Swift spell as Standard Action?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I don't know about the OP, but the common sense argument that I got from this thread

From Dracorat's first post, Post #4 in this thread:

Taking an action that costs more time in order to perform one that takes less is well within reason.

And, Post #8:

A person in real life could easily change their grip on a reach weapon and change back within the allotted time.

Post #28:

With casting a swift spell as a standard action, it is not presumed that the casting time actually takes the entire standard action, merely that it takes enough time to leave the character incapable of completing another standard action during that round.

Etc.

 

[Dracorat]

Glad I could be of assistance!

(I think.)

 

[Abraxas]

Post #1

Let's say you got swallowed and had a Swift action spell to teleport out (Dimensional Leap). Let's further way you missed you Concentration check and wanted to try again as your Standard Action.

Post#9

No, but using your standard action would make sense.

etc.

 

[RigaMortus2]

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.

So if that is the case, shouldn't this really be in the House Rules forum? I don't think anyone is arguing that RAW says you CAN swap a Standard Action to cast a Swift Action spell. I mean really, we are talking about a House Rule to allow this, and what it's implications would be. Sounds more house rulesy than RAWsy to me

 

[KarinsDad]

Precisely.

The RAW answer was given on post #2 and we've had over 200 posts since then mostly dealing with a house rule.

 

[Artoomis]

Precisely.

The RAW answer was given on post #2 and we've had over 200 posts since then mostly dealing with a house rule.

Maybe (maybe not - see what follows...). We've also had lectures fromn the Moderators (not in this thread) on how discussions on how the rules SHOULD be is appropriate for this forum, and how the line between that, other rules discussions and Hoiuse Rules is not a precise one. So I think it's okay here, because we are more talking about how the rule SHOULD be than a House Rule of how to make it work in someone's campaign.

 

[Dracorat]

I agree. Forum thread moves should be saved for when absolutely necessary because the audience changes. For example, I don't read the HR forum and if it got moved, I would have dropped out entirely.

Yet, I was a large contributor to this thread (even if people didn't agree with what I had to say heh).

Everyone managed to talk about this topic, on this forum. So, it served it's purpose well, I think.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Maybe (maybe not - see what follows...). We've also had lectures fromn the Moderators (not in this thread) on how discussions on how the rules SHOULD be is appropriate for this forum,

Yeah, but that would be more or less in relation to ambiguous questions, such as "Can I Cleave off of an AoO?" There is no rule saying you can't, but there is nothing that specifically says you can. Going by pure RAW you can.

In this case, the only place in RAW that specificlly mentions trading one Action type for another, is You can always take a move action in place of a standard action. In this case, WotC allows us to replace a greater action type (standard) with a lesser one (move). And by lesser/greater, all I mean is, you can do more with a Standard Action than you can with a Move Action. But what people seem to want to do is the opposite, trade a lesser action (swift) with a greater one (standard). Again, you can do more with a Standard Action than you can with a Swift Action.

So, since there is no confussion here (clearly it doesn't state anywhere in RAW that you can do this) like there is with the "Can I Cleave off of an AoO?" question, I don't think this is one of those situations you can claim "It should work this way, even though there is no RAW evidence that suggests it".

 

[Artoomis]

...So, since there is no confussion here (clearly it doesn't state anywhere in RAW that you can do this) like there is with the "Can I Cleave off of an AoO?" question, I don't think this is one of those situations you can claim "It should work this way, even though there is no RAW evidence that suggests it".

Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of this forum? It's for rules discussions of all kinds, including discussion of how the rules should work.

From the Mods (in a sticky note):

"We have two forums, D&D Rules and House Rules. It's a fairly arbitrary division, maninly designed to keep traffic in each manageable. However, the two subjects are incredibly closely related - so closely related that any reasonable conversation of one is very, very likely to include elements of the other. This is not a problem.

We're not going to criticise people for daring to say the word "Buffy" in the General RPG forum. We're not going to criticise people for daring to say the word "D&D" in the Sci-fi forum. And we're not going to criticise people for mentioning rules in the House Rules forum or for mentioning house rules in the Rules Forum.

If it's relevant to the conversation, it belongs in the conversation. The distinction between a house rule and an interpretation of the rules can be so fine that we're really not going to argue about it.

So, please do not tell other posters to go and post in the House Rules forum. We here at EN World are not that anal. Don't prove us wrong, please. Let the conversations flow naturally, be polite and respect each others' opinions."

Let's drop this part of the "where does this thread belong" discussion please.

 

[RigaMortus2]

The distinction between a house rule and an interpretation of the rules can be so fine that we're really not going to argue about it.

It was just a suggestion. I'll drop it. But can you honestly say that changing using a standard action to replace a swift action is an "interpretation of the rules"? Sounds like something somebody made up, or how they WANT the rules to work. Like I said, sounds more house rulesy to me. I guess if the mods felt it should be moved, it would have been by now. Anyway...

So, let's see. One of the reasons why certain actions are swift actions is because WotC does not want to allow you to do certain things more than once a round (usually spells since the majority of the swift actions are spells). I would say that, IF you allowed a Standard Action in place of a Swift Action, then you also do not get your normal Swift Action for that round. This allows people to do what they want (use a Standard Action in place of a Swift Action) and keeps Swift Actions in line, by allowing that particular action only be used 1/round.