|
1 year ago ::
Apr 17, 2012 - 3:27PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Feb 13, 2006
|
So I have been under what seems to be the false assumption that you cannot initiate a new action in the middle of another before the current one resolves. I thought I recalled an example of a PC not being allowed to use a move action to get to a door, minor to open it, and then continue moving with any movement points left since the minor action effectively ended the move. I also recall more than one thread occuring on this forum about the legality of using something like fey step in mid jump not working since the player would fall first (first move action has to resolve before the new one can start).
But after a discussion with Alcestis and some double checking the RC, it seems no such rule actually exists or is even implied. For completeness sake, I thought I would check to see if anyone knows of something we might have missed (and if not, to help share the info since that assumption seems to have been prevelant).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 17, 2012 - 5:23PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
So I have been under what seems to be the false assumption that you cannot initiate a new action in the middle of another before the current one resolves.
Well... it's not explicit (so I suppose you could start doing so, but you'll open up a big can of worms).
However, it seems implicit in the PHB/RC language that you cannot take actions simultaneously but must take them "in order". Also, even immediate actions specify when they can interrupt other actions (many immediate actions do not). I would expect the same explicit allowance of move/minor actions before handling them as such.
Also, we wouldn't really need allowances like "You can end your first move in midair if you double move" if we could take a move during a move. And don't get me started on the advantages of taking a standard action (attack) during a move action... stunts like that are meant to be reserved for special powers.
I also recall more than one thread occuring on this forum about the legality of using something like fey step in mid jump not working since the player would fall first (first move action has to resolve before the new one can start).
Discussed here. Also, from the forum FAQ if desired (similar topic): "Can you attack during a jump? Even though, strictly as written the rules do not allow for attacking during a jump, this was apparently not the writer's intent. A DM could either allow it as RAI, or use the DMG p.42 stunt rules to accomplish the exact same thing as a jump attack."
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 17, 2012 - 5:24PM
#3
|
|
|
"In order" only applies to move/minor/standard though (it is under structure of a turn). The debate being had was about free actions.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 17, 2012 - 5:37PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
"In order" only applies to move/minor/standard though (it is under structure of a turn). The debate being had was about free actions.
Ah: yes, free actions in the middle of other actions is a good debate. Standard actions in the middle of move actions... not so much.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 17, 2012 - 5:48PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Feb 13, 2006
|
Okay, I found the "in order" part Alcestis was referring to. Unfortunately, it is not listed in a way to suggest it only applies to standard/move/minor. If anything, it only suggests that all actions during your turn must be "in order," since it is not listed under the standard/move/minor subsection (its listed as its own subheading within the turn, right after the free action heading).
This gives a couple of interpretations that I can think of:
1) "in order" is not an explicit rule, so actions in actions is okay. Supported by how each other section of how a turn works also includes an "in order" section, but those are referring to how the turn owner just gets to choose the order of resolution.
2) "in order" applies to all actions, since it doesn't specify
3) "in order" applies to all actions, BUT only when it is your turn, since it is only specifically mentioned in that location
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 18, 2012 - 1:13AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2010
|
4: Actions within actions are not specifically allowed, so they are not allowed. The rules do what they say they do, no more, no less. So you can move to a door, minor action to open it, then continue moving... by spending your standard to move, charge, or use a power that allows movement. Ending your movement to use your minor, ends your move action, because the rules have no facility to end it without ending your move action.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 18, 2012 - 2:55AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
Its not the first time this discussion happen and it was last discussed hereAny Order refers to Standard, Move, Minor or Free action and not only to the 3 main actions: RC 98 The Actions of A Turn:- The Three Main Actions: A creature gets the following three actions on its turn: Standard action Move action Minor action - Free Actions: The creature can take any number of Free actions on its turn. - Any Order: The creature can take its actions in any order and can skip any of them - Action Points: If a character has an Action Point, it can take an extra action on its turn by spending an Action Point as a Free action.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 18, 2012 - 2:31PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Feb 13, 2006
|
Ok, I think crisis of faith is averted. Thanks, guys. @invader: ye, that was always a potential option, but not one of the implicit interpretations on the meaning of "in order" that I was hoping to hash out there. While a good point, I was hoping to avoid that line since there are more than a few official secondary sources that contradict that standard position, both explicitly and implicitly. And if someone interpreted "in order" under position 1 (or a variant where anything ordered, even within eachother, counts as "in order), then along with the secondary sources, it is a reasonable position to hold. I do feel between the lack of direct RAW as invader noted in 4 to avoid a munchkin fallacy, along with the implied meaning of "in order" supported by the official FAQ question mvincent noted is enough to support either position 2 or 3. And claiming position 3 is weak since it again relies on another instance of a munckin fallacy while ignoring the precedent of "in order" established during your turn. Awesome, I feel better 
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 18, 2012 - 3:52PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
the implied meaning of "in order" supported by the official FAQ question mvincent noted
The forum FAQ is not actually official (but is still usually based on many long discussion by rules lawyers, as was this case).
Also (for reference if desired) RC p.197 says: "If an effect has a Trigger and is neither an Immediate Action nor an Opportunity Action, assume that it behaves like an immediate Reaction, waiting for its Trigger to resolves. However, ignore this guideline when the effect has to interrupt its Trigger to function."
Since this covers free actions (regardless of whether its your turn or not), expecting other free actions to normally be "in order" would not seem to be a problem.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 18, 2012 - 3:55PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Feb 13, 2006
|
Oh, I thought you pulled that from the official FAQ, not the board one. Hrmm. But okay.
|
|
|
