Can you take longer [Archive] - Wizards Community

Can you take longer [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
NinjaPenguin
12-04-06, 12:25 AM If a spell requires 1 swift action to cast, can you cast it using a standard action instead?

In general, can you just 'take longer' to do something than required if you want to?
enygmatic_me
12-04-06, 01:00 AM I don't see why you couldn't, I just don't see why you would.
CryoSilver
12-04-06, 01:59 AM To cast the same swift spell twice in a round. RAW, no, you can't.
runestar
12-04-06, 02:05 AM Darn, Cryo got to it first.
He's right. By the RAW, you are limited to only 1 swift or quickened spell each round, no way around it. You cannot choose to cast 2 even if you voluntarily opt to "penalise" yourself. Note that I don't really see it as a penalty as you are actually eschewing an inherent limitation in the spellcasting system...;)
Thiez
12-04-06, 03:20 AM Cryo's right. But I allow players to cast swift spells and the like as a standard action instead.
Seeker95
12-04-06, 09:28 AM Cryo is right, from a rules lawyer point of view. But I believe rules lawyers should usually be shot. (Cryo is not a rules lawyer. He is letting you know what a rules lawyer would say.)

In my campaign, even any spell can be cast with a "longer" casting time if you want. This includes casting two swift spells in the same round, with one of them taking a standard action to accomplish.
pyropetey9
12-04-06, 10:54 AM i'm with Seeker on this. rules are meant to be broken, and unless someone gives me an example of how using a standard action to cast what would normally be a swift spell unbalances a game, i'm going to say go for it.
User5127
12-04-06, 11:51 AM well if a player tried to use it in an unbalanced way they just have to remember that what ever rules they use the dm gets to use as well.

IE: your next bbeg would probably pull a trick like that on you.

but for fun and playability I would allow you to lengthen the casting time of a spell.
at the very least I'd make a metamagic feat that would allow you to do this. it would be +0 to spell level. and would probably give more bonuses to make the feat really worth it.
Chie
12-04-06, 03:31 PM I see no reason why you couldn't if you wanted to.Of course most spells that cast as swift tend to do it for a good reason (like featherfall)
Milo HoBo
12-04-06, 05:15 PM ...Of course most spells that cast as swift tend to do it for a good reason (like featherfall)That would be an immediate action.

I don't see a problem with the Standard Action casting time, however, think long and hard before allowing a Move Action casting time. That could be a problem.
runestar
12-04-06, 09:59 PM i'm with Seeker on this. rules are meant to be broken, and unless someone gives me an example of how using a standard action to cast what would normally be a swift spell unbalances a game, i'm going to say go for it.
The rationale is this: you are being allowed to do something you are otherwise prohibited from doing, with no perceivable drawback whatsoever.

Say you are facing a foe and have only 2 quickened magic missiles left in your repertoire. If you can cast both this round, the foe dies and you are safe. Else, you die. Horribly.

Normally, you can still only cast 1 quickened magic missile/round, and would thus die. Now, you can cast both, and survive. The perceived self-imposed penalty of voluntarily increasing the casting time of a spell is more than offset by the consequences of not being able to have done so otherwise. It is a penalty which is not really a penalty.

In short - the use of the term "penalty" is a misnomer here as it is not really a penalty in the sense of the word. It is more of a boon actually. People are still really only going to cast a quickened spell as a standard action when it would be beneficial to their cause anyways(ie: the benefit would arguably outweigh the cost.) They are never going to screw themselves if a better alternative exists.

If you wish to argue about why I cannot use more time to cast a spell which uses almost no time to cast anyways, I can also say that perhaps it is due to some inherent nature of swift/quickened spells which prevents you from casting more than 1/round, even if you otherwise wanted to.:P

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
NinjaPenguin 12-04-06, 12:25 AM	If a spell requires 1 swift action to cast, can you cast it using a standard action instead? In general, can you just 'take longer' to do something than required if you want to?
enygmatic_me 12-04-06, 01:00 AM	I don't see why you couldn't, I just don't see why you would.
CryoSilver 12-04-06, 01:59 AM	To cast the same swift spell twice in a round. RAW, no, you can't.
runestar 12-04-06, 02:05 AM	Darn, Cryo got to it first. He's right. By the RAW, you are limited to only 1 swift or quickened spell each round, no way around it. You cannot choose to cast 2 even if you voluntarily opt to "penalise" yourself. Note that I don't really see it as a penalty as you are actually eschewing an inherent limitation in the spellcasting system...;)
Thiez 12-04-06, 03:20 AM	Cryo's right. But I allow players to cast swift spells and the like as a standard action instead.
Seeker95 12-04-06, 09:28 AM	Cryo is right, from a rules lawyer point of view. But I believe rules lawyers should usually be shot. (Cryo is not a rules lawyer. He is letting you know what a rules lawyer would say.) In my campaign, even any spell can be cast with a "longer" casting time if you want. This includes casting two swift spells in the same round, with one of them taking a standard action to accomplish.
pyropetey9 12-04-06, 10:54 AM	i'm with Seeker on this. rules are meant to be broken, and unless someone gives me an example of how using a standard action to cast what would normally be a swift spell unbalances a game, i'm going to say go for it.
User5127 12-04-06, 11:51 AM	well if a player tried to use it in an unbalanced way they just have to remember that what ever rules they use the dm gets to use as well. IE: your next bbeg would probably pull a trick like that on you. but for fun and playability I would allow you to lengthen the casting time of a spell. at the very least I'd make a metamagic feat that would allow you to do this. it would be +0 to spell level. and would probably give more bonuses to make the feat really worth it.
Chie 12-04-06, 03:31 PM	I see no reason why you couldn't if you wanted to.Of course most spells that cast as swift tend to do it for a good reason (like featherfall)
Milo HoBo 12-04-06, 05:15 PM	...Of course most spells that cast as swift tend to do it for a good reason (like featherfall)That would be an immediate action. I don't see a problem with the Standard Action casting time, however, think long and hard before allowing a Move Action casting time. That could be a problem.
runestar 12-04-06, 09:59 PM	i'm with Seeker on this. rules are meant to be broken, and unless someone gives me an example of how using a standard action to cast what would normally be a swift spell unbalances a game, i'm going to say go for it. The rationale is this: you are being allowed to do something you are otherwise prohibited from doing, with no perceivable drawback whatsoever. Say you are facing a foe and have only 2 quickened magic missiles left in your repertoire. If you can cast both this round, the foe dies and you are safe. Else, you die. Horribly. Normally, you can still only cast 1 quickened magic missile/round, and would thus die. Now, you can cast both, and survive. The perceived self-imposed penalty of voluntarily increasing the casting time of a spell is more than offset by the consequences of not being able to have done so otherwise. It is a penalty which is not really a penalty. In short - the use of the term "penalty" is a misnomer here as it is not really a penalty in the sense of the word. It is more of a boon actually. People are still really only going to cast a quickened spell as a standard action when it would be beneficial to their cause anyways(ie: the benefit would arguably outweigh the cost.) They are never going to screw themselves if a better alternative exists. If you wish to argue about why I cannot use more time to cast a spell which uses almost no time to cast anyways, I can also say that perhaps it is due to some inherent nature of swift/quickened spells which prevents you from casting more than 1/round, even if you otherwise wanted to.:P