|
| 28 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like the title:
If I want to perform an action normally defined as Swift or Immediate, can I perform that action as a standard action instead (in the same way you can take an additional move action as a standard action). If Yes, can I also take an additional swift or immediate action normally?
I checked the PRD and FAQ and didn't find this, so if anyone can link me to an existing FAQ or rule book that addresses this question I would be grateful.
As I understand the RAW from the PRD Core Rule Book Combat chapter, The answer is No, the only type of action that benefits from this special treatment is Move Actions.
This to me isn't particularly logical. It stands to reason that if a standard action takes longer than a swift or immediate action to perform, and allows you to also take a swift or immediate action as well, then you should be able to take only 2 swift or 2 immediate, or a swift and an immediate action instead. Though this is a clear and simple Logic chain that makes perfect sense and does not (to my knowledge) create any game breaking circumstances, the rules for Swift Action expressly forbid it. And, depending on your interpretation of the phrase 'very similar' an Immediate Action does as well.
|
|
swift actions probably, inmeadiate actions probably no due to the fact you cant make standard actions out of your turn and inmediate actions are usually made out of your turns. Now its probable you could "ready" inmediate actions to use out of your turn.
Its worth of noting in 4e you can use any bigger actions to use any smaller action
|
A really good example why it is hard written in the rules that you can't substitute Standards for Swifts is the Quicken metamagic feat.
If, by your rational a player could substitute a Standard for two Swifts, a spell caster could fire off three quickened spells in a single round; Specifically a 7th level Evocation School specialist could fire off three quickened Fireballs on his turn under your proposed Swift action modification. Any GM who isn't pandering to power gamers who really want to play a superhero game would put a hard no on that action.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. You can only substitute a Standard for a Move (and not a Move for a Standard). Furthermore, if you take an Immediate action, it counts against your next round's Swift action.
Logic has little to do with it. It's about game balance.
The question isnt about the swift action limit , you can still consider having one per turn and this question is still relevant. For example if you are staggered and want to do something which requires a swift action. Such as casting a swift action spell you had prepared
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree this is the PRD RAW, my point is, It's pretty darn stupid. Like abysmally so. Its so stupid that even the god of stupid winces.
Also, as an aside to my point, I think its something that often gets over looked unintentionally. For example there are several abilities that change an action's type from move to swift. Suddenly you can no longer perform this action twice? stupid.
Fix it Paizo!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question isnt about the swift action limit , you can still consider having one per turn and this question is still relevant. For example if you are staggered and want to do something which requires a swift action. Such as casting a swift action spell you had preparedNo. You can only substitute a Standard for a Move (and not a Move for a Standard). Furthermore, if you take an Immediate action, it counts against your next round's Swift action.
Logic has little to do with it. It's about game balance.
I don't see where that would be relevant, specifically in regards to the Staggered condition. Using that example with the OP's question, You would still be limited to one Swift action as you wouldn't have a Standard action to convert into any Swift actions.
Staggered
A staggered creature may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can he take full-round actions). A staggered creature can still take free, swift, and immediate actions. A creature with nonlethal damage exactly equal to its current hit points gains the staggered condition.
[EDIT] Frankly, the game works with it's current action economy. Paizo has no reason nor need to "fix it." And if you don't like the rule, remember that you can always change it for your own home games.
|
|
If, by your rational a player could substitute a Standard for two Swifts, a spell caster could fire off three quickened spells in a single round
Reading Comprehension (possibly writing comprehension as well ;)
This is not at all what I suggested.
can I perform that action as a standard action instead
Thus:
It stands to reason that if a standard action takes longer than a swift or immediate action to perform, and allows you to also take a swift or immediate action as well, then you should be able to take only 2 swift or 2 immediate, or a swift and an immediate action instead.
Actually means I take a swift action as a standard action, because I took that action as a standard instead of a swift, I can then take a swift action as normal allowing only 2, not the hypothetical 3 you presented.
For example there are several abilities that change an action's type from move to swift. Suddenly you can no longer perform this action twice? stupid.
Most of these abilities though have some form of "may" or "can" in there. For example, the Bard's performance ability says "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."
You don't HAVE to change it up, but you can. A 13th level Bard can still start his performance as a Standard action if he wanted.
|
|
Ah sorry i handt read staggered condition i was basing on the "Slow" spell which didnt had the swift action clause.
Anyway i agree this is not about changing the action economy of the game and certaintly not about the balance of the game. The op doesnt want to destroy the economy. The swift action limit is not in discussion(not in my part at least).
As Master of shadows said some abilities may be changed to swift actions forceably, i dont really know about abilities like that, perhaps you could tell us about them Master of Shadows?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree this is the PRD RAW, my point is, It's pretty darn stupid. Like abysmally so. Its so stupid that even the god of stupid winces.
Also, as an aside to my point, I think its something that often gets over looked unintentionally. For example there are several abilities that change an action's type from move to swift. Suddenly you can no longer perform this action twice? stupid.
Fix it Paizo!
It is only stupid to you if you don't give enough emphasis on the importance of balance.
This post thread is not FAQ-worthy as it is explained clearly in the book, although you are welcome to complain about it to your heart's desire. :)
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being limited to only one swift a round is part of the intentional balance of classes like the inquisitor who has to weigh how she wants to use her swift each round carefully.
For a in-game rationale, I tend to think of swift actions as taking up a certain amount of focus or concentration, and in six seconds you can't really focus on two things in quite the correct way, even if they actually don't take any time.
|
|
Quicken Spell (Metamagic)
You can cast spells in a fraction of the normal time.Benefit: Casting a quickened spell is a swift action. You can perform another action, even casting another spell, in the same round as you cast a quickened spell. A spell whose casting time is more than 1 round or 1 full-round action cannot be quickened.
A quickened spell uses up a spell slot four levels higher than the spell's actual level. Casting a quickened spell doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity.
Special: You can apply the effects of this feat to a spell cast spontaneously, so long as it has a casting time that is not more than 1 full-round action, without increasing the spell's casting time.
This is the easiest to find and probably given the RAW, most commonly misused. I have prepared 2 quickened spells and need to cast both in the same round. Oops By RAW, I can't because I only get 2 swift actions per round, and cannot cast a quickened spell as a standard action instead of a swift action...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope.
|
|
Being limited to only one swift a round is part of the intentional balance of classes like the inquisitor who has to weigh how she wants to use her swift each round carefully.
For a in-game rationale, I tend to think of swift actions as taking up a certain amount of focus or concentration, and in six seconds you can't really focus on two things in quite the correct way, even if they actually don't take any time.
Really? I don't think there is any balancing at issue. nor is there any obvious intent. These action types are not new to Paizo/Pathfinder. Rather both are late additions to 3.5 and were not printed side by side with the original rules. Nor were they written by the same Authors. Anytime this happens its easy to miss little nuances like this that should be a part of the rule. Both were reprinted pretty much as originally written. and I doubt the issue came up during design.
|
|
Lets try to make this clearer so its understandable
Example 1
-I have prepared quickened fireball
-I have prepared quickened create pit
This are my only remaining spells, i cant cast them both because i only have one swift action.
Example 2
-I have prepared fireball
-I have prepared quickened create pit
I can cast both since one is a standard action and the other is a swift action.
This is a very niche example but there could be more.
|
|
Reading the Core Rulebook, it says a Swift Action takes less time than a standard action but more time than a free action, hence the once per round vs (practically) unlimited free actions.
An immediate action takes as long as a swift action.
There is nothing in the rules preventing you from using your standard action to take a swift action. You could take 2 swift actions and move action instead of swift action.
Don't forget the rule about common sense. If a swift action takes less time than a standard action, you can take it in place of a standard.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Action classes in order of least restrictive to most restrictive:
Full Round, Standard, Move, Swift, Free, Immediate.
It makes little sense to say that an available action to the left of the action type normally required can't be expended in place of an action to the right is ignoring common sense and is embodying the worst stereotypes of the rules lawyer.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given that this is not the first time this issue has come up, I think the developers are well aware of how swift actions work and if they wanted to change them they would have. Many players have no problem with how they work, your hyperbole about stupidity aside.
ElementalXX, all your example indicates is one of the potential pitfalls of prepared casters. If you can help it don't let yourself get caught in a situation where your remaining spells don't work. I fail to see how your example is any different from a wizard with just Merciful spells left facing something immune to nonlethal, or all enchantments facing an ooze. Even worse, your example situation is contrived in that the player had to deliberately cast spells such as to leave themselves in the situation you describe. The solution is simple: don't cast spells in such a manner as to leave yourself with only quickened spells remaining.
Basically the answer is that your swift action is a valuable resource, learn to budget it instead of demanding more.
|
Lets try to make this clearer so its understandable
Example 1
-I have prepared quickened fireball
-I have prepared quickened create pitThis are my only remaining spells, i cant cast them both because i only have one swift action.
Example 2
-I have prepared fireball
-I have prepared quickened create pitI can cast both since one is a standard action and the other is a swift action.
This is a very niche example but there could be more.
Ok so would it be ok for the wizzo to suddenly get ambushed, cast Quickened create pit (swift), 5' step into the pit, cast featherfall (immediate), then blast straight up with a quickened fireball (standard action used for swift) and follow that up with quickened fireball to mop up (move action used as swift)?
Not positive all that would jive if swifts were allowed to substitute for standard and move actions.....but I see problems with people getting 3+ spells a round off.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is nothing in the rules preventing you from using your standard action to take a swift action.
It would be more accurate to say that there is nothing in the rules ALLOWING it.
The RAW clearly states that you can trade a standard action for a move action, or two standard actions for a full-round action over 2 rounds. It does not, however, say you can trade any other actions any other way, so you can't.
|
|
Action classes in order of least restrictive to most restrictive:
Full Round, Standard, Move, Swift, Free, Immediate.
It makes little sense to say that an available action to the left of the action type normally required can't be expended in place of an action to the right is ignoring common sense and is embodying the worst stereotypes of the rules lawyer.
And yet you're wrong when it comes to Swift actions.
You get only one Swift per turn, that's it.
Source? I've never played in a game that wouldn't let me use a standard action to take a swift.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only question I'd have about casting both quickened spells, does the second quickened spell benefit from being "quickened" (i.e., does it provoke AoO or not)?
RAW no, you can't do this. I wouldn't have a problem allowing this sort of thing in my games though, provided the second spell provokes like a standard action spell ordinarily would. And I'd probably limit it the way seebs suggests. So, swift action for standard, but not move. Subject to circumstantial modification, of course. And, as per usual with home game deviations, YMMV.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Source? I've never played in a game that wouldn't let me use a standard action to take a swift.Action classes in order of least restrictive to most restrictive:
Full Round, Standard, Move, Swift, Free, Immediate.
It makes little sense to say that an available action to the left of the action type normally required can't be expended in place of an action to the right is ignoring common sense and is embodying the worst stereotypes of the rules lawyer.
And yet you're wrong when it comes to Swift actions.
You get only one Swift per turn, that's it.
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.
Compare that to the wording for standard and move actions.
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.
It says that "normally" you can only take a standard and move action implying that there are situations in which you might be able to take more than one. It also explicitly spells out you can swap a standard for a move. There is no such ambiguity with swift actions. It says you can take one, period.
Source? I've never played in a game that wouldn't let me use a standard action to take a swift.Action classes in order of least restrictive to most restrictive:
Full Round, Standard, Move, Swift, Free, Immediate.
It makes little sense to say that an available action to the left of the action type normally required can't be expended in place of an action to the right is ignoring common sense and is embodying the worst stereotypes of the rules lawyer.
And yet you're wrong when it comes to Swift actions.
You get only one Swift per turn, that's it.
http://paizo.com/prd/combat.html
Not sure what the anchor is to get you to the appropriate section, but under the "action type" it says:
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.
Edit: Ninja'd!
|
|
It's silly to say that taking 2 swift actions instead of a standard and a swift would break game balance. The action economy in Pathfinder is based around the standard action. It's the most expensive combat action that lets you still take a move and a swift.
The example with Quickened Spells is not an issue because of the high cost of Quickening spells. For that to work, you have to be a high-level spellcaster. Giving up two level 7 slots (for 2 level-3 quickened spells) takes care of the balance issue right there. Why is it unreasonable that a high-level spellcaster will be able to do some amazing things?
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.
Every GM I've played with allows swift actions in place of a standard for these reasons.
No response needed. You're not requesting a FAQ, you're requesting a rules revision. It can't be done, end of story. Do not pass Go, do not collect 200 gp.
Well to be fair it doesn't say you can or can't so it's not a rule per se. By default, that means you can't but it's still unclarified if it's meant to be that way. Since clarification is one of the uses of FAQ's, it's possible to get one. I suspect they'll say 'no response required' but there's no harm in asking.
|
|
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.
|
|
Action classes in order of least restrictive to most restrictive:
Full Round, Standard, Move, Swift, Free, Immediate.
It makes little sense to say that an available action to the left of the action type normally required can't be expended in place of an action to the right is ignoring common sense and is embodying the worst stereotypes of the rules lawyer.
And yet you're wrong when it comes to Swift actions.
You get only one Swift per turn, that's it.
The crux is whether or not one can expend an action that is less restrictive/more expansive in place of a successive Swift action after 1st swift action is already spent. It's not a question of performing a 2nd swift action; it's a question of being allowed to spend a standard action to perform what could be performed in a swift action.
If someone wants to spend a move action to perform a 2nd swift action, what's the harm? It's an extension of the same idea as spending a standard action in place of what normally costs a move action. Why would you ever want to? It doesn't matter. It's the principle. And as a principle, it's quite reasonable to extend that principle beyond standard and move actions.
It would be more accurate to say that there is nothing in the rules ALLOWING it.
There are a LOT of things that are agreed upon to be allowed without being explicitly allowed in the rules. It's a fallacy to say (or think) that nothing is allowed unless explicitly allowed.
Since the 'less restrictive action can be replaced by a more restrictive action' is allowed at all on part of the scale, it's not wrong to say that RAI the precedent is there to say the writers intended for it to go across the entire scale, they just saved word space by not explicitly saying so. That one can implicitly follow that rules phenomenon to a reasonable inference is all that's necessary for it to be 100% Kosher.
Swift actions have been getting more and more powerful, especially with the ACG, but even before that several classes have "super buff" potential with multiple swifts a round.
I absolutely limit them to once a round and I see no reason to allow them more than once a round.
No response needed. You're not requesting a FAQ, you're requesting a rules revision. It can't be done, end of story. Do not pass Go, do not collect 200 gp.Well to be fair it doesn't say you can or can't so it's not a rule per se. By default, that means you can't but it's still unclarified if it's meant to be that way. Since clarification is one of the uses of FAQ's, it's possible to get one. I suspect they'll say 'no response required' but there's no harm in asking.
Actually it does. It states very clearly:
You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take.
Regardless of what other actions you take or don't you can only ever perform one swift.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No response needed. You're not requesting a FAQ, you're requesting a rules revision. It can't be done, end of story. Do not pass Go, do not collect 200 gp.Well to be fair it doesn't say you can or can't so it's not a rule per se. By default, that means you can't but it's still unclarified if it's meant to be that way. Since clarification is one of the uses of FAQ's, it's possible to get one. I suspect they'll say 'no response required' but there's no harm in asking.
If they wanted you to be able to do it they would have issued an erratta sometime in the last five years of playing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since the 'less restrictive action can be replaced by a more restrictive action' is allowed at all on part of the scale, it's not wrong to say that RAI the precedent is there to say the writers intended for it to go across the entire scale, they just saved word space by not explicitly saying so. That one can implicitly follow that rules phenomenon to a reasonable inference is all that's necessary for it to be 100% Kosher.
Except they explicitly say you can't:
You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take.
|
|
Since the 'less restrictive action can be replaced by a more restrictive action' is allowed at all on part of the scale, it's not wrong to say that RAI the precedent is there to say the writers intended for it to go across the entire scale, they just saved word space by not explicitly saying so. That one can implicitly follow that rules phenomenon to a reasonable inference is all that's necessary for it to be 100% Kosher.Except they explicitly say you can't:
You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take.
That's an interesting catch. I disagree about what is the relevant part of the line.. I only bolded what really counts in this discussion. Looks like I have to agree with you in light of that line, however. It does certainly appear to head off exactly what I was suggesting. Still, it's possibly a fair house rule to allow spending a standard action on it.. but that's not what this thread is about.
No response needed. You're not requesting a FAQ, you're requesting a rules revision. It can't be done, end of story. Do not pass Go, do not collect 200 gp.Well to be fair it doesn't say you can or can't so it's not a rule per se. By default, that means you can't but it's still unclarified if it's meant to be that way. Since clarification is one of the uses of FAQ's, it's possible to get one. I suspect they'll say 'no response required' but there's no harm in asking.Actually it does. It states very clearly:
You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take.Regardless of what other actions you take or don't you can only ever perform one swift.
Ah... I wasn't replying to multiple swift actions per round but trading other actions for swift. Those are different questions.
If they wanted you to be able to do it they would have issued an erratta sometime in the last five years of playing.No response needed. You're not requesting a FAQ, you're requesting a rules revision. It can't be done, end of story. Do not pass Go, do not collect 200 gp.Well to be fair it doesn't say you can or can't so it's not a rule per se. By default, that means you can't but it's still unclarified if it's meant to be that way. Since clarification is one of the uses of FAQ's, it's possible to get one. I suspect they'll say 'no response required' but there's no harm in asking.
Really? You mean like what a source is? To this day you have people saying an ability is a source while others say it's the feat/ability but they haven't FAQ'd that one. That's just one issue in the core book that remains un-FAQ'd. There are others so time isn't a basis for judging errata/FAQ. I'd say it's more of it being such a corner case that they've got other things to do. I'd rather have them making fixes for the new class guide than mulling over this.
Really? You mean like what a source is? To this day you have people saying an ability is a source while others say it's the feat/ability but they haven't FAQ'd that one. That's just one issue in the core book that remains un-FAQ'd. There are others so time isn't a basis for judging errata/FAQ. I'd say it's more of it being such a corner case that they've got other things to do. I'd rather have them making fixes for the new class guide than mulling over this.If they wanted you to be able to do it they would have issued an erratta sometime in the last five years of playing.No response needed. You're not requesting a FAQ, you're requesting a rules revision. It can't be done, end of story. Do not pass Go, do not collect 200 gp.Well to be fair it doesn't say you can or can't so it's not a rule per se. By default, that means you can't but it's still unclarified if it's meant to be that way. Since clarification is one of the uses of FAQ's, it's possible to get one. I suspect they'll say 'no response required' but there's no harm in asking.
Yeah there are some relatively important questions pending that have not gotten a FAQ response.
That's an interesting catch. I disagree about what is the relevant part of the line.. I only bolded what really counts in this discussion. Looks like I have to agree with you in light of that line, however. It does certainly appear to head off exactly what I was suggesting. Still, it's possibly a fair house rule to allow spending a standard action on it.. but that's not what this thread is about.
Since the 'less restrictive action can be replaced by a more restrictive action' is allowed at all on part of the scale, it's not wrong to say that RAI the precedent is there to say the writers intended for it to go across the entire scale, they just saved word space by not explicitly saying so. That one can implicitly follow that rules phenomenon to a reasonable inference is all that's necessary for it to be 100% Kosher.Except they explicitly say you can't:
You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take.
I agree it is possibly a fair house rule. Really depends on how abusive your group is. In my group I wouldn't have a problem allowing it because I know they aren't going to get to crazy with it.
Lets try to make this clearer so its understandable
Example 1
-I have prepared quickened fireball
-I have prepared quickened create pitThis are my only remaining spells, i cant cast them both because i only have one swift action.
Example 2
-I have prepared fireball
-I have prepared quickened create pitI can cast both since one is a standard action and the other is a swift action.
This is a very niche example but there could be more.
Ok so would it be ok for the wizzo to suddenly get ambushed, cast Quickened create pit (swift), 5' step into the pit, cast featherfall (immediate), then blast straight up with a quickened fireball (standard action used for swift) and follow that up with quickened fireball to mop up (move action used as swift)?
Not positive all that would jive if swifts were allowed to substitute for standard and move actions.....but I see problems with people getting 3+ spells a round off.
Your example is false. You cannot use both a swift and immediate action in the same round. So if you cast a Quickened Create Pit and 5' stepped into it, you could not cast a Feather Fall because you've already used your swift/immediate action this round. If that weren't the case you could cast the Quickened Create Pit, 5' step, Feather Fall, and then a regular Fireball.
Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action and counts as your swift action for that turn.