Spontaneous Metamagic with Swift & Immediate Spells

[Gruftzwerg]

Do we have any clear rules for this? I skimmed through several books now and can't find any specific rules for using metamagic on swift and immediate spells.

I'm assuming that the lack of rules means, that the specific spontaneous metamagic rules don't apply and don't alter them.

Is my observation & assumption correct?
Did I missed any rules here?
How do you rule these situation?

Imho changing the casting time of swift and immediate action spells kills their purpose. And since the rules for spontaneous metamagic doesn't mention em (and the swift spell rules are also silent on metamagic) I guess they should get a free pass here.

Rule quotes are welcome (if you can find any..).

[zlefin]

I don't know what the books say; the SRD says
"If the spell’s normal casting time is 1 standard action, casting a metamagic version is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. (This isn’t the same as a 1-round casting time.)

For a spell with a longer casting time, it takes an extra full-round action to cast the spell. "

the wording of that clause makes clear it only applies to things that take 1 standard action or longer. Swift or immediate spells are neither, and would thus be unaffected.

[Anthrowhale]

I don't know what the books say; the SRD says
"If the spell’s normal casting time is 1 standard action, casting a metamagic version is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. (This isn’t the same as a 1-round casting time.)

For a spell with a longer casting time, it takes an extra full-round action to cast the spell. "

the wording of that clause makes clear it only applies to things that take 1 standard action or longer. Swift or immediate spells are neither, and would thus be unaffected.

Arcane Spellsurge has a special clause making swift action spells with metamagic take a standard action.

[Gruftzwerg]

Arcane Spellsurge has a special clause making swift action spells with metamagic take a standard action.

Yeah I just stumbled upon it while further searching.

But somehow I begin to think that that is " a reference to a non-existing rule".
It has not the permission to change or add any new rules besides from its own niche.

Thus unless we can find the actual rules it is referring to, this remains invalid by RAW...


As zlefin said, I'm more on the "rules don't affect swift & immediate spells" side.

But I'm open for more input. Do we have other references or examples (or maybe even actual rules..^^)..?

How would you rule it as final question?

[Darg]

Do we have any clear rules for this? I skimmed through several books now and can't find any specific rules for using metamagic on swift and immediate spells.

I'm assuming that the lack of rules means, that the specific spontaneous metamagic rules don't apply and don't alter them.

Is my observation & assumption correct?
Did I missed any rules here?
How do you rule these situation?

Imho changing the casting time of swift and immediate action spells kills their purpose. And since the rules for spontaneous metamagic doesn't mention em (and the swift spell rules are also silent on metamagic) I guess they should get a free pass here.

Rule quotes are welcome (if you can find any..).

There aren't any specific rules against it other than the special text of the quicken spell feat, which for all tense and purposes contradicts itself. The rule is that a 1 action cast time spell is increased to a full round action. Quicken Spell can quicken any spell with a cast time of 1 full-round action or less. Therefore any swift, immediate, or standard action metamagic spell cast is legal to quicken as it only increases the cast time to one full-round action, not 1 round.

The problem is the special text contradiction that specifically calls out spontaneous metamagic as being impossible because it increases the cast time to a legal action type.

From here the only logical application is that it is applying the general rule over the specific rule of the feat. This is in contradiction with how the rules are normally meant to be read. In 3.0 the special text does not exist and therefore it was 100% legal to use quicken spell with spontaneous spellcasting.

[Thurbane]

FWIW, the Rapid Metamagic feat says this:


Normal: Spontaneous casters applying metamagic must either take a full-round action (if the spell normally requires a standard action or less) or add a full-round action to the casting time (if the spell takes 1 full round or longer to cast).

[Anthrowhale]

But somehow I begin to think that that is " a reference to a non-existing rule".

Maybe. I could imagine a DM ruling otherwise.

[Gruftzwerg]

Somehow I seem to have missed this on my first look at the Rules Compendium:


SPONTANEOUS METAMAGIC SPELLS
Spontaneous spellcasters choose spells as they cast them,
and they can choose whether to apply metamagic feats
when they cast their spells. As with other spellcasters,
the improved spell uses up a higher-level spell slot. Since
spontaneous spellcasters don’t prepare metamagic spells
in advance, they must apply a metamagic feat on the spot.
If a spell’s normal casting time is 1 standard action, casting
a metamagic version of the spell is a full-round action for
a spontaneous spellcaster. This isn’t the same as a casting
time of 1 full round—the spell takes effect during the
same turn that the spellcaster begins casting it. Metamagic
spells that have a longer casting time take an extra full-round
action to cast spontaneously.

RC has the updated rules for Swift & Immediate Actions and the updated "Spontaneous Metamagic Spells" section has sole rules for "Spells with a casting time of 1 Standard action or longer".
Thus the general rule here is that Swift & Immediate action spells are specifically excluded from this rule.

Unless someone can find any more recent rules or wants to complain otherwise I guess the case is closed.?

[bean illus]

Unless someone can find any more recent rules or wants to complain otherwise I guess the case is closed.?

Are you claiming that swift spells cannot have metamagic applied? Or is the claim that metamagic can be applied, but doesn't increase time?

What is your proposed interpretation?

[Thurbane]

Are you claiming that swift spells cannot have metamagic applied? Or is the claim that metamagic can be applied, but doesn't increase time?

What is your proposed interpretation?

I'm assuming the latter.

And honestly, I think that's fine: prepared casters tend to be significantly more powerful than spontaneous ones, anyway...

[Gruftzwerg]

Are you claiming that swift spells cannot have metamagic applied? Or is the claim that metamagic can be applied, but doesn't increase time?

What is your proposed interpretation?

As Thurbane assumed, my proposed interpretation is that Swift and Immediate spells aren't affected by the limitations of sponaneous metamagic. They don't have to deal with the increased casting time.


I'm assuming the latter.

And honestly, I think that's fine: prepared casters tend to be significantly more powerful than spontaneous ones, anyway...

thx for jumping in in my absence ;)

[bean illus]

As Thurbane assumed, my proposed interpretation is that Swift and Immediate spells aren't affected by the limitations of sponaneous metamagic. They don't have to deal with the increased casting time.
;)

Yeah, I'm not buyin it.

[Gruftzwerg]

Yeah, I'm not buyin it.

Fine for you. Your opinion.
Unless you wanna provide any RAW/RAI arguments here.

[bean illus]

Fine for you. Your opinion.
Unless you wanna provide any RAW/RAI arguments here.

Nope. I'm good watching the opinions on this one.

[Daisy]

I'm kinda on the fence with this one. Metamagics have two costs - one is the higher spell-slot, and one is increased casting time for spontaneous casters. Avoiding one of the costs because it's not called out seems like a bit of cheese. Given that the casting time cost is generally standard action -> full round action and full round action -> 1 round, I'd normally rule that swift action -> standard action, in-keeping with the spirit of the cost.

BUT...

I rarely see spontaneous metamagic used at all, because the slot-tax alone is so high (and you've burned a feat to get it as well). So at my table I'd probably allow the more favourable interpretation, just to encourage more exciting play. Of course if this led to abuse then I'd slap my mighty DM hand down and rule the other way in the future! :)

[Gruftzwerg]

I'm kinda on the fence with this one. Metamagics have two costs - one is the higher spell-slot, and one is increased casting time for spontaneous casters. Avoiding one of the costs because it's not called out seems like a bit of cheese. Given that the casting time cost is generally standard action -> full round action and full round action -> 1 round, I'd normally rule that swift action -> standard action, in-keeping with the spirit of the cost.

Imho this was sole the case until Rules Compendium was out. Core didn't have swift and immediate actions and when they where introduced, no further rules for metamagic have been provided along with it. This lead to an unsure state.

BUT...^^

RC has the updated rules for swift & immediate action. And the spontaneous metamagic rules in the RC sole target spells with a casting time of a standard action or more. Imho by RAW there is nothing suspicious left here.

The other contradicting quotes provided here (thx @ everybody for helping out ;) don't have the permission to change general rules. And even if they did, RC claims supremacy when it comes to rules updates and designer intentions.

People are still free to rule against it at their table. But they should be aware that this is a houserule that cuts away of the intended potential from the designers perspective.




BUT...

I rarely see spontaneous metamagic used at all, because the slot-tax alone is so high (and you've burned a feat to get it as well). So at my table I'd probably allow the more favourable interpretation, just to encourage more exciting play. Of course if this led to abuse then I'd slap my mighty DM hand down and rule the other way in the future! :)

By itself I don't see it as problematic and would allow it for normal games within limits. But as someone who enjoys "high TO optimization builds for the forum" I can say it can be abused like hell in the right context^^.
Look out for my upcoming Quiver of Anariel build ;)

[Darg]

Imho this was sole the case until Rules Compendium was out. Core didn't have swift and immediate actions and when they where introduced, no further rules for metamagic have been provided along with it. This lead to an unsure state.

BUT...^^

RC has the updated rules for swift & immediate action. And the spontaneous metamagic rules in the RC sole target spells with a casting time of a standard action or more. Imho by RAW there is nothing suspicious left here.

Well, the PHB and the SRD claim that all 1 action cast time spells are increased to 1 full-round action and any spells with a cast time longer than one full-round action require an extra full-round action.

It is in fact the RC that changes the game to where free/immediate/swift action spells aren't affected by the cast time increase because it specifically mentions standard action by name.

So, if you use the RC then by RAW swift/immediate metamagic spells do not receive the cast time increase. If you don't then they continue operating as they always have.

[Gruftzwerg]

Well, the PHB and the SRD claim that all 1 action cast time spells are increased to 1 full-round action and any spells with a cast time longer than one full-round action require an extra full-round action.

It is in fact the RC that changes the game to where free/immediate/swift action spells aren't affected by the cast time increase because it specifically mentions standard action by name.

So, if you use the RC then by RAW swift/immediate metamagic spells do not receive the cast time increase. If you don't then they continue operating as they always have.

While I agree with you by RAW, I would like to point a few things out ...

1) "1 action" is a 3.0 relict that imho shouldn't have been in the 3.5 PHB in the first place.
The correct 3.5 term would have been "1 standard action", which would exclude free/swift action by default. The term "1 action" on the other hand is undefined in 3.5 and thus open for interpretation.
As a sidenote: by the PHB a Quickened Spell is a "Free Action" which "..don’t take any time at all..". IIRC no spell was "quickened/free" by default. Your sole option was Quicken Spell.
At this point the "1 action" term didn't cause any trouble.

2) At some point Swift & Immediate Action spells have been introduced without any spontaneous metamagic rules. Now the undefined "1 action" term starts to cause problems.

3) RC corrects/updates the keyword in the relevant spontaneous metamagic rules.

Imho this "problem" was never intended by the designers. (RAI)

[Darg]

1) "1 action" is a 3.0 relict that imho shouldn't have been in the 3.5 PHB in the first place.
The correct 3.5 term would have been "1 standard action", which would exclude free/swift action by default.

That's not true at all. It means the same thing. 1 action is one action. A free action is still considered 1 action in 3.0. The only difference is that 3.5 split movement into its own action instead of being part of a standard action. Full-round actions that use movement are the same.

As there are no spells with the cast time of "move action" or "move + standard action" then there is no distinction between versions in this case. The only spells that are more than one action in both versions are spells that require more than 1 round to cast as they require multiple full-round actions to cast.

As I said before, the RC changes the rule. You can't assume that they meant "1 standard action" when they mention "1 action" more than once. We can speculate that it was a copy & paste mistake like there is all over, but that is still pure speculation. Based on a book that was released years after many changed minds and stances.

[Gruftzwerg]

That's not true at all. It means the same thing. 1 action is one action. A free action is still considered 1 action in 3.0. The only difference is that 3.5 split movement into its own action instead of being part of a standard action. Full-round actions that use movement are the same.

As there are no spells with the cast time of "move action" or "move + standard action" then there is no distinction between versions in this case. The only spells that are more than one action in both versions are spells that require more than 1 round to cast as they require multiple full-round actions to cast.

As I said before, the RC changes the rule. You can't assume that they meant "1 standard action" when they mention "1 action" more than once. We can speculate that it was a copy & paste mistake like there is all over, but that is still pure speculation. Based on a book that was released years after many changed minds and stances.

you didn't get what I meant here...

I said that in 3.5 "1 action" ain't a defined term, nor is it commonly used. While in 3.0 it was one!
The writes have failed to use the right term in the 3.5 PHB.

And since "1 action" is undefined, it has later (!) caused the problems with the introduction of Swift & Immediate actions.

If the writes haven't had failed in the PHB to use the right conversion term " 1 standard action" or "one standard action" as (iirc) anywhere else in 3.5, we wouldn't have any problems at all and RC wouldn't have needed to make any changes at all.

As said, by full strick RAW there was a rule change. But imho there was never a change in the intentions of the designers (RAI). They just failed the 3.0>3.5 keyword conversion here.

[Darg]

you didn't get what I meant here...

I said that in 3.5 "1 action" ain't a defined term, nor is it commonly used. While in 3.0 it was one!
The writes have failed to use the right term in the 3.5 PHB.

And since "1 action" is undefined, it has later (!) caused the problems with the introduction of Swift & Immediate actions.

If the writes haven't had failed in the PHB to use the right conversion term " 1 standard action" or "one standard action" as (iirc) anywhere else in 3.5, we wouldn't have any problems at all and RC wouldn't have needed to make any changes at all.

As said, by full strick RAW there was a rule change. But imho there was never a change in the intentions of the designers (RAI). They just failed the 3.0>3.5 keyword conversion here.

I understood what you said. I'm just saying you are wrong in regards to the use of "1 action" which was only used in reference to metamagic in the PHB as far as I'm aware of.


action: A character activity. Action categories include
attack actions, magic actions, miscellaneous actions,
movement-only actions, and special actions. Each type
of action has specific limitations (see individual
entries). Actions are further subdivided into the follow-
ing categories according to the time required to per-
form them: standard actions, full-round actions, move-
equivalent actions, free actions, and partial actions.


action: A character activity. Actions are divided into the fol-
lowing categories, according to the time required to perform them
(from most time required to least): full-round actions, standard
actions, move actions, and free actions.

As you can see, actions are the same thing in both versions. Partial actions are what you do when you can't take a full action. The same mechanical equivalence to the choice of action while staggered.

Action is a defined term. 1 is a numerical representation of how many. 1 action is equivalent to "single action." This part can't really be argued against in good faith. As I said it requires making the assumption that the intention was something other than what was stated.

[Gruftzwerg]

I understood what you said. I'm just saying you are wrong in regards to the use of "1 action" which was only used in reference to metamagic in the PHB as far as I'm aware of.

Have a look into Savage Species (the last 3.0 book iirc). All spell descriptions say "1 action".
The 3.0 term "1 action" is equivalent to 3.5's "1 standard action". Or do you wanna argue that you may choose the action time for those SS spells? ^^

As you can see, "1 action" is a 3.0 term and shouldn't have been in the PHB in the first place. Because "standard action" is the correct established term to use in the 3.5 PHB.
The sad story here is, that even the "premium player's handbook" failed to correct this.. (I just looked it up online...).


Yeah, that is 3.5 for you. Choose you poison...^^

[sreservoir]

PH 3.5e uses this "1 action" phrasing in two lines where the corresponding text in 3e also says "1 action", was a defined term for 3e casting times. You'd expect them to, you know, not reuse the same phrasing if they actually intended to mean different things, whereas we have plenty of evidence that they missed edits that should've happened all over Core.

[Darg]

Have a look into Savage Species (the last 3.0 book iirc). All spell descriptions say "1 action".
The 3.0 term "1 action" is equivalent to 3.5's "1 standard action". Or do you wanna argue that you may choose the action time for those SS spells? ^^

As you can see, "1 action" is a 3.0 term and shouldn't have been in the PHB in the first place. Because "standard action" is the correct established term to use in the 3.5 PHB.
The sad story here is, that even the "premium player's handbook" failed to correct this.. (I just looked it up online...).


Yeah, that is 3.5 for you. Choose you poison...^^

I stand 100% corrected. That's what I get for never bothering to look at the cast time lines when I look at the spell descriptions. So this means that by RAW even in 3.0 the metamagic cast time increase didn't affect free action spells like feather fall.

[Gruftzwerg]

I stand 100% corrected. That's what I get for never bothering to look at the cast time lines when I look at the spell descriptions. So this means that by RAW even in 3.0 the metamagic cast time increase didn't affect free action spells like feather fall.

This is why I said, "while it is/was RAW, that it was never the intention by the designers here". Just bad/failed conversion from 3.0 to 3.5. And while even the Premium PHB failed, at least RC got it the right way.

[bean illus]

Uhhm ...
Did the OP just change their stance?

I mean, did the playground talk ourselves into an agreement, for once?

[Darg]

I try to be reasonable and in this case there really isn't anything left to argue. We could argue about how we still can't be 100% certain about the outcome, but the 3.0 interaction -> 3.5 update -> RC text change is very convincing on the actual intentions. There are a lot of copy and paste mistakes in the 3.5 PHB that give credence too. I'm a person that takes the RC with a truck load of salt because of all the mistakes it has itself, but this was a deliberate change in tandem with the original rules.