Swift spell as Standard Action?

[glass]

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.

No, you are still missing the point. To be a perfect analogy, Energy Sub would have to in some circumstances make you worse at the very things it is supposed to make you good at, which it never does.

Quicken Spell OTOH can make you worse at the very things it is supposed to make you good at. I don't like this, so have a (minor, IMO) houserule for it.


glass.

 

[ThirdWizard]

No, you are still missing the point. To be a perfect analogy, Energy Sub would have to in some circumstances make you worse at the very things it is supposed to make you good at, which it never does.

Energy Substitution (cold) vs. Frost Giants?

 

[glass]

No, you are still missing the point. To be a perfect analogy, Energy Sub would have to in some circumstances make you worse at the very things it is supposed to make you good at, which it never does.

Energy Substitution (Cold) vs. Frost Giants?

Energy Sub (cold) isn't supposed to make you good against frost giants, it is supposed to make you good against fire giants. If Energy Sub (Fire) ever made you worse at damaging frost giants, then that would your perfect analogy.


glass.

 

[KarinsDad]

No, you are still missing the point. To be a perfect analogy, Energy Sub would have to in some circumstances make you worse at the very things it is supposed to make you good at, which it never does.

For a Sorcerer, Energy Substitution forces the spell to take up a full round action, so it can be worse.

Quicken Spell OTOH can make you worse at the very things it is supposed to make you good at. I don't like this, so have a (minor, IMO) houserule for it.

In what way does it make it worse? Because it takes a Swift Action? This does not prevent two spells per round.

You'll have to be more specific in order to illustrate that it is a bad analogy. It sounds like a good analogy to me.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Energy Sub (cold) isn't supposed to make you good against frost giants, it is supposed to make you good against fire giants. If Energy Sub (Fire) ever made you worse at damaging frost giants, then that would your perfect analogy.

I don't get it. Energy Sub (cold) allows you to do extra damage to fire subtypes with the restriction that if you run into something with the cold subtype, it can do no damage to them. Whereas Quicken Spell allows you to cast a spell as a Free Action with the restriction that you can only use one Quickened spell per round.

Looks like a wash to me, considering the level increases.

 

[glass]

For a Sorcerer, Energy Substitution forces the spell to take up a full round action, so it can be worse.

It forces nothing. For a sorcerer they can decide on the fly whether to apply it. Presumably he only does so if it is advantageous.

Quicken Spell OTOH can make you worse at the very things it is supposed to make you good at.

In what way does it make it worse? Because it takes a Swift Action?

You'll have to be more specific in order to illustrate that it is a bad analogy. It sounds like a good analogy to me.

You have two spells you want to cast in a round. They are both quickened. Per the RAW, you can't do it. Whereas if you had spent less resources on getting two spells per round (only quickening one of them), you could do it.

Thus, Quicken Spell (a feat whose main purpose is to allow two spells per round) can actually prevent you from casting two spells per round: That is what I meant by it can make you worse at what it is supposed to make you good at.

I don't like that, so if it ever comes up I'll go with my houserule. Why does this upset everyone so much?


glass.

 

[KarinsDad]

You have two spells you want to cast in a round. They are both quickened. Per the RAW, you can't do it. Whereas if you had spent less resources on getting two spells per round (only quickening one of them), you could do it.

A Fighter has two magical longswords: one found and one crafted. If he had only had a magical short sword crafted instead of the magical longsword, he could fight two weapon.

But, at the time he decided to get the weapon crafted, he was thinking about his +1 Weapon Focus Longsword. Hmmm.


A Wizard has two Quickened spells. If he had only not Quickened one of them, he could cast it along with the other Quickened spell.

But, at the time he decided to study his spells, he was thinking about casting each Quickened spell in combination with other different standard action spells.


It is not a matter of two spells per round. It is a matter of which spells can work with which spells in a single round. The Wizard still starts out a typical day with the option to cast a lot of spells.

The fact that he cannot cast two Swift spells in a single round is not a big deal. The Fighter cannot fight two weapon with two longswords (shy of a feat or other ability to get around it).

Thus, Quicken Spell (a feat whose main purpose is to allow two spells per round) can actually prevent you from casting two spells per round: That is what I meant by it can make you worse at what it is supposed to make you good at.

I don't like that, so if it ever comes up I'll go with my houserule. Why does this upset everyone so much?

It doesn't upset anyone.

What you are saying, though, does not follow.

Quickening a spell does not prevent a caster from casting two spells per round. It only prevents him from casting it with another Swift/Immediate/Quickened spell in the same round.

Just like Energy Substitution Cold prevents a caster from effectively using that spell against Frost Giants.

Pros and Cons. That is game balance.

Not just Pros.

 

[glass]

It doesn't upset anyone. What you are saying, though, does not follow.

What doesn't follow? That the RAW has the consequence of making a quickened spell less usefull than a non quickened spell, despite the resources spent on it? Or that I don't happen to like the way that it does it?

Quickening a spell does not prevent a caster from casting two spells per round. It only prevents him from casting it with another Swift/Immediate/Quickened spell in the same round.

Then if all the spells he has left that are applicable to the situation are quickened (or otherwise swift), then it does prevent casting two spells per round.

Pros and Cons. That is game balance. Not just Pros.

Quicken Spell costs a feat, and requires a spell slot four levels higher. If you really think that that is 'just pros' then we are obviously way to far from having a common frame of reference to debate anything.


glass.

 

[MarkB]

What doesn't follow? That the RAW has the consequence of making a quickened spell less usefull than a non quickened spell, despite the resources spent on it? Or that I don't happen to like the way that it does it?

Quickening a spell fits that spell to a specific purpose - casting it quickly while having time to cast a normal spell as well (or make an attack, or any other standard or move action).

Complaining that you can't use it for other purposes is like complaining that your expensive deluxe powered screwdriver is unsuited to hammering nails.

 

[KarinsDad]

What doesn't follow? That the RAW has the consequence of making a quickened spell less usefull than a non quickened spell, despite the resources spent on it? Or that I don't happen to like the way that it does it?

It is not less useful. It is more useful.

It does not provoke AoOs for one thing.

It can also be cast in the same round as another spell.

Just because it has a limitation (one swift spell per round) does not mean that it does not have utility.

It has a LOT of utility. Most every player I have ever seen would like to be able to cast two spells per round if possible.

Your point is that it cannot be used in one rare circumstance where a normal spell could be cast, hence, it has less utility than a normal spell. That's just not true. It has more utility.

Then if all the spells he has left that are applicable to the situation are quickened (or otherwise swift), then it does prevent casting two spells per round.

So? Pros and Cons. In order to use the Spell Slot for Quicken and increase the utility of it, you have to give it up as a normal spell.

That's called game balance.

Quicken Spell costs a feat, and requires a spell slot four levels higher. If you really think that that is 'just pros' then we are obviously way to far from having a common frame of reference to debate anything.

I think your "cast it in place of a normal spell" is "just pros" with regard to casting limitations.

The fact that Swift spells have a casting limitation does not mean that they have less utility than normal spells.