Trading Move Actions for Swift Actions

[inertia709]

How do you feel about trading move (or standard) actions for swift actions? RAW it doesn't work, but since swift actions are "quicker" than move actions, it makes sense from an in-game perspective. Does this open up a whole new can of worms? The worst I can think of immediately is getting off a regular spell + a quickened spell + a swift action spell in the same turn, using two ToB boosts and a strike in the same turn, or something similar. (No need to mention Arcane Spellsurge, because any sensible GM should ban or nerf that spell anyway.)

[eggynack]

It's probably a bad idea. As your post notes, you can actually do a lot of stuff with a swift action, and much of it is rather powerful. Swift actions are one of the most difficult types of action to get a bunch of, and allowing this seems to open up a big can o' worms.

[Rebel7284]

I believe you can use the "ready an action" action to covert a standard action into a swift action.

[eggynack]

I believe you can use the "ready an action" action to covert a standard action into a swift action.
I don't see how.

[Anlashok]

Rules Compendium (p. 110) clarifies that you can Ready a swift action (as a standard action), but do note that some people on this forum like to pretend that the Rules Compendium isn't a real book.

[eggynack]

Rules Compendium (p. 110) clarifies that you can Ready a swift action (as a standard action), but do note that some people on this forum like to pretend that the Rules Compendium isn't a real book.
I guess that would hold up, but does that give an actual second swift, or just shift it to another time? In any case, standard to swift is obviously a much less interesting move than move to swift. The former definitely has a couple of niche applications, but the latter seems actually significantly overpowered.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I like to pretend RC is not a real book.

That said, I am ok w/ trading a standard for a swift. Trading a move for a swift is lulz-broken, though. Seriously, don't do that.

[Rebel7284]

I guess that would hold up, but does that give an actual second swift, or just shift it to another time? In any case, standard to swift is obviously a much less interesting move than move to swift. The former definitely has a couple of niche applications, but the latter seems actually significantly overpowered.

Well you can ready a move action after already having taken a move action and of course readying a standard action uses the standard action you had, so by that logic, you should also get a second swift action from this.

You do have to find a suitable ready condition for this, but that should be a pretty easy.

I agree that this is pretty situational and much weaker than converting move actions would be.

[Curmudgeon]

Rules Compendium (p. 110) clarifies that you can Ready a swift action (as a standard action)
Yes, that's true. It doesn't affect the limit of 1 swift action per turn, however.

[Anlashok]

I guess that would hold up, but does that give an actual second swift, or just shift it to another time? In any case, standard to swift is obviously a much less interesting move than move to swift. The former definitely has a couple of niche applications, but the latter seems actually significantly overpowered.

Gives you a second swift because you eat your standard for the turn to use it.

It has a couple niche applications, but I like it because it gives me another reason to slap those "Divine impetus is actually good because you can boost twice in the same turn!" people.

[Rebel7284]

Yes, that's true. It doesn't affect the limit of 1 swift action per turn, however.

you also have a limit of one standard action, and yet readying gives you a new one.

[Curmudgeon]

you also have a limit of one standard action, and yet readying gives you a new one.
There's no such limit. You normally are only granted one standard action in a turn, but there's no rule saying you can't use more. There is such a rule for swift actions.

[VoxRationis]

Also, readying an action doesn't really add a standard action so much as move your normal one somewhere down the initiative order. I think it makes sense, myself, to be able to "downgrade" an action type, although I suspect I do not own the books that lead StreamOfTheSky to conclude it such a thing would be imbalanced.

[Firest Kathon]

For Pathfinder, the only conversion that is mentioned (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Actions-In-Combat) is Standard -> Move:

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.

As to readying an action (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Special-Initiative-Actions):

Readying is a standard action. [...] You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action.

[Zanos]

I would allow standard->swift in my games, but i would absolutely never allow move->swift.

[Jeff the Green]

No, absolutely not. Move actions are quite limited; swifts aren't.

I've actually been considering allowing trading Standard > Swift > Move. It'd help with mobility issues by giving everyone pseudopounce by default.

[RolkFlameraven]

No, absolutely not. Move actions are quite limited; swifts aren't.

I've actually been considering allowing trading Standard > Swift > Move. It'd help with mobility issues by giving everyone pseudopounce by default.

So you're thinking of giving everyone Hustle at will for no cost?

[Jeff the Green]

So you're thinking of giving everyone Hustle at will for no cost?

Basically, yeah. It obviates the need to dip barbarian for non-ToB melee, brings them up a notch, and doesn't give casters much of a boost since they usually don't use full-round actions and have better things to do with their swift actions. I'd need to come up with a different benefit for Chronocharm of the Horizon Walker and Travel Devotion, though.

[RolkFlameraven]

Psion's will love you. Psionic meditation and this idea gets a lot more interesting, and saves 3/5 PP (and possibly a feat) in the proses.

[VoxRationis]

What justification do you who have such vehement objections to this proposal have besides problems with obscure class feature abuse? Complete Arcane says that a swift action takes less time than a standard or move action. How could you be able to do something that takes 3 seconds but not do something that takes 1 second, barring physical restraints or other similar instances that prevent a specific 1-second action?

[Segev]

Notably, you are limited to 1 swift action per turn, but can actually take up to 2 move actions in a turn (though you forego your standard action if you do).

[Curmudgeon]

What justification do you who have such vehement objections to this proposal have besides problems with obscure class feature abuse?
If you're suggesting also allowing multiple swift actions in a round, that's an obvious power boost for spellcasters: an extra spell every round. That's very clearly abusive.

[Thiyr]

If you're suggesting also allowing multiple swift actions in a round, that's an obvious power boost for spellcasters: an extra spell every round. That's very clearly abusive.

Interesting note: They actually don't. Unless it was updated in a later book, under the Casting Time section of your 3.5 PHB, page 174, it states that you can only cast a single spell per turn, with an exception that free action spells don't count against it (but you can only cast one free action spell), and having just checked the errata, I saw nothing removing that. Can't remember the book where quicken got updated to be a swift other than rules compendium, but even if you use the srd's language, you only get one quickened spell and a single normal spell ever, barring things which explicitly ignore that. So for once, spellcasting abuse isn't gonna be the abuse we need to worry about here. (That also puts an unfortunate damper on swift action spells by RAW, given that they don't have an exemption to the 1 spell a round rule. free action spells do, and quickened spells do, but swift don't. And its sadly another RAW nail in the coffin of the RKV/ordained champion nova of doom. Sad day.)

[Curmudgeon]

Unless it was updated in a later book, under the Casting Time section of your 3.5 PHB, page 174, it states that you can only cast a single spell per turn, with an exception that free action spells don't count against it (but you can only cast one free action spell), and having just checked the errata, I saw nothing removing that. Can't remember the book where quicken got updated to be a swift ...

A spell with a casting time of 1 free action (such as feather fall) doesn’t count against your normal limit of one spell per round. However, you may cast such a spell only once per round. Casting a spell with a casting time of 1 free action doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity.
That limit is only mentioned in this one place, in passing. It's not a hard limit, but a consequence of a spell taking a standard action or longer to cast, and you normally being limited to 1 standard action/round.

Complete Arcane (page 86) is where Quicken Spell was updated:
Casting a quickened spell is a swift action (instead of a free action, as stated in the Quicken Spell feat description in the Player’s Handbook). In addition, casting any spell with a casting time of 1 swift action (such as aiming at the target) is a swift action. If there was an actual rule limiting spells to 1/round, there would need to be a rules update specifying that swift action spells may be used in a round when you're casting another spell. After all, an exception for free action spells 1/round doesn't apply to swift action spells.

[inertia709]

Thanks for the feedback everyone! For the most part, you've supported my feeling that allowing trading move actions for swift actions is a bad idea. The question came up as a result of a player in a PF game playing a Dhampir Antipaladin asking to use his move action as a swift action so that he could activate smite good, touch of corruption (house-ruled as swift for self healing) and attack in the same round. The encounter was more difficult than it should have been (archons are OP haha) so I hesitantly allowed it, but I wanted to get some opinions on the subject before deciding whether or not to make it a general rule.

That being said, most people have been saying that it's OP and leaving it at that. While I'm inclined to agree, it would be nice to see some specific examples. Can you think of any particularly powerful combos that move>swift allows? I feel like wraithstrike + ToB could lead to some good stuff, or maybe it could lead to some more psionics action economy abuse.

[eggynack]

That being said, most people have been saying that it's OP and leaving it at that. While I'm inclined to agree, it would be nice to see some specific examples. Can you think of any particularly powerful combos that move>swift allows? I feel like wraithstrike + ToB could lead to some good stuff, or maybe it could lead to some more psionics action economy abuse.
It's not necessarily about specific combos. It's just that swift actions are, quite often, actually very powerful and meaningful. More of them in a round can often mean extra spells, or extra maneuvers, or extra psionic whatevers. Sure, there probably are some crazy combos out there, but I'm mostly concerned by the fact that you're offering the ability to gain extra do-stuff actions, as opposed to moving about actions, and that's pretty powerful.

[VoxRationis]

That limit is only mentioned in this one place, in passing. It's not a hard limit, but a consequence of a spell taking a standard action or longer to cast, and you normally being limited to 1 standard action/round.
I agree.
Complete Arcane (page 86) is where Quicken Spell was updated: If there was an actual rule limiting spells to 1/round, there would need to be a rules update specifying that swift action spells may be used in a round when you're casting another spell. After all, an exception for free action spells 1/round doesn't apply to swift action spells.[/QUOTE]

Here's where I disagree. That, I feel, stems from the fact that swift actions were rather clumsily tacked on through sourcebooks. Not wanting to take up an entire page of those sourcebooks with a rule alteration, the designers stuck to brevity in explaining the rules of swift actions, and thus didn't bother to fully write out what was going on with that. Complete Arcane said that quickened spells are now swift actions rather than free actions, but made no other changes to them. I would rule that their usage (1 quickened spell per round, can be used with a standard-action spell) would therefore play by the core rules.

Edit: Also, Curmudgeon: I was referring to more "does this make sense" sort of logic, rather than "is this OP," when I asked if there was anything you could think of that would be a good reason for banning the move/swift exchange.

[Segev]

Consider, too, that "a move and a standard" does not mean, necessarily, that what you're doing on the grid with your figurine is what's actually happening. The model could be breaking from what it's modeling a bit:

A wizard who moves and casts a spell could very well actually be casting while he's moving, and just release the spell at the right moment. A fighter who's moving and shooting could well be taking the time to aim and such while moving (though admittedly shot-on-the-run makes this questionable as to why he can't release mid-move without said feat).

Simultaneity of move+other actions could be why you can't trade your move for a swift. That'd be like trying to say you're casting a spell with your feet and one half of your mouth while you're casting another spell "standardly."

[Thiyr]

That limit is only mentioned in this one place, in passing. It's not a hard limit, but a consequence of a spell taking a standard action or longer to cast, and you normally being limited to 1 standard action/round.

Complete Arcane (page 86) is where Quicken Spell was updated: If there was an actual rule limiting spells to 1/round, there would need to be a rules update specifying that swift action spells may be used in a round when you're casting another spell. After all, an exception for free action spells 1/round doesn't apply to swift action spells.

Really? It's only mentioned in one place in passing? Bull. There's the quote i gave on page 174 of the PHB, which explicitly calls it out and has a paragraph dedicated just to that subject. Further, it's mentioned in the combat section, under Free Actions (see pg 144, Cast a Quickened Spell). That's self-consistent in a primary source providing an clear, explicit limit on spells per round which has neither been errata'd nor updated in a later book. It's a perfectly acceptable houserule to ignore it (if you feel like giving casters a boost), but it is there. All the other stuff you've provided is circumstantial at best by comparison. I mean, yea, obviously they should've updated that text (which, by the way, would've just meant changing the word "free" to "swift" again in both of those sections, meaning you've got the free spell 1 per round, normal spell 1 per round), but since when has WotC been thorough with editing, or with catching everything that needs errata? It's a dysfunction that you can't cast more than a single swift spell in a round unless that spell was quickened, not grounds to ignore other rulestext.

Oh, and even WITHOUT that, even IF you assume that you want to ignore that bit of rule, you're still only stuck to normal swift action spells. Quicken Spell explicitly calls out that you can only cast a quickened spell 1/round, which ALSO wasn't explicitly removed by CArc. Not to say there aren't other options, but they're all fairly limited (unless you're a paladin with battle blessing)


Edit: @Vox:

there would need to be a rules update specifying that swift action spells may be used in a round when you're casting another spell. After all, an exception for free action spells 1/round doesn't apply to swift action spells

There would be, and there isn't, but that's more a case of sloppy editing than good proof. Perhaps a means to weasel out intent, but from the RAW perspective, it just mean's we're dysfunctional, and I'd say that the intent's been fairly solidly in the "only two spells a round" camp to begin with, given the original limits and the standard of how swift actions are intended to work, barring explicit exceptions.

[Curmudgeon]

Really? It's only mentioned in one place in passing? Bull. There's the quote i gave on page 174 of the PHB, which explicitly calls it out and has a paragraph dedicated just to that subject. Further, it's mentioned in the combat section, under Free Actions (see pg 144, Cast a Quickened Spell).
I have no clue what you're going on about. With the introduction of swift and immediate actions and the changes to Quicken Spell and Feather Fall, there aren't any free action spells; consequently, all rules regarding free action spells are obsolete. Why are you pointing out something that's irrelevant to the discussion? :smallconfused:

What I was referring to as a single, in passing, limit mention was about other spells ("your normal limit of one spell per round"), not free action spells.

[Thiyr]

I have no clue what you're going on about. With the introduction of swift and immediate actions and the changes to Quicken Spell and Feather Fall, there aren't any free action spells; consequently, all rules regarding free action spells are obsolete. Why are you pointing out something that's irrelevant to the discussion? :smallconfused:

What I was referring to as a single, in passing, limit mention was about other spells ("your normal limit of one spell per round"), not free action spells.

Can you give me a precise reference as to the location of where said rules are explicitly deprecated? Because otherwise you're basically saying that because a rule sets up a general baseline that's inconvenient, and the original situation it is set to resolve is no longer a major issue, you're just gonna ignore it. And again, that is TOTALLY FINE as a houserule. It's perfectly okay if you want to give that boost to casters, or if you want to cut out vestiges of past rules. But do not try to claim that it is RAW.

Complete Arcane only references the change in terminology present in Quicken. It doesn't touch a single other rule other than the action referenced in the feat Quicken Spell. It's why Quicken SLA still references free actions. Its why if, say, someone wanted to cast Kaupaer's Quickblast (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mb/20050112a) (which never got an update), it would still have rules to adjudicate its use. In short, you are downright incorrect. It is entirely relevant. It sets up a baseline (that being "Only one spell can be cast during a turn") and sets up an exception ("Spells with a casting time of a free action, or quickened spells can be cast in addition to the normal single spell a round you can cast"). That swift actions aren't exempted does not mean that the rule is invalid, it means that swift action spells aren't an exemption to the one spell a round rule.

(By the way, actually look at both of the references I made. Both say the same thing, that a free action spell or quickened spell does not count against your one-spell limit. that exception to the general rule would serve precisely zero purpose if there was not a limit to begin with. They could have cut out both of those sections and would have lost nothing. That they are present, are still present in the special edition reprint, have not been cut out by errata, have not been superseded by later books, and that the rule even survived into pathfinder as a continued limit on swift action spells (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Casting-Time) demonstrates that it is still a relevant rule, despite your claims to the contrary. It is not obscure, it is not hidden in a sidebar or alternate rule, and it is not in passing. It is right there. And so long as it is there, until WotC releases a new book for the 3.5 edition of D&D stating otherwise, by RAW only one free action spell or quickened spell, and one other spell of a non-free casting time can be cast during a round. And because of that, unless you change the rules spellcasters cannot take advantage of changing a move action to a swift action.)