# Can a Swift/Immediate Action be Used as a Standard Action?



## Atavar (Jan 14, 2008)

Hello ENWorld,

Can a character choose to use his standard action to do a swift or an immediate action?  What does the RAW say?  How would you argue for or against allowing this?

Thanks,

Atavar


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Jan 14, 2008)

I don't know about RAW, but I don't see why you couldn't.


Are their specific actions in question? That may make it a little clearer.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 14, 2008)

Atavar said:
			
		

> What does the RAW say?




You can only take a single swift action in a round, and using an immediate action counts as your single swift action for the round.

So there's never a reason to use a standard action for a swift action, because either:

a/ you have already used a swift action this round, so you may not take another swift action even by expending a standard action, or
b/ you haven't already used a swift action this round, so there's no need to use a standard action to do it, as you still have a swift action available.

-Hyp.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Jan 14, 2008)

I stand corrected.


----------



## Atavar (Jan 14, 2008)

There is an item in the Magic Item Compendium (belt of battle perhaps?) that uses charges (as a swift action) to give yourself extra actions in a round.  I believe one charge gives you a move equivalent action, two charges give you a standard action, and three charges give you a full-round action.

So, for example, in one round you could:

1. Move into position (move action)

2. Cast a spell with a casting time of one standard action (standard action)

3. Spend two charges on your belt to give yourself another standard action (swift action)

4. Cast another spell with a casting time of one standard action (standard action)

But one of my characters wants to cast a spell requiring a swift action at step four, not a spell requiring a standard action.  His argument is that a standard action takes longer than a swift action, so the belt should allow him to take a swift action at step four rather than a standard action.

However, the item doesn't explicitly allow a user to grant himself a swift action--only a move, standard, or full-round action.  I argued that swift actions are not interchangeable with standard actions, and thus I ruled against him originally.

So, given all of the above as an example, does the RAW support the player's being allowed to use a swift action at step four, and if not, would you still allow it, and why?

Thanks again,

Atavar


----------



## irdeggman (Jan 14, 2008)

Now it is not allowed by the RAW.

By the RAW you can take a move action in place of a standard action (PHB pg 138).

But the text for swift actions (including the Rules Compendium {pg 7}) does not contain that allowance.


----------



## glass (Jan 14, 2008)

Atavar said:
			
		

> There is an item in the Magic Item Compendium (belt of battle perhaps?) that uses charges (as a swift action) to give yourself extra actions in a round.  I believe one charge gives you a move equivalent action, two charges give you a standard action, and three charges give you a full-round action.
> 
> So, for example, in one round you could:
> 
> ...



Why wouldn't the character just cast his swift-action spell at step 3 and not waste his charges?


glass.


----------



## Atavar (Jan 14, 2008)

Okay, here's a simpler example:

1. Hero spellcaster moves around a corner and sees an enemy spellcaster (move action)

2. Hero spellcaster wants to cast a spell to interrupt the enemy spellcaster, so he readies an action to cast a spell if the enemy spellcaster begins casting a spell (standard action)

3. Enemy spellcaster begins casting a spell, so hero spellcaster casts his standard-action spell (standard action)

The above is all allowed per RAW.  However, what happens if the spell that the hero spellcaster wants to cast at step three requires a swift action rather than a standard action?  Per RAW a character can only ready a standard, move, or free action.  He can ready and then cast a standard action spell, and he can ready and then cast a quickened spell (free action); does the RAW say that he can ready and then cast a swift action spell?  If not, should he be allowed to anyway?

Thanks,

Atavar


----------



## irdeggman (Jan 14, 2008)

Atavar said:
			
		

> Okay, here's a simpler example:
> 
> 1. Hero spellcaster moves around a corner and sees an enemy spellcaster (move action)
> 
> ...





If you are using swift actions (for spells) then a quickened spell is a swift action and no longer a free action. (CA {pg 86} which ntroduced swift and immediate action to casting spells).

RAW (per Rules Compendium pg 110) {Gotta love this book}

"You can ready a standard action, a move action, _a swift action _ or a free action."


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 14, 2008)

Atavar said:
			
		

> Per RAW a character can only ready a standard, move, or free action.  He can ready and then cast a standard action spell, and he can ready and then cast a quickened spell (free action); does the RAW say that he can ready and then cast a swift action spell?




Yes; the rules for swift actions state that you can take a swift action any time you could take a free action - presumably to avoid having to go through and amend every instance of 'standard, move, or free' in the rules to 'standard, move, swift, or free'.

So for example, a character who is slowed can only take a single standard or move action; however, he may also take free actions.  This rule means that "he may also take free actions" tells us a slowed character can also take a swift action in addition to his single standard or move action, as he can take a swift action any time he could take a free action.

Similarly, "only ready a standard, move, or free action" contains an implicit "or swift action" via the same rule.

Edit - obviously, RC gave them the opportunity to go through and amend all those passages 

-Hyp.


----------



## blargney the second (Jan 14, 2008)

While the rules don't seem to allow it, I really don't think it'd be horrifically broken to allow someone to spend their standard action to gain a second swift action.


----------



## drdevoid (Jan 15, 2008)

I feel what most people seem to be afraid of is a regular swift spell (quickened or otherwise) followed by a swift action activated item.

IME the spells that are designed to be swift from the get go rarely form useful combinations with each other. And Quicken Spell already has a built in penalty.

I can think of using a combo like updraft and knight's move to keep pace with an enemy flier/climber/teleporter, but I can't think of too many other useful spell combinations. Plus, that would be cool.

It's the items to me that could be the problem to allowing swift in place of a standard action.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 15, 2008)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> While the rules don't seem to allow it, I really don't think it'd be horrifically broken to allow someone to spend their standard action to gain a second swift action.



This has been discussed at length before.
I'm not sure about 'horrifically broken', but I believe there are a lot of instances where it's pretty clear the designers did not imagine there was any way in which you could possibly gain a second swift action in a round.

If you allow it, be prepared to discover broken combinations - if there are any they'll be found soon enough - players are good at that kind of thing...


----------



## Herzog (Jan 15, 2008)

The Core rules specify that, during a round, you can make a move action and a standard action, or two move actions, effectively replacing the standard action with an action taking less time.(ignoring free actions, immediate actions and swift actions for a moment.)

To my knowledge, there is no rule prohibiting you from replacing an action with an action that takes less time. (for instance, taking a full round for only a single attack.....)

Now, these rules where written before the introduction of swift and immediate actions.
The description of a swift action is that it is equivalent to a 'free' action, but that you can only take one such an action per round. If you take an immediate action, that action is considered your swift action for that round.

However, after taking a swift action, I still have a move and a standard action left.
Unless someone can point me to a rule strictly prohibitting replacing actions with actions that take less time, I think you could cast up to three swift spells per round....... Assuming you perform no other actions.

Herzog


----------



## irdeggman (Jan 15, 2008)

Herzog said:
			
		

> The Core rules specify that, during a round, you can make a move action and a standard action, or two move actions, effectively replacing the standard action with an action taking less time.(ignoring free actions, immediate actions and swift actions for a moment.)
> 
> To my knowledge, there is no rule prohibiting you from replacing an action with an action that takes less time. (for instance, taking a full round for only a single attack.....)
> 
> ...





Well the rules specifically state what actions can be substituted for other actions so asking for a rule that says you can't substitute "lesser" action for greater action is in contrast to the existing rules - since they specify what can be substituted.

And no where in the rules text on swift actions does it specify that a swift action can be substituted for a move or standard action - including the Rules Compendium.

PHB pg 138:

"You can take a move action in place of a standard action."


In regards to taking a full round to take a standard action - you are not substituted actions, you are not _using_ all of your actions - and that is allowed - since you are allowed to take a move and standard action in the same round.

"In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform as many free actions (see below) as your DM allows. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action.

In some situations (such as in a surprise round), you may be limited to taking only a single move action or standard action."

Now I believe that this text has been "updated" in the Rules Compendium to include swift and immediate actions but I do not have that book with me at the moment to double check it.


----------



## Herzog (Jan 15, 2008)

> I do not have that book with me at the moment to double check it.



Neither do I.

Have to check it once I'm home.

You make a good case.

Although I agree that in many cases, we should be looking for inclusions and not exclusions of rule-allowances, in this case the immediate and swift actions where added after the fact, and therefore couldn't have been included in the mentioned rules.

On the other hand, the RC should include that addition, so I'll check that.

Herzog


----------



## Brace Cormaeril (Jan 15, 2008)

I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would allow an argument to break Belt of Battle.
We'll start the bidding off at 12,000gp.  Anyone?  Why, ok enthusiastic, are we?, do I hear 20k, thank you sir do I hear 25, yes 30?  Thank you madame in blue.  Sir in the corner, 40, I have 40.  Madame, yes 45...so do I hear 50... sir in the corner at 50, madame?
Once 
twice
sold for 50000gp.  And sir in the corner looks happy.


----------



## eamon (Jan 15, 2008)

The rules state that you can use one swift action per round.  Sure, I'd let you replace a move action with a swift action (i.e. if an ability specifically allowed a move action expanding that definition to include swift actions), but that would still count against your normal limit of one per round, and thus not enable you to take more actions in a round.

Since the swift actions were clearly tacked on after the fact, a little flexibility can't harm - you can't expect them to name swift actions explicitly everywhere.

Let's take an exaggerated in-game sample: Say, in mid-combat between the party and a band of orcs, a squirrel walks up, turns into a Great Wyrm Silver Dragon, and says: drop your weapons!  The party's marshal is next up in the initiative order, says "do it!" and uses his grant move action class ability to grant everyone a move action - would you allow the player's to use that move action to drop their weapons?  i.e. would you grant them that free action?

I would, and hence I don't have a problem with them performing a swift action either - however, it would still count towards the 1/round limitation (in this case, being outside your round, as if an immediate action).

This interpretation is already beyond a literal interpretation, but not balance-breaking (probably).  Allowing multiple swift actions per round would be

Imagine a player using his standard+move+swift actions in a round to cast two swift spells, and one standard spell, and then as soon as his turn is ended and the next creature does anything, cast an immediate action (say, greater mirror image or the like?) spell.  Swift action spells may be weaker than others, but that player will have performed effectively 4 spells - even if many weaker or lower level than his highest - within one turn.  Nasty, and probably game-breaking.  If, further, a marshal like in my above example would grant a move action to that player, he'd get another, 5th spell this round.  That's just game-breaking.


----------



## Zelc (Jan 15, 2008)

I'm pretty sure allowing Swift actions like this can lead to infinite loops and other brokenness.  Arcane Spellsurge, Greater Celerity, etc.  Just stick with the 1 swift action per round unless you have a really good reason.


----------



## Herzog (Jan 15, 2008)

(still not at my books but

I have always assumed the 'single swift action only'  referred to the origin of the swift action: free actions.

(IMO) Swift and immediate actions were introduced when the amount of time needed for certain actions was deemed to be approximate to that of free actions, but they wanted to avoid an unlimited amount of that type of action. 

That a rule could potentially be game-breaking does not mean it isn't written as such.

I remember a rule about a maximum of 1 spell per round, but can't remember which edition that was from. 

Further, although I agree getting 5 spells of in a round could be considered gamebreaking, remember they would for the most part have to be swift or quickened spells, having either a limited impact or a higher than normal spell level. 

Is greater cleave gamebreaking because a fighter can, under the right circumstances, get off a number of attacks much larger than normal?

Herzog


----------



## Zelc (Jan 15, 2008)

Herzog said:
			
		

> Further, although I agree getting 5 spells of in a round could be considered gamebreaking, remember they would for the most part have to be swift or quickened spells, having either a limited impact or a higher than normal spell level.
> 
> Is greater cleave gamebreaking because a fighter can, under the right circumstances, get off a number of attacks much larger than normal?



Arcane Spellsurge: all my spells are swift actions.  Your example with Great Cleave holds no candle to this whatsoever.  I'm sure it'll make the Celerity line much more broken as well.

I swear there's a way to break it with Psionics, but I can't remember how exactly.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 15, 2008)

The rules do not allow it.  However, since a swift action is supposed to take less time than both a move action and a standard action, I think it only makes sense to allow a swift action as a standard action.  Heck I think it makes sense to allow a swift action as a move action personally, but many others disagree with my view on that topic.


----------



## irdeggman (Jan 15, 2008)

Just checked my copy of the Rules Compendium.

pg 7 contains a list of the action types (including swift and immeditate actions).

The text on move actions still says "you can take a move action instead of a standard action" but the text for swift actions does not contain that caveat.  So per the RAW it is definitely not allowed.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 16, 2008)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> The text on move actions still says "you can take a move action instead of a standard action" but the text for swift actions does not contain that caveat.  So per the RAW it is definitely not allowed.



It appears so. And it appears to be a silly result, based on the idea that a swift action is one that takes very little time, which is how it's described officially, I believe.

If you change their conception to, say, a simple action rather than a swift action, you can think of it as something simple enough to do _while you're doing something else_. It still takes several seconds to do (like a move action or a standard action), but you can multi-task.

I'm not saying that's how the designers intended it, but it can help with the cognitive dissonance that can arise when you tell a player he can do something that takes several seconds, but cannot do something that takes almost no time at all, since he previously did something else that takes almost no time at all.


----------



## Herzog (Jan 16, 2008)

Had the time to check the RC last night, and although (as mentioned above) the rules have not been clarified, the fact that you can take a move action as a standard action is repeated over and over again while never mentioning whether other actions can be substituted now has me switching to the other side:

You can have only one swift action per round. You cannot use a move or standard action (or even a full round action) to perform an action specified as swift action if you have already taken a swift action that round.

But I'm still not completely convinced. If FAQ or errata could be found on the subject.....

Herzog


----------



## Zelc (Jan 16, 2008)

Remember, physics is a houserule.  In game design, realism takes a back seat to game balance.  There is at least one way that multiple swift actions in a round can be broken (Arcane Spellsurge), and I'm sure there are more.  (Ooh I know, multiple Temporal Accelerations in a round!)

If your players won't abuse it, go ahead and houserule it.  Just be sure to keep a finger on that fat red marker if you decide it's a bad idea.


----------



## eamon (Jan 16, 2008)

On the topic of cognitive dissonance: You can imagine that swift actions are quicker, but nevertheless strenuous actions.  You can't perform too many in a given timeframe simply because it's too difficult.

I also think that sacrificing a standard action for a swift action (maybe even swift+move?) is not gamebreaking.  Can anyone think of an exploit in a game where you can trade your standard action for a swift action?  One where you can trade it for a swift+move action?

In both cases, celerity becomes a little better - but not much.  You could gain extra move actions by "stacking" celerity (greater) spells, but never more than one standard action, and it would cost you many spell slots.  

Allowing move actions to become swift actions will be game breaking; this would grant you "stackable" Greater celerities for multiple bonus standard actions.


----------



## irdeggman (Jan 16, 2008)

Zelc said:
			
		

> Arcane Spellsurge: all my spells are swift actions.




Where is this one from please?


----------



## Zelc (Jan 16, 2008)

Arcane Spellsurge is from Dragon Magic.  Basically, it reduces the time taken to cast all spells.  Sorcerers normally have an advantage while using it because they can easily make their spells full-round actions by applying a metamagic feat to them, so they can easily cast two spells per round while it's active (not so much if they take Rapid Metamagic, of course).


----------



## prospero63 (Jan 16, 2008)

Too lazy to read the whole thread. Per the RAW I don't believe it is possible. We house rule that.


----------

