Swift spell as Standard Action?

[Venator]

... 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."

The reason i wouldnt allow you take use a swift action in place of a move action is because a move action never allows for you to produce any kind of similar effect, like the casting of a spell, or make an attack.

Im just trying to remain as in-line with the mechanics of a turn as possible, but still preserve logic where i can. I totaly admit the mechanics of a turn are flawed, and this entire argument is evidence of that.

What both sides are argueing doesnt make sense in the "real world," but i think we all knwo that.

 

[Artoomis]

... 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.

Not exactly right.

The argument is based upon casting a Swift Action spell in place of a Standard Action spell. It has absolutely nothing to do with Move Action - introducing that is a red herring.

I do not think anyone is even considering a Move Action here.

 

[mikebr99]

The reason i wouldnt allow you take use a swift action in place of a move action is because a move action never allows for you to produce any kind of similar effect, like the casting of a spell, or make an attack.

Not true... I can redirect my Flaming Sphere to attack another target within 30ft. as a move action.

Mike

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The argument is based upon casting a Swift Action spell in place of a Standard Action spell. It has absolutely nothing to do with Move Action - introducing that is a red herring.

The problem, though, is that as soon as you "prove" that doing this for a Standard Action is okay, you've also demonstrated that doing this for a Move Action is okay, because it follows the exact same logic.

Or, at least, the "common sense" line of attack follows the same logic.

The "game balance" line of attack would prevent the Move Action, but, then, the "game balance" line of attack uses the rules to trump ... the rules? Yeah.

 

[Umbran]

I humbly submit that you wouldn't know logic if it snuck up and bit you in the ass.

Enough.

This thread is far more aggressive than it ought to be. No more insults, anyone.

 

[Morrus]

I humbly submit that you wouldn't know logic if it snuck up and bit you in the ass. Your claim that I "made up" the idea of a move action being different from a standard action is also very, very strange.

At this point, I'm forced to conclude that you're either incapable of understanding basic logic and English or that you're deliberately being hostile and belligerent. Either way, you're a waste of my time.

Justin, you have exactly 12 hours from this post to email me with an extremely convincing argument as to why the above comments should not earn you a 3-day ban. I'll be mightiliy impressed if you manage it, though, because I can't fathom how any such reason could exist.

However, because I'm feeling nice, I'll help you out with a small hint: any variation on "he started it!" will automatically make that a 7-day ban.

In the meantime, please stop posting in this thread.

 

[Venator]

Not true... I can redirect my Flaming Sphere to attack another target within 30ft. as a move action.

Mike

good call.

Makes selling that point quite a bit more difficult.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Even if the majority of swift and immediate spells / powers are weaker, this does not take away the fact that some are not weaker. And, PCs will take advantage of the strong combos.

ASF, for example, is pretty huge. It almost completely negates most Spell Resistance.

And even the non-weaker swift spells can result in currently unachievable combos and often use up a lower level spell slot in the process.

Say your Sorcerer just has to fly away up over a ledge 20 feet higher, but he took Swift Fly instead of Fly because he only uses Fly as a quick escape, not to actually fly. The enemy Cleric readied a (mid-air) Silence and stopped his Swift Fly. So, the Sorcerer walks away 20 or so feet and casts another Swift Fly and still manages to get up to the ledge and away this same round.

The Readied Silence did not really prevent the spell this round because the Sorcerer could cast it twice.

Not that this is necessarily game breaking, but it does change game balance.


The bottom line is that except for Quicken Spell, there really is no way in the game to cast Spell X followed by Spell X a second time in the same round. The current RAW forces a caster to do this with lower level spells and to use and have the Quicken spell feat as well (which btw is difficult for Sorcerers to acquire shy of PHB II or Metamagic Rods).

With this house rule, that can be done by any caster with Immediate or Swift spells.

 

[glass]

... 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.

No, that is not the 'common sense' argument, or at least it is not my 'common sense' argument.

My argument is that a character that the whole point of Quicken Spell is to allow two spells in a round, at the cost some extra resources. It doesn't seem right to me that by spending those extra resources you should be prevented from doing the very thing you were spending the for in the first place.

Aargh, I've reworded the previous paragraph three times and it's still clumsy. Oh well, it'll have to do.


glass.

 

[FireLance]

The problem, though, is that as soon as you "prove" that doing this for a Standard Action is okay, you've also demonstrated that doing this for a Move Action is okay, because it follows the exact same logic.

Or, at least, the "common sense" line of attack follows the same logic.

The "game balance" line of attack would prevent the Move Action, but, then, the "game balance" line of attack uses the rules to trump ... the rules? Yeah.

What about the "you can spend a standard action to regain the ability to use a swift action before your next turn" line of argument? Would you have a problem with that?