Swift Action Vs Free Action
- Thread starter Jhyarelle
- Start date
Michael Silverbane
Adventurer
You can perform one Swift action in a round.
You can perform many Free actions in a round. Your DM may decide that some number of Free actions is enough, and prohibit further Free actions.
Both are very fast. Swift actions require more 'effort' or something.
You can perform many Free actions in a round. Your DM may decide that some number of Free actions is enough, and prohibit further Free actions.
Both are very fast. Swift actions require more 'effort' or something.
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
Both require an insubstantial amount of time. Call it a fraction of a second if you want. You only get one swift action per round, free actions are unlimited unless stated otherwise or within reasonable limits decided on by the DM (speaking is a free action, but you can't recite a sonnet in one round, for example). Swift actions are always during your turn, though immediate actions (related to swift and count as your swift action for the turn if you use it) can be used when it's not your turn to act. Free actions are limited to your turn unless specifically stated otherwise, iirc.
amnuxoll
First Post
The history here is that swift actions weren't in the original rulebooks. They were added on later when it became clear that it was hard to limit free actions.
For what it's worth, I think this is one of the reasons that combat takes longer and longer as you get higher in level: high level PCs have a lot more things they can do with free actions.
For what it's worth, I think this is one of the reasons that combat takes longer and longer as you get higher in level: high level PCs have a lot more things they can do with free actions.
DumbPaladin
First Post
I'm pretty sure immediate actions are the biggest culprit for slowing combat down.
Technically an immediate action uses your next round's swift action.
Also immediate actions can't be done when the character is flat-footed.
To add on to the post - speaking is a free action that specifically states in can be done even if it is not our turn.
I'm, however, pretty sure they're not
frankthedm
First Post
Considering that that a character with immediate actions available could need to be given the time to interruptI'm, however, pretty sure they're not
- Each square of movement
- Each planned offensive action
- Each Attack roll
- Each successful hit
- Each damage roll
- Each damage Being applied
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
They can only interrupt once/turn, though. They certainly do add to the time combat takes, but I don't think it's an excessive amount, and IME the added time decreases as people get more used to them being in the game.
For me, I really like a lot of immediate actions, like ToB counters or Close Wounds (such an awesome life-saver!), so the drawback's very much worth it.
For me, I really like a lot of immediate actions, like ToB counters or Close Wounds (such an awesome life-saver!), so the drawback's very much worth it.
You already mention why it's usually not a problem: not every character even has something they can use as an immediate action. And for those that do, it's typically a limited choice. And why would I want to reserve the time at every conceivable 'interrupt point'?
In my experience the type of action doesn't matter it's what the action's about that determines how long it takes in real time.
Culprit #1 is always 'Dispel Magic': Yay, let's recalculate just about everything.
Spellcasters always take longer than non-spellcasters. Particularly, once they've picked the Quickened Metamagic feat.
Psions take even longer than spell casters (pondering carefully how many pp to use and how to stat up their Astral Construct).
And Druids can do what Necromancers could do in Diablo2: Cause excessive lag by summoning hordes of totally irrelevant critters.
Non-spellcasters are only a problem when they insist to roll all attacks and damage rolls seperately.
So, yeah, I'm still pretty sure immediate actions are not really the problem.
