Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Swift spell as Standard Action?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 3112665" data-attributes="member: 3424"><p>Simply from the balance perspective, the real issue is whether a swift action is <u>generally</u> more valuable than a standard action. There will, of course, be <u>specific</u> instances where a particular swift action is more useful than any other standard action that a character could take.</p><p></p><p>However, there will also be specific instances where a particular move action is more valuable than any other standard action that a character could take - for example, a character on the other side of a door from an large group of orcs may decide to move to the door (a move action) and close it (using his standard action to take a second move action) instead of taking another standard action. Yet, nobody seems to be arguing that trading a standard action for a move action is unbalanced.</p><p></p><p>Unless it can be shown that a swift action is generally more valuable than a standard action, I am not convinced that trading a standard action for a swift action is inherently unbalanced. </p><p></p><p>1. Quickened spells already have an inherent cost in terms of the higher spell slot.</p><p>2. The channeled spells from PHB2 that could be cast as either a swift, standard or full-round action have a reduced effect if cast as a swift action. </p><p>3. Many swift spells and abilities that enhance a spell, attack or some other ability last only 1 round, so casting another enhancing-type swift spell is usually a sub-optimal decision (following up with an offensive swift spell is a possibility, but see points 1 and 2).</p><p>4. Most immediate action spells are defensive in nature, and while I can see how being able to roll out defensive abilities twice in one round could be useful, I don't see it as being inherently unbalanced.</p><p></p><p>If the problem is with a specific swift-action spell or ability, it seems to me to be simpler to house-rule that the specific spell or ability cannot be used more than once per round. Naturally, YMMV.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FireLance, post: 3112665, member: 3424"] Simply from the balance perspective, the real issue is whether a swift action is [U]generally[/U] more valuable than a standard action. There will, of course, be [U]specific[/U] instances where a particular swift action is more useful than any other standard action that a character could take. However, there will also be specific instances where a particular move action is more valuable than any other standard action that a character could take - for example, a character on the other side of a door from an large group of orcs may decide to move to the door (a move action) and close it (using his standard action to take a second move action) instead of taking another standard action. Yet, nobody seems to be arguing that trading a standard action for a move action is unbalanced. Unless it can be shown that a swift action is generally more valuable than a standard action, I am not convinced that trading a standard action for a swift action is inherently unbalanced. 1. Quickened spells already have an inherent cost in terms of the higher spell slot. 2. The channeled spells from PHB2 that could be cast as either a swift, standard or full-round action have a reduced effect if cast as a swift action. 3. Many swift spells and abilities that enhance a spell, attack or some other ability last only 1 round, so casting another enhancing-type swift spell is usually a sub-optimal decision (following up with an offensive swift spell is a possibility, but see points 1 and 2). 4. Most immediate action spells are defensive in nature, and while I can see how being able to roll out defensive abilities twice in one round could be useful, I don't see it as being inherently unbalanced. If the problem is with a specific swift-action spell or ability, it seems to me to be simpler to house-rule that the specific spell or ability cannot be used more than once per round. Naturally, YMMV. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Swift spell as Standard Action?
Top