Optimisers... the things they say.

[oxinabox]

So talking to someone about the mechanics of swift actions, haw you can only get one a round, and how i think there might be a way around it, when a guy i know, a pretty big optimiser walks in.
me: "Hey, how do you make more than one swift action/round?"
him, "Oh," thinks for a bit, "-Have two heads."
me: "oh ofcourse"
him: "it's an epic level feat though..."

just the whole "... have two heads!", like problem solved - obviose solution.


anyone else ever get anything like this?

[Tavar]

That....That...just no. I would consider my self something of an optimizer, and that makes zero sense to me. Especially since there are a few ways to get multiple swift actions(Ruby Night Vindicator being one such method). Are you sure he understood the question? And that he's actually an optimizer?

[Sinfire Titan]

I think he's wrong about the two heads, and even the Epic feat. The Epic feat that lets you cast 2 Swift action spells/round doesn't give you an extra Swift action (it grants you the ability to cast two, but not the actions to do so). RAI, it either gives you an extra Swift action or allows you to cast 2 spells with one Swift action, but RAW it doesn't do a damn thing.



The RKV gets extra swift actions (how many is somewhat questionable). There's also the Stance of Alacrity, but it only allows you to use a Counter and a Swift action without losing actions next round. RAW, its possible that Greater Celerity gives a Swift action too, but that's more questionable than the RKV.

[oxinabox]

That....That...just no. I would consider my self something of an optimizer, and that makes zero sense to me. Especially since there are a few ways to get multiple swift actions(Ruby Night Vindicator being one such method). Are you sure he understood the question? And that he's actually an optimizer?

He's not good at reading the rules.
He's often wrong about these things and interprets them as benifits him most...

he think's he's an optimiser.

But that's not what this posts is about, (though i;'m not sure what i was posting about...)

[Random832]

I think he's wrong about the two heads, and even the Epic feat. The Epic feat that lets you cast 2 Swift action spells/round doesn't give you an extra Swift action (it grants you the ability to cast two, but not the actions to do so). RAI, it either gives you an extra Swift action or allows you to cast 2 spells with one Swift action, but RAW it doesn't do a damn thing.

What's the feat? (depending on wording, it could by RAW allow you to cast two - and only two - swift action spells in a round without using any action. Or it could allow you to cast one swift-action spell without using your swift action)

[Sinfire Titan]

What's the feat? (depending on wording, it could by RAW allow you to cast two - and only two - swift action spells in a round without using any action. Or it could allow you to cast one swift-action spell without using your swift action)

Multispell:

Prerequisites

Quicken Spell, ability to cast 9th-level arcane or divine spells.
Benefit

You may cast one additional quickened spell in a round.
Special

You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack.

Says nothing about extra Swift actions or how you use it.

[Zincorium]

He's not good at reading the rules.
He's often wrong about these things and interprets them as benifits him most...

he think's he's an optimiser.

But that's not what this posts is about, (though i;'m not sure what i was posting about...)

So... you know he's not an optimizer. But you called him that in the thread title and the first post.

Given that anyone who can actually optimize is less likely to say something stupid about RPGs than someone who does not have the ability or willingness to do so, this thread's purpose eludes me.

[kamikasei]

Multispell:
Says nothing about extra Swift actions or how you use it.

Isn't that simply because it was printed before Quicken Spell was errata'd to use swift actions instead of a special, restricted type of free action?

In any case, it doesn't in any meaningful way grant you "extra swift actions", which to my mind should be usable for anything a swift action can be used for; things which let you do multiple things that normally consume a swift action don't count. It doesn't matter whether this feat is errata'd or houserule-updated to say "you can cast two quickened spells with a single swift action" or "you get a second 'virtual' swift action which can be used only to cast a second quickened spell after already having cast one in the round" - unless casting two quickened spells was your goal to start with, this doesn't, e.g., let you use a boost and counter in the same turn, or let you cast a quickened spell despite having used an immediate action in the preceding turn, or even let you cast a quickened spell and a regular swift-action spell in the same turn.

So... you know he's not an optimizer. But you called him that in the thread title and the first post.

Someone who tries to break the game without knowing the rules and relies on bluffing others as to what the rules actually say in order to do so is a munchkin, not an optimizer.

Given that anyone who can actually optimize is less likely to say something stupid about RPGs than someone who does not have the ability or willingness to do so, this thread's purpose eludes me.

Actually, I think I get what oxinabox was going for, his example was just a poor one. Advice coming from a high-optimization perspective can be hilariously excessive for what the questioner had in mind. For example, I might ask for a build that gets lots of natural attacks, wanting someone with claws who can attack with them very quickly. I might get answered with the King of Smack, and be entirely nonplussed by this fifty-limbed polymorphed monstrosity (note: I may be incorrectly remembering how the King of Smack works, but it's not really my point). In general, an optimizer may assume that certain things are open to fairly exotic options where others might assume they're relatively immutable or will vary only within a small range (for example: "Your houserule to two-weapon fighting makes thri-kreen hilariously overpowered." "What the hell is a thri-kreen?"). And it can be funny to see.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Says nothing about extra Swift actions or how you use it.

It's pretty clear to me. "You can cast one additional quickened spell in a round" means that when you can normally cast one quickened spell, you can choose to cast two. Two quickened spells with one swift action is the logical conclusion. You don't need extra actions - the feat tells you exactly what you can do.

[Starbuck_II]

So talking to someone about the mechanics of swift actions, haw you can only get one a round, and how i think there might be a way around it, when a guy i know, a pretty big optimiser walks in.
me: "Hey, how do you make more than one swift action/round?"
him, "Oh," thinks for a bit, "-Have two heads."
me: "oh ofcourse"
him: "it's an epic level feat though..."

just the whole "... have two heads!", like problem solved - obviose solution.


anyone else ever get anything like this?

Be a Synad in Complete Psionics. They get an extra Swift action (but can only be used for mental action like a feat that requires swift action. Like Pathfinders Arcane Strike feat).

[Glimbur]

Alternately, it might allow you to cast the second quickened spell in the round as a free action; after you cast the first as a swift. I can't see a different effect from this reading though.

[jiriku]

I've played with several "optimizers" who seem to believe that optimization consists of developing one single statistic to its maximum while ignoring all other stats. This has lead to a variety of useles "optimized" characters such as: a berserker samurai with incredible strength who could deal awesome damage per hit, but could not hit anything; a heavily armored knight with an unassailable AC who couldn't effectively damage foes; an archer who could hit targets from a mile away, but dealt mediocre damage and was unable to defend himself effectively when fighting indoors; a wizard with an incredible array of prismatic-themed spells who couldn't effectively deal with creatures that had high spell resistance or strong saving throws.

[Foryn Gilnith]

That's min/maxing. And obviously heavy on the "min".

[kamikasei]

That's min/maxing. And obviously heavy on the "min".

It's optimizing in an entirely literal sense... it's just that the constraints they're optimizing within aren't ones that apply usefully to actual table play.

[technophile]

Alternately, it might allow you to cast the second quickened spell in the round as a free action; after you cast the first as a swift. I can't see a different effect from this reading though.

Your reading allows other actions in between the two castings, while the "cast two quickened spells with one action" does not.

For example, cast quickened haste, step out of cover, cast quickened ray of idiocy is legal under your interpretation, but not under the first one.

[hamishspence]

Thrall of Demogorgon allows you to take two full round's worth of actions- but not at will- limited number of uses per day.

It's in BoVD, updated version in Dragon 357.

It doesn't grant you two heads, but it does grant you two personas.

[Eldariel]

Says nothing about extra Swift actions or how you use it.

Yeah, the feat was written back when casting Quickened spell was a free action but limited to 1/round, and never had its wording updated. I think saying "You get an extra swift action you can only use to cast a quickened spell" is what it should say after Quicken Spell's errata.

[Fluffles]

So... you know he's not an optimizer. But you called him that in the thread title and the first post.

Not mention the grammatical error in the title.

[Glimbur]

Your reading allows other actions in between the two castings, while the "cast two quickened spells with one action" does not.

For example, cast quickened haste, step out of cover, cast quickened ray of idiocy is legal under your interpretation, but not under the first one.

Good point. So, which of the two readings was intended? Back before Swift actions, the scenario you just described would have been allowed for a character with Multispell. Should we no longer allow that because Swift actions exist?

[hamishspence]

the 3.5 update to Epic Handbook doesn't mention it.

It updates several feats, but not that one.

My guess is, one bonus swift action, for casting quickened spells only.

[Sliver]

the 3.5 update to Epic Handbook doesn't mention it.

It updates several feats, but not that one.

My guess is, one bonus swift action, for casting quickened spells only.

But then you can have your swift action and use the extra-swift-action-for-quickened-spells-only for a spell.. The feat allows you to cast 2 quickened spells as a swift action..

[hamishspence]

it said "an additional quickened spell" so I suppose a clause should be added saying something like:

"When you cast a quickened spell, this feat grants you an extra swift action that can only be used for casting additional quickened spells."

Should this feat be one that can be taken multiple times, granting one more quickened spell each time?

[Ravens_cry]

That's how I am reading it, hamishspence. In a way, you get another swift action, but what that action can do is rigidly defined as being the casting of a quickened spell, one that can be cast as a swift action.
The first thing we will do is kill all the rules lawyers.

[hamishspence]

Enforcing the "feat can only activate if you've already cast a quickened spell that round" ruling avoids usage of Tome of Battle effects and the like.

That's a thought- some non-quickened spells cast as a swift action naturally.

Can they/should they be able to, be substituted for the granted extra quickened spell?

[Ravens_cry]

That's a thought- some non-quickened spells cast as a swift action naturally.

Can they/should they be able to, be substituted for the granted extra quickened spell?

No.
At least that's how I would rule it.

This is like Combat Reflexes. You can do more attacks of opportunity per round. But that doesn't mean you get to do more actions, besides an attack of opportunity, that cost the same as a normal attack of opportunity using Combat Reflexes.

[Akal Saris]

I think the point of the thread was to ask about whether you've ever had an optimizer friend say something that never would have occurred to you.

For example, (Not a real example)

Me: Damn it, it costs too much and takes too long to scribe new spells into my wizard's spellbook
Optimizer: Well, just cast Secret Page on all your pages, and have the 'fake' spell that it creates be the one that you want to know! BAM!

[sonofzeal]

I think the point of the thread was to ask about whether you've ever had an optimizer friend say something that never would have occurred to you.

For example, (Not a real example)

Me: Damn it, it costs too much and takes too long to scribe new spells into my wizard's spellbook
Optimizer: Well, just cast Secret Page on all your pages, and have the 'fake' spell that it creates be the one that you want to know! BAM!

Also doesn't work, since the scroll is magical in nature. Secret Page would make it look like the spell, but wouldn't have the necessary magical component to it.

The better solution is Boccob's Blessed Spellbook.

[Eldariel]

Can they/should they be able to, be substituted for the granted extra quickened spell?

By RAW they can't. RAW for Multispell when 3.5 came out (note that the Epic Level Handbook 3.5 update doesn't have the change because swift actions only came out around Complete Arcane and the update was written when 3.5 first came out; swift actions didn't exist then) is being able to cast a 2nd Quickened Spell in a round; maintaining its functionality would require a wording change that was never issued since nobody cared about epic enough to notice the problem.

Inherently Free Action (modern Swift Action)-spells don't exist in core so that's a non-issue, as are stuff like Arcane Spellsurges printed since. The only way to get swift action spells within Core 3.5 is to use Quicken Spell (which is why the feat is so insane and important). By strict RAW, the spells with inherent casting time of 1 swift action don't work (unless you prepare them Quickened for no reason other than to use 'em with Multispell...), but rationally thinking, it's just stupid hair-splitting to claim that Assay Resistance shouldn't be castable with the extra action while Quickened True Strike is fine.

[Sinfire Titan]

By RAW they can't. RAW for Multispell when 3.5 came out (note that the Epic Level Handbook 3.5 update doesn't have the change because swift actions only came out around Complete Arcane and the update was written when 3.5 first came out; swift actions didn't exist then) is being able to cast a 2nd Quickened Spell in a round; maintaining its functionality would require a wording change that was never issued since nobody cared about epic enough to notice the problem.

Inherently Free Action (modern Swift Action)-spells don't exist in core so that's a non-issue, as are stuff like Arcane Spellsurges printed since. The only way to get swift action spells within Core 3.5 is to use Quicken Spell (which is why the feat is so insane and important). By strict RAW, the spells with inherent casting time of 1 swift action don't work (unless you prepare them Quickened for no reason other than to use 'em with Multispell...), but rationally thinking, it's just stupid hair-splitting to claim that Assay Resistance shouldn't be castable with the extra action while Quickened True Strike is fine.

I think you forgot Featherfall, seeing as it was originally printed as a Free action spell (then errata'ed to an Immediate action).

[Eldariel]

I think you forgot Featherfall, seeing as it was originally printed as a Free action spell (then errata'ed to an Immediate action).

Yeah, it's a bit of an odd case; given it never had any kinds of restrictions on when you can cast it (annoyingly, Immediate Action casting actually GIMPS it), I didn't mention it. It doesn't really have a bearing to multispell due to the aforementioned lack of needing an action to cast it.

This also raises an interesting point about Immediate Action-spells; should you, if you have Multispell, be able to use more Immediate Action spells and lose the Multispell actions for it? 'cause it seems identical to the case of casting Swift Action spells on your own turn, but with spells inherently Immediate instead...


Of course, this is really a theoretical discussion more than anything since RAW in no way supports this (but again, we have to remember that RAW Multispell predates immediate actions and limits on free actions you can take on another player's turn).