Swift spell as Standard Action?

[Musrum]

I predict that at some point in the future WotC will state that it is prefectly fine to take a second Swift (or Immediate) Action if, and only if, you take it is place of your Standard Action.

You are correct. And I am sure that all reasonable people agree that this is the direction that WotC will take.

Knowing this, we should therefore incorporate the RAW++ into our games and gentley mock our house-ruling luddite friends who continue to follow the "One Swift to screw them" rule.

Come on folks: this is the century of the fruitbat!

 

[glass]

It is not less useful. It is more useful.

It does not provoke AoOs for one thing.

We are talking about the second quickened spell. Of course it doesn't provoke AoO, per the RAW, because you can't cast it at all!

That is pretty much the epitome of 'less usefull'!


glass.

 

[Maldor]

The other problem with allowing a character to cast 2 swift action/quickened spells in a round is because that's two spells that don't provoke AoO by virtue of their action type. Normally, when able to cast 2 spells a round, only one of them gets that pass.

In the hypothetical case of a character with a quickened magic missile and a scorching ray who fails to cast their initial attempt at a swift spell, I'd probably let him burn the magic missile as a standard action (subject to AoO), using the spell slot it was prepared in. The spell is prepared with the extra metamagic structure, but rather than invoke it with his normal completion action (swift action), he uses the completion action for the regular casting (standard action). He just ends up not using all of the mnemonic/mystic/whatever structure he built into it.

It may not be in the RAW, but it seems pretty fair.

the thing that has him grappled can't do AoO anyway.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I think Option B works just fine. It's an adequate explanation that doesn't seem to screw with game balance much at all.

That has yet to be established. What it does screw with, however, is what people on the Pro side are ignoring. Some of those Swift action spells are clearly designed to be 1/round. No longer can you accept by default the power-level of a swift action spell. Now, when you allow new Swift action spells into your game, you must consider whether a previously unforeseen interaction affects anything. And, that's still with you guys handwaving away the inconsistency you have with Quickened spells or with the abritrary decision to swap out Standard Actions (why standard action?).

 

[Marshall]

Because the standard action is the multipurpose action. You can use it to accomplish all the other short term actions in the game, its only Swift that is suddenly to complex to be allowed.

What Hyp quoted in 218 is the distinction between Swift and Free and merely means that you only have one Swift action slot in a round, not that you cant use other actions to accomplish swift effects.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Because the standard action is the multipurpose action.

So is a Move Action. Instead of moving, I can retrieve items, sheathe weapons, even use a psionic dimension door. Why not a move action, since it's also longer than a Swift action?

But, more to my point, a natural Swift action spell has no relation to a standard action, so why choose a standard action and not a Move Action or other type of action? A quickened spell (a Swift action when using Swift actions) need not be a standard action by default, so why choose standard action? Because it's convenient or balanced? I can't think of an example of a full round action spell, but that's what Quicken Spell mentions, not Standard Action. Thus, by all accounts those in the Pro camp should be arguing in favor of a full round action, not a standard action.

 

[Deset Gled]

There is one, and only one, possibly reasonable explanation for why one cannot take a second Swift Action in a round in the place of Stanard Action (other than the fact that the rules only let you take one Swift Action in a round - this is about the "why" of that).

Game balance.

2. Intent. It can be very easily argued that the creators never wanted more than one swift spell to be cast in a round under any circumstances.

3. It's magic. Perhaps the essence of a swift spell causes a rift in the folds of magic that prevent another swift spell from being cast by a single being. Perhaps the gods themselves step in and prevent the second spell from occuring, lest mortal beings learn to harness powers not meant for them. Feel free to make up your own.

4. Flavor. The classic Sylvester (or Daffy Duck, IIRC) magic trick. "There's just one problem: I can only do it once!"

Bottom line: It makes no sense. There is NO strong argument on why this is the rule. Nonetheless, it is the rule, even if nonsensical.

Artoomis, I find this kind of statement to be insulting. I understand that you don't happen to like this particular rule, but thats not an excuse to imply everyone trying to enforce it has no common sense and is nonsensical. The fact that this topic has gone on for as long as it has shows that at least some people feel the arguements for and against the rule are strong enough for them. I believe that blanket statements like this are part of what makes threads like this so heated.

 

[Artoomis]

...Artoomis, I find this kind of statement to be insulting. ...

I certainly did not mean to insult anyone. I only mentioned that I still have not seen any strong argument for WHY one should not allow someone to use up his/her Standard Action to cast a second Swift spell.

There have been a couple of really weak arguments, but nothing very persuasive.

 

[Artoomis]

So is a Move Action. Instead of moving, I can retrieve items, sheathe weapons, even use a psionic dimension door. Why not a move action, since it's also longer than a Swift action?

But, more to my point, a natural Swift action spell has no relation to a standard action, so why choose a standard action and not a Move Action or other type of action? A quickened spell (a Swift action when using Swift actions) need not be a standard action by default, so why choose standard action? Because it's convenient or balanced? I can't think of an example of a full round action spell, but that's what Quicken Spell mentions, not Standard Action. Thus, by all accounts those in the Pro camp should be arguing in favor of a full round action, not a standard action.

Not at all. The "Pro" camp is arguing in favor of something very small - allowing one to cast a second Swift Spell in the place of another spell they could normally cast as a Standard Action. That's all. Don't make more of it that it is.

Choosing a Move Action is loaded with balance issues by possibly allowing 3 spells in a round, and NO ONE is arguing that position at all. THAT would be game-changing in a significant way.

 

[Artoomis]

2. Intent. It can be very easily argued that the creators never wanted more than one swift spell to be cast in a round under any circumstances.

Not persuasive in the least. There is no evidence to support this. It is more likely they never even considered someone wanting to give up a Standard Action to use a Swift Action instead. Even if true, WHY? Game balance can be the only answer, I think.

3. It's magic. Perhaps the essence of a swift spell causes a rift in the folds of magic that prevent another swift spell from being cast by a single being. Perhaps the gods themselves step in and prevent the second spell from occuring, lest mortal beings learn to harness powers not meant for them. Feel free to make up your own.

Talk about a weak argument. When you make up nonsensical things like this that's basically saying, "because I said so." One can justify anything when one is allowed to make up a story out of whole cloth.

4. Flavor. The classic Sylvester (or Daffy Duck, IIRC) magic trick. "There's just one problem: I can only do it once!"

Finally SOMETHING. This argument at least makes some sense. The tough part is WHY can I only do it once? For a Quickened spell, I could do it quickened once and then do it again normally. This an unpersuasive arg8ument, but at least the reference to classic comic characters is amusing.

In the end, there likely exists NO persuasive argument to defend why a Swift Action cannot be ALSO done in place of a Standard Action other than simply because teh rule says one Swift Action per round.

I do NOT say NO argument, just none that is persuasive. Of course, this should come as no surprise. Swift actions are a "add-on" to 3.5 and the authors of this rule likely did not even anticipate someone would want to do a Swift Action in place of a Standard Action.