Casting two quickened/swift/immediate spells in one round. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Casting two quickened/swift/immediate spells in one round. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Evandar_TAybara
06-07-07, 03:57 AM Lets say that you and a companion fall off a cliff and then as you are both falling, it comes round to your initiative. Could you cast feather fall on yourself as a swift action, then use a standard action to cast it again on your companion? I know you can't normally cast two quickened/swift/immediate spells in one round by the rules as written, but can you do so if one of the castings becomes a standard action, or do you think it's fair to apply this as a house rule?

Evan.
NightBreeze
06-07-07, 04:08 AM It seems fair to me.
Dheran
06-07-07, 04:18 AM There's no provision in the rules to change the casting time of a swift/immediate/quickened spell to a standard action. Doing so would allow multiple castings of some spells that were specifically designed to be used alone, and that's too worrisome for me to allow exceptions in my game. Also, in one round your companion will fall about 500' -- well outside of the Close range (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) of Feather Fall -- and will go splat anyway.
Father Dale
06-07-07, 04:31 AM First, you can get multiple targets with a single casting of feather fall. Even if you aren't falling at the time, the duration lasts 1 rd/level. So you could have, with a single feather fall, affected you and your ally/allies with it, so long as they were within close range. You also could cast it as an immediate action, so as soon as you start falling you can cast it on you and the rest of your group, even if its not your turn.

Second, we've allowed multiple quickened/swift spells in a round. We play that you can use a standard action to cast them if you've already cast one that round. It rarely comes up, and I've never seen a problem with it yet.
Deep Blue 9000
06-07-07, 05:45 AM This is not legal by RAW but would be a very reasonable house rule. In fact, the ability to spend a standard action to pay for a swift action ability was added in the new Star Wars Saga system.
Seeker95
06-07-07, 08:33 AM It is neither legal nor illegal. The rules are silent.
But I believe we have both logic and precedence to allow it.

If your movement rate is 30, there is nothing in the rules that prevents you from moving only 20' as a move action. It still uses up your entire move action, even though it obviously would take less time to move 20' than to move 30'.

Simple logic (and even common sense) says that you can use a swift or quickened spell in your standard action slot. You gain NONE of the advantages of the spell being quickened/swift, and all of the standard action rules apply (drawing AoO, etc.)

But yes, it requires a DM to allow it via house rule, since there is no rule. It is not a deviation from RAW, but rather an adjudication in the absence of RAW.
cato
06-07-07, 09:04 AM I dont think the rules were meant to allow you to take a 5 foot step after your move action. i.e Its 30 feet per round not 35. So I would prolly house rule against that.
Malek2991
06-07-07, 09:07 AM Additionally, a 5'-step is a "non-action". It takes no time, and can be done in addition to a move action. If you choose to take a 5'-step in a round, you are still allowed to move 5' as your move action. All the rules governing move actions apply, and none of the benefits of a 5' step apply, although you did take only a 5'-step in your move.

If you take a 5' step that is all the movement your character is allowed for the round. You would be able to take another move action that doesn't involve moving and take a 5' step (such as reloading a light crossbow, drawing a weapon (w/o quick draw), etc...). PHB 144
Kalarus
06-07-07, 09:23 AM It seems fair to me as well, the rules generally allow you to do less than maximum in any action, e.g. after taking a move action, you may use your standard action to move as well, turning your action instead in a double move. This makes sense as you can generally do more with standard actions than with move actions.

If you want to cast a second spell that happens to have a casting time of one swift action, you are also doing less, so it makes sense to say that you can use your standard action for this.

Wether or not you have the advantages of the swift casting is another matter. Personally I don't see a big imbalance in allowing someone to keep the advantages of a swift casting (mostly, no AoO). The advantage of swift casting is offset by the level cost of Quicken Spell, and designed swift action spells out there generally affect a very specific situation, only affect one round, or only affect your next action.

If you want to toss out 2 spells per round as swift actions just to avoid AoOs (for which there are easier/cheaper ways to avoid them anyway), that's fine, you'll just burn a lot of high level spell slots very quickly.
risner
06-07-07, 10:35 AM then use a standard action to cast it again on your companion?

That is a house rule.

I don't use that house rule in my games.

I don't have a visceral reaction to that rule as a house rule, I just think it confuses the issue of what type of spell casting time you have when you can promote faster casting spells to slower speeds.
Kyaran
06-07-07, 04:58 PM It's only partially relevant, but the new rules for the Star Wars RPG allow you to do this.

I would have no trouble allowing Seeker's interpretation: "You can use a swift or quickened spell in your standard action slot. You gain NONE of the advantages of the spell being quickened/swift, and all of the standard action rules apply."
Pentar
06-07-07, 05:57 PM I don't see a problem with it either... A lot of Swift cast spells assume that the spell will be cast as a swift action (and rightfully so). Such that their benefits only last for one round. To maximize it, it often behooves the PC to keep it a swift/free action.

But voluntarily nerfing yourself, if you absolutely have to do it, I don't see it as being an issue. And I don't know of any rules that contradict it either - not sure why people are calling out "house rule"... Not that it matters.
The Simbul
06-07-07, 08:37 PM While I don't agree, the rules for the arcane spellsurge spell (Dragon Magic) establish precedent in the rules that you cannot choose to "give up" standard action for an extra swift action.
Fallenangel359
06-07-07, 09:36 PM Can you not give up a standard for a 2nd move action?

swift action supposed to represent an even smaller bit of time

if you can give up an action, to give a a smaller action can cause one problem... swift, move (converted to swift), and standard actions(converted to swift), for 3/round swift

though that would be very resource draining
NightBreeze
06-07-07, 09:56 PM While I don't agree, the rules for the arcane spellsurge spell (Dragon Magic) establish precedent in the rules that you cannot choose to "give up" standard action for an extra swift action.

I was thinking about that one, too.

But I allow it, except while an Arcane Spellsurge is in act.
Koretsu
06-08-07, 04:59 AM There's no provision in the rules to change the casting time of a swift/immediate/quickened spell to a standard action. Doing so would allow multiple castings of some spells that were specifically designed to be used alone, and that's too worrisome for me to allow exceptions in my game. Also, in one round your companion will fall about 500' -- well outside of the Close range (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) of Feather Fall -- and will go splat anyway.

Wizard: Oh, dear. We seem to have fallen off a cliff...
Fighter: Quick! Do something or we're doomed!
Wizard: Just a moment! Feather Fall!
Fighter: Great! Cast it on me next!
Wizard: Sorry. I've got to wait six seconds first.
Fighter: What?! Why?
Wizard: Because I can only cast one swift spell each round.
Fighter: But you're taking no other action aside from falling. Why couldn't you?
Wizard: Sorry. It's the RAW.
The Wizard, his fall speed lowered through the use of his spell, is quickly passed by the armor-laden fighter who continues to plumit towards the ground
Wizard: Oh, dear. Now he's out of range of the spell.
Figter: *SPLAT*
DM: ...and that's 20d6 damage. Shame you couldn't find a way to save yourself. So, roll a new character.

...Puts new meaning on the phrase "RAWful Stupid".
Dheran
06-08-07, 05:10 AM Wizard: Oh, dear. We seem to have fallen off a cliff...
Fighter: Quick! Do something or we're doomed!
Wizard: Just a moment! Feather Fall!
Fighter: Great! Cast it on me next!
Wizard: Sorry. I've got to wait six seconds first.
Fighter: What?! Why?
Wizard: Because I can only cast one swift spell each round.
Fighter: But you're taking no other action aside from falling. Why couldn't you?
Wizard: Sorry. It's the RAW.
The Wizard, his fall speed lowered through the use of his spell, is quickly passed by the armor-laden fighter who continues to plumit towards the ground
Wizard: Oh, dear. Now he's out of range of the spell.
Figter: *SPLAT*
DM: ...and that's 20d6 damage. Shame you couldn't find a way to save yourself. So, roll a new character. A smart Fighter would have grabbed onto the Wizard as soon as they started falling, and a smart Wizard would have then cast Feather Fall on the Fighter. A puny Wizard with gear is going to be less than the Fighter's maximum load, so they can both waft gently downward that way.
Koretsu
06-08-07, 05:18 AM A smart Fighter would have grabbed onto the Wizard as soon as they started falling, and a smart Wizard would have then cast Feather Fall on the Fighter. A puny Wizard with gear is going to be less than the Fighter's maximum load, so they can both waft gently downward that way.

My point was, that you shouldn't let an arbitrary game mechanic that does not exist from a real-world standpoint stand in the way of doing something that by all other accounts would make sense. Don't want to make a house rule? Fine. Tell your players that you'll allow it, specifically stating that this is the house exception, and not the house rule. But to flat-out refuse it's capability due to nothing more than a by-the-letter interpretation of two rules serves no purpose but to apply a limitation that would make no sense otherwise. Seriously, D&D rules are intended as guidelines, not the Codex of Hammurabi.
Seeker95
06-08-07, 08:07 AM ... establish precedent in the rules that you cannot choose to "give up" standard action for an extra swift action.The proposed "house rule" is not that you are giving up your standard action to get an extra swift action. The proposal is that you take a standard action to perform a normally-swift action. You are giving up a normally-swift action (losing swift benefits) by using it as a standard action (gaining standard restrictions).
jaelis
06-08-07, 08:21 AM ...Puts new meaning on the phrase "RAWful Stupid".

Well, unless it's a level 1 wizard, he could just cast it on both of them. If is level 1 and just chose to prepare two castings of feather fall, then he's weird.

Anyway, feather fall is a bad example. Falling motion typically happens outside of initiative, either because you're not in combat or because something happened to interrupt a combat (like a pit door opening below you). It's not really reasonable to expect any type of action related to the initiative order to make sense in that kind of situation. So if you did have a level 1 wizard with two feather falls prepped, the DM would just have to decide if he can cast it twice or not.

The more general question of whether you can perform a swift action using a standard action is more reasonable. I've never run into a situation where it would be a problem.
runestar
06-08-07, 08:24 AM Just curious, when they decided on the whole "max of 1 quickened spell/round" rule, had it ever occurred to the designers that they had not made a provision for allowing quickened spells to be cast as standard actions? I can understand a reason for not allowing it as a move action (abusable as it allows 3 spells/round).

Or did they think about it, but left out such a provision on grounds that it would be inconceivable (to them at least) that anyone would ever want to do so?

Or do they have their own rationale for enforcing the "max of 1 swift action/round" rule at all costs? That rationale may stink, but it would be a rationale nonetheless.

Anyone have any idea?:)

Curious to see if this will somehow be addressed in spell compendium...:P
Seeker95
06-08-07, 03:23 PM Never thought of it.
vs.
Never thought anyone would want to.
vs.
Never wanted it.My vote is for the first one. The middle one just does not fit. The latter is unlikely simply because if they had considered it like this, they would have explicitly excluded using a swift spell as a standard action.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Evandar_TAybara 06-07-07, 03:57 AM	Lets say that you and a companion fall off a cliff and then as you are both falling, it comes round to your initiative. Could you cast feather fall on yourself as a swift action, then use a standard action to cast it again on your companion? I know you can't normally cast two quickened/swift/immediate spells in one round by the rules as written, but can you do so if one of the castings becomes a standard action, or do you think it's fair to apply this as a house rule? Evan.
NightBreeze 06-07-07, 04:08 AM	It seems fair to me.
Dheran 06-07-07, 04:18 AM	There's no provision in the rules to change the casting time of a swift/immediate/quickened spell to a standard action. Doing so would allow multiple castings of some spells that were specifically designed to be used alone, and that's too worrisome for me to allow exceptions in my game. Also, in one round your companion will fall about 500' -- well outside of the Close range (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) of Feather Fall -- and will go splat anyway.
Father Dale 06-07-07, 04:31 AM	First, you can get multiple targets with a single casting of feather fall. Even if you aren't falling at the time, the duration lasts 1 rd/level. So you could have, with a single feather fall, affected you and your ally/allies with it, so long as they were within close range. You also could cast it as an immediate action, so as soon as you start falling you can cast it on you and the rest of your group, even if its not your turn. Second, we've allowed multiple quickened/swift spells in a round. We play that you can use a standard action to cast them if you've already cast one that round. It rarely comes up, and I've never seen a problem with it yet.
Deep Blue 9000 06-07-07, 05:45 AM	This is not legal by RAW but would be a very reasonable house rule. In fact, the ability to spend a standard action to pay for a swift action ability was added in the new Star Wars Saga system.
Seeker95 06-07-07, 08:33 AM	It is neither legal nor illegal. The rules are silent. But I believe we have both logic and precedence to allow it. If your movement rate is 30, there is nothing in the rules that prevents you from moving only 20' as a move action. It still uses up your entire move action, even though it obviously would take less time to move 20' than to move 30'. Simple logic (and even common sense) says that you can use a swift or quickened spell in your standard action slot. You gain NONE of the advantages of the spell being quickened/swift, and all of the standard action rules apply (drawing AoO, etc.) But yes, it requires a DM to allow it via house rule, since there is no rule. It is not a deviation from RAW, but rather an adjudication in the absence of RAW.
cato 06-07-07, 09:04 AM	I dont think the rules were meant to allow you to take a 5 foot step after your move action. i.e Its 30 feet per round not 35. So I would prolly house rule against that.
Malek2991 06-07-07, 09:07 AM	Additionally, a 5'-step is a "non-action". It takes no time, and can be done in addition to a move action. If you choose to take a 5'-step in a round, you are still allowed to move 5' as your move action. All the rules governing move actions apply, and none of the benefits of a 5' step apply, although you did take only a 5'-step in your move. If you take a 5' step that is all the movement your character is allowed for the round. You would be able to take another move action that doesn't involve moving and take a 5' step (such as reloading a light crossbow, drawing a weapon (w/o quick draw), etc...). PHB 144
Kalarus 06-07-07, 09:23 AM	It seems fair to me as well, the rules generally allow you to do less than maximum in any action, e.g. after taking a move action, you may use your standard action to move as well, turning your action instead in a double move. This makes sense as you can generally do more with standard actions than with move actions. If you want to cast a second spell that happens to have a casting time of one swift action, you are also doing less, so it makes sense to say that you can use your standard action for this. Wether or not you have the advantages of the swift casting is another matter. Personally I don't see a big imbalance in allowing someone to keep the advantages of a swift casting (mostly, no AoO). The advantage of swift casting is offset by the level cost of Quicken Spell, and designed swift action spells out there generally affect a very specific situation, only affect one round, or only affect your next action. If you want to toss out 2 spells per round as swift actions just to avoid AoOs (for which there are easier/cheaper ways to avoid them anyway), that's fine, you'll just burn a lot of high level spell slots very quickly.
risner 06-07-07, 10:35 AM	then use a standard action to cast it again on your companion? That is a house rule. I don't use that house rule in my games. I don't have a visceral reaction to that rule as a house rule, I just think it confuses the issue of what type of spell casting time you have when you can promote faster casting spells to slower speeds.
Kyaran 06-07-07, 04:58 PM	It's only partially relevant, but the new rules for the Star Wars RPG allow you to do this. I would have no trouble allowing Seeker's interpretation: "You can use a swift or quickened spell in your standard action slot. You gain NONE of the advantages of the spell being quickened/swift, and all of the standard action rules apply."
Pentar 06-07-07, 05:57 PM	I don't see a problem with it either... A lot of Swift cast spells assume that the spell will be cast as a swift action (and rightfully so). Such that their benefits only last for one round. To maximize it, it often behooves the PC to keep it a swift/free action. But voluntarily nerfing yourself, if you absolutely have to do it, I don't see it as being an issue. And I don't know of any rules that contradict it either - not sure why people are calling out "house rule"... Not that it matters.
The Simbul 06-07-07, 08:37 PM	While I don't agree, the rules for the arcane spellsurge spell (Dragon Magic) establish precedent in the rules that you cannot choose to "give up" standard action for an extra swift action.
Fallenangel359 06-07-07, 09:36 PM	Can you not give up a standard for a 2nd move action? swift action supposed to represent an even smaller bit of time if you can give up an action, to give a a smaller action can cause one problem... swift, move (converted to swift), and standard actions(converted to swift), for 3/round swift though that would be very resource draining
NightBreeze 06-07-07, 09:56 PM	While I don't agree, the rules for the arcane spellsurge spell (Dragon Magic) establish precedent in the rules that you cannot choose to "give up" standard action for an extra swift action. I was thinking about that one, too. But I allow it, except while an Arcane Spellsurge is in act.
Koretsu 06-08-07, 04:59 AM	There's no provision in the rules to change the casting time of a swift/immediate/quickened spell to a standard action. Doing so would allow multiple castings of some spells that were specifically designed to be used alone, and that's too worrisome for me to allow exceptions in my game. Also, in one round your companion will fall about 500' -- well outside of the Close range (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) of Feather Fall -- and will go splat anyway. Wizard: Oh, dear. We seem to have fallen off a cliff... Fighter: Quick! Do something or we're doomed! Wizard: Just a moment! Feather Fall! Fighter: Great! Cast it on me next! Wizard: Sorry. I've got to wait six seconds first. Fighter: What?! Why? Wizard: Because I can only cast one swift spell each round. Fighter: But you're taking no other action aside from falling. Why couldn't you? Wizard: Sorry. It's the RAW. The Wizard, his fall speed lowered through the use of his spell, is quickly passed by the armor-laden fighter who continues to plumit towards the ground Wizard: Oh, dear. Now he's out of range of the spell. Figter: SPLAT DM: ...and that's 20d6 damage. Shame you couldn't find a way to save yourself. So, roll a new character. ...Puts new meaning on the phrase "RAWful Stupid".
Dheran 06-08-07, 05:10 AM	Wizard: Oh, dear. We seem to have fallen off a cliff... Fighter: Quick! Do something or we're doomed! Wizard: Just a moment! Feather Fall! Fighter: Great! Cast it on me next! Wizard: Sorry. I've got to wait six seconds first. Fighter: What?! Why? Wizard: Because I can only cast one swift spell each round. Fighter: But you're taking no other action aside from falling. Why couldn't you? Wizard: Sorry. It's the RAW. The Wizard, his fall speed lowered through the use of his spell, is quickly passed by the armor-laden fighter who continues to plumit towards the ground Wizard: Oh, dear. Now he's out of range of the spell. Figter: SPLAT DM: ...and that's 20d6 damage. Shame you couldn't find a way to save yourself. So, roll a new character. A smart Fighter would have grabbed onto the Wizard as soon as they started falling, and a smart Wizard would have then cast Feather Fall on the Fighter. A puny Wizard with gear is going to be less than the Fighter's maximum load, so they can both waft gently downward that way.
Koretsu 06-08-07, 05:18 AM	A smart Fighter would have grabbed onto the Wizard as soon as they started falling, and a smart Wizard would have then cast Feather Fall on the Fighter. A puny Wizard with gear is going to be less than the Fighter's maximum load, so they can both waft gently downward that way. My point was, that you shouldn't let an arbitrary game mechanic that does not exist from a real-world standpoint stand in the way of doing something that by all other accounts would make sense. Don't want to make a house rule? Fine. Tell your players that you'll allow it, specifically stating that this is the house exception, and not the house rule. But to flat-out refuse it's capability due to nothing more than a by-the-letter interpretation of two rules serves no purpose but to apply a limitation that would make no sense otherwise. Seriously, D&D rules are intended as guidelines, not the Codex of Hammurabi.
Seeker95 06-08-07, 08:07 AM	... establish precedent in the rules that you cannot choose to "give up" standard action for an extra swift action.The proposed "house rule" is not that you are giving up your standard action to get an extra swift action. The proposal is that you take a standard action to perform a normally-swift action. You are giving up a normally-swift action (losing swift benefits) by using it as a standard action (gaining standard restrictions).
jaelis 06-08-07, 08:21 AM	...Puts new meaning on the phrase "RAWful Stupid". Well, unless it's a level 1 wizard, he could just cast it on both of them. If is level 1 and just chose to prepare two castings of feather fall, then he's weird. Anyway, feather fall is a bad example. Falling motion typically happens outside of initiative, either because you're not in combat or because something happened to interrupt a combat (like a pit door opening below you). It's not really reasonable to expect any type of action related to the initiative order to make sense in that kind of situation. So if you did have a level 1 wizard with two feather falls prepped, the DM would just have to decide if he can cast it twice or not. The more general question of whether you can perform a swift action using a standard action is more reasonable. I've never run into a situation where it would be a problem.
runestar 06-08-07, 08:24 AM	Just curious, when they decided on the whole "max of 1 quickened spell/round" rule, had it ever occurred to the designers that they had not made a provision for allowing quickened spells to be cast as standard actions? I can understand a reason for not allowing it as a move action (abusable as it allows 3 spells/round). Or did they think about it, but left out such a provision on grounds that it would be inconceivable (to them at least) that anyone would ever want to do so? Or do they have their own rationale for enforcing the "max of 1 swift action/round" rule at all costs? That rationale may stink, but it would be a rationale nonetheless. Anyone have any idea?:) Curious to see if this will somehow be addressed in spell compendium...:P
Seeker95 06-08-07, 03:23 PM	Never thought of it. vs. Never thought anyone would want to. vs. Never wanted it.My vote is for the first one. The middle one just does not fit. The latter is unlikely simply because if they had considered it like this, they would have explicitly excluded using a swift spell as a standard action.