Swift spell as Standard Action?

[Infiniti2000]

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

It can't be worth more in this scenario because you aren't even using it. How is something that you can't use worth more than something you want to use but can't?

Speaking generically, what you say might be true, but it then presupposes that Swift actions can be performed in a Standard Action. If not, as the rules say, then a Standard Action may or may not be worth more than a Swift Action, depending on what actions you want to take. Just like Move Actions as FireLance points out (which is an admirable argument for the Con side). In other words, a particular action is only 'worth' it if you can take it and it's a better choice than other action types.

So, the mere fact that the rules allow only one Swift Action per round skews the worth of such actions. Changing that rule changes the worth and any such discussion around it is nearly rendered moot. So, a Swift Action is extremely valuable by definition. Although time is not a factor (arguably), only one can be performed per round. That makes them valuable, at least as much as any other actions of which only one can be performed per round. Saying you can swap it into a Standard Action is, by this definition of worth (but not time), no different than trying to get two Standard Actions (without additional cost) by swapping in the Standard Action in place of the Swift Action. But, that requires a cost of +4 spell levels (or a Rod, et al) if it can be done at all.

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.

No, I did not say full round, I said full round action. Quicken reduces a full round action spell (or less) to a Swift (free) action. There's a feat call Rapid Spell or something that reduces full round spells to a standard action for +1.

However we know that the rule was tacked onto the rule-set.

This whole debate can be held without the Swift rule. Just think of Quickened Spells. So, no, I don't agree with your dismissal of the intent.

 

[Musrum]

It can't be worth more in this scenario because you aren't even using it. How is something that you can't use worth more than something you want to use but can't?

Speaking generically, what you say might be true, but it then presupposes that Swift actions can be performed in a Standard Action. If not, as the rules say, then a Standard Action may or may not be worth more than a Swift Action, depending on what actions you want to take. Just like Move Actions as FireLance points out (which is an admirable argument for the Con side). In other words, a particular action is only 'worth' it if you can take it and it's a better choice than other action types.

So, the mere fact that the rules allow only one Swift Action per round skews the worth of such actions. Changing that rule changes the worth and any such discussion around it is nearly rendered moot. So, a Swift Action is extremely valuable by definition. Although time is not a factor (arguably), only one can be performed per round. That makes them valuable, at least as much as any other actions of which only one can be performed per round. Saying you can swap it into a Standard Action is, by this definition of worth (but not time), no different than trying to get two Standard Actions (without additional cost) by swapping in the Standard Action in place of the Swift Action. But, that requires a cost of +4 spell levels (or a Rod, et al) if it can be done at all.

A Standard Action is worth more than a Swift Action. You seriously can't dispute that.
This is the central argument on the Pro side. You appear to say that this is not true, because the artificial scarcity created by the current rule. This is beging the question: we shouldn't change the rule then, because of ... the rule?

No, I did not say full round, I said full round action. Quicken reduces a full round action spell (or less) to a Swift (free) action. There's a feat call Rapid Spell or something that reduces full round spells to a standard action for +1.

It does not matter. You have still spent four spell levels to achieve a lesser effect (standard instead of swift).

This whole debate can be held without the Swift rule. Just think of Quickened Spells. So, no, I don't agree with your dismissal of the intent.

You could, but you wouldn't. In 3.0 we had Haste and we did not have all these new Swift spells. So the problem probably never came up in playtest.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

So the problem probably never came up in playtest.

There is a situation that may have come up in playtesting that would be very similar though. On the Astral Plane all spells are considered to be Quickened, so the question "Can I cast one of my spells as a "slower" action type?" should have come up. I'd be interested in seeing what the answers were.

As for the OP's question, I would default to the possition of No. You can't cast a swift spell as a Standard Action. I'd say yes if it weren't for spells like Snake's Swiftness. It's fine if it's feather fall twice, but Snake's Swiftness are very abusable (unless there is a provision that the targets can one take one immediate action per round).

Edit: Looking at the description for Snake's Swiftness I see that it only allows only one additional attack per round regardless of source (from haste, another casting of SS, or from two-weapon fighting (?)). I'll have to take a look at other swift action spells and see if there are any other major combat ones in there. If not I'd allow a swift action as a standard action.

 

[Infiniti2000]

You have still spent four spell levels to achieve a lesser effect (standard instead of swift).

No, quite the opposite. Under the Pro-side, the caster has spent 4 spell levels for the option to make it a Swift or Standard Action. That's an improvement beyond the Quicken Spell feat. You're mischaracterizing the situation by forgetting that you're changing the action type on the fly.

As for the comment that I am begging the question, I disagree. The Pro-side is trying to lift a restriction and in the same breath claim that they are not lifting a restriction but imposing one. That is illogical.

But, why does Quicken Spell cost 4 spell levels if having a Swift action is not worth it? Let's see, you could cast magic missile as a standard action (worth 1 spell level) or as a Swift action (worth 5 spell levels). Which is more, 1 or 5?

And then, change it such that you can decide at the time of casting whether it would consume a Swift or Standard Action. Surely, it's not suddenly less than 5, is it? That's what the Pro-side is arguing, however.

 

[Musrum]

There is a situation that may have come up in playtesting that would be very similar though. On the Astral Plane all spells are considered to be Quickened, so the question "Can I cast one of my spells as a "slower" action type?" should have come up. I'd be interested in seeing what the answers were.

In the Manual of the Planes, the text says you "may" apply Quicken to your spells. So in 3.0 whenever this sort of case arises (Always Quickened), they either put is an option clause (Astral Plane) or handwave a new option mechanic in the FAQ (Auto Quicken). Why? Because without this, it is obviously broken. Astral Quicken (without the option) would mean that you could never get more than 1 spell off a round (without 3.0 Haste). This is so obviously wrong that it needs patching.
The trouble is, the same problem exists in general play. It is just not so obvious.

 

[Musrum]

No, quite the opposite. Under the Pro-side, the caster has spent 4 spell levels for the option to make it a Swift or Standard Action. That's an improvement beyond the Quicken Spell feat. You're mischaracterizing the situation by forgetting that you're changing the action type on the fly.

Actually I am not proposing that the Action Type changes. Simply that a Standard Action slot can be used to perform a Swift Action. This already has a precedent (with the Move Action).

As for the comment that I am begging the question, I disagree. The Pro-side is trying to lift a restriction and in the same breath claim that they are not lifting a restriction but imposing one. That is illogical.

We are lifting a restriction which is the artifact of poor design (One Swift Action only) whilst still retaining the the restriction that really matters for game balance (Two Spells only).

But, why does Quicken Spell cost 4 spell levels if having a Swift action is not worth it? Let's see, you could cast magic missile as a standard action (worth 1 spell level) or as a Swift action (worth 5 spell levels). Which is more, 1 or 5?

The four spell levels is paid so you can cast a spell as a Free Action (the no AoO is just gravy). Casting a spell as a Free Action is only valuable when you are doing something else with your turn (like casting another spell). So that is what you are paying for: casting two spells a round.

And then, change it such that you can decide at the time of casting whether it would consume a Swift or Standard Action. Surely, it's not suddenly less than 5, is it? That's what the Pro-side is arguing, however.

No, but you have paid for the option (even though circumstances arise such that you choose not to exercise the option). WoTC explicitly gives you this option an all cases where Quicken is "Automatic". But with the expansion of the Quicken Free Action into the Swift Action (along with the extra spells etc.) they have failed to apply the necessary rigour to these changes. A small "corner case" is just getting bigger and bigger with each new Swift spell/feat/whatever.