Swift spell as Standard Action?

[Dracorat]

I miss the days of "I see where you are coming from and hold a different opinion, but can appreciate that you have your own opinion."

 

[ThirdWizard]

Then it goes on to say:

"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."

and

"Casting a quickened spell is a swift action (instead of a free action, as stated in the Quicken Spell feat description in the Player's Handbook)."

In fact, except for the 1 per round qualifier, swift actions are exactly like free actions. They are taken directly from Qucken spell: a free action that can only be performed once per round. I don't see the argument that swift actions take more time than free actions being particularly convincing.

Note that it specifically says that swift actions can only be performed once per round not because they take more time, but becuase they take more "effort." If they take more time than free actions, I would think that they would have said that, since they repeatedly compare swift actions to free actions in the definition of the term.

 

[airwalkrr]

I miss the days of "I see where you are coming from and hold a different opinion, but can appreciate that you have your own opinion."

There can be ONLY ONE!

*lightning crack*

(that is exactly why I left this argument a page or two ago)

 

[ThirdWizard]

I miss the days of "I see where you are coming from and hold a different opinion, but can appreciate that you have your own opinion."

The forum exists in very large part to debate. If we all just said stuff like that, there wouldn't be much to talk about.

 

[glass]

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.

How is it in any way 'common sense' to allow three spells per round when the game is balanced on the assumption of one, or two with some extra costs? IMO it isn't.

OTOH not penalising the character, by making it more difficult for him to cast spells that he has spent extra resources to make easier to cast, is common sense. IMO, of course.

EDIT: I do agree it is not alowed by RAW, though.


glass.

 

[KarinsDad]

I miss the days of "I see where you are coming from and hold a different opinion, but can appreciate that you have your own opinion."

What are you trying to say? That anyone who disagrees with you should just drop the issue, otherwise, they are not being polite?


Core rules do not really have Swift Actions. They are a wart add on to allow one and only one extra spell (or power) per round, but limited to certain types of spells.

The very purpose of them is to add a concept to the game that is very balance specific. The "time aspect" of them is mostly a red herring to the conversation. The moment you start screwing with that concept is the moment you start screwing with game balance.


Most Swift spells (and powers) are typically movement or defensive in nature, but some are buffs and a few are offensive.

Let's take an example:

The PCs are fighting a Dragon and his flunkies. The PC Sorcerer is hidden a bit from the dragon itself, but is fighting one of the minions.

The Sorcerer decides to cast Assay Spell Resistance, take a 5 foot step out of hiding and away from the minion, and then cast his metamagic Empowered Cone of Cold on the Dragon. But, the Dragon is tough and he definitely does not want to cast the Cone of Cold without ASR.

The minion was readying an action and interrupts the Sorcerer's ASR. Without the House Rule, the Sorcerer can at best attempt to concentrate (or not) to cast a spell and kill the minion. With the House Rule, the Sorcerer can also concentrate a second time and possibly get ASR up this round.

Next round using core rules, the Sorcerer could step 5', ASF, Empowered Cone of Cold the Dragon and then his action would be complete.

Next round using the house rule, the Sorcerer could step 5', Empowered Cone of Cold the Dragon and then cast another swift spell. For example: Distract Assailant, Forcewave, or one of the Breath spells if the Sorcerer has some form of Draconic heritage and a Breath weapon, etc.


Whether this balance change is balanced or not is debatable. However, it is a change and it does affect game balance. It could incentive Sorcerers and Psions to take certain Immediate and Swift spells or powers in order to gain certain combinations. And although many people do not think Sorcerers are overpowered (I am not one of those people), many people do think that Psions are overpowered and giving them more options is suspect balance-wise.

 

[Musrum]

I don't see the argument that swift actions take more time than free actions being particularly convincing.

I am not sure what you need to convince you then. The SRD makes it perfectly clear that Free Actions take no time, and Swift actions take a small amount of time. Why would they need to then explicately state then that "a small amount" is more than "no amount"?

 

[Nail]

What are you trying to say? That anyone who disagrees with you should just drop the issue, otherwise, they are not being polite?

Of course!

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

How is it in any way 'common sense'

... Because the "common sense" argument is that if I can spend a negligible amount of time to cast a spell, then there's no reason I couldn't spend a larger amount of time to cast the spell and then "stand around" for the remainder.

By that logic, they are arguing that you should be allowed to spend a standard action to cast an additional swift action spell per round.

Also by that logic, they are arguing that you should be allowed to spend a move action to cast an additional swift action spell per round.

However, that particular side doesn't want to allow a move-action-swift-action spell, because of "balance."

Which brings us right back to the rules that they are arguing against.

 

[Venator]

The minion was readying an action and interrupts the Sorcerer's ASR. Without the House Rule, the Sorcerer can at best attempt to concentrate (or not) to cast a spell and kill the minion. With the House Rule, the Sorcerer can also concentrate a second time and possibly get ASR up this round.

I may be misinterperting this, but with the house rule in place, the sorcerer can try and cast ASR a second time, but not also blast the minion and cast ASR a second time. Its one or the other. He gets no additional actions. If he elects to cast ASR again he would have to spend his standard action to do it and therefor lose his chance to blast.

That may be what you meant anyways though .

Anyhow, i do agree with a lot KarinsDad said. It would open doors for certain combinations that arent currently possible (obviously). However, i believe that the vast majority of swift (or immediate) action spells are "weaker" than standard action spells, and that FAR more often than not the player would be trading down if he elects to use this option. I feel that it preserves logic to allow this.

I will concede that this is not always true, especialy with psionic powers. IF is incredibly powerful, and really has no right being an immidiate action IMO. DP is just mega-cheese and might be the most game altering thing since Divine Metamagic . For better or for worse though, our group of players feels that psionics in general are too powerful and elect to exclude it from our home games.