blargney the second
blargney the minute's son
While the rules don't seem to allow it, I really don't think it'd be horrifically broken to allow someone to spend their standard action to gain a second swift action.
Can a Swift/Immediate Action be Used as a Standard Action?
I feel what most people seem to be afraid of is a regular swift spell (quickened or otherwise) followed by a swift action activated item.
IME the spells that are designed to be swift from the get go rarely form useful combinations with each other. And Quicken Spell already has a built in penalty.
I can think of using a combo like updraft and knight's move to keep pace with an enemy flier/climber/teleporter, but I can't think of too many other useful spell combinations. Plus, that would be cool.
It's the items to me that could be the problem to allowing swift in place of a standard action.
IME the spells that are designed to be swift from the get go rarely form useful combinations with each other. And Quicken Spell already has a built in penalty.
I can think of using a combo like updraft and knight's move to keep pace with an enemy flier/climber/teleporter, but I can't think of too many other useful spell combinations. Plus, that would be cool.
It's the items to me that could be the problem to allowing swift in place of a standard action.
This has been discussed at length before.blargney the second said:
I'm not sure about 'horrifically broken', but I believe there are a lot of instances where it's pretty clear the designers did not imagine there was any way in which you could possibly gain a second swift action in a round.
If you allow it, be prepared to discover broken combinations - if there are any they'll be found soon enough - players are good at that kind of thing...
Herzog
Adventurer
The Core rules specify that, during a round, you can make a move action and a standard action, or two move actions, effectively replacing the standard action with an action taking less time.(ignoring free actions, immediate actions and swift actions for a moment.)
To my knowledge, there is no rule prohibiting you from replacing an action with an action that takes less time. (for instance, taking a full round for only a single attack.....)
Now, these rules where written before the introduction of swift and immediate actions.
The description of a swift action is that it is equivalent to a 'free' action, but that you can only take one such an action per round. If you take an immediate action, that action is considered your swift action for that round.
However, after taking a swift action, I still have a move and a standard action left.
Unless someone can point me to a rule strictly prohibitting replacing actions with actions that take less time, I think you could cast up to three swift spells per round....... Assuming you perform no other actions.
Herzog
To my knowledge, there is no rule prohibiting you from replacing an action with an action that takes less time. (for instance, taking a full round for only a single attack.....)
Now, these rules where written before the introduction of swift and immediate actions.
The description of a swift action is that it is equivalent to a 'free' action, but that you can only take one such an action per round. If you take an immediate action, that action is considered your swift action for that round.
However, after taking a swift action, I still have a move and a standard action left.
Unless someone can point me to a rule strictly prohibitting replacing actions with actions that take less time, I think you could cast up to three swift spells per round....... Assuming you perform no other actions.
Herzog
Herzog said:
Well the rules specifically state what actions can be substituted for other actions so asking for a rule that says you can't substitute "lesser" action for greater action is in contrast to the existing rules - since they specify what can be substituted.
And no where in the rules text on swift actions does it specify that a swift action can be substituted for a move or standard action - including the Rules Compendium.
PHB pg 138:
"You can take a move action in place of a standard action."
In regards to taking a full round to take a standard action - you are not substituted actions, you are not using all of your actions - and that is allowed - since you are allowed to take a move and standard action in the same round.
"In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform as many free actions (see below) as your DM allows. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action.
In some situations (such as in a surprise round), you may be limited to taking only a single move action or standard action."
Now I believe that this text has been "updated" in the Rules Compendium to include swift and immediate actions but I do not have that book with me at the moment to double check it.
Herzog
Adventurer
Neither do I.
Have to check it once I'm home.
You make a good case.
Although I agree that in many cases, we should be looking for inclusions and not exclusions of rule-allowances, in this case the immediate and swift actions where added after the fact, and therefore couldn't have been included in the mentioned rules.
On the other hand, the RC should include that addition, so I'll check that.
Herzog
Brace Cormaeril
First Post
I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would allow an argument to break Belt of Battle.
We'll start the bidding off at 12,000gp. Anyone? Why, ok enthusiastic, are we?, do I hear 20k, thank you sir do I hear 25, yes 30? Thank you madame in blue. Sir in the corner, 40, I have 40. Madame, yes 45...so do I hear 50... sir in the corner at 50, madame?
Once
twice
sold for 50000gp. And sir in the corner looks happy.
We'll start the bidding off at 12,000gp. Anyone? Why, ok enthusiastic, are we?, do I hear 20k, thank you sir do I hear 25, yes 30? Thank you madame in blue. Sir in the corner, 40, I have 40. Madame, yes 45...so do I hear 50... sir in the corner at 50, madame?
Once
twice
sold for 50000gp. And sir in the corner looks happy.
eamon
Explorer
The rules state that you can use one swift action per round. Sure, I'd let you replace a move action with a swift action (i.e. if an ability specifically allowed a move action expanding that definition to include swift actions), but that would still count against your normal limit of one per round, and thus not enable you to take more actions in a round.
Since the swift actions were clearly tacked on after the fact, a little flexibility can't harm - you can't expect them to name swift actions explicitly everywhere.
Let's take an exaggerated in-game sample: Say, in mid-combat between the party and a band of orcs, a squirrel walks up, turns into a Great Wyrm Silver Dragon, and says: drop your weapons! The party's marshal is next up in the initiative order, says "do it!" and uses his grant move action class ability to grant everyone a move action - would you allow the player's to use that move action to drop their weapons? i.e. would you grant them that free action?
I would, and hence I don't have a problem with them performing a swift action either - however, it would still count towards the 1/round limitation (in this case, being outside your round, as if an immediate action).
This interpretation is already beyond a literal interpretation, but not balance-breaking (probably). Allowing multiple swift actions per round would be
Imagine a player using his standard+move+swift actions in a round to cast two swift spells, and one standard spell, and then as soon as his turn is ended and the next creature does anything, cast an immediate action (say, greater mirror image or the like?) spell. Swift action spells may be weaker than others, but that player will have performed effectively 4 spells - even if many weaker or lower level than his highest - within one turn. Nasty, and probably game-breaking. If, further, a marshal like in my above example would grant a move action to that player, he'd get another, 5th spell this round. That's just game-breaking.
Since the swift actions were clearly tacked on after the fact, a little flexibility can't harm - you can't expect them to name swift actions explicitly everywhere.
Let's take an exaggerated in-game sample: Say, in mid-combat between the party and a band of orcs, a squirrel walks up, turns into a Great Wyrm Silver Dragon, and says: drop your weapons! The party's marshal is next up in the initiative order, says "do it!" and uses his grant move action class ability to grant everyone a move action - would you allow the player's to use that move action to drop their weapons? i.e. would you grant them that free action?
I would, and hence I don't have a problem with them performing a swift action either - however, it would still count towards the 1/round limitation (in this case, being outside your round, as if an immediate action).
This interpretation is already beyond a literal interpretation, but not balance-breaking (probably). Allowing multiple swift actions per round would be
Imagine a player using his standard+move+swift actions in a round to cast two swift spells, and one standard spell, and then as soon as his turn is ended and the next creature does anything, cast an immediate action (say, greater mirror image or the like?) spell. Swift action spells may be weaker than others, but that player will have performed effectively 4 spells - even if many weaker or lower level than his highest - within one turn. Nasty, and probably game-breaking. If, further, a marshal like in my above example would grant a move action to that player, he'd get another, 5th spell this round. That's just game-breaking.
Herzog
Adventurer
(still not at my books but
I have always assumed the 'single swift action only' referred to the origin of the swift action: free actions.
(IMO) Swift and immediate actions were introduced when the amount of time needed for certain actions was deemed to be approximate to that of free actions, but they wanted to avoid an unlimited amount of that type of action.
That a rule could potentially be game-breaking does not mean it isn't written as such.
I remember a rule about a maximum of 1 spell per round, but can't remember which edition that was from.
Further, although I agree getting 5 spells of in a round could be considered gamebreaking, remember they would for the most part have to be swift or quickened spells, having either a limited impact or a higher than normal spell level.
Is greater cleave gamebreaking because a fighter can, under the right circumstances, get off a number of attacks much larger than normal?
Herzog
I have always assumed the 'single swift action only' referred to the origin of the swift action: free actions.
(IMO) Swift and immediate actions were introduced when the amount of time needed for certain actions was deemed to be approximate to that of free actions, but they wanted to avoid an unlimited amount of that type of action.
That a rule could potentially be game-breaking does not mean it isn't written as such.
I remember a rule about a maximum of 1 spell per round, but can't remember which edition that was from.
Further, although I agree getting 5 spells of in a round could be considered gamebreaking, remember they would for the most part have to be swift or quickened spells, having either a limited impact or a higher than normal spell level.
Is greater cleave gamebreaking because a fighter can, under the right circumstances, get off a number of attacks much larger than normal?
Herzog
Similar Threads
