Swift spell as Standard Action?

[Artoomis]

But neither is "because this is what I wish the rule was", which is what your argument amounts to. You call it 'common sense', but it's not really any more sensible than the rule as written, because it still relies upon purely arbitrary boundaries.

Perhaps, but the difference is I am now asking WHY it would be unreasonable to allow characters to opt to use a Standard Action to get another Swift Action (in the place of the Standard Action).

I take it as a given that this seems reasonable on the surface, now can anyone tell me what I am missing? Why is it unreasonable, othee than because the rules say so?

I'll even caveat that further and say what if it is allowed only if one converts the Swift Action to a Standard Action so it would follow normal AoO rules?

 

[irdeggman]

Sorry, for coming in late to the discussion, but I've found it quite interesting.

It seems to me that allowing the actions to be defined only in terms of time is central to the issue. If we say that swift actions take 1 unit of time and standard actions take 2 units of time, then why couldn't we do a swift actions a standard action? Really, it seems to make sense. However, what if time is not the only variable? What if there is something else at work behind the scenes?

Lets introduce another variable called effort, for example. Then lets say that doing a swift action cost 1 unit of time and 3 units of effort, a move action cost 2 units of time and 0 units of effort, and doing standard action cost 2 units of time but only 2 units of effort. Now we can see how these types of actions cannot so easily be substituted for one another. Also, makes sense now why you cannot use a move action to attack.

I realize that these number might not add if you start totalling effort and time each round, then divide it back up, but I was never really that good at math. Anyway the theory seems to stand that there are likely more variables at play in the definition of a round then simply time. Therefore, allowing the RAW to remain seems the best bet to me.

Don't go down that path it only lead to the dark side.

There were lengthy threads on "how long it takes to do actions"

A move action takes a variable amount of time. Moving 30 ft takes more time (in real sense) than drawing a weapon but both are move actions.

An AoO takes no time but it is an attack action - which is a standard action.

 

[demadog]

Don't go down that path it only lead to the dark side.

There were lengthy threads on "how long it takes to do actions"

A move action takes a variable amount of time. Moving 30 ft takes more time (in real sense) than drawing a weapon but both are move actions.

An AoO takes no time but it is an attack action - which is a standard action.

You're quite right. I don't want to go down that path any more than saying there is more to a round then just time.

 

[Infiniti2000]

In this case no intent is present, only the rule itself. We can parse the laguage to decide how it works, but that does not help us with divining the intent the designers had with this rule.

But then you said what the intent wasn't. So, how can you offer that statement as fact given that "no intent is present"?

And, I can't see how you can reasonably argue that the rule itself is not indicative of intent. There's no gray area in the rule that only one swift action is allowed per round.

 

[irdeggman]

You're quite right. I don't want to go down that path any more than saying there is more to a round then just time.

And that is exactly correct.

Combat in D&D is really, really abstract and that has to be constantly remembered when analyzing the rules.

 

[MarkB]

Perhaps, but the difference is I am now asking WHY it would be unreasonable to allow characters to opt to use a Standard Action to get another Swift Action (in the place of the Standard Action).

I take it as a given that this seems reasonable on the surface, now can anyone tell me what I am missing? Why is it unreasonable, othee than because the rules say so?

I'll even caveat that further and say what if it is allowed only if one converts the Swift Action to a Standard Action so it would follow normal AoO rules?

Because a swift action is a special form of action that lets you get a large benefit out of a very small investment of time - a benefit like a spell, or the ability to change the way you use a weapon, or any of a variety of things that are valuable in combat.

Being able to do it only once per round is the cost of that benefit. Reducing that cost should not be done lightly. Your solution is to pay that cost by trading something - your standard action - that you weren't going to use anyway. That isn't a fair transaction.

 

[FireLance]

Because a swift action is a special form of action that lets you get a large benefit out of a very small investment of time - a benefit like a spell, or the ability to change the way you use a weapon, or any of a variety of things that are valuable in combat.

Being able to do it only once per round is the cost of that benefit. Reducing that cost should not be done lightly. Your solution is to pay that cost by trading something - your standard action - that you weren't going to use anyway. That isn't a fair transaction.

Simply from the balance perspective, the real issue is whether a swift action is generally more valuable than a standard action. There will, of course, be specific instances where a particular swift action is more useful than any other standard action that a character could take.

However, there will also be specific instances where a particular move action is more valuable than any other standard action that a character could take - for example, a character on the other side of a door from an large group of orcs may decide to move to the door (a move action) and close it (using his standard action to take a second move action) instead of taking another standard action. Yet, nobody seems to be arguing that trading a standard action for a move action is unbalanced.

Unless it can be shown that a swift action is generally more valuable than a standard action, I am not convinced that trading a standard action for a swift action is inherently unbalanced.

1. Quickened spells already have an inherent cost in terms of the higher spell slot.
2. The channeled spells from PHB2 that could be cast as either a swift, standard or full-round action have a reduced effect if cast as a swift action.
3. Many swift spells and abilities that enhance a spell, attack or some other ability last only 1 round, so casting another enhancing-type swift spell is usually a sub-optimal decision (following up with an offensive swift spell is a possibility, but see points 1 and 2).
4. Most immediate action spells are defensive in nature, and while I can see how being able to roll out defensive abilities twice in one round could be useful, I don't see it as being inherently unbalanced.

If the problem is with a specific swift-action spell or ability, it seems to me to be simpler to house-rule that the specific spell or ability cannot be used more than once per round. Naturally, YMMV.

 

[Musrum]

Because a swift action is a special form of action that lets you get a large benefit out of a very small investment of time - a benefit like a spell, or the ability to change the way you use a weapon, or any of a variety of things that are valuable in combat.

Being able to do it only once per round is the cost of that benefit. Reducing that cost should not be done lightly. Your solution is to pay that cost by trading something - your standard action - that you weren't going to use anyway. That isn't a fair transaction.

It is perfectly fair. The Standard Action slot is worth more than the Swift Action slot.

 

[Musrum]

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?

Four Spell Levels seems to be justification enough. A Metamagic feat which reduced a Full-Round casting to a Standard Action would be +1 spell level at the most.

 

[Musrum]

But then you said what the intent wasn't. So, how can you offer that statement as fact given that "no intent is present"?

And, I can't see how you can reasonably argue that the rule itself is not indicative of intent. There's no gray area in the rule that only one swift action is allowed per round.

The rule itself is tight, with no gray area. However we know that the rule was tacked onto the rule-set.

So in software terms: the rule has passed unit testing, but has not been given sufficient integration testing.