always true. But incentive design is easier and more effective than content control. It's a firmer foundation. Making sure you can use all your actions each turn is basic and that's what people will try to do.


As far as complexity for a mass-market game goes, take a look at Star Wars Saga Edition. That doesn't have swift-consuming immediate actions like 3e or reactions-once-per-round like 5e, it has reactions that can be taken an unlimited number of times per round so long as you only use one reaction per triggering event, and many things that grant reactions are talents and feats with no usage limitations rather than Force powers, piloting maneuvers, etc. that are expended when used...yet far from being too complicated, many of its players feel that it's a faster and more intuitive action setup than 3e or 5e.
I can't speak for Star Wars Saga, but I know it's d20 system, and if you ported that rule into 3.5 it would be a mess. That suggests to me that it speaks to content control in that game rather than the system.

I think 5e sacrificed too much in search of accessibility. But it's right that simplicity is important (though it probably underestimates what can be expressed simply). Additional off-turn reactions ring my warning bell for what will confuse people.

[RandomPeasant]

I see a difference between an informed ruling and "I don't like this, I'm changing it" if what you want is consensus.

The issue is there's no bright line. There are many, many broken things (in either the "overpowered" or "nonfunctional" senses) within the scope of RAW. Which ones were intended to work in a better way, and what that better way was, is not a question you can answer in any kind of generalizable way. Sure, it seems fairly obvious that the intent was not to give the Ruby Knight Vindicator an ability that is almost useless. But it probably also wasn't to give the Idiot Crusader as many standard actions as they have turn attempts. RAW is good because it's a Schelling Point. We can all agree what the words on the page are, and hopefully what they mean. Once you start asking "what was the author trying to do", you are asking a question that is much harder (if not impossible) to answer with any kind of objectivity. If you're going to do that, you should jump straight to "what should the rules say", because that produces just as many arguments, but (hopefully) better outcomes.


Because then you only have one set of off-turn actions, not two.

How often do people (outside of dedicated AoO builds) take multiple off-turn actions in either setup?

[Kitsuneymg]

How often do people (outside of dedicated AoO builds) take multiple off-turn actions in either setup?

I dunno about 3.5 anymore, but in Pathfinders, swashbucklers could use another immediate action or 8.

I play a lot of spheres of magic/might and several non aoo builds would love more immediate actions.

If you wanted to simplify 3.X, simply remove AoOs. Then make combat reflexes grant unlimited ones. Even with stuff in PF like cut from the air, you’re not gonna break the game. At least, I can’t put to mind something that does. Do Jack-be-quick builds noticeably decrease in power with infinite AoOs?

[Darg]

No, it isn't. The rules are the rules. Nothing outside the rules is evidence about what the rules say, because that's not how rules work. RAI is evidence about what the authors intended the rules to say (and generally fairly shaky evidence at that), but the only evidence about what the rules do say is what the rules say. Even your example is a demonstration of this. You appeal to "RAI" because the rules have produced an unsatisfying outcome. But nothing says the rules have to produce satisfying outcomes. In many cases the rules quite clearly do not. If the rules are bad, the mature thing to do is to openly and knowingly change the rules, not appeal to increasing esoteric justifications for why the rules aren't bad.

I'm not going to argue with you. The point is that RAW can have multiple valid interpretations.In this instance, Divine Impetus is easily interpreted in two ways. One is a standard action, the other as a free/non-action. There are plenty of examples of class feature Su abilities that are non-actions without being stated as such which breaks the rule in the MM. If they were all standard actions, many of them couldn't function because they don't have a duration. If they were considered to have instantaneous duration then an AMF wouldn't suppress them.


You can already cast any spell written into your spellbook. That's kind of the point of a spellbook.

That's...not true at all. You need to have the ability to cast the spells in the first place. You can have a 9th level spell in your book, but if you are only 1st level you aren't going to get anywhere.


just in hope of pre-empting confusion, in case this wasnt a typo, he said Schelling Point, not selling point.

Thank you. All I saw was "selling."

[sreservoir]

RAW is a Schelling Point, RAI is not. We can all agree what the words on the page are, and hopefully what they mean.

And that's wrong, because RAI is absolutely a Schelling point, and that's the whole point, because at the end of the day, it's very hard to agree on what the words on the page mean. It might be hard to believe, steeped in forum memes baked an an old and dead game as we are here, but people generally actually do default to trying to make the rules "make sense" over picking an interpretation that can be construed as accurate to the literal words on the page.

To put it another way: do you find that, in the absence of coordination, most people apply the nonproficiency penalty to single-classed monks' unarmed strikes?

[RandomPeasant]

The point is that RAW can have multiple valid interpretations.In this instance, Divine Impetus is easily interpreted in two ways. One is a standard action, the other as a free/non-action.

But one of those interpretations is not valid. There's no ambiguity in the RAW. Divine Impetus is a standard action to use, because that's the default for supernatural abilities and it doesn't say anything else. The RAW is stupid, but it's not unclear.


There are plenty of examples of class feature Su abilities that are non-actions without being stated as such

There are plenty of examples of class feature Su abilities that are dysfunctional by RAW. That doesn't mean the RAW is actually something else, it means the rules are flawed. Just like the rules are flawed when they let you use a SLA wish to get a CL 10k item.


And that's wrong, because RAI is absolutely a Schelling point, and that's the whole point, because at the end of the day, it's very hard to agree on what the words on the page mean.

Sure, but it's impossible to agree what the authors "intended" those rules to mean. The other Schelling Point isn't "RAI", it's "what seems like it makes sense" (and even that's not really a Schelling Point, since people don't think the same things make sense in many cases), and that's very seldom what the authors intended. The authors intentionally removed the limit on how expensive of a magic item you can wish for going from 3.0 to 3.5. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of tables will not let you wish for a staff of holy word at CL ten million.

[Darg]

But one of those interpretations is not valid. There's no ambiguity in the RAW.

Looks like we can't actually have a RAW discussion if you are just going to dismiss the other side. It is valid. Your dismissal is not.

[Crake]

But one of those interpretations is not valid. There's no ambiguity in the RAW. Divine Impetus is a standard action to use, because that's the default for supernatural abilities and it doesn't say anything else. The RAW is stupid, but it's not unclear.

The rules of dnd aren't written in the principia mathmatica, where no ambiguous language can be found, it's written in english. If you accept that basic premise, that the rules are written in english, then you accept that the words of english can be ambiguous, and thus the language of the dnd rules can sometimes be ambiguous as well.

Take, for example, in a parallel thread, the use of the word "appear". In one case, it can mean to materialise, or become visible, with no apparent source, on the other, it can mean to give the impression of being another thing. In the case of the psychoactive skin in question "Appear as a suit of fullplate" could mean to seem to be a suit of full plate, or it could mean it manifests as an actual suit of full plate. There is ambiguity in that statement, because words aren't perfectly define in english, and the same applies to the rest of the dnd rules. To say there's no ambiguity in RAW is just factually not true.

[Tzardok]

And now imagine what happens if someone has learnt the game from rulesbooks that were translated into a different language. That can then make some interpretations invalid and add others. Happened to me a few times.

[RandomPeasant]

Looks like we can't actually have a RAW discussion if you are just going to dismiss the other side. It is valid. Your dismissal is not.

If it's a valid reading of the rules as written, there would be a written rule explaining how an activated supernatural ability without an explicitly listed action could have an action type other than standard. I know of no such rule, and to my knowledge you have not provided one. Therefore, your argument is not a valid RAW argument. I don't have to accept any argument someone calls a RAW argument as valid without evidence, people have to provide evidence that the arguments they are making fall into the categories they say they do.


The rules of dnd aren't written in the principia mathmatica, where no ambiguous language can be found, it's written in english. If you accept that basic premise, that the rules are written in english, then you accept that the words of english can be ambiguous, and thus the language of the dnd rules can sometimes be ambiguous as well.

Sure. And if we were talking about something like Supernatural Transformation (where "innate" is used despite not being a defined game term), I would agree that that's a valid point and consider "there isn't a RAW answer to this question" a valid position to have in debates like "can I use Supernatural Transformation on a SLA granted by a class". But that's not the issue here. The issue here is "does this defined game term have the semantics the game defines for it even when those semantics make us sad", and if your answer to that is anything other than "yes", you're not talking about "RAW" in any meaningful sense.


To say there's no ambiguity in RAW is just factually not true.

You'll note that I didn't say that. I used the specific article "the" to denote that I was talking specifically about the RAW around Divine Impetus. It is a supernatural ability, it has to be actively used, it has no listed action type, and under those circumstances the rules say that it is a standard action to use it. I see no ambiguity in any part of that. The conclusion we reach from it makes us sad, but that doesn't mean it's an ambiguous conclusion. The conclusion I reach when I observe that you can use planar binding to command a demon that is more powerful than your entire party put together at the level you get it makes me sad, but that doesn't make it not how the spell works.

[Crake]

You'll note that I didn't say that. I used the specific article "the" to denote that I was talking specifically about the RAW around Divine Impetus.

Except "the RAW" simply means "the rules as written". In this case, the is not a specific article. If you had said "this RAW" or "the RAW in this case" it would have been specific, the way you said it simply referred to "the rules as written", which is entirely broad.

[RandomPeasant]

Except "the RAW" simply means "the rules as written". In this case, the is not a specific article. If you had said "this RAW" or "the RAW in this case" it would have been specific, the way you said it simply referred to "the rules as written", which is entirely broad.

Can everyone else who reads "the RAW" in the context of "But one of those interpretations is not valid. There's no ambiguity in the RAW. Divine Impetus is a standard action to use" as meaning "every rule everywhere in the entire game" rather than "the specific rules we are discussing" raise their hand? Oh, just Crake? That's what I thought.

[Elves]

We can all agree what the words on the page are, and hopefully what they mean. Once you start asking "what was the author trying to do", you are asking a question that is much harder (if not impossible) to answer with any kind of objectivity. If you're going to do that, you should jump straight to "what should the rules say", because that produces just as many arguments, but (hopefully) better outcomes.
I don't think this strict binary works. Most of the ambiguities in this game are where we can't all agree what the words on the page mean, because if something isn't spelled out in enough detail it can be impossible to tell. English isn't a technical notation, and reading it is in fact a nuanced process. You can't escape that. I don't think it's fair to say anything done in the absence of 100% certainty is done arbitrarily or subjectively; it's done in an informed way.

In this case, I agree with you that the strict-RAW reading of divine impetus is a standard action. The question I'm trying to answer is whether it's justified to rule otherwise. Because I don't think ruling it otherwise is a no-brainer. A class's abilities aren't guaranteed to be powerful, and as a matter of principle it's acceptable to let one class have a sucky/dysfunctional ability rather than introduce a very powerful ability to the meta. Also, intent matters because a restrictive reading informs how readied actions were expected to be used (namely, in a way that's not permissive enough to make divine impetus useless).


But it probably also wasn't to give the Idiot Crusader as many standard actions as they have turn attempts.
This part has long been debunked, the ability clearly says one. That could even be seen as a sign of free action intent since otherwise no need to specify.

[RandomPeasant]

The question I'm trying to answer is whether it's justified to rule otherwise.

Yes. It's justified to rule otherwise because that makes the game better. What the authors intended is irrelevant, or only relevant insofar as you think the author's judgement is better than your own (as someone who would not allow planar binding to bind creatures that can themselves cast planar binding, I do not feel that way), or you think the author's intent is so clear as to be a Schelling Point (maybe true in this case, certainly not true often enough to generally justify "RAI" as a mode of analysis).


This part has long been debunked, the ability clearly says one. That could even be seen as a sign of free action intent since otherwise no need to specify.

I don't think that's correct. The relevant bit of rules text (indeed, the only line of the ability that is "rules text" and not "fluff" or "example") is "You can expend a turn or rebuke undead attempt to gain one additional swift action this round.". That says that you can expend a turn attempt to gain a swift action. It doesn't say you can't expend another turn attempt to gain another swift action, any more than the fact that you used a spell slot to cast fireball means you can't later use a different spell slot to cast fireball again.

[Elves]

Yes. It's justified to rule otherwise because that makes the game better.
How often does everyone agree on that?
The cases where it's actually dysfunctional under one reading are few. Most of the time, like this, it's muddy.

For your private game, it hardly matters what the rules say or the designers thought. Not for any fancy reason, but because it's your game and you should do what you think is fun.

But if you want to use the rules as given, which is usually for the sake of consensus, saying there's no room for interpreting intent in them is unrealistically reductive, and it doesn't help you find that consensus.


"You can expend a turn or rebuke undead attempt to gain one additional swift action this round.". That says that you can expend a turn attempt to gain a swift action. It doesn't say you can't expend another turn attempt to gain another swift action, any more than the fact that you used a spell slot to cast fireball means you can't later use a different spell slot to cast fireball again.
The ability allows you "to gain one additional swift action this round". Spending a turn attempt is how you get that benefit.
Compare the wording for a belt of battle, "Spending 1 or more charges grants you an extra action", where it's clear if you had multiple swifts you could activate multiple times for multiple extra actions.
If impetus said "an" instead of one, could be read just as well either way. But the "one" is clear indication for 1/round.

--

Edit: If I'm reading your post right, it seems like we're both looking for objectivity, but you think the quality of a rule can be judged more objectively than designer intent. That's going to vary by situation, depending on how much evidence of intent there is and how divisive the ruling is. My view is just that the rules are an expression of intent more than a mechanical automaton, and you should be fair to them by taking that into account.

[RandomPeasant]

How often does everyone agree on that?

How often is everyone playing your game?


If impetus said "an" instead of one, could be read just as well either way. But the "one" is clear indication for 1/round.

I do not find that argument remotely credible. Especially if you want to be given the leniency to talk about "intent" while determining what the rest of the ability does. I mean, think about what you're saying. The authors thought super hard and carefully choose to have the ability say "one swift action" instead of "a swift action", but just forgot to give it an activation action? I don't buy that at all.


If I'm reading your post right, it seems like we're both looking for objectivity, but you think the quality of a rule can be judged more objectively than designer intent.

No. I'm saying that the only source of objectivity is the words on the page, because we can agree on that. We can't agree on intent. So you either go by the simple english reading of the words on the page (if you want objectivity or consensus) or you hash out the debate about what the rules ought to say (if you want to have a long debate). The middle ground of "RAI" is simply not defensible.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

re 1: That's not always the case, and in 3.5 it's easy to pick up immediate action magic items to fill any gaps. Re 2: there are plenty of immediate actions, magic items among them, that are useful trigger or no.

The question isn't whether there are tons of awesome things you can do with immediate actions (there are), it's whether the difference between "swift or immediate" and "swift and immediate" would lead to a playstyle change/arms race/whatever, and I simply don't think it would lead to any significant differences.

Anyone who's already loading up on all the swift and immediate action abilities they can find because they simply must do something with every single action on every single round or they feel like they're missing out isn't going to change that behavior if they get an extra action each round; people who aren't doing that right now probably aren't going to change their behavior because picking up more off-turn abilities isn't free (in terms of gold or feat slots or whatever) and every new triggerable ability gives diminishing returns (not to mention increasing option paralysis and complexity).


I can't speak for Star Wars Saga, but I know it's d20 system, and if you ported that rule into 3.5 it would be a mess. That suggests to me that it speaks to content control in that game rather than the system.

Oh, I wasn't at all suggesting porting that into 3e, it wouldn't work at all in conjunction with abilities that are assumed to be exclusive and once-per-round. My point was that you were saying that adding one interrupt to everyone's turn would be too complex for a mass-market game yet SWSE is a 3e-alike mass-market game that added lots of interrupts to everyone's turn and it worked out fine, so it's clear that the number and division of off-turn actions is not the issue when talking about acceptable complexity, it's some other factor that makes the actions flow better in that setup.

That factor could be tightly controlling how many talents give out reactions, as you suggest, but could just as easily be e.g. the standard->move->swift hierarchy that accustoms players to thinking in terms of many tiny actions, or the streamlining elsewhere that frees up mental bandwidth for action planning, or something else. Point is, it's not a one-dimensional question of "Additional off-turn action = complexity++".


I think 5e sacrificed too much in search of accessibility. But it's right that simplicity is important (though it probably underestimates what can be expressed simply). Additional off-turn reactions ring my warning bell for what will confuse people.

Speaking as someone who ran a 5e campaign in which the player of the bog-standard Champion Fighter still couldn't consistently remember which dice to use for attack and damage rolls by 10th level or thereabouts because they had the attention span of a goldfish and refused to read the rules and dammit Sam it's really not as difficult as you're making it out to be!, there is no magical complexity threshold low enough that you can completely avoid confusing people if you reach it.

If the reduced complexity of a player not having to remember what they did on their turn 5-10 minutes ago to use an off-turn action outweighs the increased complexity of possibly having to consider using off-turn actions more often (and I would argue that it does in most cases), it's worth the change even if some theoretical "net complexity" goes up.

[Darg]

If it's a valid reading of the rules as written, there would be a written rule explaining how an activated supernatural ability without an explicitly listed action could have an action type other than standard. I know of no such rule, and to my knowledge you have not provided one. Therefore, your argument is not a valid RAW argument. I don't have to accept any argument someone calls a RAW argument as valid without evidence, people have to provide evidence that the arguments they are making fall into the categories they say they do.

I could argue the same thing. Prove to me that the standard action default applies to all Su abilities outside of MMs. You can't. The MMs are the only places you find the default action. The primary source rule is also ambiguous as the term "monster" can be equally applied as an adjective to all the listed terms. English works like that. Your "RAW" argument is just as shaky as ours. You don't have to accept any argument, but don't dismiss evidence that has actually been presented as nothing. I could just as easily dismiss your claims, but there can't be a discussion if I do that. Funny how that works.

Edit: I should also point out that the MM also declares that SLAs are "a standard action unless noted otherwise." While it isn't false, we all know that it isn't wholly true. If we took that as RAW, then every SLA would be a standard action unless it explicitly says otherwise. Luckily we have the PHB to get the whole picture:


A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description.

However, this would conflict with the supremacy of the MM with the primary source rule if the adjective "monster" only applied to the word "description" within the rule.


Supernatural Abilities: Using a supernatural ability (such as a cleric’s turn or rebuke undead ability) is usually a standard action (unless defined otherwise by the ability’s description). Its use cannot be disrupted, does not require concentration, and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Extraordinary Abilities: Using an extraordinary ability (such as a barbarian’s uncanny dodge ability) is usually not an action because most extraordinary abilities automatically happen in a reactive fashion. Those extraordinary abilities that are actions are usually standard actions that cannot be disrupted, do not require concentration, and do not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Just in case someone wants to say that they must be standard actions:


Divine Grace (Su): At 2nd level, a paladin gains a bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws.

Aura of Courage (Su): Beginning at 3rd level, a paladin is immune to fear (magical or otherwise). Each ally within 10 feet of her gains a +4 morale bonus on saving throws against fear effects. This ability functions while the paladin is conscious, but not if she is unconscious or dead.

These abilities don't say anything about not being standard actions.

[RandomPeasant]

I could argue the same thing. Prove to me that the standard action default applies to all Su abilities outside of MMs. You can't.

Not only can I, you just did. That's what this line, which you quoted for me so nicely, which says: "Using a supernatural ability (such as a cleric’s turn or rebuke undead ability) is usually a standard action (unless defined otherwise by the ability’s description).". So, where does the description of Divine Impetus define it as something other than a standard action to use?


I could just as easily dismiss your claims, but there can't be a discussion if I do that.

There doesn't need to be a discussion. Your claims are just wrong. Lots of claims are just wrong. The claim that the swift actions from Divine Impetus can only be used to initiate boosts or change stances is wrong. The claim that Divine Impetus can only be used once per day is wrong. The claim that you can't use Divine Impetus if you're wielding a flail is wrong. I'm not obligated to have a discussion with you or anyone just because they made a claim. The person making a claim is obligated to provide sufficient evidence for that claim to justify discussing it. My evidence is that the rules (including rules you cited) say that a supernatural ability is a standard action to use unless it says otherwise, and Divine Impetus doesn't say otherwise. Your evidence is stuff that supports my position. Do you see why I might not consider your claims terribly compelling?


These abilities don't say anything about not being standard actions.

That's just an argument that those abilities are also dysfunctional. You can provide as many examples as you want that would work in a dumb way if the rule is the thing the game says it is. That doesn't make the rule different, because that isn't how rules work.

[Darg]

Not only can I, you just did. That's what this line, which you quoted for me so nicely, which says: "Using a supernatural ability (such as a cleric’s turn or rebuke undead ability) is usually a standard action (unless defined otherwise by the ability’s description).". So, where does the description of Divine Impetus define it as something other than a standard action to use?



There doesn't need to be a discussion. Your claims are just wrong. Lots of claims are just wrong. The claim that the swift actions from Divine Impetus can only be used to initiate boosts or change stances is wrong. The claim that Divine Impetus can only be used once per day is wrong. The claim that you can't use Divine Impetus if you're wielding a flail is wrong. I'm not obligated to have a discussion with you or anyone just because they made a claim. The person making a claim is obligated to provide sufficient evidence for that claim to justify discussing it. My evidence is that the rules (including rules you cited) say that a supernatural ability is a standard action to use unless it says otherwise, and Divine Impetus doesn't say otherwise. Your evidence is stuff that supports my position. Do you see why I might not consider your claims terribly compelling?



That's just an argument that those abilities are also dysfunctional. You can provide as many examples as you want that would work in a dumb way if the rule is the thing the game says it is. That doesn't make the rule different, because that isn't how rules work.

Except you are missing one thing. The sentence says "usually." You have made an assumption that the parenthetical applies to all cases instead of the usual case. Meaning, it doesn't exclude the possibility of non-actions. Therefore, those abilities I quoted are not dysfunctional.

If it was the rule in all cases, there would be no need for the "usually" and the parentheses. "Using a supernatural ability (such as a cleric’s turn or rebuke undead ability) is a standard action unless defined otherwise by the ability’s description." It's not though.

Saying I'm just wrong doesn't prove your point.

[Elves]

Darg:

Supernatural Abilities: Using a supernatural ability (such as a cleric’s turn or rebuke undead ability) is usually a standard action (unless defined otherwise by the ability’s description). Its use cannot be disrupted, does not require concentration, and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Bolded the key word here. If a Su ability doesn't need to be used because its benefit is (explicitly or implicitly) continuous, this clause isn't relevant, so your examples aren't dysfunctional. Likewise, if an ability is used but is explicitly or implicitly part of another action (such as smite evil), that's an example of being "defined otherwise".

The comparable example to divine impetus, which I asked about earlier, would be an activated ability that's implicitly a free action yet not part of another action.


How often is everyone playing your game?
If we're talking about a private game, this discussion is irrelevant anyway. You shouldn't be doing things there because they're "defensible" or not, no one is peering over your shoulder, you should just do what you enjoy.


I do not find that argument remotely credible. Especially if you want to be given the leniency to talk about "intent" while determining what the rest of the ability does. I mean, think about what you're saying. The authors thought super hard and carefully choose to have the ability say "one swift action" instead of "a swift action", but just forgot to give it an activation action? I don't buy that at all.
So now we are doing RAI? Because that's not what I've argued for. By strict RAW, the ability is standard. I'm interested in evidence of intent because it would influence, if not determine, whether I think it should be otherwise -- something I don't feel strongly about on the merits.

But sure. The writer forgot su abilities are standard by default and was thinking of it as a free action, so they made sure to note it was only 1/round. Makes sense.


No. I'm saying that the only source of objectivity is the words on the page, because we can agree on that. We can't agree on intent. So you either go by the simple english reading of the words on the page (if you want objectivity or consensus) or you hash out the debate about what the rules ought to say (if you want to have a long debate). The middle ground of "RAI" is simply not defensible.
RAI often gets abused to mean "it should say what I want". That's not the same as taking intent into account, which can be as simple as looking to a sample statblock for evidence of how something was meant to be used. Context clues are important for understanding written communication.

And again, most of the rules disputes in 3.5 arise where we can't agree what the 'simple English' words on the page mean, because they're genuinely ambiguous. So I'm not sure what this approach is solving.


Anyone who's already loading up on all the swift and immediate action abilities they can find because they simply must do something with every single action on every single round or they feel like they're missing out isn't going to change that behavior if they get an extra action each round;
Right, and this rule change means that will result in a more convoluted gameplay cycle.
Using all your actions isn't some kind of esoteric optimization; it's the most basic form of strategy in an action-based game.

To be clear, I'm not talking about complexity in the sense of added rules complexity, but that a round goes from "your turn, my turn, his turn, her turn" to "your turn, my interrupt, you finish your turn, my turn, her interrupt, his interrupt, she finishes her interrupt, I finish my turn, his turn, your interrupt, he finishes his turn, her turn."


If the reduced complexity of a player not having to remember what they did on their turn 5-10 minutes ago to use an off-turn action outweighs the increased complexity of possibly having to consider using off-turn actions more often (and I would argue that it does in most cases), it's worth the change even if some theoretical "net complexity" goes up.
That's a strong point, but I think 5e is right that under that rule you don't want AoOs as whole separate set of off-turn actions to track and remember.

[Crake]

Using all your actions isn't some kind of esoteric optimization; it's the most basic form of strategy in an action-based game.

On this note, I do think there should be some baseline swift and immediate actions that every character has access to by default, just to give players something to spend that action on without feeling like they're missing out because the system didn't have swift and immediate actions in mind when they were creating the class you're playing.

Simple examples could be something like, "shield block: while wielding a shield you can spend your immediate action to gain +2 AC vs a single attack, you get -2 to attack rolls in the following round" or "dash: using a swift action, you can gain +<some number, 5-10 probably> feet to your base land speed for a single regular move action". Just regular things that make sense for anyone to be able to do, but aren't particularly wild, or come with some kind of drawback to balance them out.

[Elves]

And to be fair they tried to address that late in the edition with eg all the cheap swift action magic items in MIC. But yes, having basic swift action functions would make sense. Tying it to gear like you mention with shields could be interesting because it would provide easy access while still making swift actions something you have to "find" rather than something like move/attack that's fundamental.

[RandomPeasant]

You could make the 5ft step take a swift action. Making some kind of baseline immediate action defensive buff could work too. But honestly I'm not that concerned about it. Classes already get power from actions in different ways, because they have resources that work in different ways. It's okay if the Crusader gets more out of their swift actions than a Warmage, just as it's okay that a Warlock gets more out of their fifth action in a fight than a Wizard does.


Except you are missing one thing. The sentence says "usually."

It says "it usually works this way", then it describes the case in which it does not work that way: the ability defining a different action type for it to use. So, where does Divine Impetus do that?


Saying I'm just wrong doesn't prove your point.

No, the rules you cited prove my point.


So now we are doing RAI?

No, I'm saying that "it matters deeply if the author uses 'a' or 'one' in an ability's text" and "we can infer that the ability has a non-default action type it is not stated to have in the text of the ability" are incompatible levels of rigor.


But sure. The writer forgot su abilities are standard by default and was thinking of it as a free action, so they made sure to note it was only 1/round. Makes sense.

Did they? Even granting that it matters that they said "one" instead of "a" (which I don't grant, and I'm quite sure there's an example out there that makes that interpretation problematic), it certainly doesn't say how often the ability can be used. How do we know it doesn't mean "once per day" or "once per encounter" or "once ever"?


And again, most of the rules disputes in 3.5 arise where we can't agree what the 'simple English' words on the page mean, because they're genuinely ambiguous. So I'm not sure what this approach is solving.

I think most rules disputes arise from motivated reasoning by people who want the RAW to be something it isn't. Look at Darg in this thread. He really wants Divine Impetus to do something not-stupid by RAW, and he is insisting that his position be acknowledged as valid despite the fact that the evidence he presents contradicts it. I genuinely think that most "rules debates" go away if you A) apply a good faith reading of the plain-english text of abilities and B) accept that RAW is sometimes stupid and we don't need to contort ourselves into knots to fix that.

[Segev]

I think most rules disputes arise from motivated reasoning by people who want the RAW to be something it isn't. Look at Darg in this thread. He really wants Divine Impetus to do something not-stupid by RAW, and he is insisting that his position be acknowledged as valid despite the fact that the evidence he presents contradicts it. I genuinely think that most "rules debates" go away if you A) apply a good faith reading of the plain-english text of abilities and B) accept that RAW is sometimes stupid and we don't need to contort ourselves into knots to fix that.

The trouble is, it's very easy to assume your reading is "good-faith" and that therefore any other is "motivated reasoning." Even if you, yourself, are being accused of "motivated reasoning."

[Lorddenorstrus]

Can we agree that 4th was a necessary data point (though not exactly a necessary product), while 5th should have been burned down from the start?

Yes. I'll get the gasoline you get the time travel device. we'll torch it from existence.

for the OPs question; I think PFs take patching 3.5 is probably the best angle. Swift actions became more common, core for starters. And were more commonly used allowing everyone to make use of it rather than the few.

5e is trying to simplify to allow people to be lazy it's just bad design. The only half decent thing I would look at from 5e is the infinite / scaling Cantrips to give casters an "auto attack" of sorts. Not everyone plays Batman and several of my players have made use of it.

That aside butchering AoO characters isn't even debatable. There are entire character design concepts that function around this.

[Crake]

5e is trying to simplify to allow people to be lazy it's just bad design.

Actually, 5e was trying to simplify so that they could get away with not publishing any rules supplements and put the onus on the DM to design and build custom content for their own campaign, while they just spam out published adventures that have very little variability to consider beyond the base core classes, and whatever tidbits of player companion options that adventure module came with.

If you read the DMG, there's huge swathes of guidelines for making homebrew content, from monsters to classes, so they clearly expect DMs to be making their own content instead of doing the 3.5 thing where they release a million books and run into the resulting content bloat. Whether that's a good or bad design philosophy is subjective, but it certainly avoids the pitfall of 3.5 where there was just an absurd amount of content to keep track of and balance around.

[Darg]

Darg:

Bolded the key word here. If a Su ability doesn't need to be used because its benefit is (explicitly or implicitly) continuous, this clause isn't relevant, so your examples aren't dysfunctional. Likewise, if an ability is used but is explicitly or implicitly part of another action (such as smite evil), that's an example of being "defined otherwise".

The comparable example to divine impetus, which I asked about earlier, would be an activated ability that's implicitly a free action yet not part of another action.

You missed the use of Ex abilities:


Extraordinary Abilities: Using an extraordinary ability (such as a barbarian’s uncanny dodge ability) is usually not an action because most extraordinary abilities automatically happen in a reactive fashion.

A barbarian's uncanny dodge ability is a continuous benefit and yet it is an ability that is actively being used. Su abilities are usually a standard, so they gave the usual case instead of defining any further like explaining that some supernatural abilities are nonactions.

Expending a turn attempt is not an action that has a defined action type. Divine Impetus can easily be read that the act of using a second swift action is the trigger for the ability just like how the psionic weapon feat doesn't require a standard action to activate. By RAW, if Su abilities default to a standard action then so too do most psionic feats as they don't define what that action is. The intent is just as muddled with divine impetus as it is with the feats. The only reason one might believe it isn't is because of assumption of intent/bias.


I think most rules disputes arise from motivated reasoning by people who want the RAW to be something it isn't. Look at Darg in this thread. He really wants Divine Impetus to do something not-stupid by RAW, and he is insisting that his position be acknowledged as valid despite the fact that the evidence he presents contradicts it. I genuinely think that most "rules debates" go away if you A) apply a good faith reading of the plain-english text of abilities and B) accept that RAW is sometimes stupid and we don't need to contort ourselves into knots to fix that.

I am not insisting my position be acknowledged; this is a forum for discussion. Dismissing discussion and replying with a closed mind does not a forum make. All I've been saying is that there is more than one way to read a sentence in English. You yourself aren't acting in good faith if you can't acknowledge that the english language can be interpreted differently depending on how it is read. As an example there are a lot of homographs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_homographs) that sound and read the same way in a sentence. There are also syntax quirks that if read one way means something completely different if the reader simply perceives it differently like an adjective before a list. It simultaneously means that it only applies to the first word in the list and every word, but there is only one intended understanding even though the reader may not know which one it is. I don't have to contort myself to understand this simple concept and how it relates to RAW discussions.

[RandomPeasant]

Whether that's a good or bad design philosophy is subjective, but it certainly avoids the pitfall of 3.5 where there was just an absurd amount of content to keep track of and balance around.

In fairness, that was only a pitfall because the 3.5 balance team was absolutely awful at balancing the game. If they had spent more time ensuring that the Soulborn, the Dread Necromancer, and the Swordsage played on the same level, and less time talking about the daily lives of Spinemeld Warriors or Shadow Sun Ninja, the content bloat would have been a lot less problematic.


Expending a turn attempt is not an action that has a defined action type. Divine Impetus can easily be read that the act of using a second swift action is the trigger for the ability just like how the psionic weapon feat doesn't require a standard action to activate.

No it can't. Here, in case anyone has forgotten, is the entire rules definition of Divine Impetus: "You can expend a turn or rebuke undead attempt to gain one additional swift action this round.". You expend a turn attempt to gain a swift action. Not to "use" a swift action, not "in place of" a swift action, not anything to imply it might be a replacement effect or occur simultaneously. You spend the turn attempt, you gain an extra action, you can then spend that action on something else.


I am not insisting my position be acknowledged; this is a forum for discussion.

But what is discussion for? Is the point of discussion merely to enumerate the positions people could have, or to derive from a collection of positions the one that best matches some criteria? Such as, in this case, "consistency with the rules of D&D 3.5 as written".


All I've been saying is that there is more than one way to read a sentence in English.

No, you've been saying that a specific way of reading a specific English sentence is as correct as other ways of reading that sentence. While it is certainly true that there are sentences that are ambiguous, it does not follow that any particular sentence is ambiguous, or that any particular interpretation of an ambiguous sentence is as valid as any other. A sentence like "Smith is at the door with Jones, he is taking his coat" is ambiguous over whether the coat being taken belongs to Smith or Jones, but it is not ambiguous over whether the thing being taken is a coat or a hat, or whether it is being taken by Smith or Lee. Or to bring it back to the topic at hand, surely you can acknowledge that there are readings of Divine Impetus that would be incorrect. It does not, for instance, grant standard actions or consume readied maneuvers. So rather than insisting that I must discuss your position, why don't you explain why it is valid in a way that those readings are not?

[Crake]

In fairness, that was only a pitfall because the 3.5 balance team was absolutely awful at balancing the game. If they had spent more time ensuring that the Soulborn, the Dread Necromancer, and the Swordsage played on the same level, and less time talking about the daily lives of Spinemeld Warriors or Shadow Sun Ninja, the content bloat would have been a lot less problematic.

Produce as much content as you did in 3.5 and you're gonna have problems, there's no two ways about it. Classes playing at different levels, unforseen broken combos, and IMO cutting out on the fluff for more crunch is a terrible solution, especially since the people writing the fluff aren't the same people writing the crunch anyway. It's not a number simulation game, it's a roleplaying game, and having fluff to go along with what you're playing is vital to helping visualize and fit things into your campaign. You cut out the fluff, and you're gonna lose a significant portion of your player base that aren't hyper focused around the numbers.

[Darg]

No it can't. Here, in case anyone has forgotten, is the entire rules definition of Divine Impetus: "You can expend a turn or rebuke undead attempt to gain one additional swift action this round.". You expend a turn attempt to gain a swift action. Not to "use" a swift action, not "in place of" a swift action, not anything to imply it might be a replacement effect or occur simultaneously. You spend the turn attempt, you gain an extra action, you can then spend that action on something else.

You looking at it from a biased position. Expending a turn attempt is not necessarily an action mechanically.



But what is discussion for? Is the point of discussion merely to enumerate the positions people could have, or to derive from a collection of positions the one that best matches some criteria? Such as, in this case, "consistency with the rules of D&D 3.5 as written".

What luck, we are both being consistent with the rules as written. Too bad that to derive from a collection of positions requires accepting that those positions exist in the first place. Everyone but you seems to see that.


No, you've been saying that a specific way of reading a specific English sentence is as correct as other ways of reading that sentence. While it is certainly true that there are sentences that are ambiguous, it does not follow that any particular sentence is ambiguous, or that any particular interpretation of an ambiguous sentence is as valid as any other. A sentence like "Smith is at the door with Jones, he is taking his coat" is ambiguous over whether the coat being taken belongs to Smith or Jones, but it is not ambiguous over whether the thing being taken is a coat or a hat, or whether it is being taken by Smith or Lee. Or to bring it back to the topic at hand, surely you can acknowledge that there are readings of Divine Impetus that would be incorrect. It does not, for instance, grant standard actions or consume readied maneuvers. So rather than insisting that I must discuss your position, why don't you explain why it is valid in a way that those readings are not?

"Smith usually rides a bike to work (unless he decides not to ride the bike that day)." This sentence is stating the usual case, but it does not preclude all scenarios. What if Smith no longer has the choice to ride the bike? What if the road flooded and he can't get to work. It doesn't make the statement false because a flooded road is not the usual case even as it also is not his decision to make. Surely you can acknowledge that at least.


You cut out the fluff, and you're gonna lose a significant portion of your player base that aren't hyper focused around the numbers.

Not to mention that "fluff" is actually rules text unless the rules state otherwise. The only book in 3.5 that does that is the spell compendium and it is only for that book. Foresight is a big example of "fluff" = rules. It's basically 95% "fluff" and using it on another target is 100% fluff rules.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Right, and this rule change means that will result in a more convoluted gameplay cycle.
Using all your actions isn't some kind of esoteric optimization; it's the most basic form of strategy in an action-based game.

To be clear, I'm not talking about complexity in the sense of added rules complexity, but that a round goes from "your turn, my turn, his turn, her turn" to "your turn, my interrupt, you finish your turn, my turn, her interrupt, his interrupt, she finishes her interrupt, I finish my turn, his turn, your interrupt, he finishes his turn, her turn."

And I'm saying that both 3e and 5e are already in the second scenario because they have off-turn abilities at all--heck, for maximum off-turn complexity, you can theoretically have a combat where not a single PC or monster involved has any immediate-action abilities but every single turn involves someone taking an AoO--and once you're at that point, whether every character takes an off-turn action every single turn or every other turn or once a combat doesn't really affect overall aggregate complexity.

The mental overhead involved in off-turn actions is less the act of actually resolving those actions and more the acts of (A) watching for opportunities to interrupt with such actions, (B) planning one's actions with the consideration that they may be interrupted, and (C) resuming one's actions after they're interrupted, and (A) and (B) are the larger cognitive loads and happen every turn in any situation where interrupts might happen whether they actually do happen or not.

Magic: the Gathering demonstrates this pretty well: if you're playing a game where you or an opponent is playing a Blue deck (almost certainly chock-full of Instant cards that can react to and interrupt things), players are noticeably more cautious and meticulous than in a game where, say, a Green deck (lots of big creatures) is facing a Red deck (lots of direct damage) and neither one is expected to have lots of (or particularly meaningful) Instant cards.


That's a strong point, but I think 5e is right that under that rule you don't want AoOs as whole separate set of off-turn actions to track and remember.

Eh, it really depends on how it's handled. In 5e, an AoO takes up your 1/round reaction; in 4e, an AoO takes up your 1/turn opportunity action and leaves your 1/round immediate action free; in 3e with Combat Reflexes, an AoO uses a separate N/round pool and leaves your 1/round immediate action free; 5e is definitely simpler than 4e which is simpler than 3e, but it's also less effective at what it's supposed to do (punish people taking actions near you) than 4e which is less effective than 3e (and I'm talking purely the actions themselves, no 4e marks or 3e counters or whatever).

Is the simplicity vs. effectiveness tradeoff worth it? How much do you want to support (and incentivize) tank and lockdown builds? Both are a matter of opinion, but there are definitely circumstances under which keeping AoOs separate is more desirable despite the increased complexity.


Simple examples could be something like, "shield block: while wielding a shield you can spend your immediate action to gain +2 AC vs a single attack, you get -2 to attack rolls in the following round" or "dash: using a swift action, you can gain +<some number, 5-10 probably> feet to your base land speed for a single regular move action". Just regular things that make sense for anyone to be able to do, but aren't particularly wild, or come with some kind of drawback to balance them out.


And to be fair they tried to address that late in the edition with eg all the cheap swift action magic items in MIC. But yes, having basic swift action functions would make sense. Tying it to gear like you mention with shields could be interesting because it would provide easy access while still making swift actions something you have to "find" rather than something like move/attack that's fundamental.

The problem with that approach is that it can actually increase option paralysis for new players (and even experienced ones). If you have, say, 3 swift action and 2 immediate action abilities in the current 3e setup, chances are that most of the time their circumstances or triggers won't apply, some of them will be used up at a certain point, and so on, so you don't need to think about them all the time and the mental load gets lighter as the adventuring day goes on.

If you have some abilities that are free to use and useful in almost every circumstance, though, that's something they have to think about every single round, possibly every single turn for off-turn options, which really increases the decision space.

Now, many of those kinds of options will sort of fade into the background at some point, like how experienced 3e players rarely ever use Fighting Defensively (unless a PC is specifically built around it) because they know the tradeoff isn't worth it 99% of the time and so can safely ignore it when planning their round, but if it's newer players you're concerned about with the complexity, that doesn't exactly help. And of course, also like Fighting Defensively, there are certain situations and level ranges and such (a squishy 1st-level wizard forced into melee say) where those options are viable even to experienced players, so one can't entirely ignore them all the time.


Not to mention that "fluff" is actually rules text unless the rules state otherwise. The only book in 3.5 that does that is the spell compendium and it is only for that book. Foresight is a big example of "fluff" = rules. It's basically 95% "fluff" and using it on another target is 100% fluff rules.

Note that there's a difference between the kind you're talking about (rules explained in flavorful terms, like a spell's descriptive text, which applies all the time just as much as any numerical rules) and the kind Crake is talking about and that people usually mean when they say "useless late-3e fluff" (non-rules flavor used to flesh out PrCs and such, which a DM may or may not include based on the setting they're running).

Casting foresight will always grant the same mechanical effect regardless of campaign, but a PC taking levels in Spinemeld Warrior won't always turn him into an honor-bound gladiator/samurai hybrid because the annual festivals or the Hierarchy of Spinemeld Warriors or even a distinct skarn culture itself may not exist in a given campaign--and, as the Adaptation section points out, even if those all do exist they'll definitely change from campaign to campaign, so one can't make any assumptions between one game to another.

[Crake]

Casting foresight will always grant the same mechanical effect regardless of campaign, but a PC taking levels in Spinemeld Warrior won't always turn him into an honor-bound gladiator/samurai hybrid because the annual festivals or the Hierarchy of Spinemeld Warriors or even a distinct skarn culture itself may not exist in a given campaign--and, as the Adaptation section points out, even if those all do exist they'll definitely change from campaign to campaign, so one can't make any assumptions between one game to another.

I mean, one definitely can make the assumption that the culture is as written in the fluff unless distinctly noted otherwise, but it also gives DMs a starting position to adapt it to their game, having something to work with is infinitely more helpful than just being thrown a bunch of statblocks and saying "figure it out", so I definitely disagree with the notion that it's all useless. Plus there are definitely some people who enjoy reading that stuff just for it's own sake. I also know some people on this forum like to claim that fluff is infinitely mutable, but not all DMs operate under that premise, and expect some uniformity between people who take the same options.

[RandomPeasant]

Produce as much content as you did in 3.5 and you're gonna have problems, there's no two ways about it.

That's a false dichotomy. You could print three times as much content as 3.5 did with half the mechanical problems if you were disciplined about the mechanics.


You cut out the fluff, and you're gonna lose a significant portion of your player base that aren't hyper focused around the numbers.

Not all fluff is created equal. The dedication of two to four pages to each PrC was not something that added value to the game, even if it was fluff. The impact of fluff goes both ways, and while there are certainly people who loved reading about the history of Eternal Blades, there were at least as many who refused to use Tome of Battle because the fluff was "too anime".


Expending a turn attempt is not necessarily an action mechanically.

That doesn't mean it's not an action in this case. Abilities can grant standard actions. That doesn't mean Divine Impetus does grant a standard action. The phrasing of Divine Impetus clearly states that its use is separate from whatever you are using the swift action for, meaning it must be an action of some sort to be functional at all.


What if the road flooded and he can't get to work.

Yes, because he decides not to. He can decide that for a bunch of reasons, but the only exceptions consistent with that sentence are the ones that happen because he decides not to, just as the only exceptions consistent with the general rule on supernatural abilities are the cases where the ability defines a different action type for itself. So, again, where does Divine Impetus do that.

[Darg]

Note that there's a difference between the kind you're talking about (rules explained in flavorful terms, like a spell's descriptive text, which applies all the time just as much as any numerical rules) and the kind Crake is talking about and that people usually mean when they say "useless late-3e fluff" (non-rules flavor used to flesh out PrCs and such, which a DM may or may not include based on the setting they're running).

Casting foresight will always grant the same mechanical effect regardless of campaign, but a PC taking levels in Spinemeld Warrior won't always turn him into an honor-bound gladiator/samurai hybrid because the annual festivals or the Hierarchy of Spinemeld Warriors or even a distinct skarn culture itself may not exist in a given campaign--and, as the Adaptation section points out, even if those all do exist they'll definitely change from campaign to campaign, so one can't make any assumptions between one game to another.

The DMG specifically points out that PRCs are basically templates. You use them to create your own PRCs specific to the campaign/setting you want to use.


Not all fluff is created equal. The dedication of two to four pages to each PrC was not something that added value to the game, even if it was fluff. The impact of fluff goes both ways, and while there are certainly people who loved reading about the history of Eternal Blades, there were at least as many who refused to use Tome of Battle because the fluff was "too anime".

PRCs are templates designed for the setting created for them. They are not meant to be played as is excepting in the setting they were created. Meaning, all that fluff is part of the world and dictates outcomes based on it when using that setting. DMs have the power to cut and change whatever they want. It doesn't mean that the fluff is not meant to be used as part of the world.


That doesn't mean it's not an action in this case. Abilities can grant standard actions. That doesn't mean Divine Impetus does grant a standard action. The phrasing of Divine Impetus clearly states that its use is separate from whatever you are using the swift action for, meaning it must be an action of some sort to be functional at all.

You are using a logical fallacy to prove your point. The text for Ex abilities implicitly states that even non-action abilities are still actively being used. It's why I quoted it in the first place.


Yes, because he decides not to. He can decide that for a bunch of reasons, but the only exceptions consistent with that sentence are the ones that happen because he decides not to, just as the only exceptions consistent with the general rule on supernatural abilities are the cases where the ability defines a different action type for itself. So, again, where does Divine Impetus do that.

Sooo, you're saying that if Smith woke up in a cell one day that where he can't physically leave he is making the decision not to leave? I feel sorry for all those people getting tied up in basements and handcuffed in cop cars. They really want to run away but they made the same decision to stay in captivity. Wouldn't want to impose on consenting individuals.

[RandomPeasant]

You are using a logical fallacy to prove your point. The text for Ex abilities implicitly states that even non-action abilities are still actively being used. It's why I quoted it in the first place.

Again, that's wholly irrelevant to the topic at hand. Non-action abilities are used. That doesn't mean that some particular ability is a non-action ability. Tell me, what about the one sentence of rules definition that Divine Impetus gets suggests that it is a non-action ability?


Sooo, you're saying that if Smith woke up in a cell one day that where he can't physically leave he is making the decision not to leave?

No, it would make the original claim false. But the original rule can't be made false, because that isn't how rules work. You've made an analogy between two things that are not the same and are now trying to use that to argue that the differences between the analogy and the original topic must be resolved in favor of the analogy, but that's not remotely how analogies work.

[Crake]

That's a false dichotomy. You could print three times as much content as 3.5 did with half the mechanical problems if you were disciplined about the mechanics.

How's it a false dichotomy exactly? My claim was that as content increases, problems will arise, im not claiming there's only 2 possibilities in anything, i'm deriving a correlation and claiming a causation, as N increases, where N the number of options, the number of combinations will increase by N^x where x is the number of choices you have available (simplifying by assuming you can pick any given option more than once, but if we wanna assume you can't then it becomes n!/x!(n-x)! ). That's a lotta combos. The likelihood a problematic combo will arise increases exponentially (actually exponentially, not quadratically) as options increase linearly, and hindsight is 20/20. Sure, maybe you could print 3 times as much content and get half the problems, but you'll still get problems with more content, so in 5th edition, they opted to instead just produce adventure modules, and let DMs produce their own content for the campaigns, which, if you read the DMG, was what they intended for 3.5 as well.

[DigoDragon]

To the op, I kind of lean towards the 5e version as 3.5 immediate actions seem to escape my memory if I use one out of turn.

In addition, interrupting the flow of combat is extra work on our GM generally, but doesn't seem so bad when tied to a AoO trigger. Just my experience.