Multiple Swift Actions

[boolean]

Wouldn't spontaneously applying a metamagic feat to a swift spell change it to a full-round action? Allowing you to cast one as a full round action, then a second as your one swift action in the round?

Sure, it's not very efficient, but it's the only way I can think of to cast a swift spell like Distract Assailant twice in one round with no house rules.

 

[andargor]

Unless you have Multispell, an Epic feat, I'm fraid you can only cast one, and only one, swift action per round:

Swift Action: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. However, you can perform only a single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action any time you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Swift actions usually involve spellcasting or the activation of magic items; many characters (especially those who don't cast spells) never have an opportunity to take a swift action.

Even Multispell is iffy with regards to swift spells, however:

Benefit: The character may cast one additional quickened spell in a round.

Andargor

 

[DanMcS]

Unless you have Multispell, an Epic feat, I'm fraid you can only cast one, and only one, swift action per round:

You highlighted: "one swift action per turn", when it actually says "one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions". We already discussed that. It takes longer and interferes with your other actions, and is no longer swift. So the later sentence doesn't contradict that; it says you can only get one swift action in a turn; attempt any more, and it affects your ability to perform other actions, ie, becomes a move or standard action, and is by definition no longer swift. The rules are silent about which, so we're debating that.

Even Multispell is iffy with regards to swift spells, however:

That's because multispell was written before swift and immediate actions were defined. Since quicken spell has been retroactively defined as a swift action, that feat would probably now say "one additional swift spell".

 

[andargor]

You highlighted: "one swift action per turn", when it actually says "one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions". We already discussed that. It takes longer and interferes with your other actions, and is no longer swift. So the later sentence doesn't contradict that; it says you can only get one swift action in a turn; attempt any more, and it affects your ability to perform other actions, ie, becomes a move or standard action, and is by definition no longer swift. The rules are silent about which, so we're debating that.

My humble knee-jerk reaction was that you are reading far too much into the flavor text. This passage, also found in the FAQ, seems to discredit the theory that you can cast more than one swift action in a round:

Immediate Action
Much like a swift action, an immediate action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. However, unlike a swift action, an immediate action can be performed at any time— even if it is not your turn. Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action, and counts as your swift action for that turn. You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn). You also cannot use an immediate action if you are currently flatfooted.

I cannot find in the FAQs nor in the rules any mention that you can "extend" an action so it takes longer than described. Further, only the move action may be substituted instead of a standard action (not counting the 5 ft. step issue).

If this sound counter-intuitive in your campaign, you may house rule it. But by a strict reading of the rules, two swift actions in a round are not possible, unless you factor in a feat like Multispell.

My Turkish $0.02

Andargor

 

[Infiniti2000]

I cannot find in the FAQs nor in the rules any mention that you can "extend" an action so it takes longer than described. Further, only the move action may be substituted instead of a standard action (not counting the 5 ft. step issue).

Right, and that's why in post #2, Patryn suggested it as a houserule.

On that note, I recommend that if you allow Swift (or free) spells to be 'converted' to standard or even move actions, that you only do so with 'naturally swift' spells such as assay resistance. Don't allow metamagicked spells (via Quicken Spell) to be stretched.

 

[outlier]

A couple of questions, if anybody could spare a moment: Our group is playing 3.5, but is fairly new to it.

If I understand this, we now have free (f), swift/immediate actions (s), move actions (M), standard actions (A), and full round actions (F), where the time required appears to be F > A > M > S > f.

1. Core rules (at least my copy of PHB, DMG, etc) don't mention swift actions. Are swift actions considered core?

2. As I read them, the core rules say that in a round there's enough time to combine either F, A+M, or M+M in one round, plus some f's if you like. Adding swift actions appears to let you take F+s, A+M+s, M+M+s. But if a swift action is just something that's quicker than a move action, you'd be able to take M+s+s or s+s+s. This thread implies you can't, but why not?

 

[Silveras]

A couple of questions, if anybody could spare a moment: Our group is playing 3.5, but is fairly new to it.

If I understand this, we now have free (f), swift/immediate actions (s), move actions (M), standard actions (A), and full round actions (F), where the time required appears to be F > A > M > S > f.

1. Core rules (at least my copy of PHB, DMG, etc) don't mention swift actions. Are swift actions considered core?

2. As I read them, the core rules say that in a round there's enough time to combine either F, A+M, or M+M in one round, plus some f's if you like. Adding swift actions appears to let you take F+s, A+M+s, M+M+s. But if a swift action is just something that's quicker than a move action, you'd be able to take M+s+s or s+s+s. This thread implies you can't, but why not?

Immediate actions were added to the Core with the Expanded Psionics Handbook. They have been added to the SRD, for publishers to use in their own support products. Swift actions were first seen in the Miniatures Handbook, principally as the casting time for a new series of very short duration spells that simulate opportunity-based activity ... for example, Swift Invisibility allows you to go invisible as a Swift action, then take your normal Full round or Standard + Move action sequence. Whether you attack or not, though, the Swift Invisibility only lasts that round, and you are visible again at your next action. Swift actions have also been added to the SRD, and just about all WotC books in the last 6 months have had sidebars describing them (because they were added after the Core books were published). Both are considered variants on free actions, but take a little longer, so you are limited to 1 of either in your turn. Immediate actions are ones you can take during someone else's turn, but that uses up your NEXT turn's Swift/Immediate action. Featherfall, now, would be considered an Immediate action to cast, for example.

Part of the debate here is whether a double-move is 2 Move actions, or 1 Standard action used to move + 1 Move action used to move.

If the "2 Move actions" interpretation is correct, then there is an implied "trade down" of a Standard action for a Move action, and it might be extended to say that you can cast a spell with a casting time of 1 Swift action or 1 Immediate action on a Standard action in addition to having cast such a spell as your Swift/Immediate action for the turn.

If the "1 Standard action used to move + 1 Move action used to move" interpretation is correct, then there is no such "trade down", and the prohibition of "only 1 per round" says you can't trade the spells down.

As to my personal take, I tend to go with the "trade down" approach, and that it would be Ok to use your Standard action to cast a second Swift spell. This is because they mostly have short durations and help set up a more favorable situation for combat (as the Swift Invisibility mentioned above). If a creature uses its Standard action, not to act on the advantage it has but to try to increase that advantage, I think the return on the investment is small enough not to worry too much about it. Of course, depending on the inventive spell combinations, I may have to revise that opinion at some point.

 

[outlier]

Thanks, Silveras.

So you get exactly 1 std action (the options for which include some movement choices), 1 move action, and 1 swift/immediate action. The debate is then whether each of these actions differs in the time it takes to perform, or the nature of the action itself, with the flavor text favoring the former, while the cruchy bits favor the latter. I guess the latter camp would say you can hustle while swinging a sword and simultaneously cough to clear your throat, but you can't cough faster by holding the sword still?

The emphasis in 3.5 seems to be much more on what the rules say, rather than what makes sense or is realistic. The game's come a long way since the day when the rulebooks said they were merely guidelines for the DM. It takes some getting used to.

 

[Silveras]

So you get exactly 1 std action (the options for which include some movement choices), 1 move action, and 1 swift/immediate action.

You get 1 Standard Action + 1 Move Action + 1 Swift/Immediate action + {as many free actions as the DM thinks reasonable} OR 1 Full Round Action + 1 Swift/Immediate action + {as many free actions as the DM thinks reasonable} in a round.

The debate is then whether each of these actions differs in the time it takes to perform, or the nature of the action itself, with the flavor text favoring the former, while the cruchy bits favor the latter. I guess the latter camp would say you can hustle while swinging a sword and simultaneously cough to clear your throat, but you can't cough faster by holding the sword still?

I'd say it is more along the lines of whether the game balance need to prevent abuses of these special actions outweighs the intuitive notion that things which require a short time to do should be available to do in a longer span of time.

The emphasis in 3.5 seems to be much more on what the rules say, rather than what makes sense or is realistic. The game's come a long way since the day when the rulebooks said they were merely guidelines for the DM. It takes some getting used to.

The rules remain guidelines, and every DM is free to adjust them to suit his/her style of play. They are certainly more systematic than previous editions, leading to greater internal consistency. On message boards such as these, the emphasis on the "rules as written" is because they provide a framework for discussing variation. Because the overall system is quite complex, a "minor adjustment" can lead to all sorts of unintended consequences. It is my observation that many house rules stem from a misreading or incomplete understanding of the rules as written.

The other thing that has changed is that the "organized play" groups have taken a bigger role in defining how the rules are used. For them, the rules need to be consistent and explicit, so that Players and DMs at conventions can expect the same rulings when the same situations reoccur with different people at the table.

For home games, though, the rules remain subject to the DM's interpretation.