Swift spell as Standard Action?

[Hypersmurf]

Finally, swift actions are a little buggy as it is with the rules. Example.

Writeup for swift action states that they do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Yet, in the core rules regarding Quickened Spells, quickened spells DO provoke.

And that makes four

Read the Quicken Spell feat again. In addition, check Table 8-2 in the PHB.

-Hyp.

 

[Dracorat]

[edit] That does make four. And with that, Im off to hit some late night Denny's hopefully I can drive better than I can recall rules today [/edit]

 

[Hypersmurf]

No, but using your standard action would make sense.

So reason tells us that taking an action that costs more time in order to perform one that takes less is fine, but only if it's an action that costs a lot more time, rather than a little bit more time?

Where does reason draw this distinction between "Move takes longer than free (or swift)" and "Standard takes longer than free (or swift)", so as to show us that this is... reasonable?

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Ill have to disagree this makes four.

I mean where you state "Yet, in the core rules regarding Quickened Spells, quickened spells DO provoke", and the Core rules state "Casting a quickened spell doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity" (PHB p98).

-Hyp.

 

[Dracorat]

If I had to finish the rule, it would read like this:

Actions modified to swift or immediate actions

If an action has been modified to a swift or immediate action, you can elect to take the action under it's normal cost without the benefits of the modifier. If the modifier has any cost associated with it (such as the consumption of a higher level spell slot in the case of Quickening a spell) then the cost is still expended.

And with that, I am really off to Denny's. Ill continue tomorrow or later tonight perhaps.

Good debating with you.

 

[Rystil Arden]

[edit] That does make four. And with that, Im off to hit some late night Denny's hopefully I can drive better than I can recall rules today [/edit]

He means four times he corrected you by the rules, I believe, referring to your statement that Quickened spells provoke (they don't).

EDIT: Beat me to it

 

[Dracorat]

I mean where you state "Yet, in the core rules regarding Quickened Spells, quickened spells DO provoke", and the Core rules state "Casting a quickened spell doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity" (PHB p98).

-Hyp.

Yeah you caught me with gray matter spilled on to the floor. Fixed.

 

[airwalkrr]

I always hear people tell me that balance has no place in rules interpretations, but pish-tosh to them! From a balance perspective, consider the REASON for the rule that you cannot cast more than one quickened spell per round. The reason is because the designers wanted to effectively limit casters to no more than two spells per round (ignoring 3.0 haste and wizards shapechanged into chokers who only get a bonus move action IMC because of that very reason). You get one spell as a free action and one as a standard action. If my 15th level wizard wants to cast quickened Evard's black tentacles and quickened stinking cloud in the same round, what is the true harm if I am limited to two spells. Certainly you wouldn't argue that I could not cast quickened Evard's black tentacles and stinking cloud in the same round so why is it such a big deal to allow me to cast quickened stinking cloud instead when the mechanical effect is exactly the same, and I have to use up more resources the latter way to boot!

Yes, using a literal interpretation of the rule that you cannot cast more than one quickened spell per round limits you to one quickened spell per round period. But if you fail to take intent into account, then you wind up with a seeming contradiction in purpose.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yes, using a literal interpretation of the rule that you cannot cast more than one quickened spell per round limits you to one quickened spell per round period. But if you fail to take intent into account, then you wind up with a seeming contradiction in purpose.

Why can't the intent of "You can't cast more than one quickened spell in a round" be "You can't cast more than one quickened spell in a round"?

If that was what they set out to achieve, they managed it admirably.

Assuming the intent to be otherwise presupposes that contradiction. If we assume that what they wrote is what they intended, the contradiction doesn't exist.

-Hyp.

 

[RigaMortus2]

The only way I know of how to make a "swift action" spell take longer is to be a Sorcerer and apply metamagic to it on the fly. Of course, this would make it a full round action to cast.