Quicken Power doesn't specify action type. Is it free?

[Crichton]

The description for Quicken Power, unlike the one for Quicken Spell, doesn't specify what kind of action a quickened power uses. It just says you can perform another action in the same round and that you can only manifest one quickened power per round.


Does that mean that a quickened power doesn't expend your swift action for the round, and you're free to use it on something else on your turn, or to use an Immediate action before/after your turn?


I checked the Errata for the Expanded Psionics Handbook, and it didn't change Quicken Power. In fact, the only mention of Quicken in the Errata was to remove the limitation on the Immediate action powers (catfall, etc) using your 1/round quickened power.


Quicken Power [Metapsionic]

You can manifest a power with a moment’s thought.
Benefit

To use this feat, you must expend your psionic focus. You can quicken a power. You can perform another action, even manifest another power, in the same round that you manifest a quickened power. You can manifest only one quickened power per round. A power whose manifesting time is longer than 1 round cannot be quickened.

Using this feat increases the power point cost of the power by 6. The power’s total cost cannot exceed your manifester level.

Manifesting a quickened power does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

For comparison:


Quicken Spell [Metamagic]
Benefit

Casting a quickened spell is an swift action. You can perform another action, even casting another spell, in the same round as you cast a quickened spell. You may cast only one quickened spell per round. A spell whose casting time is more than 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

This feat can’t be applied to any spell cast spontaneously (including sorcerer spells, bard spells, and cleric or druid spells cast spontaneously), since applying a metamagic feat to a spontaneously cast spell automatically increases the casting time to a full-round action.

[Eurus]

Seems like you're right. I checked the definition of Swift Actions on the SRD to see if that caught it, but nope, there's nothing that explicitly says that Quicken Power takes a swift action. Magic-Psionics Transparency doesn't cover this situation in any way either. However, there's also nothing that says it's a free action, and nothing in the feat's description contradicts the idea of it being a swift action. In the end, the feat is poorly worded and you'll have to come to your own conclusion for what works best at your table.

EDIT: Found it! It's in the Complete Psionic, sidebar "Swift and Immediate Actions", and it clarifies that a quickened power is a swift action.

[Crichton]

Seems like you're right. I checked the definition of Swift Actions on the SRD to see if that caught it, but nope, there's nothing that explicitly says that Quicken Power takes a swift action. Magic-Psionics Transparency doesn't cover this situation in any way either. However, there's also nothing that says it's a free action, and nothing in the feat's description contradicts the idea of it being a swift action. In the end, the feat is poorly worded and you'll have to come to your own conclusion for what works best at your table.

EDIT: Found it! It's in the Complete Psionic, sidebar "Swift and Immediate Actions", and it clarifies that a quickened power is a swift action.

Gah! Why don't they put this stuff into the Errata!?! So the answer is that if your table is allowing CPsi, it's a swift action, but if only allowing Core, or otherwise not using CPsi, it's an undefined action? It seems that if it's not specifically your Swift, Immediate, Move, Standard, or Full, then it's free by default, even if it's not a 'Free Action' specifically.


And what about Primary Source rules? "When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct."

My understanding of rules revisions/disagreements is that it follows a 3 step check:

Primary Source - primary sources take precedence if there's a text disagreement
Replacement Rules - unless the newer book specifically says it's updating and revising the rule/rules in question
Errata - but Errata trumps all.

In some places, such as the chapter on Powers, CPsi specifically says it is updating and revising existing powers, thus superseding the previous rules about them. It doesn't say that about quickened powers being a swift action in that sidebar, so if we go the full lawyer route, does it then have the authority to supersede the XPH on this matter?

[noob]

Gah! Why don't they put this stuff into the Errata!?! So the answer is that if your table is allowing CPsi, it's a swift action, but if only allowing Core, or otherwise not using CPsi, it's an undefined action? It seems that if it's not specifically your Swift, Immediate, Move, Standard, or Full, then it's free by default, even if it's not a 'Free Action' specifically.


And what about Primary Source rules? "When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct."

My understanding of rules revisions/disagreements is that it follows a 3 step check:

Primary Source - primary sources take precedence if there's a text disagreement
Replacement Rules - unless the newer book specifically says it's updating and revising the rule/rules in question
Errata - but Errata trumps all.

In some places, such as the chapter on Powers, CPsi specifically says it is updating and revising existing powers, thus superseding the previous rules about them. It doesn't say that about quickened powers being a swift action in that sidebar, so if we go the full lawyer route, does it then have the authority to supersede the XPH on this matter?

It is rather simple if the feat is ex then it use the rule for ex abilities and so takes a free action unless specified otherwise.
if the feat is sur(or an equivalent) then by default it takes a standard action.
feats by default are ex and so takes free actions unless specified otherwise or if it is a passive effect.

[Crichton]

It is rather simple if the feat is ex then it use the rule for ex abilities and so takes a free action unless specified otherwise.
if the feat is sur(or an equivalent) then by default it takes a standard action.
feats by default are ex and so takes free actions unless specified otherwise or if it is a passive effect.

Ok you lost me with this one. Are you referring to Special Abilities (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#specialAbilities)?

Those aren't feats, and I don't see any reference to Ex or Su in the SRD entry on Feats...
I could easily just be missing something in my haste, but....

[Eurus]

Okay, I did even more checking, found a searchable PDF, and it turns out Page 49 of the Expanded Psionics Handbook also says it.


Manifesting a quickened power is a swift action. In addi-tion, manifesting any power with a casting time of 1 swift action (such as burst) is a swift action

Since that's the same source that actually printed Quicken Power, that seems pretty foolproof. The Quicken Power feat's entry doesn't specifically contradict that since it doesn't list an action type, so this is the only line from that source that tells you what action a quickened power takes. There's also a few lines in various swift-action powers like Burst that say


Manifest-ing this power is a swift action, like manifesting a quickened power, and it counts toward the normal limit of one quickened power per round.

...Given all this, it seems like the obvious answer is that editing just plain forgot to specify the action type in the Quicken Power feat entry and the errata didn't catch it.

[Crichton]

Okay, I did even more checking, found a searchable PDF, and it turns out Page 49 of the Expanded Psionics Handbook also says it.



Since that's the same source that actually printed Quicken Power, that seems pretty foolproof. The Quicken Power feat's entry doesn't specifically contradict that since it doesn't list an action type, so this is the only line from that source that tells you what action a quickened power takes. There's also a few lines in various swift-action powers like Burst that say



...Given all this, it seems like the obvious answer is that editing just plain forgot to specify the action type in the Quicken Power feat entry and the errata didn't catch it.



There it is. That does clinch it. It's beyond dumb that they took it out of the feat description, especially since they obviously copy/pasted the rest of the feat text from Quicken Spell.


The Errata for the Expanded Psionics Handbook actually removed that text from those power descriptions, though, which is why you won't find that text in the SRD entry for those powers.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

There it is. That does clinch it. It's beyond dumb that they took it out of the feat description, especially since they obviously copy/pasted the rest of the feat text from Quicken Spell.

The Errata for the Expanded Psionics Handbook actually removed that text from those power descriptions, though, which is why you won't find that text in the SRD entry for those powers.The XPH was the introduction to both swift and immediate actions. They didn't exist when the 3.5 PHB was printed until errata'd later on; ergo, Quicken Spell was originally a 1/round free action, not a swift. The XPH simply copy/pasted and edited, but they didn't add in the swift action like they ought to have.

[noob]

Ok you lost me with this one. Are you referring to Special Abilities (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#specialAbilities)?

Those aren't feats, and I don't see any reference to Ex or Su in the SRD entry on Feats...
I could easily just be missing something in my haste, but....

It is in extra manuals and not in the srd: some additional manuals decided to make sur feats and decided at that moment to say that normal feats were ex.

[Crichton]

It is in extra manuals and not in the srd: some additional manuals decided to make sur feats and decided at that moment to say that normal feats were ex.



Not saying I don't believe, you but without a citation, or even a book title, I don't even know where to begin to look for that. Which book did this? Can you give me a point of reference?

[ericgrau]

Gah! Why don't they put this stuff into the Errata!?! So the answer is that if your table is allowing CPsi, it's a swift action, but if only allowing Core, or otherwise not using CPsi, it's an undefined action? It seems that if it's not specifically your Swift, Immediate, Move, Standard, or Full, then it's free by default, even if it's not a 'Free Action' specifically.
Well swift actions used to be free actions, so this may have been during the transition period where they felt the need to explain it and not just say "swift action". An in general if you see something that doesn't take an action then don't automatically assume that it's a free action before checking if it's swift or immediate. For that matter immediate actions used to be free actions that you can take when it's not your turn, since generally free actions can only be taken on your turn. But yes, they totally should have clarified that in the SRD.

[Crichton]

Well swift actions used to be free actions, so this may have been during the transition period where they felt the need to explain it and not just say "swift action". An in general if you see something that doesn't take an action then don't automatically assume that it's a free action before checking if it's swift or immediate. For that matter immediate actions used to be free actions that you can take when it's not your turn, since generally free actions can only be taken on your turn. But yes, they totally should have clarified that in the SRD.

As MaxiDuRarity pointed out above, the XPH is the book they first introduced swift actions, so really there wouldn't have been a better place to start putting that term into everything, with a 'see pg X' note attached. I'm convinced it was just an oversight on someone's part.




As for assuming it's a free action before checking, I did check, but you apparently missed the part where I said I checked the Errata and such. I searched all over the SRD for it (still don't understand why sidebars in OGL books aren't OGL; it's not like the sidebar material is any more copyright worthy), not to mention lots of googling. Heck, I even discussed it with several folks in the unofficial GitP Discord before bringing it here for peer review. Didn't just assume it was free, but you apparently did assume that I just posted it carelessly without attempting my due diligence. It was process of elimination. The idea was if it's not explicitly named as swift, then it doesn't expend your swift for that turn, which was sound rules logic and would have been true if they hadn't defined it somewhere else. The only reason I missed it is because the only place they put it wasn't a reference to the feat in question, which, as we've all agreed, is the one place they should have put it.

[noob]

Not saying I don't believe, you but without a citation, or even a book title, I don't even know where to begin to look for that. Which book did this? Can you give me a point of reference?

Possibly in unearthed arcana?
I forgot the complete list of manuals that added supernatural feats.
Unearthed arcana added feats that needed you to have been the target of a spell and that granted you the ability to replicate the spell or other stuff like that.
I think champion of ruins or forbidden chapters is more likely to say explicitly that the vile (or whatever) feats are supernatural and that normal feats are ex.

[ericgrau]

As MaxiDuRarity pointed out above, the XPH is the book they first introduced swift actions, so really there wouldn't have been a better place to start putting that term into everything, with a 'see pg X' note attached. I'm convinced it was just an oversight on someone's part.




As for assuming it's a free action before checking, I did check, but you apparently missed the part where I said I checked the Errata and such. I searched all over the SRD for it (still don't understand why sidebars in OGL books aren't OGL; it's not like the sidebar material is any more copyright worthy), not to mention lots of googling. Heck, I even discussed it with several folks in the unofficial GitP Discord before bringing it here for peer review. Didn't just assume it was free, but you apparently did assume that I just posted it carelessly without attempting my due diligence. It was process of elimination. The idea was if it's not explicitly named as swift, then it doesn't expend your swift for that turn, which was sound rules logic and would have been true if they hadn't defined it somewhere else. The only reason I missed it is because the only place they put it wasn't a reference to the feat in question, which, as we've all agreed, is the one place they should have put it.

It's totally not your fault that they screwed up on explaining it, but realize that they screwed up on explaining it and many "free" actions you see might actually be swift actions. With little or no explanation.

There is a little clue here that it's a swift action, if you know what to look for: "You can manifest only one quickened power per round." That was common language for swift actions, which were originally limited to quickened spells. Another common phrase in swift action spells (that don't use the quicken feat) is something like "this counts against your limit of 1 quickened spell per round." Or "power".

I mean if you dig and dig and dig you can look for the stupid sidebar in the original book, or unpublished errata, or other explanation after the fact. Or perhaps even there's something where they totally forgot to ever fix it, I don't know. But I'm trying to provide huge clues before you go through all that trouble.

[Crichton]

It's totally not your fault that they screwed up on explaining it, but realize that they screwed up on explaining it and many "free" actions you see might actually be swift actions. With little or no explanation.

There is a little clue here that it's a swift action, if you know what to look for: "You can manifest only one quickened power per round." That was common language for swift actions, which were originally limited to quickened spells. Another common phrase in swift action spells (that don't use the quicken feat) is something like "this counts against your limit of 1 quickened spell per round." Or "power".

I mean if you dig and dig and dig you can look for the stupid sidebar in the original book, or unpublished errata, or other explanation after the fact. Or perhaps even there's something where they totally forgot to ever fix it, I don't know. But I'm trying to provide huge clues before you go through all that trouble.


I guess you misunderstood me as trying to make this into a RAI thing. I should have been more specific. I didn't think it was supposed to be a free action, so your 'clues' wouldn't apply. Until Eurus pointed out the XPH sidebar, it was 100% a RAW thing. It was obvious they intended it to be a swift action, but since they didn't call it that, then technically you'd still have your swift action left to use. That was the idea.

And strictly speaking, as I pointed out in the OP, they removed the 'and it counts toward the normal limit of one quickened power per round' wording in the Errata, so that one's not even valid anymore.

I guess what I'm saying is I appreciate your contribution and input, I truly do, but I don't much care for the way you (seemingly) casually assumed I hadn't even tried to do my homework before bringing it before the playground for review.

[noob]

I guess you misunderstood me as trying to make this into a RAI thing. I should have been more specific. I didn't think it was supposed to be a free action, so your 'clues' wouldn't apply. Until Eurus pointed out the XPH sidebar, it was 100% a RAW thing. It was obvious they intended it to be a swift action, but since they didn't call it that, then technically you'd still have your swift action left to use. That was the idea.

And strictly speaking, as I pointed out in the OP, they removed the 'and it counts toward the normal limit of one quickened power per round' wording in the Errata, so that one's not even valid anymore.

I guess what I'm saying is I appreciate your contribution and input, I truly do, but I don't much care for the way you (seemingly) casually assumed I hadn't even tried to do my homework before bringing it before the playground for review.

In the epic handbook they made a feat that raise the cap on quickened spells per turn so there is always the question: for adapting this feat to swift actions should it be "you have X extra swift actions you can only use on quickened spells" or "if you spend your swift action on quickened spells you can cast X more quickened spells"

[ericgrau]

I guess you misunderstood me as trying to make this into a RAI thing. I should have been more specific. I didn't think it was supposed to be a free action, so your 'clues' wouldn't apply. Until Eurus pointed out the XPH sidebar, it was 100% a RAW thing. It was obvious they intended it to be a swift action, but since they didn't call it that, then technically you'd still have your swift action left to use. That was the idea.

And strictly speaking, as I pointed out in the OP, they removed the 'and it counts toward the normal limit of one quickened power per round' wording in the Errata, so that one's not even valid anymore.

I guess what I'm saying is I appreciate your contribution and input, I truly do, but I don't much care for the way you (seemingly) casually assumed I hadn't even tried to do my homework before bringing it before the playground for review.
Nah I made no assumptions one way or another.

Yeah there probably is a RAW answer for this and the other errors somewhere. But as you found out it takes a bit of digging if that's what you must have. Now if you're trying to go by such strict RAW that you'll follow errors as long as they're written down in just one source, then there are a few other ideas out there like a 1d23 damage weapon. And some others. But then there's also the issue of the entire dysfunctional RAW thread. And that you really you can't read the English language that strictly free of intent. That's just part of reading comprehension at that point. So RAW that is that anti-RAI and literal can't actually exist. Because soon you'll be questioning the most basic of meanings in the text. Because if you go deep enough at being literal, all meaning comes from context and you can't make sense of anything. So RAW can't be taken any deeper than "What is the text trying to say using only our understanding of the English language and the surrounding writing." i.e., standard reading comprehension. Cut out outside opinions from the author, sure. You found what they said but not what they meant, that's fair. Cut out what the text is trying to say based on other text, ok now everything falls apart. Especially when it is and makes no attempt to be any more legally airtight than swiss cheese. You'll easily find thousands of examples of silly nonsense. That's not "What do the rules say". That's a child saying after hearing "Don't touch me", "I'm not touching you. See my finger is one eight inch away!" There is no limit to the number of "loopholes" you can find. But so what?

[frogglesmash]

The feat doesn't seem to alter the power's manifesting time in any way, it only says that when you manifest a quickened power, you can also perform an additional action, and even the type of action is left unspecified, so theoretically you could quicken a power, take a full round-action, and still have a move action left over.

Seeing the stuff about sidebars, and swift actions etc. I'm starting to think that the RAW might be much worse than I originally thought. As far as I understand it, Quicken Power does two things.

1. It reduces the casting time to a Swift Action.
2. It grants an additional action of unspecified type.

This is obviously not RAI, but I'm like, 80% sure that my interpretation of the RAW checks out.

[Ramza00]

You have to remember 3.0 and 3.5 was a work in progress. Swift Actions did not come out instantly in 3.5 but several months later. Thus there was lazy retcons / errata that did not fully work for this was the time of actually buying books and you could not have consistent internet connections where WotC can state yeah we goof, here is better rules after we already printed the books.

Remember 3.0 was 2000 to 2003 and 3.5 was 2003 to 2007 with a rough transition year in the 2003 frame and a rough transition year form 2007 to 2008 before WotC moved over to 4th edition.

Desktops were single cores at the start of this and eventually quad cores at the end of it. Laptop Mobile Chips sucked during this time frame, and lets not getting starting on the crappy cell phones we had back then. The iPhone 1st one was released in the middle of 2007 and the first iPad in 2010 and both of those devices sucked and were not usable back then in the style we now play D&D in 2019.

-----

Edit: Yet at the same time you did have to appreciate how WotC was forward thinking with making some of their rules free as a SRD and then selling books on top of that. This allowed people to make basic core players and play well with people who used all these splat books (which made WotC money.) It was an usual time back then.

[Crichton]

The feat doesn't seem to alter the power's manifesting time in any way, it only says that when you manifest a quickened power, you can also perform an additional action, and even the type of action is left unspecified, so theoretically you could quicken a power, take a full round-action, and still have a move action left over.

Seeing the stuff about sidebars, and swift actions etc. I'm starting to think that the RAW might be much worse than I originally thought. As far as I understand it, Quicken Power does two things.

1. It reduces the casting time to a Swift Action.
2. It grants an additional action of unspecified type.

This is obviously not RAI, but I'm like, 80% sure that my interpretation of the RAW checks out.



Yeah, the sidebars about swift actions directly state that a quickened power is a swift action, which shut down any debate about it being anything else.


But you're trying to say the line "You can perform another action, even manifest another power, in the same round that you manifest a quickened power" is granting you another action? I hadn't even considered that to be a thing. I don't think, even by strictest RAW that it's giving you another action. It doesn't say it gives you another action, it says you can perform another action. You have to already have that action available to perform, it's just saying that the quickened power isn't taking the place of your other actions.


As for why it says that, well, as was alluded to in the comments above, that line is a holdover from the wording before swift actions were a thing, when instead of just saying 'this is a swift action' they had to define what other actions you had remaining in your turn.