Swift spell as Standard Action?

[ThirdWizard]

That makes no sense. It's like saying that a character can't use their move action to walk 15 feet if they have a speed of 30 feet. Or claiming that it doesn't make any sense that drawing a weapon should take a full move action all by itself, since it can also be done while moving.

Of course, the HR is like saying "You can draw a weapon as a Free Action with Quickdraw, but you lose your standard action for the round if you take any other Free Actions beforehand."

Now, tell me, how does that make sense?

How can aswift action spell (which takes almost no time to cast) prevent someone from casting another swift action spell?

My fluff is that it takes more effort to cast a swift spell than a standard action spell. Makes perfect sense to me, and it fits the RAW. Win-win.

Nobody in this thread arguing for the ability to cast a second "swift" action spell actually wants the second spell to be treated as "swift", they just want to cast it in place of the normal standard action

I direct you to:

You see, it isn't that the casting time is necessarily extended. With casting a swift spell as a standard action, it is not presumed that the casting time actually takes the entire standard action, merely that it takes enough time to leave the character incapable of completing another standard action during that round.

You and me agree Air.

So, yes they are.

Also, keep in mind that there are spells with a swift casting time. Like swift fly or swift etherealness.

 

[Dracorat]

Anyone who is arguing the "common sense" angle must accept that they are advocating three swift actions per round.

You cannot both argue "common sense" and deny the possibility of a swift-in-place-of-move without contradicting yourself.

And the moment that non-swift spells can be cast as a move action, I'm all for it.

 

[Venator]

Two things: 1. Its magic. It doesn't necessarily make sense. 2. Try snapping your fingers. Now try and slow that snap down to 5 seconds. It can't be done. You can spend more or less time setting up your hand, but you cannot slow down the actual snap without giving up the sound.

Theres no need for the snap to be slowed down. Its doesnt have to take 5 seconds to snap, it simply needs to be done in less than or equal to 5 seconds, and regardless of how long it takes it replaces your standard action.

Its very simply about being able to snap twice in a given amount of time to produce the same effect.

What you all are saying is that if you snap once in 5 seconds, you CAN NOT snap again. Not that you choose not to, you CAN NOT. You are prevented from doing so. You cant do it. Its not possible. The rules prevent it. We are saying that you absolutely can snap again in 5 seconds, and absolutely should be allowed to.

There is no mechanic for being able to take two swift actions in a round, so you use up your standard action to produce the effects of a swift action instead.

The best example of the mechanics as written not making sense is Channeled Pyroburst from the PHBII.

If a lvl 10 Wizard (or a Sorcerer) has it memorized twice he can, on the same round, use the first one as a swift action to deal 5d4 fire damage to one target, and use the second one as a standard action and deal 10d6 fire damage to everyone in a 10 foot radius. By RAW he CAN NOT use this second casting to deal 5d4 to one target, because that effect is only produced by the "swift action" version. Thats rediculous. He should absolutely be able to reproduce the effect of that "swift action" cast time on his standard action.

The RAW says he can not stop channeling the Pyroburst on his standard action until its at least been channeled long enough to produce the effects of the standard action. It just doesnt make sense.

 

[Venator]

I direct you to:

xxx

xxx

So, yes they are.

.

I think my statement and their statements are in line with eachother.

Treating the second "swift action" as a swift action would indeed allow for two swift actions and a standard action, which is not whats being argued for.

Anyways, this is far more confusing than it needs to be at this point.

 

[ThirdWizard]

What you all are saying is that if you snap once in 5 seconds, you CAN NOT snap again. Not that you choose not to, you CAN NOT. You are prevented from doing so. You cant do it. Its not possible. The rules prevent it. We are saying that you absolutely can snap again in 5 seconds, and absolutely should be allowed to.

How can snapping make it so you can't take a Full Attack Action if it is a Swift Action, and thus takes the same amount of time as other Free Actions, one of which is drawing an arrow, which is taken many times every single time an archer takes a Full Attack Action?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Treating the second "swift action" as a swift action would indeed allow for two swift actions and a standard action, which is not whats being argued for.

As I read it, that is precisely what is being argued for. Which is why it makes no sense to me.

 

[Venator]

How can snapping make it so you can't take a Full Attack Action if it is a Swift Action, and thus takes the same amount of time as other Free Actions, one of which is drawing an arrow, which is taken many times every single time an archer takes a Full Attack Action?

Well, you can take a swift action and a full attack action on the same round. You just cant take multiple swift actions that function like swift action in the same round.

Remember that "A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action."

The only way to produce the effect of multiple swift actions in a round and maintain balance is to price the second "swift action" effect as something more than that, something that reflects the "larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action". It must also remain in line with other mechanics that exsist in the game, like not being able to produce effects on a move action.

As I read it, that is precisely what is being argued for. Which is why it makes no sense to me.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

Would you allow the wizard who prepared a Cold-Substituted Fireball to cast it as an ordinary Fireball when the Frost Giant comes out to play?

-Hyp.

 

[Dracorat]

Sum of my arguments:

New combat action:

Perform swift action.
As a standard action, you can perform an action normally a swift action. Using this action always provokes an attack of opportunity from any opponent that threatens you, even if that action would normally not provoke an attack of opportunity.
SPECIAL:
You can take this action even if you have already performed one swift action this turn.
Taking this action does not prevent a further use of a swift action this turn if you have not already taken one.
You can take this action during a surprise round, if you are allowed to act. If you do, you still cannot take a move action as you have taken a standard action.

 

[Crothian]

At what point does this get moved to house rules?