Swift spell as Standard Action?

[billd91]

The only problem I would have in using a swift action spell in a standard action slot is the original nature of the spell. If the spell has a defined casting time of 1 swift action, I'd be inclined to disallow it. The nature of spell prevents it from being drawn out in time.

In the case of a quickened spell that normally takes a standard action, I see no reason whatsoever to prevent someone from being able to cast it as a standard action. As I said before, rather than using the quickened completion action you prepped for, you use the standard completion action and forego the extra prep work you performed on the spell. Wizards can nerf their spells at will when they cast them (as long as the specific spell and slot are preserved) by reducing their caster level. I don't see nerfing off their metamagic prep as being much different.

 

[Artoomis]

I think it is quite simple.

It's not the rules, but I see no problems at all with:

Any spell that can be cast as a Swift or Immediate action may instead be cast as a Standard Action, if desired. The "cost" is not reduced (such as being prepared at four levels higher for a Quickened Spell) and it provokes an AoO just as any other Standard Action spell would.

As for any other Swift or Immediate action, that would probably work fine, too, but I have not thought it through.

 

[mikebr99]

Wizards are arguably more powerful then Sorcerers... this house rule (of Artoomis & Dracorat... and others) is only adding to the Wizards power over the typical Sorcerer, by effectively allowing the Wizard to spontaneously change a memorized spell.

Sorcerer's are giving up a lot for that versatility... don't also give it to Wizards for free. YMMV

Mike

 

[Artoomis]

Wizards are arguably more powerful then Sorcerers... this house rule (of Artoomis & Dracorat... and others) is only adding to the Wizards power over the typical Sorcerer, by effectively allowing the Wizard to spontaneously change a memorized spell.

Sorcerer's are giving up a lot for that versatility... don't also give it to Wizards for free. YMMV


Mike

Actually this is GOOD for Sorcerors. Some spells have a "Swift Action" casting time and this would allow the scorceror to use two of them in a round.

A wizard would have to have two of them prepared to do this.

Yes, this is good for a Wizard who chooses to prepare a spell four levels higher and then "waste" those extra four levels by casting it as a Standard Action. That's quite a cost.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Again: Your "logic" requires that the game system not allow characters with a speed of 30 feet to move only 15 feet in a round, since (according to you) there's no rules support for allowing you to stretch out your action like that. Your "logic" is completely nonsensical.

Not at all. My logic requires nothing of the sort. Your strawman is a misrepresentation of my point. This analogy is more properly attributed to your logic, not mine. After all, you are the one arbitrarily disallowing a Move Action, not me.

It should be noted, too, that a move action can never be used to cast a spell.

You know what they say, never say never.

A swift action, OTOH, is explicitly distinguished from a standard action and a move action by the amount of TIME it takes to accomplish the swift action.

Fixed that for you.

It is quite logical to conclude that you can use a "larger" action (in terms of TIME) to accomplish a "smaller" action (in terms of TIME), without concluding that you should be able to use a completely different FORM of action.

Not at all. That is completely illogical because the definition of the "FORM of action" is something you just now made up in an attempt to justify your position. You are, in fact, just begging the question.

Hopefully, that's cleared up your conceptual problem here.

I've had no conceptual problem, but thanks for the attempt.

More generally, the conceptual relationship between actions is pretty explicit...

You conveniently left out Move Action and mistated Full Round Action.

- A Swift Action, like a Free Action, takes almost no time at all to accomplish, so you can squeeze in a Swift Action even if you're taking a Full Action. But a Swift Action requires at least some attention and focus, so you can only take one of them during a round (since taking a second would distract you from the other actions you're taking).

This is incongruous with the rest of your view point. If a swift action is truly what you say it is here (flavor-wise, not rules-wise), than how is it not a significant conflict to allow two of them per round?

 

[Infiniti2000]

If anything this hurts the player, just like they said.

No, it doesn't. If anything, it helps the player. If it hurt him, you wouldn't be advocating allowing this in the first place. What this does is give the PC more versatility, equivalent to that of a sorcerer.

 

[Artoomis]

... This is incongruous with the rest of your view point. If a swift action is truly what you say it is here (flavor-wise, not rules-wise), than how is it not a significant conflict to allow two of them per round?

How is allowing a Swift action plus a Standard Action different than allowing a Swift action plus a Swift Action as a Standard Action?

Other than the rules that says you cannot do this, what balance or other rules issues does this bring up? It just seems silly not to allow it.

 

[Infiniti2000]

How is allowing a Swift action plus a Standard Action different than allowing a Swift action plus a Swift Action as a Standard Action?

That's not what he said in that quote. What you say may be what he intended, but what he said basically justifies the opposing view from a flavor perspective. That is incongruous with his view point, n'est-ce pas?

On one hand, he argues that you should allow multiple swift actions per round (if you don't also take a standard action), but in that quote he supports the idea that you should not allow more than one swift action per round. Which is it?

Other than the rules that says you cannot do this, what balance or other rules issues does this bring up? It just seems silly not to allow it.

It's inconsistent and illogical. There may in fact be no balance issue (as I've said). It certainly helps out preparing spellcasters, but I don't know if it's overly helpful (i.e. unbalancing).

 

[Artoomis]

... It's inconsistent and illogical....

How so? At least how so any more than the rest of this oddball combat/round system for which I think we all have a love/hate relationship.

 

[billd91]

What this does is give the PC more versatility, equivalent to that of a sorcerer.

No it doesn't. The spell was still prepared in advanced in one of the character's slots. The spell is still expended. It merelly allows the character to cast it under slightly different circumstances and that's in no way equivalent to the versatility of the sorcerer.