Swift spell as Standard Action?

[Stalker0]

I would suggest the argument about whether its balanced to cast swift spells as standard actions be moved to a house rules thread. The rules are clear on this one, the debate is over. But I think its an interesting look at balance and the like and so worth a look as a house rule.

 

[Infiniti2000]

But at my personal table, I would say "yes that's fine" without a second thought.

Do you allow wizards to cast spells spontaneously? That's essentially what you're doing. If you require the wizard to prepare his spells ahead of time and he prepares a spell as quickened, then it's quickened. He cannot un-quicken it into a 1st-level slot on the fly. I'm not offering this as more rules confirmation btw (I realize you agree from that perspective), but from the real-world sense, such as it is. It makes no sense to allow a wizard (or any preparing spellcaster) to modify a spell on the fly in this case and not others, such as spontaneously quickening a spell. The exact same argument goes for spells that are naturally cast as Swift actions.

 

[Dracorat]

I don't see it as an un-quickening.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I don't see it as an un-quickening.

But isn't that effectively what you are doing? It used to be quickened (ie a swift action/free action limited to 1/round) and is back to being a normal standard action. That is un-quickening it... Of course, the spell I would assume still takes up a higher level spell slot. But who knows with these new rules...

 

[MarkB]

What you need to ask is why, in your gameworld, a character can cast only one Quickened spell per round. After all, it takes less practically no time - why can't you cast two, or ten?

The obvious answer would be that casting a spell of that type takes some form of special effort - heightened concentration, or rigorous mental exertion.

If you can't do that more than once a round while taking normal actions, why would you be able to do it more than once a round while not taking any particular additional actions? It's still going to cost you the same effort to cast the second one, becaause that's how you memorised it.

 

[starwed]

I doubt there are any cases where casting two quickened spells in a round would be unbalancing; therefore, I'd allow it even though it isn't RAW.

I don't think the same is true of swift actions. Some abilities are balanced based on the idea that they can't be used more than once a round. When this balance is created by using the swift action type, allowing two such actions by any means can throw it off kilter.

On a case by case basis, I'd allow it as a house rule. But I probably wouldn't, for instance, allow someone to switch Tome of Battle stances twice a round in order to obtain some sort of weird benefit. (Such as quickly adopting a prestige classes "special stance").

 

[ThirdWizard]

With casting a swift spell as a standard action, it is not presumed that the casting time actually takes the entire standard action,

So by "as a standard action" you mean "instead of a standard action."

But, then we run into the problem that Swift Actions don't take long enough for that to be true. You can use many many Free Actions a turn which take no longer than a Swift Action. So why would one extra Swift Action take up a Standard Action? That makes no sense to me.

Sure, there might not be anything wrong balance-wise with a HR to that effect, but to me the flavor is off.

 

[irdeggman]

What would be the reason for such a restriction? Obviously, they don't have to say you can't cast more than one spell in a round because spells already take at least a standard action in most cases. But before they defined swift actions, quickened spells were merely a free action. Thus, if they had not included a limitation, then one could theoretically cast as many quickened spells per round as he had prepared. I cannot see a rationale for including that rule otherwise. I really doubt the designers were worried about someone casting two quickened magic missiles. I think it makes far more sense if they were worried about someone casting two quickened magic missiles AND cone of cold. They obviously weren't worried about someone casting one quickened magic missile and cone of cold. So why would two quickened magic missiles bother them?

But they did include the limitation that you could only cast 1 quickened spell per round so it is obvious that is what they meant. So making it merely a free action without the specified limitation is not a real good argument to use, IMO.

 

[airwalkrr]

But they did include the limitation that you could only cast 1 quickened spell per round so it is obvious that is what they meant. So making it merely a free action without the specified limitation is not a real good argument to use, IMO.

Consider my argument as a whole. My contention is that in my opinion the rule exists for balance alone; the chief balance concern being the casting of more than two spells per round. If you could cast five quickened spells and a regular spell, quicken spell becomes too powerful. However, if you cast two quickened spells and forfeit the ability to cast a regular spell, you are not doing anything you could not have done otherwise. On one hand, you do have more flexibility as a caster if you can cast quickened spells by forfeiting your standard action, but on the other hand it carries a hefty opportunity cost of four spell levels. Are you really going to tell me it is unbalancing for a 9th level wizard to forfeit his standard action to cast an additional quickened magic missile, or quickened ray of enfeeblement, or any other quickened 1st level spell? He is already capable of casting a two 1st level spells per round and that is hardly overpowering.

 

[Ceska]

Just to get it right for me...

Casting a spell with casting time "1 swift action" AND a spell with a casting time of "1 standard action" is possible per raw.

But casting two quickened spells as swift actions is not ( one as swift action, one swapping a standart action for it)?

In this case, at my table, I would allow it, since swapping a standart action for an action taking minor time (a swift action) is fine with me. The player would have to cast it as quickened spell, so casting it at a higher spell slot.

Just my 2 cent.