Swift spell as Standard Action?

[KarinsDad]

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?

This is actually worse than the house rule proposed.

If you regain a Swift action by replacing a Standard Action, then you could immediately use it to cast a Swift or Immediate Action spell and not provoke an Attack of Opportunity. Hence, two spells per round with no chance of AoO or Concentration rolls needed.


As for Immediate Actions, they already reset as soon as your turn is over.

 

[glass]

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?

I would not, and do not see that as being anywhere near analagous to what is being discussed.

It's a perfect analogy, in fact. You're stripping the metamagic off a spell, yet still applying the cost. Just because the cost on energy substitution is not as high does not make the analogy less relevant.

It would be a perfect analogy if there was any way in which Energy Sub (cold) could make you worse a damaging cold-sensitive creatures or [not cold]-resistant creatures.

Since AFAIK there is no way that Energy Sub can do that, the analogy breaks down, because quicken spell actually can (per the RAW) make it more difficult to cast two spells per round despite the fact that casting two spells per round is its whole purpose.


glass.

 

[Dracorat]

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

Not at all. However, I don't think my position is as quite as untenable as people would have you beleive. I already admitted for my part that I understand other people's positions (all except one variant) but have not received similar allowance.

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.

You cannot make any change to the game without affecting balance. That's just how it goes. You change something, you rebalance something. The question is whether you beleive the change is a good one. (Which I do)

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.

Well, I don't like Psions to begin with, but really, the argument isn't what specifically you can do with such a change, but rather more of 'are you happy with the possible outcomes of such a change?' (A subtle but important difference)

============

My comment before was not meant to attack, simply to point out as clearly as I could that there are two camps of people and for my part, I have mentioned over and over that I understand the other camp. And even so, I still think my own camp is a respectable opinion, even if you don't agree. =)

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, I don't like Psions to begin with, but really, the argument isn't what specifically you can do with such a change, but rather more of 'are you happy with the possible outcomes of such a change?' (A subtle but important difference)

Actually, I view it more as the designers put together this new concept of swift and immediate spells (and powers) with certain assumptions in mind and this drops one of those assumptions on the floor. Hence, it has a very strong potential for abuse.

My comment before was not meant to attack, simply to point out as clearly as I could that there are two camps of people and for my part, I have mentioned over and over that I understand the other camp. And even so, I still think my own camp is a respectable opinion, even if you don't agree. =)

I don't find your POV unreasonable. It is probably balanced and doable. I just think when "spells/powers per round" or "types of spells/powers per round" start getting tweaked with house rules, there is a potential for abuse.

 

[Dracorat]

... and that ....

Is the very type of response that I think is indicative of intelligent debate. =)

 

[FireLance]

This is actually worse than the house rule proposed.

If you regain a Swift action by replacing a Standard Action, then you could immediately use it to cast a Swift or Immediate Action spell and not provoke an Attack of Opportunity. Hence, two spells per round with no chance of AoO or Concentration rolls needed.

Given:

1. The various ways to avoid provoking an AOO or needing to make a Concentration check in the first place (the existence of 5-foot steps, the Shielded Caster feat from Races of Stone, the standard practice of vulnerable spellcasters to keep away from melee combat);

2. The increase in resources required or reduction in effectiveness for casting a swift spell (Quickening a spell bumps it up four levels, swift versions of standard spells usually last for only 1 round); and

3. The fact that it becomes increasingly easy to succeed at a Concentration check to cast a spell on the defensive (highest spell level goes up at the rate of 1 for 2 levels for primary spellcasters, Concentration modifiers could go up by 1 or more points per level),

The ability to cast two spells per round without provoking an AOO or needing to make a Concentration check is not much more valuable than the ability to simply cast two spells per round. The additional advantage is non-trivial, but it is small. Perhaps it is simply down to the way that my group plays the game, but a spellcaster in our games usually has to make a Concentration check to cast a spell on the defensive less than once every four levels (and even then, the Concentration check usually succeeds).

If you do not have a problem with a spellcaster casting two spells per round to begin with, objecting to a second swift spell on the basis that it can be cast without provoking an AOO or needing to make a Concentration check seems to me to making out the advantage to be larger than it actually is.

 

[KarinsDad]

If you do not have a problem with a spellcaster casting two spells per round to begin with, objecting to a second swift spell on the basis that it can be cast without provoking an AOO or needing to make a Concentration check seems to me to making out the advantage to be larger than it actually is.

While what you said is true, there are circumstances where casting two spells with no chance of AoO and no chance of failure in a round can be pretty useful.

For example, standing next to a larger or greater sized Dragon (or other BBEG) that will grapple the caster with any successful AoO. No AoO, no grapple.


This advantage that you are discussing does not just apply to high level casters who can always make their Concentration rolls. It would apply to all spell casters of all levels.

 

[Infiniti2000]

It would be a perfect analogy if there was any way in which Energy Sub (cold) could make you worse a damaging cold-sensitive creatures or [not cold]-resistant creatures.

Since AFAIK there is no way that Energy Sub can do that, the analogy breaks down, because quicken spell actually can (per the RAW) make it more difficult to cast two spells per round despite the fact that casting two spells per round is its whole purpose.

The analogy doesn't break down. Besides flavor, the purpose of Energy Sub is to bypass energy resistant creatures (in this example fire). Agreed? When you encounter a non-resistant creature (of any energy) it doesn't matter if you have ES or not (and thus the whole example becomes irrelevant). Because we have to assume relevancy, the analogy is only applicable when a creature is resistant to the ES energy. Thus, if you don't allow stripping the metamagic feat, then ES would be an unfortunate spell preparation, just like quicken should you need that quickened spell twice.

In other words, it's a perfect analogy when you consider that stripping the metamagic gains you something over not-stripping. A similar analogy could not be applied for all metamagic feats, however. I fail to see, for example, how stripping Heighten Spell could ever gain.

But, surely you don't agree with Dracorat that you would allow stripping of Energy Sub on the fly? Wouldn't you prepare all your spells then with ES and just choose which one as you need it?

I don't find your POV unreasonable. It is probably balanced and doable. I just think when "spells/powers per round" or "types of spells/powers per round" start getting tweaked with house rules, there is a potential for abuse.

Exactly. I can see the design of a new spell's casting time like this: "We'll just make it a Swift action and that way it can never be used twice in one round, which would be broken." Is there such a spell? I don't know but I doubt it. At least I doubt one would really be 'broken'. But, the fact is that this increases the versitility of prepared spellcasters and does nothing for spontaneous-type spellcasters while stepping on their toes.

Consider a wizard going up against a cleric and his high SR planar ally. The wizard casts assay resistance, but it gets countered. Knowing he has little chance of affecting his opponent, he casts another assay resistance as a standard action (or in place?). Not really broken perhaps since he cannot do anything until next round, but it's certainly useful as it would negate additional counterspelling.

 

[ken-ichi]

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.

This example would not work unless the sorcerer had chosen to use his standard action to cast the Swift Fly the first time he cast it. Otherwise he sould not be able to move, use a standard action to cast, and continue moving.

 

[KarinsDad]

This example would not work unless the sorcerer had chosen to use his standard action to cast the Swift Fly the first time he cast it. Otherwise he sould not be able to move, use a standard action to cast, and continue moving.

Good point. I was putting that example together quickly this morning before trying to leave the house.

Let's replace Silence with Dispel Magic Counterspell.