Title is straight forward question. Can one use a move, or even standard action to perform additional swift actions?
I know it makes sense, but is there any rules for or against this?
"Swift Action: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform only a single swift action per turn."
|
"Swift Action: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform only a single swift action per turn."
That being said, a swift action does consume less time than a move action.
so, if you do not take a move action, I would grant you (and I believe this is the intent of the designers) a swift action in place of a move action.In addition, since a standard action is the action that has the highest priority and can be downgraded to a move action, I would also grant (and I believe it is the intent of the designers) a swift action in place of a standard action as well.
a swift action is simply something that requires very little time, albeit slightly more than a free action, so if you want to give up your major actions in a round (standard or move) in place of a swift action, I don't see that as being a problem for either or both.
Again, I believe this to be the intent of the designers, but as RAW, it may need some clarification.
Standard Actions require the most time but can be downgraded to...
Move Actions take significant time but can be downgraded to...
Swift Actions take nearly no time at all (still only one per round as RAW) and only on your turn.
Free Actions are just that... free. Take as many as you want within realistic and/or DM fiat, even when it is not your turn.
I'd go as far as letting you do three swift actions in one round:
One swift action as normal.
One swift action in place of the move action.
One swift action in place of the standard action.
edit: What Qemuel said.
So in your games I could cast 3 swift action spells in a round?
Sweet deal...
|
|
So in your games I could cast 3 swift action spells in a round?
Sweet deal...
can a swift action spell and a non-swift action spell be cast in the same round now???
Edit: Okay, found this (I feel better and stand by my previous ruling... for now...)
Casting Time
Most spells have a casting time of 1 standard action. Others take 1 round or more, while a few require only a swift action.A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.
A spell that takes 1 minute to cast comes into effect just before your turn 1 minute later (and for each of those 10 rounds, you are casting a spell as a full-round action, just as noted above for 1-round casting times). These actions must be consecutive and uninterrupted, or the spell automatically fails.
When you begin a spell that takes 1 round or longer to cast, you must continue the concentration from the current round to just before your turn in the next round (at least). If you lose concentration before the casting is complete, you lose the spell.
A spell with a casting time of 1 swift action doesn't count against your normal limit of one spell per round. However, you may cast such a spell only once per round. Casting a spell with a casting time of 1 swift action doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.
You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect.
Edit 2nd time: I'm also thinking of Swift Actions as defined by Star Wars Saga, so there may be a rule that will get me to change my mind and I'm always willing to debate and be swayed
can a swift action spell and a non-swift action spell be cast in the same round now???
Yes. You can cast both a Quickened spell and a normal spell in the same round, if you so desire.
It's a little more of a stretch to allow two Quickened spells and a normal one in exchange for giving up your move action, but I don't see it as particularly game-breaking.
can a swift action spell and a non-swift action spell be cast in the same round now???Yes. You can cast both a Quickened spell and a normal spell in the same round, if you so desire.
It's a little more of a stretch to allow two Quickened spells and a normal one in exchange for giving up your move action, but I don't see it as particularly game-breaking.
It can be. Especially with the change to how spontaneous spellcasting and quicken works. Really starts to depend on what kind of spellcaster your talking about, and what spells. Kind of an archtypical ymmv scenario.
With the limitation in the rules of one swift action spell a round, I'm a little more incline to think that there might have been the intention for you to be able to trade up, but what about immediate actions (which eat your swift action for the next round), if your able to give up a move or standard action for a swift action, can you likewise take more than one immediate action?
So in your games I could cast 3 swift action spells in a round?
Sweet deal...
can a swift action spell and a non-swift action spell be cast in the same round now???
Edit: Okay, found this (I feel better and stand by my previous ruling... for now...)
Edit 2nd time: I'm also thinking of Swift Actions as defined by Star Wars Saga, so there may be a rule that will get me to change my mind and I'm always willing to debate and be swayedCasting Time
Most spells have a casting time of 1 standard action. Others take 1 round or more, while a few require only a swift action.A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.
A spell that takes 1 minute to cast comes into effect just before your turn 1 minute later (and for each of those 10 rounds, you are casting a spell as a full-round action, just as noted above for 1-round casting times). These actions must be consecutive and uninterrupted, or the spell automatically fails.
When you begin a spell that takes 1 round or longer to cast, you must continue the concentration from the current round to just before your turn in the next round (at least). If you lose concentration before the casting is complete, you lose the spell.
A spell with a casting time of 1 swift action doesn't count against your normal limit of one spell per round. However, you may cast such a spell only once per round. Casting a spell with a casting time of 1 swift action doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.
You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect.
I find it amusing that you're willing to ignore the rule that says you can only ever perform 1 swift action in a round, but not the rule that says you can only ever cast 1 swift action spell in a round. Seems like a case of po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe to me.
The intent of the design is clear: one swift action a round, period, end of story. There are WAY too many rules complications with allowing multiple swift actions (not the least of which is totally screwing up Immediate Actions).
Why can't a swift action be traded up?
Not that it matters, with a character limited to 1 swift action a round it doesn't really matter which action you use to perform the swift action...
Why can't a swift action be traded up?
Not that it matters, with a character limited to 1 swift action a round it doesn't really matter which action you use to perform the swift action...
If swift actions could be traded up, including casting swift action spells, you'd be opening up potential issues. For example, there are a little over 100 swift spells in WotC 3.5 materials. All of them were designed with the assumption that the swift action could not be taken by throwing your move action at it. Would all of them be balanced if, for example, you cast one as your swift, one traded into your move action, and then make a standard action attack or cast a spell? Probably not.
I like the simplification of actions SWSE went with. Your round = 1 standard + 1 move + 1 swift and any longer action could be swapped out for a shorter one, even down to 3 swifts. That's great and simpler than full, standard, move, swift, free, and immediate. But I don't think 3.5 actions, particularly 3.5's swift spells, were developed with that in mind.
|
Why can't a swift action be traded up?
Not that it matters, with a character limited to 1 swift action a round it doesn't really matter which action you use to perform the swift action...
Mainly because the book doesn't say you can. It says you can use a standard action as another move...but that's really it. :)
If swift actions could be traded up, including casting swift action spells, you'd be opening up potential issues.Why can't a swift action be traded up?
Not that it matters, with a character limited to 1 swift action a round it doesn't really matter which action you use to perform the swift action...
How?
What issue does it cause if I use a Full Round action to activate my one swift action a round?
What issues arise if I use my Move action to activate my one swift action a round?
|
|
If swift actions could be traded up, including casting swift action spells, you'd be opening up potential issues.Why can't a swift action be traded up?
Not that it matters, with a character limited to 1 swift action a round it doesn't really matter which action you use to perform the swift action...
How?
What issue does it cause if I use a Full Round action to activate my one swift action a round?
What issues arise if I use my Move action to activate my one swift action a round?
I think they were under the assumption that you could trade actions to gain MORE swift actions.
How?
What issue does it cause if I use a Full Round action to activate my one swift action a round?
What issues arise if I use my Move action to activate my one swift action a round?
Think about what you're asking for a second. If you only get one swift action a round, why would you need to use standard or move action as a swift action? After all, you always get one swift, one move, and one standard action a round (barring conditions). If you've GOT a swift action, what's the point in trading in a move or standard for one, given that you can only USE one?
It keeps the rules simple and prevents obscure rules loopholes.
Think about what you're asking for a second. [...] If you've GOT a swift action, what's the point in trading in a move or standard for one, given that you can only USE one?How?
What issue does it cause if I use a Full Round action to activate my one swift action a round?
What issues arise if I use my Move action to activate my one swift action a round?
I'll refer you to my post that Bill Dunn quoted that started this loop...
Why can't a swift action be traded up?
Not that it matters, with a character limited to 1 swift action a round it doesn't really matter which action you use to perform the swift action...
So... I am fairly certain I did think about it. Probably more than others.
If swift actions could be traded up, including casting swift action spells, you'd be opening up potential issues.Why can't a swift action be traded up?
Not that it matters, with a character limited to 1 swift action a round it doesn't really matter which action you use to perform the swift action...
How?
What issue does it cause if I use a Full Round action to activate my one swift action a round?
What issues arise if I use my Move action to activate my one swift action a round?
Because if you're not trading up to get additional swift actions, there absolutely no point to doing it. Trading up only make sense if you're getting additional swift actions out of it and therein lies the likelihood of encountering problems.
Did you read the rest of my post?
There's no REASON to "trade down" except to exploit game mechanics in some fashion or other. Thus, to prevent game mechanics from being exploited, you cannot trade down to a swift action.
Did you read the rest of my post?
No. Absolutely not.
Which happens to be why I quoted my original post, hence italicised and bolded for clarity.
Not that it matters, with a character limited to 1 swift action a round it doesn't really matter which action you use to perform the swift action...
Come on...
Well, as long as you admit to trolling, then.
OK, the only situation where I would allow 'trading up' would be if a Caster has a Swift Spell and wants to cast it as a Standard Action. This COULD be to also Cast another Swift Spell (which is castable with 'normal' Standard Spells anyways), OR on a Surprise Round with only a Standard/Move Action (no Swift), Casting the Swift Spell 'slower' likewise isn't an unfair 'advantage'.
Beyond that example, you shouldn't be able to do more than 1 Swift Action per round.
Did you read the rest of my post?No. Absolutely not.
Which happens to be why I quoted my original post, hence italicised and bolded for clarity.
Not that it matters, with a character limited to 1 swift action a round it doesn't really matter which action you use to perform the swift action...Come on...
If you wish to play ineffectively, then other than possible entry into the Darwin awards, theres nothing to stop you...however, under those circumstances, I would say that you don't want to use your one swift action for a swift action, you must give up your swift action and your full round action to take a swift action.
Why?
Because there is always an exception to a rule, and by disallowing the trading of actions like that, you limit the potential game breaking effects of such an exception (not to say all exceptions are game breaking, but many of them tend to be the basis for it)
If you wish to play ineffectively, then other than possible entry into the Darwin awards, theres nothing to stop you...however, under those circumstances, I would say that you don't want to use your one swift action for a swift action, you must give up your swift action and your full round action to take a swift action.
Why?
Because there is always an exception to a rule, and by disallowing the trading of actions like that, you limit the potential game breaking effects of such an exception (not to say all exceptions are game breaking, but many of them tend to be the basis for it)
Damn. You absolutely right.
I forgot we have to coddle and hold the hands of game players now.
Least common denominator. I'll work to remember that in the future.
If you wish to play ineffectively, then other than possible entry into the Darwin awards, theres nothing to stop you...however, under those circumstances, I would say that you don't want to use your one swift action for a swift action, you must give up your swift action and your full round action to take a swift action.
Why?
Because there is always an exception to a rule, and by disallowing the trading of actions like that, you limit the potential game breaking effects of such an exception (not to say all exceptions are game breaking, but many of them tend to be the basis for it)
Damn. You absolutely right.
I forgot we have to coddle and hold the hands of game players now.
Least common denominator. I'll work to remember that in the future.
Read the whole post.
Then don't try to be a troll.
OK, the only situation where I would allow 'trading up' would be if a Caster has a Swift Spell and wants to cast it as a Standard Action. This COULD be to also Cast another Swift Spell (which is castable with 'normal' Standard Spells anyways), OR on a Surprise Round with only a Standard/Move Action (no Swift), Casting the Swift Spell 'slower' likewise isn't an unfair 'advantage'.
Beyond that example, you shouldn't be able to do more than 1 Swift Action per round.
I'd extend this to allowing any spells with a casting time of "one swift action" to be cast with a standard action instead.
This isn't so much 'trading up' a swift action, as it is casting the spell differently.
|
One good example occurred in our game this weekend. the Cleric used a Close Wounds spell on the Barbarian who took damage below 0 using her Immediate action (and thus next rounds Swift action).
In the next round she wanted to get up the side of a 20 foot cliff and asked if she could use Updraft (a swift spell) as her Standard because she did not have a swift to burn.
Now in the case of spells I would trade a swift for a standard only, as you can get extra moves willy nilly (at least in 3.5).
--Vrock'em Sock'em Robots
|
|
I find it amusing that you're willing to ignore the rule that says you can only ever perform 1 swift action in a round, but not the rule that says you can only ever cast 1 swift...
Well, I try to be reasonable while playing by the rules. Sometimes things in first edition books get overlooked or left out. Just to point out, I was basing my opinion on the SWSE rules and haven't been able to delve too deep yet in the shiny new Pathfinder rules.
Most of the issues stated seem to come up around spellcasting, so I'm glad the rules prohibit more than one swift action spell.
That being said, now I'm really curious: What is an example of a non-spellcasting swift action that would cause the game to break if it was done in place of a standard or move action?
|
|
One good example occurred in our game this weekend. the Cleric used a Close Wounds spell on the Barbarian who took damage below 0 using her Immediate action (and thus next rounds Swift action).
In the next round she wanted to get up the side of a 20 foot cliff and asked if she could use Updraft (a swift spell) as her Standard because she did not have a swift to burn.
Now in the case of spells I would trade a swift for a standard only, as you can get extra moves willy nilly (at least in 3.5).
--Vrock'em Sock'em Robots
What was the ruling in the cleric's situation?
That being said, now I'm really curious: What is an example of a non-spellcasting swift action that would cause the game to break if it was done in place of a standard or move action?
Allowing multiple swift actions breaks immediate actions. Immediate actions are designed to be an either:or thing with swift actions, but if you allow the ability to trade in other actions for swift actions, you are also allowing the ability to use immediate actions and swift actions in the same timespace.
For a more direct example, there's paladins laying on hands on themselves; ordinarily this is a standard action to use on another character (thus one/round and replaces the paladin's attack). On the paladin, as a swift action, it's still one/round, but doesn't replace his attack. If you allow multiple swift actions in a round, the paladin can break this by laying hands on himself three times in a round, or twice in a round and then attacking.
In cases where the swift action is an upgrade from another action type (paladin's lay on hands on themselves, spells going from 1 round to a swift action, Bardic performance going standard > move > swift, improved feint) I would allow you to do the swift action thing as the normal action instead. So if a 13th level bard wanted to quicken a spell, cast a spell normally and then use his move action to start a bardic performance I would let him (he could have done this at 7th level, so I don't see why suddenly at 13th level it's game breaking). If a paladin wanted to lay on hands on himself twice I would let him, however it's going to eat both the swift action and the move action. If for some reason a mage wanted to cast a quickened spell but take the normal amount of time for doing so I would let him (especially since he's still paying those 4 extra spell levels for no benefit!), same with a rogue that feints as both a move and standard action (perhaps at two different opponents?).
However I wouldn't allow an action that got upgraded to a swift action to be exchanged for anything other than the normal type of action for that action.
I can't see any problem doing a "Swift Action" as a STANDARD Action.
I WOULDN'T allow it as a MOVE Action.
I also tend to think that the WotC Splat-Feat "Efficient Spell" is hugely broken beyond belief (Move Action Spellcasting for HALF the adjustment of Quicken, when in combination with Quicken it enables Casting *3* Spells/ round of Spell Level X, X-2, and X-4)
I can't see any problem doing a "Swift Action" as a STANDARD Action.
I WOULDN'T allow it as a MOVE Action.
This is what I've been considering as well. Move and Swift are special categories, and nothing else fits in that slot; Standard is sufficiently generic that you can use it to perform either of the other two. Paladin used an immediate action off-turn, now wants to lay hands on himself? I'm good with it, but no attack.
Edit: This is also the only way an armored mage can reliably cast a spell which normally takes a swift action. Swift to cancel failure chance, standard for the spell itself.
Since you can only take one swift action a round, there's no reason to give up a standard/move action to take a swift action; you'd be left with an unusable swift action. Why would you want an unusable action?
If you've used your swift action for the round, how could you give up a standard/move action to take another swift action? You can only take one per round.
Edit: Oh nevermind, this is a discussion of why you should be able to take more swift actions (: This is beyond the scope of the RAW.
|
|
So if a 13th level bard wanted to quicken a spell, cast a spell normally and then use his move action to start a bardic performance I would let him (he could have done this at 7th level, so I don't see why suddenly at 13th level it's game breaking).
Wow, that just turned this discussion upside down. That makes me think that it WAS the intention of the designers to allow using (at least) a standard action in place of a swift action.
LOL
So now that you are more powerful, you have just become more limited in what you can do... [i]silly rules[/]. ;-)
So if a 13th level bard wanted to quicken a spell, cast a spell normally and then use his move action to start a bardic performance I would let him (he could have done this at 7th level, so I don't see why suddenly at 13th level it's game breaking).
At 13th level, a bard can start a bardic performance as a swift action.
Starting bardic music is a special case - the bard can use a faster action, but doesn't have to.
That being said, I would allow character to do multiple swift actions in a round as long as they didn't abuse it. For example, if the paladin got mauled by an enemy in the surprise round and wanted to lay on hands himself and smite evil in the same round. Even if he can't attack, he'd still want the AC bonus from smite evil without waiting for his next turn to come up.
I can't see any problem doing a "Swift Action" as a STANDARD Action.
I WOULDN'T allow it as a MOVE Action.I also tend to think that the WotC Splat-Feat "Efficient Spell" is hugely broken beyond belief (Move Action Spellcasting for HALF the adjustment of Quicken, when in combination with Quicken it enables Casting *3* Spells/ round of Spell Level X, X-2, and X-4)
It's the Nova feat, so a caster can be a god for 5 rounds then be a wand jokey for the rest of the day. Amazing for PvP/ single encounter days but for real adventuring it can turn even a powerful wizard into bleh.
In the specific case of the bard and bardic music, you should note that a 7th level bard can start a performance as a move action and a 13th level bard can can start as a swift action. It doesn't indicate that it is a requirement, just that it's an option. So a 13th level bard, can start a performance using either a standard, a move, or a swift action.
I guess it would not be a problem allowing to trade in your standard action for another swift action. Letting the move action in, too, might be too much in some situations.
can a swift action spell and a non-swift action spell be cast in the same round now???
What do you mean, "now"? That was always the case.
|
|
I guess it would not be a problem allowing to trade in your standard action for another swift action. Letting the move action in, too, might be too much in some situations.
I would do the same but in all ways the Swift as Standard would be treated as a Standard meaning spells provoke AoO's.
--Vrock and Tackle
Well we have been discussing on if it would break the game or not, but we still have the question. Is this allowed in PRPG or not?
It is not stated in the rules, but from reading it, I personally would say no, but hope it was yes.
|
|
Well we have been discussing on if it would break the game or not, but we still have the question. Is this allowed in PRPG or not?
It is not stated in the rules, but from reading it, I personally would say no, but hope it was yes.
To summarize, this is what it sounds like we have come up with:
According to the rules as written, you only get one Swift Action per turn, no trading actions for an additional Swift Action. If you take an immediate action, that uses up your next round's Swift Action, so you are left with a Standard and a Move or a Full Action remaining for that round.Some DMs will have no problem letting you take a Swift Action as a Standard Action (with all the effects of using a Standard Action i.e. incurring AoO), but it is not as written. And since this is "your game" according to the introduction, you can change anything you like.
:-)
|
|
I guess it would not be a problem allowing to trade in your standard action for another swift action. Letting the move action in, too, might be too much in some situations.
What do you mean, "now"? That was always the case.
can a swift action spell and a non-swift action spell be cast in the same round now???
My bad. I meant to say more than one swift action spell...