Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Artoomis" data-source="post: 3630087" data-attributes="member: 111">Wow - this is pretty backwards.I think you meant:"I have a feeling it wouldn't be a good idea to allow taking a second swift action in the place of a standard action."I would have no problem, with it at all.   I think it works well, and, in some cases, it is really dumb to not allow it.  With the caveat, of course, that it is treated as a standard action - that is, it does not avoid provoking an AoO the way a Swift Action does.It seems very silly, for example, to do a Swift Action and a Move action and not take any Standard Action and yet have used up your Swift/Immediate Action for the round.  Makes no sense at all.You do NOT end up being allowed to take two Swift Actions in a round.  You do end up being able to take two actions, one of which is a Standard Action that is eligible to be a Swift Action - which is a different way of thinking about Swift/Immediate Actions.I think it is best to think about these three action types as a hiearchy.All of them may be taken as Standard Actions.A smaller set of them may be taken as Swift Actions, if you have yet taken a Swift Action or an Immediate Action.An even smaller set may be taken as Immediate Actions, if you have not yet taken a Swift Action or another Immeidate Action.</blockquote>