Definitely need to change the 'one swift action per round' rule...


Homebrew and House Rules


I've always thought this but something came up at a local gaming store recently - a kid is running this buff-focused Evangelist Cleric with the Heroism/Glory Domain and apparently they leveled up at the end of the last session from 12th to 13th.

So the first combat rolls around and on his turn he says, almost by reflex "I start Inspire Courage and then activate my Heroism Aura"... and the GM looks at him and says 'you can't do that'. His face gets all scrunched up in confusion and he says 'that's what I always do' and his GM tells him that now that Inspire Courage is a swift action instead of a move action, that he can't use the two abilities in the same round anymore. So from 8th to 12th it was fine, but all of a sudden when the ability actually improves he can't do it anymore because of a poorly considered technicality in the rules.

In our home game a long time ago we adopted a more 4th Ed. version of actions in a round, namely that you could substitute any 'lesser' action for its 'greater' version. In other words, each round you had the choice of:

Full round action, swift action.
Standard action, move action, swift action
Standard action, swift action, swift action
Move action, move action, swift action
Move action, swift action, swift action
Swift action, swift action, swift action

The only real problem we ever encountered was the use of Quickened Spell and that was easily fixed by having Quicken reducing casting time to a move action instead of a swift, which is more appropriate in my opinion anyway.


Quote:

At 7th level, a bard can start a bardic performance as a move action instead of a standard action.

At 13th level, a bard can start a bardic performance as a swift action.

"can" =/= "must"

I will allow substituting a Swift for a Standard, but not for a Move.


"This ability is similar in all respects to bardic performance as used by a bard of the same level (including interactions with feats, spells, and prestige classes), using Perform (oratory) as the evangelist’s performance skill."

"At 7th level, a bard can start a bardic performance as a move action instead of a standard action. At 13th level, a bard can start a bardic performance as a swift action."

Can, not has to. He's fine continuing his combo.


Quandary wrote:
Quote:

At 7th level, a bard can start a bardic performance as a move action instead of a standard action.

At 13th level, a bard can start a bardic performance as a swift action.

"can" =/= "must"

I will allow substituting a Swift for a Standard, but not for a Move.

Azten wrote:

"This ability is similar in all respects to bardic performance as used by a bard of the same level (including interactions with feats, spells, and prestige classes), using Perform (oratory) as the evangelist’s performance skill."

"At 7th level, a bard can start a bardic performance as a move action instead of a standard action. At 13th level, a bard can start a bardic performance as a swift action."

Can, not has to. He's fine continuing his combo.

I have to admit, I've never heard nor considered an interpretation of the rules as being optional in that fashion. If that's the case it certainly would solve the problem - apparently the GM had had issues with it and Bards before using Inspire Courage and Arcane Strike. They were just kids and if I see them I'll pass along that interpretation for sure.

Still think the rule needs to be changed though. No reason I can imagine why a faster action can't be used in place of a slower one.

Sovereign Court

The problem is substituting a move action for a swift action is potentially broken. Some swift actions (noticeably, casting quickened spells) are better than some move actions. If you can downgrade, a spellcaster could cast three spells a round (standard, quickened, move->swift quickened).


Spell casters getting 3 spells around immediately comes to mind. That, and while it may be faster, I think it's also supposed to represent hosing a lot more energy to use the 'swift' action.


Bards can do inspire courage and arcane strike - Nothing wrong with this. You couldn't start inspire courage as a swift and do arcane strike the same turn, but while maintaining it or starting it as a move one would be fine.

As others have said, leveling up does not force you to do inspire courage as a swift action, one still has the option of doing it as a move or a standard.

There are other abilities where this is not true though and it can get a little wierd but that's the way it is. One could not for example cast feather fall multiple times a round.

The big reason not to allow a swift to move substitution is Quickened spells.

Lantern Lodge

Also, (most, if not all) swift actions do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Getting to take multiple actions ignoring the battle around you is a non-trivial benefit.


Quite honestly, characters often have more substantive options with Swifts than Moves, so the "Move>Swift" concept just doesn't hold up.
Allowing a second Swift for a Move is just radically changing game balance contrary to how it was written.
Such a relationship exists between Standards and Moves, but not between Moves and Swifts.
Allowing a second Swift for a Standard isn't as problematic, but of course munchkins don't like that as much.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

(Jayson: Using a spring-loaded wrist sheath is a swift action that provokes AoO.)


Quandary - I feel that prehaps you are being a bit harsh. Rather then forcing the application of a 'hierarchical paradigm' the question and suggestion come from a lack of expirience and prespective rather then munchkinism.

Hopefully Wiggz can return to the GM and the kid in question and explain the error that was made and in the process everyone involved can become a little more knowledgable.

However I could be wrong and it could be a munchkin in disguise, but I prefer to think that's not the case :)


I've found it silly that Paladins couldn't spend a standard action to smite or use lay on hands on themselves. In my home games I allow substituting a standard action for a swift.


Hawk - To be clear, I wasn't trying to say that the OP is motivated by munchkinism in this, I was just sharing my observation based on previous discussions of the topic by other players.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The particular incident that led to this question is a bad ruling by a GM; leveling as a Bard grants you the option of starting your performances using shorter actions but it doesn't remove your ability to still use a different action type to do so.

As to allowing action swaps (standard or move for swift): The limitation on swift actions appears to be a balancing mechanism; numerous powerful class abilities are tied to swift actions so that you have to strategize during combat and make choices on what you need to activate, and when.


As others have pointed out it is not a problem with the swift action rule, it is a problem with the referee's ruling. They are straight up wrong.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Xaratherus wrote:

The particular incident that led to this question is a bad ruling by a GM; leveling as a Bard grants you the option of starting your performances using shorter actions but it doesn't remove your ability to still use a different action type to do so.

As to allowing action swaps (standard or move for swift): The limitation on swift actions appears to be a balancing mechanism; numerous powerful class abilities are tied to swift actions so that you have to strategize during combat and make choices on what you need to activate, and when.

This. Swift actions were deliberately designed to have an opportunity cost. It justifies the power of some class abilities because they can only do it once per round.

Liberty's Edge

A swift action is not just a lesser action. Swift actions were introduced as a special form of Free Actions, along with immediate actions. It is it's own class of action. I disagree with the idea that there should be an official rule to change the substitution. If nothing else, there are a wide range of swift actions that have been placed as such with the knowledge that there is only one allowed per round as a design decision.

Regardless of whether the situation in the OP can be resolved with a liberal reading of the word can, if there is a problem in the ability's change from a move to a swift action, it is a problem with the ability, not the action economy. We're the language to read "...can use a move or swift action to..." It would solve the problem with the ability at question to everyone's satisfaction without rewriting a fundamental aspect of the action system that has been around since 2003-4.


Is there a question about the rules in this post?


It's like Jeopardy, "What rule is being broken here?" is the question to the posted answers.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GralphidB wrote:
Some swift actions (noticeably, casting quickened spells) are better than some move actions.
Azten wrote:
Spell casters getting 3 spells around immediately comes to mind.
Hawktitan wrote:
The big reason not to allow a swift to move substitution is Quickened spells.

Luckily, there is already a specific rule preventing characters from casting more than one Quickened spell in a round, so even if you could trade a move for a swift, you couldn't cast 3 spells per round.

Combat Rules wrote:

Cast a Quickened Spell

You can cast a quickened spell (see the Quicken Spell metamagic feat), or any spell whose casting time is designated as a free or swift action, as a swift action. Only one such spell can be cast in any round, and such spells don't count toward your normal limit of one spell per round. Casting a spell as a swift action doesn't incur an attack of opportunity.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Many things that take a swift action take that action for balance purposes. If you want to chang ethat, you get to examine all of those cases and decide which ones you can only do once in a round, like casting quickened spells (which already says you only get one because multiple spells in a round can be broken. The ones that aren't as broken are already less than a standard action anyway).


Cheapy wrote:
Is there a question about the rules in this post?

My apologies, moderator - I thought the Rules forum was a place to discuss the rules, not merely to ask questions about them. Fortunately, there seemed to be some rules confusion in my initial post - a question I didn't know I had, so to speak - leading to clarification by my board brethren. I hope that is still acceptable.


MrCab wrote:
Many things that take a swift action take that action for balance purposes. If you want to chang ethat, you get to examine all of those cases and decide which ones you can only do once in a round, like casting quickened spells (which already says you only get one because multiple spells in a round can be broken. The ones that aren't as broken are already less than a standard action anyway).

In our experience there haven't been any balance issues - though obviously our games are a terribly small sample size. With the Quickened Spell issue cleared up above, is there any other examples anyone can think of where two swift actions instead of a move and a swift action would result in problems with game balance?


Wiggz wrote:
In our experience there haven't been any balance issues - though obviously our games are a terribly small sample size. With the Quickened Spell issue cleared up above, is there any other examples anyone can think of where two swift actions instead of a move and a swift action would result in problems with game balance?

Well, the first thing I can think of is the Lay on Hands ability of the Paladin; he could heal himself for a pretty significant chunk of damage (without provoking) by burning all 'three' actions (swift, move->swift, and standard->swift). The Magus could be made pretty potent in this way, as well. Most of their arcana and uses of their arcane pool are swift actions. Gunslinger has a few grit abilities that require swift actions that could be stacked as well. Monk ki expenditure is often swift also.

There's also some exploits in that there are magic items that grant you extra move actions that you could then turn into swift actions.

Shadow Lodge

This has always bothered me as well. Swift actions are slower-than-free actions.

There might be an issue with AoO's. I can't think of a specific abuse though, even with 3 swift actions.

Shadow Lodge

Xaratherus wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
In our experience there haven't been any balance issues - though obviously our games are a terribly small sample size. With the Quickened Spell issue cleared up above, is there any other examples anyone can think of where two swift actions instead of a move and a swift action would result in problems with game balance?
Well, the first thing I can think of is the Lay on Hands ability of the Paladin; he could heal himself for a pretty significant chunk of damage (without provoking) by burning all 'three' actions (swift, move->swift, and standard->swift). The Magus could be made pretty potent in this way, as well. Most of their arcana and uses of their arcane pool are swift actions. Gunslinger has a few grit abilities that require swift actions that could be stacked as well. Monk ki expenditure is often swift also.

The paladin issue could easily be dealt with by expanding the "no more than one quickened spell in a round" rule to a "no repeating the same swift action in a single round" rule.

I'm not too familiar with magi and gunslingers, but I don't think monks typically get a lot out of spending multiple Ki points in a round in exchange for move actions. Of the basic ki abilities, one requires a full-round action (so it's no good if you trade your move to a swift to activate it), and one boosts your move speed (and if you want to move an extra 20ft it's better to spend your move on moving >20ft rather than spend a move and a ki point on boosting your speed). High jump is also a swift, but that's hardly unbalanced as a move. You're also giving up a full attack/flurry, which is a big deal.

Archetypes (or the magus or gunslinger, or feats) might offer better options, but you're still giving up full attacks (which means spell combat for the magus) and that's a big deal.

About the best use of "swift for move" I can think of is an Inquisitor activating Judgment and Bane in the same round - pretty big buffs, and an Inquisitor full attack isn't fantastic - and that still wasn't unbalancing in my group.

Quote:
There's also some exploits in that there are magic items that grant you extra move actions that you could then turn into swift actions.

This is a bit worrisome since it allows extra swifts without sacrificing full attacks, but could be avoided if you add a rule "if a character somehow gains more than one move action in a round, they may not trade move actions for swift actions in that round."

I would be hesitant to upset the established boundaries on action spending because of the wide range of things that could be unbalanced. But it really doesn't seem like there's a balance problem with allowing characters to trade standard -> move -> swift with the restrictions that you can't perform the same kind of swift action more than once in a round, and can't trade move for swift in a round in which you get more than one move action.


Free actions (and the limited version of swift action) are done while doing other things, that's why they don't take the time of Move or Standard actions.

I think a simple rule of "can't do the same swift action more than once a round" would prevent any nonsense brought about by allowing 'normally swift actions' done during a move or standard action.

Basically, you gave up doing something that takes longer than the action you intended (gave up moving 30 feet, opening a door, drawing a readied item, etc), to do this "normally free but once a round" action.

If someone wants to do three different normally swift actions in a round, but then gives up doing any kind of normal attacking, movement, etc, then I fail to see the balance issue.
The key being different swift actions (you are doing all three at once, in the time it would take you to full attack or move and attack).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I have no problem with the current rules on Swift actions.

To me, they are clearly written, are easy to run, and some of the more powerful Swift action abilities to exist, whilst maintaining balance.

Now, taking away the choice of action used to start a Bardic Performance, which is built in to the ability, is a violation of the rules.

This was not a fault of the Swift action rules, but of the ruling on Bardic Performance.


I think when PF first released, Swift actions were perfectly balanced to be used once per round and no more.

I think after all the additional sourcebooks, 3rd party stuff, etc. etc. that this is no longer the case, and it can become super-easy to get tied up in a "too many required swift actions" situation.

The rules really need to be rebalanced with this in mind. (They won't be, but they need to be.)


This is the first time ive heard of a limt on swift actoins per round maybe it because of comming from SWSE we have allways assumed you could trade move for swift my question is if you cant why do the rules call out not being able to use quicken 2 times in one round

As a dm if a pally burnt a full round and 3 lay on hands instead of taking a full attack i would be more then happy to so him why he should have just killed the monster ive been playing pathfinder for years assuming that you could use 2 or even 3 swifts a round and cant think of a single time it was overpowered or game breaking in any way we even had a eldritch knight who would "unknowingly" use arcane armor training arcane, strike and a full atack then spell critical becase he "didnt know" armor training and spell critical used swifts and it still took us about three sessions to notice how powerful it really was mind you we are a bunch of rules layer munchkins so power builds are common at our table and until we caught on to this player rules "mistakes" were rare.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

BlueAria wrote:
As a dm if a pally burnt a full round and 3 lay on hands instead of taking a full attack i would be more then happy to so him why he should have just killed the monster ive been playing pathfinder for years assuming that you could use 2 or even 3 swifts a round and cant think of a single time it was overpowered or game breaking in any way we even had a eldritch knight who would "unknowingly" use arcane armor training arcane, strike and a full atack then spell critical becase he "didnt know" armor training and spell critical used swifts and it still took us about three sessions to notice how powerful it really was mind you we are a bunch of rules layer munchkins so power builds are common at our table and until we caught on to this player rules "mistakes" were rare.

The not being able to "downgrade" Moves and Standards into Swifts causes players to make decisions. Swift Action abilities are usualyl pretty powerful. As a player of a Paladin myself, there are many times it would have been great to be able to throw down three Smites in the first round of combat, or some combo of Smites and LOH. Doing so would have been pretty powerful, so I was forced to make choices.

I would not be an advocate of allowing one to expend Swifts in place of the other actions.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Also many mythic abilities are also used as swift actions. Immediate actions also come out of next rounds swift actions. The limit of one per round is pretty fair in my opinion and is a good balance.


Or they can be used at no action cost at all when using the Combined Arcana Mythic Power


Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
BlueAria wrote:
As a dm if a pally burnt a full round and 3 lay on hands instead of taking a full attack i would be more then happy to so him why he should have just killed the monster ive been playing pathfinder for years assuming that you could use 2 or even 3 swifts a round and cant think of a single time it was overpowered or game breaking in any way we even had a eldritch knight who would "unknowingly" use arcane armor training arcane, strike and a full atack then spell critical becase he "didnt know" armor training and spell critical used swifts and it still took us about three sessions to notice how powerful it really was mind you we are a bunch of rules layer munchkins so power builds are common at our table and until we caught on to this player rules "mistakes" were rare.

The not being able to "downgrade" Moves and Standards into Swifts causes players to make decisions. Swift Action abilities are usualyl pretty powerful. As a player of a Paladin myself, there are many times it would have been great to be able to throw down three Smites in the first round of combat, or some combo of Smites and LOH. Doing so would have been pretty powerful, so I was forced to make choices.

I would not be an advocate of allowing one to expend Swifts in place of the other actions.

But you are still making decisions spend time smiting and now the baddie is tearing your wizard buddy apart and now you arnt ajacent to anyone because you didnt move last round so unless the enemy decided to attack the guy standing around smiting them that one less round of full attack actions not a big deal before 5th level but many enemies will be in a bad way from a single smite charge and now they have another round of life another chance to crit the rouge you lose action economy healing in combat is a bad trade unless its a swift action and even then there are often better things to do show me a pally that can heal more damage then he can do with an attack (much less more then an monster can do) and i will agree that lay on hands 3 times a round is better then one loh and a charge followed up by a smite and a ffa but it just isnt most swift actions make you better at doing other things so it just doesnt make sense to give yourself bonuses to attack and ac on 3 enemys then it does to just kill one of them

Also i will ask again if i can take 2 swifts around why did the call out that you cant quicken 2 spells around? I just seems redundent.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

I love that this topic got moved to the Homebrew forum!

The Exchange

BlueAria wrote:
Also i will ask again if i can take 2 swifts around why did the call out that you cant quicken 2 spells around? I just seems redundent.

Copy-paste from 3.0 edition that has never been reworded even with the advent of swift action.


Is casting 3 spells in one turn THAT bad? Quicken spell is +4 to the spell level so when 9th level spells are active and you use the Swift/Swift/Standard format, you can cast one 9th level spells and two 5th level spells in one turn. To me this seems irrelevant because the 9th level spell is likely to end whatever situation you're in making any 5th level spells redundant. Not only that but you're eating up spell slots 4 levels more dangerous than what you could be doing with them. At best you're using the quickened spells for buffing before casting something offensive.

I'm not exactly being argumentive, I think mechanically swift actions staying at once per turn work out for the best especially since most swift actions assume that you have this limit but some of the examples I see as enabling novaing but not exactly powerful in the long run.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
The not being able to "downgrade" Moves and Standards into Swifts causes players to make decisions. Swift Action abilities are usually pretty powerful. As a player of a Paladin myself, there are many times it would have been great to be able to throw down three Smites in the first round of combat, or some combo of Smites and LOH. Doing so would have been pretty powerful, so I was forced to make choices.

Obviously in some situations it will be desirable to make more than one swift action, otherwise no one would suggest the change. But I think that allowing more than one swift creates more interesting decisions, and that the fun of these decisions outweighs a small increase in power (especially if repeating the same swift action is disallowed).

BlueAria wrote:
But you are still making decisions spend time smiting and now the baddie is tearing your wizard buddy apart and now you arnt ajacent to anyone because you didnt move last round...

This is exactly the point.

Swift actions currently enable martial (and hybrid) characters to do something in their turn (sometimes making interesting decisions) without interfering with their ability to full attack. And that's very good, because for most martial characters a full attack is the best tactical decision whenever possible. Swift actions allow a paladin to decide whether they want to smite the bad guy before full attacking in the hope that the extra damage from smite will finish him off, or to heal themselves in case a full attack isn't enough and they have to withstand the bad guy's counterattack.

But after making the decision to heal or smite, the paladin's turn is almost always "full attack the bad guy." Combat maneuvers and special actions like Dazzling Display add some variety, but for characters who have invested in other areas, swift actions can provide alternative interesting ways to break up the full-attack routine. Why not allow the paladin, having used Smite on the opponent and failed to drop him with the first attack, choose between cancelling the full attack for a move and Laying On Hands, or continuing with his iterative attack and hoping it hits? Or having dropped the opponent with the first attack, choosing to heal himself before moving to the next opponent, or moving to place himself between an opponent and an ally?

Sometimes this means characters will take swift-action buff rounds, but since buffing in combat is often considered inferior to attacking, I can't imagine this would be too powerful. Why not give the Inquisitor the option to activate both buffs in the first round in exchange for a full attack? Why not allow a character with Kirin Style to enter the style and identify an opponent in the same turn rather than make a charge, reducing the overly long charge-up time of Kirin Style and Strike? Why not let the Magus improve his sword with Arcane Pool and also use Spell Recall at the cost of Spell Combat?

It's fun, it doesn't increase power too much at my table, it mostly helps martials (who are generally considered weaker than casters), and it mostly helps martials by giving them more options for how they use the abilities they've got (which breaks up the monotony of full attacks - see "it's fun")

Philippe Perreault wrote:
Copy-paste from 3.0 edition that has never been reworded even with the advent of swift action.

Now that you mention it, probably did come from when Quickened spells were a free action (and you can take multiple free actions). Still helps with deciding whether to allow multiple swifts.

Dark Archive

In a homegame we allow downgrading of actions. The worst abuse is allowing an eldritch knight to both activate arcane armor mastery and quicken a spell in the same turn(GASP!).


Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
I love that this topic got moved to the Homebrew forum!

Somebody cried, apparently.

Xaratherus wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
In our experience there haven't been any balance issues - though obviously our games are a terribly small sample size. With the Quickened Spell issue cleared up above, is there any other examples anyone can think of where two swift actions instead of a move and a swift action would result in problems with game balance?
Well, the first thing I can think of is the Lay on Hands ability of the Paladin; he could heal himself for a pretty significant chunk of damage (without provoking) by burning all 'three' actions (swift, move->swift, and standard->swift). The Magus could be made pretty potent in this way, as well. Most of their arcana and uses of their arcane pool are swift actions. Gunslinger has a few grit abilities that require swift actions that could be stacked as well. Monk ki expenditure is often swift also.

I just don't see this being a big balance issue - every one of those situations you mention involve abilities with a limited amount of uses, and keep in mind that you are still giving up the opportunity to full attack or the opportunity to attack and to move in order to use those Swift actions.

A Paladin spending an entire round, in the middle of combat, not moving or attacking just to burn up three of his limited uses of Lay on Hands doesn't seem game-breaking to me in the slightest.

Now, I will admit that some of the current rules have been written based on the premise of the 'one swift action per turn' rule, but that doesn't make the premise itself sound, it just makes a rule that was poorly written (in my opinion) harder to fix.

As I said, with the one Quickened Spell per turn rule already written into normal rules, we've been doing as I described above and never once had balance issues. Sure, I'm certain if someone scoured the rules in an effort to break the game it could be done, but that's always been the case and its bad form, in my opinion, to make the game less playable and less fun for the 99.9% of gamers who aren't looking to break the game.


If quick spellcasting is the issue, just flatly say 'no more than two spells in a round, period, no matter what' and be done with it.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Wiggz wrote:
Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
I love that this topic got moved to the Homebrew forum!
Somebody cried, apparently.

It wasn't me, but I chuckled when I saw it moved.

One could make an argument that moving this thread is a "pocket veto" of the argument that RAW does allow you to "downgrade" actions to a Swift.

Sovereign Court

Possible effects to game balance

Inquisitor: Judgement cycling (smite judgement as swift, attack, protection judgement as a swift) or Judgement/Bane activation with attack in 1 round.

Quickend spells: This has already been noted, and yes, three spells/round can affect game balance, especially if you are talking to anyone involved in the "casters get everything/martials never get anything nice" arguments that pop up. Turning around and adding an additional rule to deal with this issue would NOT be clean design.

Paladin: Takes a hit and then Lay on Hands, Smite and attack. This removes the judgement call on the part of the player as to what is more important, doing lots of damage or getting back some of those hit points.

Cavalier: Challenge, Greater Tactician and attack (with allies now using teamwork feats).

Oracle: Combat Healer two times for three cure spells per round at a 2 level bump to 2 of the castings.

These were all just quick examples. I'm sure a true min-maxer could come up with some serious exploits.

Then there is the question of immediate actions, since:

PRD wrote:
Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action and counts as your swift action for that turn. You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn). You also cannot use an immediate action if you are flat-footed.

so if you modify swift actions, you also have to modify immediate actions. If you allow multiple swift and immediate actions, then you can really open up some exploits (such as being able to use liberating command on yourself).

Sovereign Court

Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
I love that this topic got moved to the Homebrew forum!
Somebody cried, apparently.

It wasn't me, but I chuckled when I saw it moved.

One could make an argument that moving this thread is a "pocket veto" of the argument that RAW does allow you to "downgrade" actions to a Swift.

Actually, RAW doesn't. RAW strictly limits you to one swift OR immediate action per turn.

The move to homebrew kinda makes sense, as multiple swift/immediate actions is not RAW nor is it RAI ... that puts it squarely in homebrew territory.

Personally, I would allow it in a home game with per instance judgement; that is if I see it getting abused, I would have it not work. But for a paladin being able to LoH to herself twice or three times in a round, sure, especially if it adds to the story by having the paladin hold out against a powerful foe for longer than normal.

Shadow Lodge

zylphryx wrote:

Possible effects to game balance

Inquisitor: Judgement cycling (smite judgement as swift, attack, protection judgement as a swift) or Judgement/Bane activation with attack in 1 round.

Paladin: Takes a hit and then Lay on Hands, Smite and attack. This removes the judgement call on the part of the player as to what is more important, doing lots of damage or getting back some of those hit points.

Cavalier: Challenge, Greater Tactician and attack (with allies now using teamwork feats).

All of these involve giving up a full attack or charge. Might not be as costly at low levels or for the Inquisitor (who has a less impressive full attack) but there's a reason pounce is prized and people complain about martials being denied full attacks. And even if you're not giving up iterative attacks, you sometimes want to move.

zylphryx wrote:

Quickend spells: This has already been noted, and yes, three spells/round can affect game balance, especially if you are talking to anyone involved in the "casters get everything/martials never get anything nice" arguments that pop up. Turning around and adding an additional rule to deal with this issue would NOT be clean design.

Oracle: Combat Healer two times for three cure spells per round at a 2 level bump to 2 of the castings.

A rule saying "you cannot perform the same swift action more than once per round fixes this" and seems clean enough to me. Wording, including the immediate action issue:

Recommended revision wrote:

(under Action Types)

There are six types of actions:
...

In a normal round, you can perform a full-round action, one swift action and one or more free actions, and may exchange actions as described below.

In some situations (such as in a surprise round), you may be limited to taking only a single move action or standard action instead of a full-round action."

Exchanging Actions:

Actions can be exchanged for actions of a lesser type, though some restrictions apply. A full-round action may be exchanged for a standard and a move action, and a standard action may be exchanged for a move action with no restrictions. A standard or move action may be exchanged for a swift action, but characters may not repeat any given swift action twice in a round (for example to cast two Quickened spells or use Lay on Hands twice). You may only trade actions during your turn - thus you may use only one immediate action in a turn.

The first two sentences simply restate and would replace the current text under action types that reads "In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. ... You can always take a move action in place of a standard action."


It's pretty amazing to me to see how many people don't know the wording of Quicken Spell.

...

Even after it's been pointed out several times in the thread already. lol

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Definitely need to change the 'one swift action per round' rule... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules