I know this isn't a new topic, but bad searchfu. Links to relevant threads happily accepted.
How big of a game balance impact does allowing standard or move actions to be converted to swift actions have? Essentially, if no other actions are taken, the ability to use up to three swift actions in a turn. I know that this is a bigger boon to some classes, but don't most classes get at least some swift action feature somewhere along the way?
I don't recall if 3.5 had swift actions, but most of what swift actions are in Pathfinder are comparable to Minor actions from 4e. Standard-->Move-->Minor(swift) was not a balance issue in that system. However, whatever other problems 4e had, the classes were all much closer in balance to one and other.
Are there any classes that would straight up miss out or be nerfed by this change?
I play a lot of Magus/mage type characters, and the ability to replace a Move action with a swift would be HUGE for my character. It typically take about 3-4 rounds of spending swift actions to get my character up to full speed, and being able to do it in half that time would be incredible.
Here is a link to a similar thread a few months ago.
The consensus (not unanimous, but mostly consistent) is that the rules as written do not allow you to do this. However a house rule that allows you to take a swift action in place of a standard action would probably be fine. It’s hard to come up with an example where a swift is a better choice than a standard. Converting a move action to a swift, though, would be an overall game power increase as there are many classes/builds that don’t use their move actions very often.
TxSam88 wrote: I play a lot of Magus/mage type characters, and the ability to replace a Move action with a swift would be HUGE for my character. It typically take about 3-4 rounds of spending swift actions to get my character up to full speed, and being able to do it in half that time would be incredible. I can certainly see that. That's part of why I'm asking. I'm building an Inquisitor. What I'm wondering though, is once those buffs are all online, obviously you're better/good/awesome at what your character does, but are you 2-4 rounds of lost standard actions more awesome than a class that doesn't rely on swift actions?
Belafon wrote: Here is a link to a similar thread a few months ago.
The consensus (not unanimous, but mostly consistent) is that the rules as written do not allow you to do this. However a house rule that allows you to take a swift action in place of a standard action would probably be fine. It’s hard to come up with an example where a swift is a better choice than a standard. Converting a move action to a swift, though, would be an overall game power increase as there are many classes/builds that don’t use their move actions very often.
Thanks for the link. So, if I'm following correctly, a middle compromise might generally be considered balanced. No swift/swift/swift turns, but a swift/move/swift would be okay. That actually makes quite a bit of sense when you consider most swift actions are buffs of various parity to standard action buff spells or class features.
Hooo boy! That other thread got eye-swimingly involved and spicy. I'm glad I'm asking as a house rule for balance, and not about RAW.
Frankly, describing that thread as achieving a consensus is a bit rich in my view, and describing that viewpoint as being Rules As Written is also a bit rich given that the side that supports being able to ready swift actions (I am of this view, and did much of the arguing.) is pointing to RAW and the side that opposes it was making statements like "the rule text isn't a legal text covering every possibility" and claiming that the rules are a bit fuzzy among other things in order to press their case, which is not a very RAW sort of reasoning. You can certainly say there was no consensus, that overall conclusions on these rules are divided, or that you agree with a side and why, but claiming that there was a consensus and that this purported consensus is a RAW ruling at that is a rather... generously partial summary for Belafon to derive from it all, shall we say.
At any rate, we do not need to rehash those arguments here (and if you wish to understand the arguments in detail you need only look at the thread), and so to answer your question: converting standards to swifts is generally fine, as standard actions are already superior to swift actions in terms of impact. Converting move actions to swifts is likely overpowered, because at that point quickened spells and what-have-you will be used to become even more of a rocket tag sort of game, and that is obviously a problem. There is one item, the Corset of Delicate Moves, that can convert a move action to a swift action once per day, and it specifically disallows the use of it for spellcasting or SLAs. Admittedly, the Pathfinder Chronicler can perform Inspire Action performances as move actions to give people standard actions, but that is what makes the Pathfinder Chronicler powerful, perhaps too powerful.
the linked thread just highlights an area in RAW where a GM has to make a decision. It goes one way or the other and involves prioritizing one RAW statement over another for a descriptive game. 15 years ago 1-2 sentences could have cleared the mess up... as PFS generally only goes to 12th level there was never any pressure to clarify it so it remains a nitpick.
Should you expand conversions into swift? clearly no. Swift actions are a limitation on actions and action economy.
Magic needs to be involved to skirt the rules.
The hard question is what would a Corset of Delicate Moves with [5]/d cost?...or Ioun Stone?...
A Readied Action having an old/new/next Swift should be addressed in the magic item description for your Game to document that decision.
Sysryke wrote: TxSam88 wrote: I play a lot of Magus/mage type characters, and the ability to replace a Move action with a swift would be HUGE for my character. It typically take about 3-4 rounds of spending swift actions to get my character up to full speed, and being able to do it in half that time would be incredible. I can certainly see that. That's part of why I'm asking. I'm building an Inquisitor. What I'm wondering though, is once those buffs are all online, obviously you're better/good/awesome at what your character does, but are you 2-4 rounds of lost standard actions more awesome than a class that doesn't rely on swift actions? Most definitely. I was playing a Ninja/Magus once:
Round 1:
Free: Black blade strike (up to +5 damage)
swift: Hasted Assault (one extra attack)
swift: Invisible Blade (as per greater invisibility, attacks as flat footed and +2)
Move or Standard: move to flanking or teleport to opponent
Round 2:
Swift: Accurate Strike or Arcane Strike or ki attack speed (all attacks as touch or +5 or 1 extra attack)
Full attack with spell combat and spell strike (10d6 shocking grasp with metamagic)
TxSam88 wrote: Sysryke wrote: TxSam88 wrote: I play a lot of Magus/mage type characters, and the ability to replace a Move action with a swift would be HUGE for my character. It typically take about 3-4 rounds of spending swift actions to get my character up to full speed, and being able to do it in half that time would be incredible. I can certainly see that. That's part of why I'm asking. I'm building an Inquisitor. What I'm wondering though, is once those buffs are all online, obviously you're better/good/awesome at what your character does, but are you 2-4 rounds of lost standard actions more awesome than a class that doesn't rely on swift actions? Most definitely. I was playing a Ninja/Magus once:
Round 1:
Free: Black blade strike (up to +5 damage)
swift: Hasted Assault (one extra attack)
swift: Invisible Blade (as per greater invisibility, attacks as flat footed and +2)
Move or Standard: move to flanking or teleport to opponent
Round 2:
Swift: Accurate Strike or Arcane Strike or ki attack speed (all attacks as touch or +5 or 1 extra attack)
Full attack with spell combat and spell strike (10d6 shocking grasp with metamagic)
That does sound really cool, but is it inherently "better" than the equally well built fighter/ranger/barbarian who got to charge and full attack, or two rounds of archery full attack, or whatever? What you describe sounds awesome, but not game breaking. However, I'm not a great theoretical numbers cruncher.
let me help...
action economy is a basic 'rate of action' and the game has speed limits. It is at the root of attempts like infinite gunfire shots, infinite subdual damage, etc. Imagine an arcane caster doing 3 quickened spells and then a standard action spell.... so you can see how raising the 'speed limit' on actions leads to more actions per round. Then 6 PCs vs 1 BBEG amplifies that rate of actions differential.
Sysryke wrote:
That does sound really cool, but is it inherently "better" than the equally well built fighter/ranger/barbarian who got to charge and full attack, or two rounds of archery full attack, or whatever? What you describe sounds awesome, but not game breaking. However, I'm not a great theoretical numbers cruncher.
Better? Maybe, Maybe not, but does the extra Swift actions make the Magus better? most definitely.
Comparing to a melee/martial isn't really fair, as few of them need swift actions for much of anything, but for those that do, it's pretty potent.
Azothath wrote: let me help...
action economy is a basic 'rate of action' and the game has speed limits. It is at the root of attempts like infinite gunfire shots, infinite subdual damage, etc. Imagine an arcane caster doing 3 quickened spells and then a standard action spell.... so you can see how raising the 'speed limit' on actions leads to more actions per round. Then 6 PCs vs 1 BBEG amplifies that rate of actions differential.
I think I get your point, though the phrasing got a bit fuzzy for me. Depending on whether we're talking standard to swift conversion, or move to swift conversion, that's either 2 or 3 swift actions in one round, but not 3 swifts plus a standard. Unless you meant that example to be over two separate rounds.
I do see, and concede, that move to swift is probably too powerful. So, mostly just considering standard to swift. Either way though, you're still forgoing standard actions on some turns. The proposed play shift here is getting around the "no more than 1 swift actions" per turn rule. Just to be clear to all parties, I AM NOT jumping into the "Is this conversion legal/RAW/RAI?" debate. The question in this thread is just about how doing this conversion affects game balance.
Regardless of how many swifts you can take, the "no more than 1 swift spell per turn" rule is a separate rule. So, outside of specific exceptions with their own rules and opportunity costs, I'm not worried about 3 quickened spells in one round, as that would still be illegal.
Without that extremely broken case, I don't think that this really is an action economy question. What's being proposed doesn't add actions to a character's turn, it merely changes what those actions can be. Unless super well built, 6 on 1 BBEG fights are always going to be a slaughter one way or the other (either baddy is too tough to touch, or he's swamped in the flood of player actions).
TxSam88 wrote: Sysryke wrote:
That does sound really cool, but is it inherently "better" than the equally well built fighter/ranger/barbarian who got to charge and full attack, or two rounds of archery full attack, or whatever? What you describe sounds awesome, but not game breaking. However, I'm not a great theoretical numbers cruncher.
Better? Maybe, Maybe not, but does the extra Swift actions make the Magus better? most definitely.
Comparing to a melee/martial isn't really fair, as few of them need swift actions for much of anything, but for those that do, it's pretty potent. I completely agree. This rule change or interpretation is a straight boon to your Magus, my Inquisitor, or any other swift actions reliant build. But, they have to be compared to other mostly martial classes. As levels get higher, general concensus is that spell casters are the most powerful classes (around 3rd to 5th level spells depending on who you ask), so gishes and swifties (No, not Taylor :p) must be compared to well built martials.
At it's root, the question underneath my original question is, if swift action dependent classes take only one swift per turn, are they generally equal to or weaker than other classes in combat? If they can take two swifts per turn (at the expense of a standard), are they now equal, or stronger compared to other classes?
Sysryke wrote:
At it's root, the question underneath my original question is, if swift action dependent classes take only one swift per turn, are they generally equal to or weaker than other classes in combat? If they can take two swifts per turn (at the expense of a standard), are they now equal, or stronger compared to other classes?
Considering the Swift action items I opted not to choose for the character, I'd put a triple swifting magus build above most other classes.
I'd have to dig into my archive of characters, but I remember one build that added a boost via swift actions each round for 5 rounds, and once that 5th one hit he was a terror to behold. Far out damaging the martials in the party.
There are certain classes that benefit heavily from allowing more swift actions to be done in a single turn.
Without going into detail, it's not something I would permit.
In general, the two classes that spring to mind as benefitting the most from such a change would be Magus and Inquisitor. And they're already top tier classes, no need for a buff.
It's really only converting moves for swifts that's overpowered, because then you could activate two swifts and still make an attack or cast a spell. Trading standard actions for swifts is an actual opportunity cost. Sure, you can do more damage on round 2 after getting 2 swift actions in the first, but you didn't do any damage on round 1 so it mostly evens out when you average it.
It partially depends on whether you're primarily ranged or melee, as I think my archer Inquisitor probably would have 100% made a trade to use a swift action in place of a standard to have a really strong second round.
But it's not a clear cut winner like getting to trade a move action.
That should definitely not be allowed.
Funny enough I considered melee to benefit slightly more from being able to convert standard to swift. There are rounds where a melee build can't get within range to do their thing. This is most often going to happen in the first round of combat anyway.
That's a fair point. For melee which typically needs to move, sacrificing a single attack to buff yourself up for round 2 is exceptionally good.
Claxon wrote: It partially depends on whether you're primarily ranged or melee, as I think my archer Inquisitor probably would have 100% made a trade to use a swift action in place of a standard to have a really strong second round.. I’m curious as to what your inquisitor could have done with two swifts in round one that would be better than a swift and a standard. What would be better than:
Round 1: Judgment, cast a spell (divine favor, for example)
Round 2: Bane, full-attack.
Legit curious, I can’t come up with anything.
Belafon wrote: Claxon wrote: It partially depends on whether you're primarily ranged or melee, as I think my archer Inquisitor probably would have 100% made a trade to use a swift action in place of a standard to have a really strong second round.. I’m curious as to what your inquisitor could have done with two swifts in round one that would be better than a swift and a standard. What would be better than:
Round 1: Judgment, cast a spell (divine favor, for example)
Round 2: Bane, full-attack.
Legit curious, I can’t come up with anything. It's been many years since I played the character, so at this point I honestly can't remember. I just remember there was something I had as a swift action that I rarely used (except on longer more challenging battles).
Heck, in many cases I didn't even use Bane because of the limited rounds of usage and it not being a necessity in many of the fights (as I was already one of the top damage dealers even without it).
Honestly, what I remember is the character was absolutely fine with the rules as is. If given extra rounds to buff, could be insane. And the impression I have is some of those additional buff options were swift actions, but again it's been years. I'd have to track down the character sheet....and that's not likely to happen.
Here's a way of looking at it...
...why do you want to do it?
Odds are good that you'd want to perform a swift action in place of a move/standard action because it's better for you. Which means it's better. Which means it's power-creep.
There are relatively powerful magic items and class abilities that are explicitly written with the balancing assumption that only one of them can happen in any given turn.
Certainly performing a swift in place of a move action is potentially broken. Take the case of two Quickened spells as a swift and a move, then a normal spell as a standard. Definitely not intended.
While I don't have any specifics off the top of my head where a swift in the place of a standard to allow two swifts is nearly as broken, I expect there are.
Basically I return to "if you want to do it, there's a probably a reason, and that reason is it's better for you in a way the rules intended to not be permitted."
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Anguish wrote: Certainly performing a swift in place of a move action is potentially broken. Take the case of two Quickened spells as a swift and a move, then a normal spell as a standard. Definitely not intended. Oddly enough there is already a specific restriction on that: CRB Magic Chapter wrote: 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
I actively concede it's better. I've left the idea of move conversion to swift behind. This wasn't game breaking with move to minor in 4e, but it's demonstrably clear that it's too much for Pathfinder (probably because 4e doesn't have full attack actions now that I think on it).
Standard to swift still seems reasonable. As others have said, it's a trade off, but it does give greater versatility for times when your standard might go wanting. I haven't played an Inquisitor in over a decade, and then it was only for a handful of Kingmaker sessions, so not a good case study for the class. I don't know how Inquisitor stacks up to other classes, but many guides say my particular race and archetype are suboptimal. I don't know if that's just compared to standard Inquisitor, or across the board. So, I'm trying to get a feel for the class, and figure out how to best operate.
It's still a bit unclear wether or not a double swift round with no attack, for a better buffs later round, is unbalanced or not. Can any number cruncher provide an example or two?
Melkiador wrote: Anguish wrote: Certainly performing a swift in place of a move action is potentially broken. Take the case of two Quickened spells as a swift and a move, then a normal spell as a standard. Definitely not intended. Oddly enough there is already a specific restriction on that:CRB Magic Chapter wrote: 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 Damnit. I thought there was such a clause but didn't take the time to double-check. 100% mea-culpa.
That said, the specific case doesn't change my opinion. And I'm a very lenient GM.
I think we are almost all in agreement that move action to swift action is a bad idea.
But there aren’t many arguments against standard to swift. The only time I can think of where swifts are better than standards are involving mythic.
there IS a way to get several actions for free... Time Stop:T9. neva said it would be easy
Melkiador wrote: Anguish wrote: Certainly performing a swift in place of a move action is potentially broken. Take the case of two Quickened spells as a swift and a move, then a normal spell as a standard. Definitely not intended. Oddly enough there is already a specific restriction on that:CRB Magic Chapter wrote: 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 The thing is, there is no limit stipulating you may only cast one spell per round. The "normal limit" thus appears to be nothing more than having one standard action. So to me, this reads as a poorly-phrased reminder/clarification that you have one standard and one swift action so you can only cast one swift action spell per round, rather than a hard limit (especially since it leaves the door open to casting a swift action spell and an immediate action spell in the same round), and I doubt anyone adheres to such a restriction when people use the Borrowed Time spell (which gives a second swift action), for instance.
Tom Sampson wrote: Melkiador wrote: Anguish wrote: Certainly performing a swift in place of a move action is potentially broken. Take the case of two Quickened spells as a swift and a move, then a normal spell as a standard. Definitely not intended. Oddly enough there is already a specific restriction on that:CRB Magic Chapter wrote: 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 The thing is, there is no limit stipulating you may only cast one spell per round. The "normal limit" thus appears to be nothing more than having one standard action. So to me, this reads as a poorly-phrased reminder/clarification that you have one standard and one swift action so you can only cast one swift action spell per round, rather than a hard limit (especially since it leaves the door open to casting a swift action spell and an immediate action spell in the same round), and I doubt anyone adheres to such a restriction when people use the Borrowed Time spell (which gives a second swift action), for instance. There are going to be people who both agree and disagree with your statements above. I'm not weighing in. However, since that argument is not what this thread is about, I'm going to ask that you not drag this thread into the same heated debates the earlier referenced threads succumbed to.
Wether or not your interpretation/understanding of the rules is correct (again, not taking a side), the question is if being able to convert standard actions to swift (2 swifts per turn in trade for a lost standard), is a powerful enough tactic/option/rule to make swift dependent/heavy classes stronger than, or merely balanced to other swift light/free classes? The spirit of this question is not so much about RAW/RAI (as those other threads) as it is crunch and actual game play.
Seen another way, if we take your position as correct, then the question becomes, is the hard limit of one swift action per turn an unbalanced nerf against swift heavy classes? If your position is taken instead as the house rule, then is this option an unbalanced boost? Either way, the question is about balance, not the actual validity or lack thereof of the rules.
Fortunately, double swift spells only really matters to the move-to-swift option, which we all already agree is problematic. Double swift spells isn’t a large gain when giving up your standard.
Melkiador wrote: Fortunately, double swift spells only really matters to the move-to-swift option, which we all already agree is problematic. Double swift spells isn’t a large gain when giving up your standard. Yep, either way you're getting two spells per turn. Only difference is certain triggers like AoOs.
I do think Tom is mostly correct about there being no hard rule about 1 spell per turn, as the non-debated existence of swift actions and quickened spells gets around this. There are even a precious few spells cast as move actions, so 3 spells per turn is theoretically possible in very specific circumstances. (I guess more often, but frequently pointless.)
However, remembering that specific beats general, since there is rule text prohibiting casting more than one spell as a swift action per turn, I'd say that outside of even more specific circumstances created by feats/items/features, 2 swift spells per turn is out of this topic as well. It's really swift buffs, feats, exploits, and other features/tactics we're weighing.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
You are a bit over-cautious regarding stirring controversy. I do understand your concern, however, and you needn't fret on that account.
As for my own position about the power level concerns of converting standard into swifts, I've already mentioned that it shouldn't be a problem as standard actions are already more impactful than swift actions. I actually don't really have strong opinions on any supposed vital importance of being able to use a swift action twice per round. I'm simply a bit of a stickler for making sure we understand the rules correctly, and that the rules state you can ready swift actions. I suppose I may as well clarify further, since you seem to be misunderstanding where my strong disagreement stemmed from: my tendency towards rebuke stemmed from what I viewed to be goalpost-shifting, casting aspersions, selective memory, and other conducts that I do not regard as arguing in good faith. This was the source of my annoyance and somewhat pointed replies, rather than any passion for the subject of swift actions.
Now to answer your question, honestly, if you cannot use your standard action to perform a second swift action, odds are you can do other useful things with your standard action regardless, and since either way you are consuming your first turn with powering up, you can still use a second swift action on your next turn as you proceed to full attack or similar. It's not until you find yourself needing three swift actions (an issue the Magus is more likely to have) that this is really an issue and even then your other options for standard actions are still strong. The Corset of Delicate Moves suffices for any "boss fight" or similar encounter where you might want to go the extra mile to power up quickly at any rate. In brief, I doubt balance is meaningfully impacted either way. For the most part, your ability as a Magus to start a combat with Hasted Assault and Arcane Pool and then start your next turn with a Bladed Dash spell combat using Arcane Strike is impacted negatively, I suppose, but by the time you can use Hasted Assault you were already capable of just casting Haste on the party with the same standard action or using Boots of Speed really.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
