Swift spell as Standard Action?

[Crothian]

Reason also says a Swift Action takes no longer than pulling out an arrow during a full attack or dropping your sword or the myriad of other Free Actions that exist. Swift Actions take almost no time at all. Reason tells me that if I can drop two weapons and draw two more with Quickdraw and still take a Full Attack, there's absolutely no way a Swift spell can take the place of a Standard Action.

Ya, somethings just can't be slowed down like that. And the rules agree.

 

[ThirdWizard]

That makes no sense.

A swift action just doesn't take enough time to perform to have it make any sense that performing two swift actions would consume a character's standard action. They take no more time than a Free Action, but consume more effort, so you can only do 1 per round. Basically, the flavor behind Swift Action precludes what you want to do, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Dracorat]

And with that statement, you are rehashing statements already made. I could rebut with the same statements I already made, but suffice it to say your argument holds no water with me.

 

[ThirdWizard]

And with that statement, you are rehashing statements already made. I could rebut with the same statements I already made, but suffice it to say your argument holds no water with me.

Well... you haven't actually. You've made a number of incorrect statements, made flawed reasoning with a spear wielding feat, and made claims that your stance as more realistic, but that doesn't constitute a rubuttal in my eyes.

 

[Dracorat]

That's just because you aren't listening. None of the reasoning is flawed. I explained it completely. You just don't agree but feel the need to "convert" me to your "way".

It won't happen.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I'm not trying to convert you to my. I'm saying that your House Rule isn't the end all be all of what is "reasonable."

 

[Dracorat]

But you *are* saying it's not reasonable, by attempting to convert swift actions in to some sort of effort they are not. They used to be free actions which are adjudicated as "allowed to perform as many times in a round as your DM allows" and so quickened actions were explicitly restricted to one.

But by quickening a spell and casting it, over casting it as regular, in a standard action, you gain nothing, but lose a higher level spell slot, so your arguments are grounded in bad logic. You are only supported in that this situation was not explicitly addressed and so the higher level of default rules supports your claim.

But it doesn't mean the rules make sense. They are just rules.

So, we disagree. But instead of simply placing both of our opinions out there, to allow the individuals of the community form their own opinions, I get the distinct message that there is a requirement to prove my position as flawed.

And my simple statement to the entire issue is that neither position is flawed. They are simply positions. One is a strict and cold adherance to rules. A position that I will uphold on any RPGA event I partake in.

And the other is a position of interpretation to spirit of the law. One I will uphold on any non-RPGA.

Positions. Of difference, but not of superiority, inferioirity, or of a need to be "right or wrong". Simply. Positions.

 

[ThirdWizard]

The thing I don't understand about your position, is the question of how can casting a swift action spell (which takes almost no time to cast) prevent someone from taking a standard action? I understand that its balanced. I understand that mechanically, a HR to that effect would work fine. What I want to know is how does it make sense in game?

If I cast energy surge twice from two prepared slots, it doesn't take more time than dropping a weapon and quick drawing another one which allows a full round action to take place after it. So, if I cast energy surge twice as above, what is preventing me from taking a full round action conceptually?

 

[Dracorat]

Nothing.

But there does have to be a limit somewhere for game balance. The changes proposed by me and the people who agree with me don't alter game balance. They do allow an action not strictly allowed by the rules, but what they allow coincides with the rest of what is usually allowed. See my comment regarding move actions.

However, if we allowed people to just use up all the quickened spells they could, then they would blow their load in the first round of combat.

So, we have to ask ourselves. Does the allowing of two spells, one quickened, and one not, but was prepared as such - alter the game more than if only one were quickened from the start?

My position : It doesn't. If nothing, it penalizes the player.

A position I understand but don't agree with: It does because they need to prepare better.

A position I understand but don't agree with outside of core Wizards activities: It's not RAW so it's not allowable.

A position I do not understand nor agree with: Quickened actions are somehow not physically possible multiple times in the same round due to some laws-of-the-universe limitation.

 

[irdeggman]

A position I do not understand nor agree with: Quickened actions are somehow not physically possible multiple times in the same round due to some laws-of-the-universe limitation.

But this is the one contained in the RAW.

That a character can only perform 1 swift action per round. A quickened spell is also a swift action per the "new" definitions.

Without the new defintion of swift actions then only Quickened spells are the issue and that , likewise has a restriction per the RAW of only 1 quickened spell per round.

So the logic/understanding test may fail but the rules as written still applies.