|
Post by Admin on Jan 2, 2014 13:55:15 GMT 7
So, when can we actually cast the spell? Since Swift Action is only available during our turn, and usually we are hit during enemies' turn. I was hoping this is actually an Immediate Action.
Comments?
|
|
yoru
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by yoru on Jan 2, 2014 15:25:54 GMT 7
i voted for swift action on our turn... since... it only took 6 seconds until our turn came... so... it's possible it has a delay...
well... if it was an explosion spell... you wouldn't want it to be immediate... do you... >_>a
well... my assumption is... it's like the attacker is being marked after touching the armor... >_>b
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 2, 2014 15:59:24 GMT 7
The problem with the wording then....
You will never be able to activate the ability for most of the time.
Since you can do it only 'anytime a creature hits the wearer', not 'anytime AFTER a creature hit the wearer'.
So as Swift can only be done in your turn, and not as a 'reaction', while the wording states that this only trigger 'on the time a creature hits you', then the condition will never be met. By the time you got the time to spend the Swift, the trigger is already gone.
Unless, the wording of the word is changed as well, "After a creature hits the wearer"
Now let us assume further, to my benefit. Imagine, I can use a swift action to do so, by interpreting it as 'after a creature hit me'. Now, someone hit me. I said Fine. You are marked. Now I can as swift action, cast from my armor, a spell to you. BUT, that does not end the mark at all. Why? because there is no limitation. So everyone can flee somewhere, cast destructive spell to the armor, spend swift to deal damage automatically to the 'attacker', indefinitely, repeatedly. That is one of the abuse in case of Swift Action, by assuming 'after a creature hits the wearer' instead of 'at the time a creature hits the wearer'. This can be reduced to 'one time only, at the time a creature hit you', but with that, you need an Immediate instead of Swift.
I am prefering the indefinite destruction with no prerequisite for min-max, but my common sense says we need to break this down, either by better RAW interpretation of proving some mistakes in my logic and assumptions.
Comments?
--EDIT:
One counter-argument to my said paragraph was, the use of 'the spell'. Any other counter-arguments?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 2, 2014 16:04:44 GMT 7
|
|