|
I used to wholeheartedly believe that 3.5 allowed using your standard action as a swift, but when challenged I couldn't find it again. : /
I would be pleased if anyone could show how you could cast 3 quickened spells per round if the rule was that you could use your standard action to do what you could do as a swift action.
Anyone?
I used to wholeheartedly believe that 3.5 allowed using your standard action as a swift, but when challenged I couldn't find it again. : /
I would be pleased if anyone could show how you could cast 3 quickened spells per round if the rule was that you could use your standard action to do what you could do as a swift action.
Anyone?
It was not allowed in 3.5 either. There was an epic level feat that allowed you to quicken more than one spell per round.
|
How would being able to spend your standard action to use an ability that takes a swift action to do result in casting three spells per round?
1 Swift
1 Move downgraded to Swift1 Standard
2x Quickened Spell, 1x regular casting of spell = 3x Spells cast in one round
All the GMs I play with, including myself, go RAW, which is ONE swift action per round period.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it makes sense to say that even if you are houseruling things, a swift action should not be downgradeable to a move action, since that would allow the 3 spell per round combo as shown above.
I do think it is reasonable that if you have a class ability or feat that lets you do something as a swift action that is normally another type of action that you could decline that benefit though. So casting a spell you have prepared as a quickened spell I would allow you to ignore the quickened effect and use the spell as a standard action, since spells are normally standard actions.
OTOH, an effect that is only available as a swift action I would say cannot be changed.
An action reducing ability shouldn't make an ability more difficult to be used than normal.
Well you may be right in principle. However, the only example I can think of where what you are complaining about happens is with Quicken metamagic.
So, what you're complaining about isn't the general rule about swift actions, it's that you want to be able to 'sacrifice' the quickened nature of a spell and cast it as a standard. That's a whole different argument.
It helps if you lead with what your actual objection is.
Whatever houserule rules work for anyone, does not change the fact that no matter you do, you will only get one Swift Action per turn.
This. Houserules can be great, but this.
An action reducing ability shouldn't make an ability more difficult to be used than normal.Well you may be right in principle. However, the only example I can think of where what you are complaining about happens is with Quicken metamagic.
So, what you're complaining about isn't the general rule about swift actions, it's that you want to be able to 'sacrifice' the quickened nature of a spell and cast it as a standard. That's a whole different argument.
It helps if you lead with what your actual objection is.
If he is trying to do that then I also misread him. In that case it is still not allowed by the rules. By the rules a quickened spell acts a certain way, so he has to take all of the quickened spell, otherwise it is not a quickened spell. He can't cast a normal version because he has already prepared a quickened version, and you only get to cast exactly what you prepare.
As for other abilities unless it is something like a bard performance which happens faster as you level you, then you don't normally get the option to use it as ____ or ____. You get ____ as your option, and that is it. I agree that some of these don't make sense, but it is still the rules. All I can say is to ask for the developers to say "you can do _____ as a swift action, but you may also use a move or standard action also..."
If you can convert actions, then paladins will be able to lay on hands on themselves two times per round (swift plus changing standard to do it again). Somebody plays this in that way?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get the hostility for asking for a source, but OK. Thank you for the clarification.
As I said in the other thread, the rule doesn't make sense from a time slice perspective. The most a spellcaster with quickened spells could cast is 2, not 3+, the exact same they would be able to cast if you can't replace a standard with a swift.
You want one example of who will benefit from this?
A magus can use a swift action to enhance his weapon or to recall a spell, arcane strike use a swift action too. Plenty of times I would have traded my move action (as someone has proposed) for a extra swift action, so that I could enhance my sword and activate arcane strike (especially at low levels, where I had only 1 attack).
Sometime I would have gladly traded away my standard action for two swift, as there are several Magus arcana that require swift actions or simply because my job was to stay in position and use AoO against people trying to pass behind me, not run ahead to make a single melee attack. Getting a few extra hit point of damage on the AoO was worth the loss of the standard action.
There are a lot of classes that have to chose between performing one or another swift action and that will be more than gladly to be able to do 2 swift actions during the surprise round instead of moving.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How would being able to spend your standard action to use an ability that takes a swift action to do result in casting three spells per round?1 Swift
1 Move downgraded to Swift
1 Standard2x Quickened Spell, 1x regular casting of spell = 3x Spells cast in one round
All the GMs I play with, including myself, go RAW, which is ONE swift action per round period.
How are you downgrading a Move to a Swift?
How are you downgrading a Move to a Swift?How would being able to spend your standard action to use an ability that takes a swift action to do result in casting three spells per round?1 Swift
1 Move downgraded to Swift
1 Standard2x Quickened Spell, 1x regular casting of spell = 3x Spells cast in one round
All the GMs I play with, including myself, go RAW, which is ONE swift action per round period.
I think he posted like that to show how the OP's suggestion could lead to 3 spells per round. He was not saying it is possible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a rule on Core page 213 "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."
Which means RAW rules out casting two quickened spells in a round, even if you have more than one swift action somehow.
|
An action reducing ability shouldn't make an ability more difficult to be used than normal.Well you may be right in principle. However, the only example I can think of where what you are complaining about happens is with Quicken metamagic.
So, what you're complaining about isn't the general rule about swift actions, it's that you want to be able to 'sacrifice' the quickened nature of a spell and cast it as a standard. That's a whole different argument.
It helps if you lead with what your actual objection is.
You are taking this too personal. This is not my objection, ive been trying to clear the OPs intent, becasue it seems im the only one who understands the question and im not in the plan "OMFG NO 3 SPELLS PER ROUND GTFO".
THe op has already acknowledge the way swift actions work, also how raw works as of now. As i said earlier there exists instances where reducing abilities may be enforced making the harder to use. This in my opinion makes no sense, but since there are a few examples the importance of making any ruling will depend on the number of examples provided.
I asked the op an example of swift action enforcing and he said the swift action spells.
I made more organized example to make it clearer.
Then we are both flamed for "trying to break the game".
It seems this is the way the forum works.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I asked the op an example of swift action enforcing and he said the swift action spells.
I made more organized example to make it clearer.
Then we are both flamed for "trying to break the game".
It seems this is the way the forum works.
Pretty Sad isn't it?
Especially since the most vehement arguments were made without really comprehending what I had written.
To clarify for those who thought my OP was too long to actually read through and only commented based on the subject.
I'm not asking to trade 1 standard action for 2 swift actions.
I'm not asking to trade a Move action for a Swift action.
I am asking can you perform 1 action that is normally a swift action as standard action instead. This is a 1:1 ratio where in the action type actually becomes Standard rather than swift. Because that 1 action became a standard action when it was performed using the Standard action timing, you can then also perform a separate swift (or Immediate) action at swift (or Immediate) action timing allowing for a grand total of 2 actions + Move Actions as normal.
It would be to use this functionality to cast more than 2 spells in a round.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But you could use it to perform other actions, designed with the one-swift-per-round restriction in mind, multiple times a round, like magus spell recall, inquisitor judgments, inquisitor bane, and so forth. A lot of the strategy of playing such a class is deciding how to best use your swift action. Again it could be a fine house rule but I don't think there is any need in the system to warrant such a change.
|
|
I asked the op an example of swift action enforcing and he said the swift action spells.
I made more organized example to make it clearer.
Then we are both flamed for "trying to break the game".
It seems this is the way the forum works.Pretty Sad isn't it?
Especially since the most vehement arguments were made without really comprehending what I had written.
To clarify for those who thought my OP was too long to actually read through and only commented based on the subject.
I'm not asking to trade 1 standard action for 2 swift actions.
I'm not asking to trade a Move action for a Swift action.I am asking can you perform 1 action that is normally a swift action as standard action instead. This is a 1:1 ratio where in the action type actually becomes Standard rather than swift. Because that 1 action became a standard action when it was performed using the Standard action timing, you can then also perform a separate swift (or Immediate) action at swift (or Immediate) action timing allowing for a grand total of 2 actions + Move Actions as normal.
It would be to use this functionality to cast more than 2 spells in a round.
I didn't post in the early portion of this thread as I saw that your question was answered, but then this started to drag on and on.... For better or worse, here's my take:
By the same token it's pretty sad that you don't seem to comprehend the various helpful posts that have told you NO. Pathfinder does not allow you to use a standard action to do a swift action, period. That is RAW and the Devs have from time to time made comments (to my recollection) supporting such interpretation.
If you want to create a houserule for your game that you can take a swift action in place of a standard action, you are free to do so, and you will be in good company as there are a decent number of respectable GMs who do use such a houserule.
I think that pretty much sums it up unless you want to discuss whether its a good idea to implement such a houserule, or what the effects will be, etc.
It's 4 am my time and I need to get some sleep before I start my workday, so I'll be back another time...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But you could use it to perform other actions, designed with the one-swift-per-round restriction in mind, multiple times a round, like magus spell recall, inquisitor judgments, inquisitor bane, and so forth. A lot of the strategy of playing such a class is deciding how to best use your swift action. Again it could be a fine house rule but I don't think there is any need in the system to warrant such a change.
This.
Also, people disagreeing with you isn't "flaming" you, it's simply people disagreeing and trying to point out the flaws in the idea.You can trade a standard for a move right? And a swift is even less time than a move right? So if I can trade my standard fora swift or a move or a swift, why can't I trade my move for a swift? That's the natural progression of the course you're suggesting and the reason people are going to the "3 spells per round argument".
The thread is mistitled, also. This isn't a FAQ request, the OP knows how the rule works, but he wishes it worked differently. That means this is also in the wrong forum.
Probably a better thread title and more legitimate question for this forum would have been "Can I cast a spell modified by the Quicken metamagic feat normally as a standard action instead?"
That would have avoided the action swapping argument (which was escalated when the OP dismissively called the current action economy restrictions "stupid") and led to a more nuanced look at how much control you really have over your feats.
|
|
The reason for Faq request is that while I understand the RAW perfectly, I have never been in a group where it was even questioned whether or not you could cast 2 quickened spells in the round, it was assumed this was ok, there was no discussion, and no house rule. and Infact it wasn't until I read the rules recently that it occured to me that it might work differently. Because I have had opportunity to play in multiple different groups of players with several different GM's, and this RAW was being violated subconciously by all of them, it lead me to believe this is a common enough occurance to warrant an FAQ. If for no other reason than to clarify intent, and to get folks in my own games on the same page whether or not we ultimately decide to run it as RAW, or run it with a house rule.
My preference is to house rule it. However, justifying a house rule is not the reason for my FAQ request. That would indeed be quite disingenuous, and it saddens me that someone who doesn't know me jumps to that conclusion. Where I work we have this great poster on the wall:
Don't Assume Motives, Assume Positive Intent
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The idea of a prepared caster being able to drop metamagic feats from their prepared spells "on the fly" is an interesting houserule. On the one hand it kinds goes against the whole flavor of a prepared caster, but on the other hand I can't see it as being broken.
I mean, basically we have three "types" of swift actions:
1. Swift actions that start swift and stay that way. I argue that these were designed with "one per round" in mind.
2. Class abilities that start standard/move and upgrade to swift. If you want to use a lower-level activation time I dare say most GMs will let you, and it's even RAW allowed for the vast majority of these abilities ("may" activate as a swift).
3. Quickened spells - see dropping metamagic discussion. Really only applies to prepared casters. Houserule would be a (very)slight powerup to the most powerful classes in the game. Not really sure how often this would be an issue with a competent player anyway.
|
|
That would have avoided the action swapping argument (which was escalated when the OP dismissively called the current action economy restrictions "stupid") and led to a more nuanced look at how much control you really have over your feats.
I probably could have been a little less abrasive in my assessment.
That said, My OP wasn't spawned by Quicken spell, I didn't even have a specific example in mind at the time. I only supplied Quicken when asked for an example because it was the easiest concrete case i could find in the limited research window I had at work.
That said, I know I have benefited from the "more nuanced look" you're referring too, and I'd hazard a guess that others have too. Ultimately isn't that the point of these forums?
As for the thread title, I'll admit it was somewhere after i got to the TLDR point of the how to use the FAQ thread that it mentions not putting FAQ request in the title. However, upon reading it, "Shouldn't" is not the same thing as "Don't" and I would argue that adding that to the title is not to call the attention of the dev's, but rather to call the attention of the community, in the hopes that others who have had this question (and there must be others) will read it, and click the FAq link so that it makes the list. Ultimately if the dev's think the question has merit they will faq it, if they don't they won't. But to whether or not a topic is worthy of discussion or FAQ is subjective, and we all measure by different standards.
I posit that it is possible to express your opinions in a less hostile manner, but I bow to your more important right to do so, just as I have a right to take umbrage at the perceived offense (whether it was intended or not).
|
|
You can use a swift action in a Ready (standard) action.
Here is a method to discuss:
- swift action
- standard action to ready a swift action
Hmm...
That's interesting... If you do so, does the swift action become a standard action, or is it now a standard action and a swift action? Also, can you ready an action to take place just before the next initiative step? since readied actions require a triggering event of some kind?
You can use a swift action in a Ready (standard) action.
Here is a method to discuss:
- swift action
- standard action to ready a swift action
That actually contradicts the earlier statements that you cannot convert a standard action to a swift action, since all you have to do is make your readied action trigger something that occurs immediately. The standard action would still have to be the last action on your turn, but that wouldn't be an issue if you are trying to squeeze as many swift actions as possible on a turn.
I really think I would have to call shenanigans on this trick.
As mentioned earlier, D&D 4E had a system of standard action > move action > minor action, where minor action is basically that game system's equivalent of a swift action. Any higher ranking action could be replaced with a lower ranking action, meaning that in theory you could take three minor actions in one turn.
But D&D 3.5, from which Pathfinder is derived, actually added swift actions rather late in its development, so they weren't comfortable with the idea of allowing multiple swift actions in one turn even via sacrificing higher ranking actions. So in D&D 3.5 and in Pathfinder, the only allowed substitution is that you can "downgrade" a standard action to a second move action.
The only time it would make sense to allow downgrading a standard action or a move action to a swift action would be if a lower level version of the action in question could have been taken as a higher ranking action -- in that case, you would simply opt not to take advantage of the higher level "upgrade" for that action.
|
|
Giving up your standard action to do a move or a swift is almost always less optimal than attacking or casting a spell. You give up an entire round of attacks/spellcasting to do something that is usually a minor effect.
The inquisitor balance example also doesn't break balance because reason that class's swift actions are swift is because they are assumed to proceed attacking or spellcasting. Giving up that standard action for 2 swifts harms you more than it helps you.
Not actually true. Teamwork feats are the most powerful force multipliers in the game and they're a big part of the inquisitor's power. A smart Inquisitor in a group with another melee opponent could, under the proposed houserule, swift to activate Bane, drop standard to swift to activate Judgement, and the when the Barbarian/Cavalier/Fighter/etc. charges into the fray, use their immediate action with Coordinated Charge & Solo Tactics to rush forward for a much more powerful attack than they would have been able to accomplish otherwise. I don't know that there's anything particularly game-breaking about that, I just point out as an example that "Giving up your standard action to do a move or a swift is almost always less optimal" and "Giving up that standard action for 2 swifts harms you more than it helps you" are not necessarily true statements.
As regards the readying a swift - Readying is essentially its own standard action that buys you an action at a later date. While it is a method of "converting" your standard action to a swift, you're still bound by the normal rules limiting you to one swift action per turn regardless of what other actions you take, so it wouldn't allow you (by current RAW) to get two swift actions into the same turn.
|
|
RAW, you can't.
Now, if you want to talk with your DM about it...I'm sure you will find a compromise or not.
Because like someone mentioned earlier in the thread, swift actions went from being exclusively used for small stuffs and casting spells to rather powerful options with all the supplements out nowadays. So nowadays, I would just follow RAW really.
|
|
How would being able to spend your standard action to use an ability that takes a swift action to do result in casting three spells per round?1 Swift
1 Move downgraded to Swift
1 Standard2x Quickened Spell, 1x regular casting of spell = 3x Spells cast in one round
All the GMs I play with, including myself, go RAW, which is ONE swift action per round period.
Read it again! Use your standard action to use an ability which can be done as a swift. There is no proposed rule change for move actions doing the same thing; as you point out, that would lead to three spells per round. But that is not being proposed.
So I ask again, using the proposed rule (rather than a rule you propose and show how your rule would be stupid!), how does this result in three spells per round?
Just to be clear, this proposed rule doesn't let you get two swift actions! it let's you have one standard, one move and one swift as usual. But, if you have an ability that takes a swift action to activate, that you can use your standard action to activate it instead of the usual swift action.
So the paladin heals himself twice. So what? He's not attacking, and LOH is a consumable resource. Two spells? You can do this already.
New swift action-based classes mean you have to plan which swift to use each round. This rule doesn't really change that. Instead of carefully choosing which swift and which standard to use, you effectively also have a choice to use two of those abilities but lose the standard actions which let you actually use them, like attacking.
If you can think of a cool combo that let's you exploit this, good for you! I'll believe it can break the game when I see it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason for Faq request is that while I understand the RAW perfectly, I have never been in a group where it was even questioned whether or not you could cast 2 quickened spells in the round, it was assumed this was ok, there was no discussion, and no house rule.
You state that you understand the RAW but then say this was allowed with no house rule. Either you don't understand RAW or you don't know what a house rule is. If your group allows you to swap your standard action for a swift then it is a house rule as it is neither rules as written nor as intended. It may not have been verbally discussed or officially stated at the game table but it was most certainly a house rule.
|
|
As regards the readying a swift - Readying is essentially its own standard action that buys you an action at a later date. While it is a method of "converting" your standard action to a swift, you're still bound by the normal rules limiting you to one swift action per turn regardless of what other actions you take, so it wouldn't allow you (by current RAW) to get two swift actions into the same turn.
Devil's Advocate:
You could say the same thing about normal rules not allowing you to use a standard action outside of your turn.
One might conclude that it is no longer a Standard Action (or Swift Action) as bound by the "normal rules". It is a Readied Action.
Can use a Swift Action and a Readied Action in the same turn?
The action type of the action you have readied does not change. It is a standard, move, or swift action. Readying is a separate standard action that allows you to later take a standard, move, or swift action. Readying itself contains the rules for being able to take your standard, move, or swift outside of your normal initiative order.
An action reducing ability shouldn't make an ability more difficult to be used than normal.Well you may be right in principle. However, the only example I can think of where what you are complaining about happens is with Quicken metamagic.
So, what you're complaining about isn't the general rule about swift actions, it's that you want to be able to 'sacrifice' the quickened nature of a spell and cast it as a standard. That's a whole different argument.
It helps if you lead with what your actual objection is.
There are actually a fair number of abilities that work this way. Bardic performance becomes a swift action to activate and then all of the sudden you go from being able to start a performance and arcane strike in the same round to not being able to. I see this as a problem, but not one fixed by this solution.
Note: there is some controversy over the use of the word "may" in the bardic performance ability which some view as allowing the slower action types as well.
|
|
You specifically choose which standard, move, swift or free action when you perform a Ready Action. You don't simply choose which when the Ready Action triggers. I'm guessing you know that part. Just getting that out of the way.The action (standard, move, swift, free) changes to be a "readied action". It doesn't matter which type of action that you readied, they are all treated the same.
From your link:
"You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action."
The type of action absolutely does not change. Readying is a standard action- "Readying is a standard action." directly out of the CRB. The action that you then take, referred to as "the readied action" is still whatever type of action it normally is, i.e. standard, move or swift. There is nothing that states that that action type changes. Readied action just means "the standard, move, or swift action which you have readied", and does not imply a change in the action type.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note: there is some controversy over the use of the word "may" in the bardic performance ability which some view as allowing the slower action types as well.
Controversy over the word "may" being mandatory or not? That is a straight up fact "may" is optional. You may use the express checkout if you have 12 items or less. If you just have a can of soda, you CAN use the normal slow checkout, but you MAY us the express instead
|
|
There are actually a fair number of abilities that work this way. Bardic performance becomes a swift action to activate and then all of the sudden you go from being able to start a performance and arcane strike in the same round to not being able to. I see this as a problem, but not one fixed by this solution.Note: there is some controversy over the use of the word "may" in the bardic performance ability which some view as allowing the slower action types as well.
The bard can still activate his performance as a move action, or even a standard. His ability to activate it with smaller and smaller action times doesn't remove his prior abilities to activate it with larger action types.
|
|
The type of action absolutely does not change.Okay, let's assume you are right.
PRD: "In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one swift action and one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action."
The definition of "normal round" states you can take "a standard action" and "one swift action". I hope we agree that means that in a normal round, you may only take one standard action as well?
Taking a Ready Action is a standard action. If you use the Ready Action to use a Standard Action, and it remains a Standard Action as you stated, you are effectively utilizing two Standard Actions in a round.
It goes without saying that Ready Action rounds therefore are not normal rounds.
To interpret "normal round" rules hold for a Swift Action and not for a Standard Action, when utilizing Ready Action... why again? Because in a normal round you can't take more than one Standard... I mean Swift... Action?
The difference, to me, is that swift actions specifically contain the ruling that you can only take one regardless of what other actions you take. The Ready action specifically contains the rules to allow you to take another standard (if you so choose) but does not in any way address the swift action limitation.
(and with that, I'm going to end the Devil's Advocate side of the discussion, thanks for participating Ssalarn, hopefully it gave everyone food for thought)
'S what I'm here for :)
I don't think that Bards become unable to activate performance as standard actions.
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' indicates a possibility. I think if it was meant to eliminate the other option, it would be something like "At 7th level, starting a bardic performance is a move action instead of a standard."
No such language suggesting the option of doing it elsewise appears in Quicken spell.
Controversy over the word "may" being mandatory or not?
Note: there is some controversy over the use of the word "may" in the bardic performance ability which some view as allowing the slower action types as well.
There is also some controversy about whether or not Paizo has the legal right to publish the Pathfinder rulebook. "Controversy," in this context, meaning "some troll on the Internet lied and some other idiot believed the troll."
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it sounds to me like it would be possible to do the following:
* Spend a swift action as normal
* Do whatever with a move action
* Spend a standard action to ready an action to perform a swift action, with the trigger being "as soon as my turn ends".
At that point, you're effectively trading your Standard action down to a swift action, right? So why not make it easier and just say you can do that, rather than making the player jump through hoops?
|
|
The type of action absolutely does not change.Okay, let's assume you are right.
PRD: "In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one swift action and one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action."
The definition of "normal round" states you can take "a standard action" and "one swift action". I hope we agree that means that in a normal round, you may only take one standard action as well?
Taking a Ready Action is a standard action. If you use the Ready Action to use a Standard Action, and it remains a Standard Action as you stated, you are effectively utilizing two Standard Actions in a round.
It goes without saying that Ready Action rounds therefore are not normal rounds.
To interpret "normal round" rules hold for a Swift Action and not for a Standard Action, when utilizing Ready Action... why again? Because in a normal round you can't take more than one Standard... I mean Swift... Action?
The difference, to me, is that swift actions specifically contain the ruling that you can only take one regardless of what other actions you take. The Ready action specifically contains the rules to allow you to take another standard (if you so choose) but does not in any way address the swift action limitation.
'S what I'm here for :)
(and with that, I'm going to end the Devil's Advocate side of the discussion, thanks for participating Ssalarn, hopefully it gave everyone food for thought)
A standard is not a standard when you ready it but a swift is a swift when you ready it? I dont think it can work selectively. Its either one or two.
|
|
Whether or not you can (by the current rules you cannot (without readying like the previous poster mentions)), the fact that this question keeps popping up suggests that it is in fact, frequently asked.
Hopefully, the answer is as straightforward as we would hope, they pring "Yes" or "No" and there's no longer a controversy.
FAQ it, I'm out.
|
|
So it sounds to me like it would be possible to do the following:
* Spend a swift action as normal
* Do whatever with a move action
* Spend a standard action to ready an action to perform a swift action, with the trigger being "as soon as my turn ends".At that point, you're effectively trading your Standard action down to a swift action, right? So why not make it easier and just say you can do that, rather than making the player jump through hoops?
Personally, I wouldn't allow a trigger like that. You've got to trigger on something, not a metagame construct. Preferably something related to the action you're readying.
Second, I can see a strong argument that you can't because you're performing 2 swift actions.
Setting aside the question of whether you can trigger a ready action on meta-game states like "the start of his turn" (which is a great question and IMHO another possible FAQ candidate).
While this solves the immediate problem of casting quickened spells as standard actions, it defeats the purpose of the question which is to answer whether you can use an action type that takes greater time for something that can be performed quickly without impacting the number swift actions you can perform.|
|
So it sounds to me like it would be possible to do the following:
* Spend a swift action as normal
* Do whatever with a move action
* Spend a standard action to ready an action to perform a swift action, with the trigger being "as soon as my turn ends".At that point, you're effectively trading your Standard action down to a swift action, right? So why not make it easier and just say you can do that, rather than making the player jump through hoops?
Personally, I wouldn't allow a trigger like that. You've got to trigger on something, not a metagame construct. Preferably something related to the action you're readying.
Second, I can see a strong argument that you can't because you're performing 2 swift actions.
This poses the question of "what kind of action is performing a readied action?"
|
|
A standard is not a standard when you ready it but a swift is a swift when you ready it? I dont think it can work selectively. Its either one or two.
I never said that, and a little reading comprehension on your part would have made that clear.
I said:
The act of readying is a standard action in and of itself, and it specifically lets you take another standard action under the specified circumstances.
The action that you may take as a result of readying an action (standard, move, swift) is always that type of action, it doesn't change type.
Swift actions are specifically limited to one per turn, regardless of what other actions you take, and nothing in readying an action changes that.