Swift spell as Standard Action?

[billd91]

The other problem with allowing a character to cast 2 swift action/quickened spells in a round is because that's two spells that don't provoke AoO by virtue of their action type. Normally, when able to cast 2 spells a round, only one of them gets that pass.

In the hypothetical case of a character with a quickened magic missile and a scorching ray who fails to cast their initial attempt at a swift spell, I'd probably let him burn the magic missile as a standard action (subject to AoO), using the spell slot it was prepared in. The spell is prepared with the extra metamagic structure, but rather than invoke it with his normal completion action (swift action), he uses the completion action for the regular casting (standard action). He just ends up not using all of the mnemonic/mystic/whatever structure he built into it.

It may not be in the RAW, but it seems pretty fair.

 

[Dracorat]

That's exactly what I would do. The second one would provoke as normal. See the part where I did a faux-writeup of an addendum to the rule.

 

[Pbartender]

So, if a swift action can be swapped for an equal or longer action to get more of them, how about swapping a standard action for an equal or longer action?

Why is it okay to swap a standard action for a limited-to-once-per-round swift action to break the rule and get more of them, but it's not okay to do something similar with a standard action?

Why is it not okay to swap the swift action for the movement action, so you can cast three spells?

Where do you draw the line on which actions can swap for which?

Too bad D&D doesn't take a hint from Spycraft, and simplify it to three simple action types... Full, Half and Free. You get one full or two half, and as many free as your GM let's you get away with. That's it.


It would be much easier and simpler to houserule, "Swift action no longer exist. Everything that was a swift action is now a free action, but I reserve the right as a DM to enforce a limit on the reasonable number of free actions you can take in a round."

 

[ThirdWizard]

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.

It's fairly simple to create an explain why you can't cast more than one swift spell per round. Say, casting a swift spell takes a lot more effort to cast than a normal spell even though it takes less time to cast, indeed because it takes less time to cast. It's too draining to cast two of them without a bit of time to catch one's magical breath so to speak. That seems perfectly reasonable, explains the swift spells, and matches the RAW for swift spells.

I think that makes more sense than casting two quickened spells means the character is restricted from attacking or drinking a potion or whatnot because... "nothing."

 

[Ceska]

But why a Standard Action? I mean, if your rationale is "swapping a standart action for an action taking minor time" you might as well make it a Move Action. That also takes more time than a swift action. Why is swapping a Standard for a Swift okay, but not a Move for a Swift???

´Cause in my way of thinking, when casting two spells by using a standard action and a swift action is possible by RAW, it´s (imho) possible to swap a standard action for a swift spell, so casting two swift spells. In the case of a quickened spell it´s the player who loses an advantage, ´cause he has to use a spell on a higher slot (because it is quickened) for casting a spell that he could have cast as a standard action anyway.

 

[Dracorat]

Then why can't you cast a quickened spell and short haft? (In response to ThirdWizard)

 

[ThirdWizard]

Then why can't you cast a quickened spell and short haft? (In response to ThirdWizard)

I'm perfectly willing to admit that makes no sense. I do think that for the most part, however, RAW makes much more sense than your HR, which seems more artificial. For example, in your HR, you can use short haft twice, but even though it takes no more time to do that than Quick Drawing two weapons, you still can't make an attack after doing that. If you really want short haft to make sense, I'd say make it a normal free action instead.

 

[Dracorat]

Personally I wouldn't be opposed to that on the part of shorthaft, but my rule is simply that you can take a swift action as a standard action instead of a different standard action. If the action could have been done as a standard action, use its standard action rules for figuring out how to handle the standard action. Quick, simple, effective.

But certainly a houserule, I do admit.

 

[Artoomis]

To me the silly thing is that you cannot use a Standard Action to take a second Swift Action.

It makes perfect sense that you cannot do this with a Move Action as that would gain you a third action in the round, which is clearly outside the intent.

 

[Hypersmurf]

To me the silly thing is that you cannot use a Standard Action to take a second Swift Action.

It makes perfect sense that you cannot do this with a Move Action as that would gain you a third action in the round, which is clearly outside the intent.

Hmm? I can already take a Swift action, a Move action, and a Standard action in a round; a Swift action allowing a third action in a round seems to be exactly the intent...?

-Hyp.