Action Use

[noparlpf]

In a round, you get "unlimited" free actions, one swift action, one move action, and one standard action. Seeing as how you can take a second move action in place of a standard action, can you do the same with a move action to gain a second swift action in a round? (I can't remember which books give details on swift actions.)

[Keld Denar]

No, you can't "trade down" your move action for another swift action in 3e. You can in 4e, but not in any incarnation of 3e.

Also, first appearing in the Miniature's Handbook, they are reprinted in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm).

Swift Actions
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 one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. However, you can perform only a single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action any time you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Swift actions usually involve spellcasting or the activation of magic items; many characters (especially those who don't cast spells) never have an opportunity to take a swift action.

Casting a quickened spell is a swift action. In addition, casting any spell with a casting time of 1 swift action is a swift action.

Casting a spell with a casting time of 1 swift action does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Immediate Actions
Much like a swift action, an immediate action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. However, unlike a swift action, an immediate action can be performed at any time — even if it's not your turn. Casting feather fall is an immediate action, since the spell can be cast at any time.

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

[noparlpf]

Maybe I got the idea from the one time I opened a 4e book. Do you think it would work in any versions of 3rd edition, or would it just make casters even more overpowered?

[Kaje]

I think it would be reasonable to swap a standard action for another swift if you wanted to, but not swap out a move for a swift.

[Keld Denar]

Honestly, Swift actions are generally MORE useful than move actions, especially if you are using ToB or the MIC. Both give a lot of nice options for non-casters to utilize their swift actions, and in fact, often times there are SO many options that you are hard pressed to choose the best one for the situation. And THAT is where the game becomes fun, IMO. There isn't one "best strategy". Do I activate my Hexbands to get +Cha to damage against my foe? Or do I try to attack and hit them with my Stunning Surge weapon? Or do I activating my Heartseeking Amulet and Power Attack for the house? Or maybe I should use my Anklets of Translocation to teleport into flanking to enable my SA damage? Do I use a boost? Recover my maneuvers? Did I use a counter last round to save my bacon, thus locking me out of the whole decision process?

Having options, good options, makes the game more interesting. It adds a level of strategy and complexity that makes you really think about what to do next rather than mindlessly full attacking forward.

[HunterOfJello]

I would avoid allowing more than 1 swift action per round. The Ruby Knight Windicator can get more than 1 swift action per round at higher levels and makes ridiculous use of it.

The way that swift actions were designed comes with the limit of 1 per round. If you set up a way that characters can easily get more than 1 per round then you're going to see a ton of exploits pop up that were never designed to be balanced by the developers.

~

As mentioned above, swift actions are generally more useful than move actions and can be more useful than standard actions. It isn't just an issue of time, but an issue of balancing powerful actions.

[Tr011]

I disagree with that, HunterOfJello. Swift actions are almost never more powerful than standard action. But you still shouldn't allow more than one immediate action.

Btw, a swift action is mostly a very quick activation of an item or a quick spell, like something that is cast/activated by just one word. A standard action is often casting a complex spell with verbal and/or somatic components, so trading down standard actions for swift actions should not be wrong, both by sense and balance (I allow it in my games and there was nothing wrong with it).

[tyckspoon]

I disagree with that, HunterOfJello. Swift actions are almost never more powerful than standard action. But you still shouldn't allow more than one immediate action.


If you assume a Standard Action is 'Cast a Spell', then yes, Swifts are usually not more powerful than Standard. If you assume a Standard Action is 'make one attack', then there a number of Swift actions that might be more useful than doing that.

[Tr011]

Attacking is usually a Full-Round action. If you use a standard-action for it, you do something wrong (or use a maneuver, which is mostly better than using a swift action).

[Provengreil]

Attacking is usually a Full-Round action. If you use a standard-action for it, you do something wrong (or use a maneuver, which is mostly better than using a swift action).

or maybe you're moving around, like with spring attack maybe. or maybe you're charging with no pounce(low op game, or it's coming to your build soon). there are some status effects that reduce you to a standard action. or maybe you just don't have full attacks yet. so no, it is not wrong, there are plenty of reasons to attack with a standard action.