[House rule] Converting Move actions to swift

[Ashes]

One of my DMs proposed this house rule today.
He believes you should be able to convert move actions to swift actions, in order to help warpriests and swashbucklers.

I am wary of this idea, as I see a lot of potential for abuse.
What are your thoughts?

[Kudaku]

It has some fairly far-reaching implications since Swift actions are used for *a lot*. First thing that springs to mind is that casters get another spell each round via Quicken Spell.

[Feint's End]

One of my DMs proposed this house rule today.
He believes you should be able to convert move actions to swift actions, in order to help warpriests and swashbucklers.

I am wary of this idea, as I see a lot of potential for abuse.
What are your thoughts?

From a logical point of view it kind of makes sense since swift actions take much less time than move actions.
The problem is that a lot of swift/immediate actions are balanced around the idea that you can only ever have one of them a round. Same as standard actions. That's why there are so few abilities which require move actions although they are in theory more expensive than swift actions.

So while it makes sense to a certain degree it isn't a smart decision from a design point of view because it limits what designers can accomplish (right now swift / immediate actions are another way to give a character options with limited possibilities). If your dm rules otherwise that's fine and dandy but he should be aware that it may lead to abuses and builds working much, much better than they are intended to work.

Now if you bring in Path of War ....

[Ashes]

It has some fairly far-reaching implications since Swift actions are used for *a lot*. First thing that springs to mind is that casters get another spell each round via Quicken Spell.

That was my first thought too. He restricted it to one quickened spell per round.

[Sacrieur]

No no no no no.

And I am a DM.

Also no.

Please tell your DM to quit looking for ways to break the game.

[Snowbluff]

Ugh, they are not Minor actions.

On the other hand, Swashbucklers suuuuuuuuuuuuuck.

[Kudaku]

Ugh, they are not Minor actions.

On the other hand, Swashbucklers suuuuuuuuuuuuuck.

Both Warpriests and Swashbucklers struggle with the swift action stranglehold, but you're better off fixing that by making some of their abilities free actions instead of changing swift actions. Scalpel over a hammer and all that.

[lsfreak]

Man, wording of this had me trying to figure out what exactly was meant for a while.

In addition to quickened spells, there are also spells that are just natively swift actions. I don't know how prevalent they are in PF, but in 3.5 you'd have things like Arcane Spellsurge, Linked Power Synchronicity linked to a swift-action power, and a few others that already break action economy (without clearly crossing into TO territory), and the proposed change would let you get a quickened spell off as well.

A much better houserule would to be ruling certain special abilities can be used as a move action or a swift action, not a blanket allowance.

[Ashtagon]

No no no no no.

And I am a DM.

Also no.

Please tell your DM to quit looking for ways to break the game.

Pretty much this.

Swift actions might not take as much time as move actions, but they take much more concentration, which is just as important in the definition of the swift action.

[Psyren]

Swifts are very valuable in PF, and largely balanced by you only getting one. (Two if you count immediates, and then only every other round.)

If you want to help Swashbucklers (Warpriests don't need it), give them a homebrew feature that lets them activate any swift action technique with a move action instead, if they want to. That cuts into their ability to full attack, and they don't have spells, so this is unlikely to boost them much - but more options are good.

[Ashtagon]

fwiw, I happily let a player convert a standard action to either a move or a swift action. But move/swift actions don't convert down any further at my table.

[grarrrg]

From levels 1-to-5 it will help Swashbucklers.
From levels 6+ it will be a poor option for them, as it then prevents them from making Full Attacks.

[squiggit]

fwiw, I happily let a player convert a standard action to either a move or a swift action.
I think that's actually RAW, since you can ready move or swift actions and readying is a standard.

[Ashtagon]

I think that's actually RAW, since you can ready move or swift actions and readying is a standard.

By RAW, yes, you can ready a swift, spending your standard in the process, but you can't directly use your standard as a swift. My house rule just fixes a dumb logic hole in the raw.

[Sacrieur]

The first thing I thought was how abusable the Path of War was going to be. You could dual-boost. The whole thing is absurd. About as absurd as allowing someone to open or shut a door as a free action because you can draw your weapon while charging as a free action.

[Coidzor]

Pretty much this.

Swift actions might not take as much time as move actions, but they take much more concentration, which is just as important in the definition of the swift action.

That's... not at all a given, really. :smallconfused:

[Ashtagon]

That's... not at all a given, really. :smallconfused:

It's pretty in the definition given in the book that the rule first appeared in.

(dropping out of further debate on this specific quibble)