Swift spell as Standard Action?

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

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?

Because 'Cast a Spell' is a standard action, not a move action. If you let spells be cast as move actions as well as standard actions, you'd be deviating from the letter and spirit of the rules by a large degree.

I don't understand why there people are arguing against this. You can already cast a swift spell as a swift action in addition to casting a spell as a standard action in the same round. What's unbalancing about casting a swift spell as a swift action along with a swift spell as a standard action?

I've seen a few posts arguing that swift spells are potentially more powerful than spells designed to be cast with a standard action. That makes no sense to me: why would a designer create a spell whose purpose it is to be cast as a second spell in a round (i.e. a swift action spell) more powerful than one that is designed to be cast on its own (i.e. a standard action spell)? A swift action spell should be, if anything, weaker than a standard spell due to the advantage it gains by: 1) being cast so quickly and 2) being cast alongside a standard action spell. If there is such a swift spell (one that is more powerful than standard action spells of the same level), it is a very poorly designed one.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

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.

That pretty well sums up my thoughts on this subject and thread.

 

[MarkB]

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.

A Swift action takes almost no time at all. In terms of time alone, you could probably fit half a dozen or more into a single round. So either you go that way and allow lots of Swift actions per round - or you accept the arbitrary restriction of the rules as written and allow only one per round.

I have seen no persuasive arguments in favour of setting that arbitrary limit anywhere else.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Because 'Cast a Spell' is a standard action, not a move action. If you let spells be cast as move actions as well as standard actions, you'd be deviating from the letter and spirit of the rules by a large degree.

You and Artoomis both missed the point. Forget about a Move Action, but why a standard action and not a full round action? Swift has no initial standard action potential, and quickened assumes full round action (or less).

I don't understand why there people are arguing against this. You can already cast a swift spell as a swift action in addition to casting a spell as a standard action in the same round. What's unbalancing about casting a swift spell as a swift action along with a swift spell as a standard action?

Your loaded question assumes something not stated by the Con-side. We are concerned about balance, sure, but no one has actually provided evidence/proof of a broken combo. That's to your credit, which we (I at least) have stated repeatedly.

But, in attempt to answer your question, you need to be specific whether you're talking about naturally Swift spells or Quickened Spells. People from the Pro side have changed which types of spells they talk about at different times to support their positions.

I've seen a few posts arguing that swift spells are potentially more powerful than spells designed to be cast with a standard action.

No one said that. Instead, we've said that a spell may have been designed to be used once, and only once, in a round, and not to be coupled with other once-only spells. Obviously, this doesn't apply to quickened spells or quickened + natural swift spells, only to two natural swift spells (possibly the same spell). Are there existing examples of this being a bad idea? I don't think so, but suddenly it's a possible design flaw in a new spell. Surely, it can probably be handled easily enough so maybe you consider it a non-issue. C'est la vie.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I have seen no persuasive arguments in favour of setting that arbitrary limit anywhere else.

One wonders if Artoomis would find it insulting if we said that there were only weak, unpersuasive, and nonsensical arguments in favor of the houserule.

 

[Artoomis]

One wonders if Artoomis would find it insulting if we said that there were only weak, unpersuasive, and nonsensical arguments in favor of the houserule.

Why would I be insulted by your opinion? That would be silly. It's not like you said I was stupid or some personal insult like that.

On the other hand, the argument in favor of allowing one to use a Standard Action to cast a Swift Action spell is really a simple common sense one.

It comes down to: why not? You lose a Standard Action and in it's place use a Swift Action. That's generally a losing proposition, but in certain cirtcumstances could be to the advantage of the character.

It seems like common sense would say to allow it, and thus I look for any reasons NOT to allow it.

So far the only reasons that carry any weight seem to be:

1. Perhaps some Swift actions would be really unbalanced if they were allowed to be done an extra time in place of a Standard Action , but no such combination has been shown... but still, it's worthy of invenstigation).

2. Swift Action avoids an AOO. Thus, if allowed, a second one in place of a Standrad Action, there would be no AoO. This one is either

a. Not a problem (depending upon your point of view)

or

b. Easily dealt with by changing the Swift Action to a Standard Action when it is used in the place of a Standard Action - thus NOT avoiding the AoO.

I favor the really simple rule:

A second Swift Action may be used in lieue of a Standard Action, but it then becomes a Standard Action and so, for example, does not avoid an Attack of Oppourtunity as a Swift Action.

I fully expect such a rule to come from WotC at some point.

 

[Artoomis]

You and Artoomis both missed the point. Forget about a Move Action, but why a standard action and not a full round action? Swift has no initial standard action potential, and quickened assumes full round action (or less).

Why a Full-Round Action? That makes no sense.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

You and Artoomis both missed the point. Forget about a Move Action, but why a standard action and not a full round action? Swift has no initial standard action potential, and quickened assumes full round action (or less).

I understand what you're saying now. The justification is that it's an effort to not stray out of the bounds of what we know to be balanced. We know that casting a spell that requires a standard action is balanced. If a spell requires less than a standard action to cast, casting it as a standard action must be, at worst, balanced, or, more likely, an inferior choice. But it definitely won't be over-powered.

But, in attempt to answer your question, you need to be specific whether you're talking about naturally Swift spells or Quickened Spells. People from the Pro side have changed which types of spells they talk about at different times to support their positions.

Swift spells.

No one said that.

See posts #127 and #129.

Instead, we've said that a spell may have been designed to be used once, and only once, in a round, and not to be coupled with other once-only spells. Obviously, this doesn't apply to quickened spells or quickened + natural swift spells, only to two natural swift spells (possibly the same spell). Are there existing examples of this being a bad idea? I don't think so, but suddenly it's a possible design flaw in a new spell. Surely, it can probably be handled easily enough so maybe you consider it a non-issue. C'est la vie.

I understand your reasoning (but, yes, I consider it a non-issue, for the reasons you mentioned).

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

There's no evidence to support that when the creators wrote "However, you can perform only a single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take", the intent of the creators was "However, you can perform only a single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take"?

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Why a Full-Round Action? That makes no sense.

Because of Quicken Spell of course, as I mentioned just a few posts previously. You have little basis for using a standard action. You have at least the Quicken Spell feat for full round action. In fact, for spells that are quickened, how can you justify anything else? And for spells that are naturally Swift, you have a purely arbitrary choice. Standard action merely being the most common, of course.

On the other hand, the argument in favor of allowing one to use a Standard Action to cast a Swift Action spell is really a simple common sense one.

It comes down to: why not?

More 'common sense', eh? In any case, before it comes down to 'why not' it needs to be proven 'why' in the first place. Do you think it's a good idea to just create a series of random rules and then decide afterwards which ones to keep? I hope you'd say no, so before we can say 'why not', you need to say 'why'. (Or, really, you don't need to justify any decisions in your personal game as I hope everyone realizes that that is not what this long-winded conversation is about. We on the Con-side are not attempting to tell you how to play.)

You lose a Standard Action and in it's place use a Swift Action. That's generally a losing proposition, but in certain cirtcumstances could be to the advantage of the character.

That's a non-argument. You're saying that using the house rule is a losing proposition unless you want to use it. That's like saying that using a Move Action in place of a Standard Action is a losing proposition unless you want to use it. That argument has zero value.