Swift spell as Standard Action?

[Dracorat]

Not quite, but close. I am saying that practically speaking, you could probably cast a swift action like 8 or ten times ina round. But we do have to maintain balance as much as we can. That's why the distinction.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I am saying that practically speaking, you could probably cast a swift action like 8 or ten times ina round. But we do have to maintain balance as much as we can. That's why the distinction.

Right, but its a distinction that is directly opposed to why you're allowing something to happen to begin with - making your argument self-contradictory!

 

[Musrum]

Actually I believe it is balanced to allow a Standard Action to perform a Swift Action + a Move Action.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Actually I am primarily talking about spells with a Swift Action casting time (not Quickened).

That's impossible, isn't it? If you allow Swift Actions, then Quicken Spell creates Swift Action spells.

In that case I am not talking about un-metamagicking so much as treating a Quickened spell as if it was truly transformed into a Swift Action spell. Not really the same thing.

Huh? I don't understand this comment at all.

If we had a rule as I suggest about Swift Action spells, it would apply to Quickened spells as well , I suppose, but that's far different from saying I suggest a rule about un-metamagicking spells.

It's not far, it's exact. If you apply it to Quickened spells then you're un-metamagicking those spells by definition. There's zero gray area on this point. Quicken = Swift action. Quicken != Standard Action.

Right, but its a distinction that is directly opposed to why you're allowing something to happen to begin with - making your argument self-contradictory!

Well said. That's what I've been trying to say, but you did it much more concisely and clearly.

 

[Justin Bacon]

Not at all. My logic requires nothing of the sort. Your strawman is a misrepresentation of my point. This analogy is more properly attributed to your logic, not mine.

I'm claiming that anything you do with an action must consume the MAXIMUM amount of time such an action could conceivably take?

... Hmm. No. That's not me. Nice try, though.

You know what they say, never say never.

That isn't a spell.

Fixed that for you.

Thank you for admitting that you're misquoting me and delibeately strawmanning my argument.

Not at all. That is completely illogical because the definition of the "FORM of action" is something you just now made up in an attempt to justify your position.

I humbly submit that you wouldn't know logic if it snuck up and bit you in the ass. Your claim that I "made up" the idea of a move action being different from a standard action is also very, very strange.

This is incongruous with the rest of your view point. If a swift action is truly what you say it is here (flavor-wise, not rules-wise), than how is it not a significant conflict to allow two of them per round?

What I actually said: "...since taking a second would distract you from the other actions you're taking." If you're not taking a full action or a standard action (because you're using a standard action to take a second swift action), there is no other action to distract you from.

At this point, I'm forced to conclude that you're either incapable of understanding basic logic and English or that you're deliberately being hostile and belligerent. Either way, you're a waste of my time.

 

[Justin Bacon]

Two things: 1. Its magic. It doesn't necessarily make sense. 2. Try snapping your fingers. Now try and slow that snap down to 5 seconds. It can't be done. You can spend more or less time setting up your hand, but you cannot slow down the actual snap without giving up the sound.

This argument still makes no sense. It is exactly equivalent to claiming that a character with a speed of 30 shouldn't be allowed to move only 15 feet.

Let's say you can normally move 30 feet in X amount of time. Therefore, a move action must last for X amount of time. Yet if you move 15 feet at the same pace, it would only take you X/2 amount of time! And yet a full move action has been expended! WHERE DOES THE EXTRA TIME GO? BY DOING THIS YOU ARE RUPTURING THE SPACETIME CONTINUUM AND BRINGING ABOUT THE END OF ALL EXISTENCE!

Or, possibly, you move 15 feet and that little bit of "extra time" is simply wasted: You didn't do anything with it, even though you could have.

Similarly, casting a spell using a standard action takes X amount of time. Therefore, a standard action must last for X amount of time. Casting a spell using a swift action, according to RAW, explicitly takes less time than this. So what happens if you cast a swift spell (at the same speed you would normally cast it) and expend your standard action doing it?

Does the space-time continuum rupture? Or is the "extra time" simply wasted?

Now, for those still obsessed with the belief that this logic "must" allow you to use a move action to take a swift action, please remember that the difference between a move action and a standard action is not defined in terms of TIME, but in terms of WHAT you can do with the action.

 

[Justin Bacon]

Of course, the HR is like saying "You can draw a weapon as a Free Action with Quickdraw, but you lose your standard action for the round if you take any other Free Actions beforehand."

Now, tell me, how does that make sense?

No. It makes absolutely no sense that you would drag free actions into this as a completely illogical non sequitur.

 

[Justin Bacon]

How can snapping make it so you can't take a Full Attack Action if it is a Swift Action, and thus takes the same amount of time as other Free Actions, one of which is drawing an arrow, which is taken many times every single time an archer takes a Full Attack Action?

Please quote the RAW that states a swift action takes the same amount of time as a free action.

...

It doesn't say that? Weird. It's almost as if you just made that crap up.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Please quote the RAW that states a swift action takes the same amount of time as a free action.

Read the description of swift action.

It doesn't say that? Weird. It's almost as if you just made that crap up.

Or I read the rules.


To expand on Patryn's very good and succinct point above, I'll try and sum up why the thought process on this thread seems off to some of us (or at least me).

1. Initial thought: Swift Actions are restricted to one per round not because of any realistic necessity, but because of a game balance necessity. That is, if a class could cast as many swift action spells per round as desired, then it would drastically increase the class. Therefore, this restriction artificial, existing only for game balance.

2. Solution: Because the swift action is restricted to keep spellcasters from casting three spells per round, if we allow a second swift spell and disalow the caster from then taking a standard action, then the reason for the restriction remains in tact.

3: Coloroy: In order to keep game balance, we must restrict this swift action from taking the place of a move action. It must take the place of a standard action.

4. Problem: Swift Actions must be restricted to two per round not because of any realistic necessity, but because of a game balance necessity. That is, if a class could cast as many swift action spells per round as desired, then it would drastically increase the class. Therefore, this restriction is artificial, existing only for game balance.

So we're right back where we started.

 

[Musrum]

Read the description of swift action.



Or I read the rules.

[SRD]
Free Actions

Free actions don’t take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn.

Swift Actions

A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action.

[/SRD]

0 != 0.00001