Swift spell as Standard Action?

[irdeggman]

If it is indeed a Standard Action, then I messed up when i copied the spell to my character sheet. It does not change this debate in any way, but does mean I was flat out wrong in what I did - whoops! It would have made no difference, though.

Okay, then, would someone with Magic of Eberron look this up (do not report from memory) please) and let me know if I was wrong and it is a Standard Action to cast Dimensional Leap?

Note that at the very beginning of this thread I did mention I might not have the casting time correct.

I did look it up - which is why I said it was casting time of 1 standard action (unless it was erratad).

 

[Artoomis]

I did look it up - which is why I said it was casting time of 1 standard action (unless it was erratad).

Thanks. I'll fix it on my character sheet. Too bad. It's still good, just not as good.

 

[KarinsDad]

Thanks. I'll fix it on my character sheet. Too bad. It's still good, just not as good.

Don't you see how great this is?

Your Bard could have cast Dimensional Leap as a standard action and STILL had a Swift Action left over that round. No more need for this thread.

Cool, huh?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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

Ah. Your argument is more of a balance argument. 's cool, man.

The "original common sense argument" was that a quickened / swift spell takes, basically, 0.1 seconds to cast.

Therefore, since a standard action takes 3.5 seconds to complete, I should be able to spend a standard action to cast a quickened / swift spell and then stand around for 3.4 seconds. Makes sense, right?

I put the numbers in myself to make the argument a little more concrete and easier to read, but I don't believe I've misrepresented it. Someone who holds this argument should feel free to correct me if I have.

Moving on, however, the same argument says that, because a move action takes 2.5 seconds to complete, I should be able to spend a move action to cast a quickened / swift spell and then stand around for 2.4 seconds.

 

[Artoomis]

Don't you see how great this is?

Your Bard could have cast Dimensional Leap as a standard action and STILL had a Swift Action left over that round. No more need for this thread.

Cool, huh?

ROFL. If only he actually HAD a Swift sepll. I guess he could have cast Feather Fall, for all the good it would do.

 

[Abraxas]

The "original common sense argument" was that a quickened / swift spell takes, basically, 0.1 seconds to cast.

Therefore, since a standard action takes 3.5 seconds to complete, I should be able to spend a standard action to cast a quickened / swift spell and then stand around for 3.4 seconds. Makes sense, right?

I put the numbers in myself to make the argument a little more concrete and easier to read, but I don't believe I've misrepresented it. Someone who holds this argument should feel free to correct me if I have.

Moving on, however, the same argument says that, because a move action takes 2.5 seconds to complete, I should be able to spend a move action to cast a quickened / swift spell and then stand around for 2.4 seconds.

I don't know about the OP, but the common sense argument that I got from this thread was along the line of (using the times you provided)

A quickened / swift action to cast a spell takes, basically, 0.1 seconds. Therefore, since a standard cast a spell action takes 3.5 seconds to complete, I should be able to spend a standard cast a spell action for a quickened / swift cast a spell action and then stand around for 3.4 seconds.

It doesn't matter how long it takes to perform a move action because I can't cast a spell as a move action any way. The argument isn't about the time to perform any action, just the time to perform cast a spell actions and using the longer cast a spell standard action for the faster quickened/swift cast a spell actions.

All in all I probably wouldn't allow it - not because I think it is particularly unbalancing. However, because I haven't had a time to look at every possible combo, as soon as I did allow it one of my players would come up with some horrible combination that would just bite me in the butt.

 

[Dracorat]

Your players should learn an addage:

Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

For my part, I trust my players. Sometimes, they cross the line, but usually, just letting them know is all it takes to reign them back in.

 

[Infiniti2000]

It doesn't matter how long it takes to perform a move action because I can't cast a spell as a move action any way. The argument isn't about the time to perform any action, just the time to perform cast a spell actions and using the longer cast a spell standard action for the faster quickened/swift cast a spell actions.

This is the heart of the debate IMO.

1. The Pro side says to allow it because Swift Action < Standard Action.
2. The Con side then points out that Swift Action < Move Action, thus allowing 3 spells/round (or 4 for a choker wizard).
3. The Pro side rebuts with the caveat that you must be able to use the swapped action for spellcasting normally to begin with.

The problem with #3 is that it negates the original 'common sense' reason to begin with. It then boils down to merely overriding the restriction on Swift spells as long as no other standard/full action spell was cast/will be cast that round. That may be reasonable from a balance perspective but there's no longer a 'common sense' argument to be made.

That last sentence is what I think the majority of this thread is about. It is probably completely unnecessary from nearly everyone's perspective, except as a mental exercise.

 

[Artoomis]

This is the heart of the debate IMO.

1. The Pro side says to allow it because Swift Action < Standard Action.
2. The Con side then points out that Swift Action < Move Action, thus allowing 3 spells/round (or 4 for a choker wizard).
3. The Pro side rebuts with the caveat that you must be able to use the swapped action for spellcasting normally to begin with.

The problem with #3 is that it negates the original 'common sense' reason to begin with. It then boils down to merely overriding the restriction on Swift spells as long as no other standard/full action spell was cast/will be cast that round. That may be reasonable from a balance perspective but there's no longer a 'common sense' argument to be made.

That last sentence is what I think the majority of this thread is about. It is probably completely unnecessary from nearly everyone's perspective, except as a mental exercise.

I would not state it that way.

I'd say the Pro side says:

1. A spell can be cast during a Standard Action normally.

2. A Swift Action spell takes less effort/time to cast than a Standard Action spell, and so you should be able to substitute a Swift Action spell for a Standard Action Spell.

The Con side says:

No because:

1. This would unbalance the game because Swift Spells are designed to be cast only one in a round.

2. This would have the effect of un-metmagicking a "Quicken" spell and thus should not be allowed.

The Pro side rebuttal:

1. Maybe so. This is not clear but is worthy of analysis on the issue of game balance.

2. So? This does no mean it's okay to "un-metamagic" anything else as this is very case-specific to Swift spells only. Further, the caster has "wasted" a four-level higher spell slot.

My opinon is that it's prefectly reasonable BUT:

1. The rules prohibit it. (Of course this is about whether the rules SHOULD prohibit it.)

2. There is a balance issue on whether it is balanced to allow a second Swift Sperll (in the place of a Standrad Action spell) because Swift Seplls are specifcally designed with vbeing able to cast only one in a round.

I think number 2 is a litttle weak but worthy of further anaylsis, I suppose. I don't see any game-breaking issues there.

 

[Abraxas]

Your players should learn an addage:

Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

For my part, I trust my players. Sometimes, they cross the line, but usually, just letting them know is all it takes to reign them back in.

After rereading my post, I noticed that it might not be clear that it isn't any one of my players that might find the horrible combination, its just one of my players - a single person - who would find the horrible combination - so its easier to not allow it to start with.

The problem with #3 is that it negates the original 'common sense' reason to begin with.

Only if you believe the original "common sense" argument was about time to perform the action - something I did not get from the original post. Artoomis explained it pretty well in the post above. That is why the movement analogy was made (move 15' instead of 30' with your move action). The "common sense" argument wasn't trying to substitute a swift action for any other action that takes longer normally, just for the cast a spell standard action.