Two Quickened spells per round?

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Say you have a staff of Quickened fireball. Can you use it to fire two
fireballs in one round? What about if you have two Quickened fireballs
prepared? Can they both be fired in the same round?

I know you cannot use more than one Quickened spell per round, but is it
possible to fire the second fireball as a standard action?

By the letter of the rules, I don't think so. You can only use one
Quickened spell per round, and you can't choose retroactively not to
apply a metamagic feat to a spell (whether a prepared one, or one stored
in an item).

But by the spirit of the rules, I see nothing wrong with it. You're
still firing a maximum of two spells per round, and you're paying more
for that standard action fireball than it's worth (but that's the price
of not having planned ahead, and prepared a non-Quickened one).

Should it be allowed?


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
24 answers Last reply
More about quickened spells round
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jasin Zujovic wrote:
    > Say you have a staff of Quickened fireball. Can you use it to fire two
    > fireballs in one round? What about if you have two Quickened fireballs
    > prepared? Can they both be fired in the same round?
    >
    > I know you cannot use more than one Quickened spell per round, but is it
    > possible to fire the second fireball as a standard action?
    >
    > By the letter of the rules, I don't think so. You can only use one
    > Quickened spell per round, and you can't choose retroactively not to
    > apply a metamagic feat to a spell (whether a prepared one, or one stored
    > in an item).
    >
    > But by the spirit of the rules, I see nothing wrong with it. You're
    > still firing a maximum of two spells per round, and you're paying more
    > for that standard action fireball than it's worth (but that's the price
    > of not having planned ahead, and prepared a non-Quickened one).
    >
    > Should it be allowed?
    >
    >

    I've always thought the wording there was rather unfair. I think what
    you propose is what best matches the intent, if not the letter of the
    rules. There should be no reason to disallow the use of a standard
    action to cast a quickened spell. After all, you're paying a rather
    steep price. It would be smarter to cast a Quickened Fireball followed
    by a regular one? Why not do that? (I know- you only have the
    Quickened Fireballs left, right? :-)) So its hardly unbalancing.

    I think this would be the same with most swift and immediate actions, as
    well. Though there might be a few powers/spells/abilities or
    combinations thereof that could be abused, even if you used a standard
    action to pay for it. But I have yet to see an actual example of such
    abuse.

    -Tialan
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:06:34 +0200, Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr>
    wrote:

    >Say you have a staff of Quickened fireball. Can you use it to fire two
    >fireballs in one round? What about if you have two Quickened fireballs
    >prepared? Can they both be fired in the same round?
    >
    >I know you cannot use more than one Quickened spell per round, but is it
    >possible to fire the second fireball as a standard action?
    >
    >By the letter of the rules, I don't think so. You can only use one
    >Quickened spell per round, and you can't choose retroactively not to
    >apply a metamagic feat to a spell (whether a prepared one, or one stored
    >in an item).
    >
    >But by the spirit of the rules, I see nothing wrong with it. You're
    >still firing a maximum of two spells per round, and you're paying more
    >for that standard action fireball than it's worth (but that's the price
    >of not having planned ahead, and prepared a non-Quickened one).
    >
    >Should it be allowed?

    I would have no problem with it. You're treating something as taking
    longer than it does. So what?
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote:
    > Say you have a staff of Quickened fireball. Can you use it to fire two
    > fireballs in one round? What about if you have two Quickened fireballs
    > prepared? Can they both be fired in the same round?
    >
    > I know you cannot use more than one Quickened spell per round, but is it
    > possible to fire the second fireball as a standard action?

    I would allow it.

    > By the letter of the rules, I don't think so. You can only use one
    > Quickened spell per round, and you can't choose retroactively not to
    > apply a metamagic feat to a spell (whether a prepared one, or one stored
    > in an item).
    >
    > But by the spirit of the rules, I see nothing wrong with it. You're
    > still firing a maximum of two spells per round, and you're paying more
    > for that standard action fireball than it's worth (but that's the price
    > of not having planned ahead, and prepared a non-Quickened one).

    I agree with you. The rules say 'one swift action per round', but you
    can perform a 'swift action' as a standard action. In this case you're
    still firing two fireballs per round, very expensively. If you'd
    prepared the second with with +4 of other metamagics there'd be no
    question, and it'd be even more powerful.

    > Should it be allowed?

    I would think so.


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
    keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Jasin Zujovic" <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1ccdb2d9e26cab7d989a28@news.iskon.hr...
    > I know you cannot use more than one Quickened spell per round, but is it
    > possible to fire the second fireball as a standard action?
    > By the letter of the rules, I don't think so. You can only use one
    > Quickened spell per round, and you can't choose retroactively not to
    > apply a metamagic feat to a spell (whether a prepared one, or one stored
    > in an item).
    > But by the spirit of the rules, I see nothing wrong with it.

    You have analyzed the issue correctly. Letter, no, but game balance
    problem? Zero. Go ahead.


    -Michael
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    shalahhr@yahoo.com wrote:

    > There should be no reason to disallow the use of a standard
    > action to cast a quickened spell. After all, you're paying a rather
    > steep price. It would be smarter to cast a Quickened Fireball followed
    > by a regular one? Why not do that? (I know- you only have the
    > Quickened Fireballs left, right? :-))

    The specific example that lead me to thinking about this was an
    artificer (from Eberron) with an attack wand and metamagic item
    infusion.


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jasin Zujovic wrote:
    > shalahhr@yahoo.com wrote:
    >
    >
    >>There should be no reason to disallow the use of a standard
    >>action to cast a quickened spell. After all, you're paying a rather
    >>steep price. It would be smarter to cast a Quickened Fireball followed
    >>by a regular one? Why not do that? (I know- you only have the
    >>Quickened Fireballs left, right? :-))
    >
    >
    > The specific example that lead me to thinking about this was an
    > artificer (from Eberron) with an attack wand and metamagic item
    > infusion.

    Not really familiar with that combination. Although I am playing in an
    Eberron campaign, my DM owns the book, and I'm playing a kalashtar
    telepath. So I don't know artificers. :-(

    Out of curiosity, what is the benefit of the combination, since one of
    the Quickened effects is wasted? Why set this up? I mean, aside from
    having limited choice, as I alluded to above.

    -Tialan
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    shalahhr@yahoo.com wrote:

    > >>There should be no reason to disallow the use of a standard
    > >>action to cast a quickened spell. After all, you're paying a rather
    > >>steep price. It would be smarter to cast a Quickened Fireball followed
    > >>by a regular one? Why not do that? (I know- you only have the
    > >>Quickened Fireballs left, right? :-))
    > >
    > > The specific example that lead me to thinking about this was an
    > > artificer (from Eberron) with an attack wand and metamagic item
    > > infusion.
    >
    > Not really familiar with that combination. Although I am playing in an
    > Eberron campaign, my DM owns the book, and I'm playing a kalashtar
    > telepath. So I don't know artificers. :-(
    >
    > Out of curiosity, what is the benefit of the combination, since one of
    > the Quickened effects is wasted? Why set this up? I mean, aside from
    > having limited choice, as I alluded to above.

    Infusions are much like spells (but they only affect items). And there's
    an infusion that lets you apply a metamagic feat you know to a spell
    trigger item.

    So you have a wand of fireball and know Quicken Spell, cast your
    metamagic item infusion, and for 1 round/level you have a wand of
    Quickened fireball. And it might be your only attack wand, or you other
    ones might be inapplicable...


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jasin Zujovic wrote:
    > shalahhr@yahoo.com wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>>There should be no reason to disallow the use of a standard
    >>>>action to cast a quickened spell. After all, you're paying a rather
    >>>>steep price. It would be smarter to cast a Quickened Fireball followed
    >>>>by a regular one? Why not do that? (I know- you only have the
    >>>>Quickened Fireballs left, right? :-))
    >>>
    >>>The specific example that lead me to thinking about this was an
    >>>artificer (from Eberron) with an attack wand and metamagic item
    >>>infusion.
    >>
    >>Not really familiar with that combination. Although I am playing in an
    >>Eberron campaign, my DM owns the book, and I'm playing a kalashtar
    >>telepath. So I don't know artificers. :-(
    >>
    >>Out of curiosity, what is the benefit of the combination, since one of
    >>the Quickened effects is wasted? Why set this up? I mean, aside from
    >>having limited choice, as I alluded to above.
    >
    >
    > Infusions are much like spells (but they only affect items). And there's
    > an infusion that lets you apply a metamagic feat you know to a spell
    > trigger item.
    >
    > So you have a wand of fireball and know Quicken Spell, cast your
    > metamagic item infusion, and for 1 round/level you have a wand of
    > Quickened fireball. And it might be your only attack wand, or you other
    > ones might be inapplicable...

    So in other words, it's still an issue of limited choice, right? Once
    you cast the infusion, it affects every fireball cast with the wand for
    the duration of the infusion. And if it's your only applicable wand,
    the quickened effect will apply every time, whether you need it or not.

    But unlike actually casting quickened spells, there is actually no cost
    that makes the redundancy a disadvantage. So- why not go ahead and do
    it, right?

    -Tialan
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    shalahhr@yahoo.com wrote:

    > >>Out of curiosity, what is the benefit of the combination, since one of
    > >>the Quickened effects is wasted? Why set this up? I mean, aside from
    > >>having limited choice, as I alluded to above.
    > >
    > > Infusions are much like spells (but they only affect items). And there's
    > > an infusion that lets you apply a metamagic feat you know to a spell
    > > trigger item.
    > >
    > > So you have a wand of fireball and know Quicken Spell, cast your
    > > metamagic item infusion, and for 1 round/level you have a wand of
    > > Quickened fireball. And it might be your only attack wand, or you other
    > > ones might be inapplicable...
    >
    > So in other words, it's still an issue of limited choice, right? Once
    > you cast the infusion, it affects every fireball cast with the wand for
    > the duration of the infusion. And if it's your only applicable wand,
    > the quickened effect will apply every time, whether you need it or not.

    Right.

    > But unlike actually casting quickened spells, there is actually no cost
    > that makes the redundancy a disadvantage. So- why not go ahead and do
    > it, right?

    Exactly.


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jasin Zujovic wrote:
    > Say you have a staff of Quickened fireball. Can you use it to fire two
    > fireballs in one round?

    BTB, you can't quicken a spell in a staff; it takes one standard
    action or longer, same for all spell trigger items.
    However, your theoretical staff would be properly priced by
    building it with the ability to cast both quickened and regular
    fireballs, and paying for that flexibility.

    > What about if you have two Quickened fireballs prepared? Can they both
    > be fired in the same round?

    Kinda defeats the point of having to prepare the right spells;
    which is to say if your only two attack spells left are quickened,
    that's your own fault. At the very least you should have a wand
    available to use on your standard action.

    > Should it be allowed?

    I don't think it would hurt as a house rule.

    --
    tussock

    Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    scrub@clear.net.nz wrote:

    > > Say you have a staff of Quickened fireball. Can you use it to fire two
    > > fireballs in one round?
    >
    > BTB, you can't quicken a spell in a staff; it takes one standard
    > action or longer, same for all spell trigger items.

    SRD: "casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that
    doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity. (If the spell being cast,
    however, has a longer casting time than 1 action, it takes that long to
    cast the spell from a wand.)"

    Huh. I guess you're right, by the letter of the rules. But I'd assume
    the intent was that casting a spell from a wand/staff takes just as long
    as casting that same spell normally. So, free action for Quickened
    spells.

    > > Should it be allowed?
    >
    > I don't think it would hurt as a house rule.

    Agreed.


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Jasin Zujovic" <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1cd036d6862cf66a989a37@news.iskon.hr...
    > scrub@clear.net.nz wrote:
    > > > Say you have a staff of Quickened fireball. Can you use it to fire two
    > > > fireballs in one round?
    > >
    > > BTB, you can't quicken a spell in a staff; it takes one standard
    > > action or longer, same for all spell trigger items.
    >
    > SRD: "casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that
    > doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity. (If the spell being cast,
    > however, has a longer casting time than 1 action, it takes that long to
    > cast the spell from a wand.)"
    >
    > Huh. I guess you're right, by the letter of the rules.

    Though not for the reason he cites.
    He cut a critical sentence: "Wands use the spell trigger activation
    method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action ... "
    The description of spell trigger items on page 213 says that "activating
    a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke.."

    So whatever basis for requiring a standard action comes from the generic
    spell-trigger rule. I'm rather sad - I was all vim and vigor to argue the
    other case, and expected the spell trigger text to say "as the spell being
    cast". It was mildly surprising to see otherwise (notice how feather fall
    can't be used normally from a wand, now?). But if you want to justify a
    quickened item, you have to attack the problem at the source and let
    spell-triggers of quickened things be swift actions.

    Do we have any evidence from official sources of a staff or wand of
    quickened foo?


    -Michael
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Michael Scott Brown wrote:
    > "Jasin Zujovic" <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in message
    > news:MPG.1cd036d6862cf66a989a37@news.iskon.hr...
    >
    >>scrub@clear.net.nz wrote:
    >>
    >>>>Say you have a staff of Quickened fireball. Can you use it to fire two
    >>>>fireballs in one round?
    >>>
    >>> BTB, you can't quicken a spell in a staff; it takes one standard
    >>>action or longer, same for all spell trigger items.
    >>
    >>SRD: "casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that
    >>doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity. (If the spell being cast,
    >>however, has a longer casting time than 1 action, it takes that long to
    >>cast the spell from a wand.)"
    >>
    >>Huh. I guess you're right, by the letter of the rules.
    >
    >
    > Though not for the reason he cites.
    > He cut a critical sentence: "Wands use the spell trigger activation
    > method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action ... "
    > The description of spell trigger items on page 213 says that "activating
    > a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke.."
    >
    > So whatever basis for requiring a standard action comes from the generic
    > spell-trigger rule. I'm rather sad - I was all vim and vigor to argue the
    > other case, and expected the spell trigger text to say "as the spell being
    > cast". It was mildly surprising to see otherwise (notice how feather fall
    > can't be used normally from a wand, now?). But if you want to justify a
    > quickened item, you have to attack the problem at the source and let
    > spell-triggers of quickened things be swift actions.
    >
    > Do we have any evidence from official sources of a staff or wand of
    > quickened foo?
    >
    >
    > -Michael
    >
    >


    All I can find in the FAQ is this, FWIW:

    "Can you take a free action and a standard action as part
    of a readied action? For example, suppose I ready an action
    to attack the first monster to come into melee range. A
    monster comes into range, and I take an attack—can I also
    shout, cast a quickened spell, or use some other free action?"


    Using a strict reading of the ready rules (see page 160 of
    the Player’s Handbook), the answer is no. While the ready
    action allows you to combine a 5-foot step as part of the
    readied action, it doesn’t say anything about allowing free
    actions.
    Furthermore, the first sentence of the second paragraph
    under the Ready heading (“You can ready a standard action, a
    move action, or a free action.”) seems to support this, as it
    clearly sets up a free action as one of the three options, rather
    than including it as an addition to be included along with either
    of the other two options.
    Since speaking is generally defined as a free action you can
    perform “even when it isn’t your turn” (see the Player’s
    Handbook, page 144), you don’t need to combine a shout with
    the readied action. You can simply perform it any time you
    want, including right before or after taking a readied action.
    The same is true of any spell (or action) that you can cast (or
    perform) when it isn’t your turn, such as feather fall, or any
    spell whose casting time is 1 immediate action. (The immediate
    action is defined in several recent rulebooks, including the
    Expanded Psionics Handbook and Complete Arcane. It is
    reprinted here for your reference.) You couldn’t cast a
    quickened spell, though, since that can’t be done when it isn’t
    your turn.

    [snip description of immediate action]
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
    > So whatever basis for requiring a standard action comes from the
    > generic spell-trigger rule. I'm rather sad - I was all vim and vigor
    > to argue the other case, and expected the spell trigger text to say
    > "as the spell being cast". It was mildly surprising to see otherwise
    > (notice how feather fall can't be used normally from a wand, now?).

    A wand of feather fall isn't particularly useful anyway; unless you
    carry it in hand all the time, it's a move action to draw, and therefore
    no good for emergencies. A staff with feather fall in its repertoire
    would be more useful (since you normally do have those in hand), but
    alas that doesn't work either because of this rule.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
    >
    > So whatever basis for requiring a standard action comes from the
    > generic spell-trigger rule. I'm rather sad - I was all vim and vigor
    > to argue the other case, and expected the spell trigger text to say
    > "as the spell being cast". It was mildly surprising to see otherwise
    > (notice how feather fall can't be used normally from a wand, now?).
    > But if you want to justify a quickened item, you have to attack the
    > problem at the source and let spell-triggers of quickened things be
    > swift actions.

    In that case it'd mean that a wand of $longcastingspell would actually
    work faster than casting the spell directly. Unless there's another bit
    (not quoted) that says '... or the normal casting time of the spell".

    That could be a rather nice ability of spell trigger items.

    > Do we have any evidence from official sources of a staff or wand of
    > quickened foo?

    Aren't metamagicked spells treated as the adjusted spell level for
    everything that that's bad for (i.e. not save DC or for overcoming other
    spells)? It takes a higher-level slot to cast (and therefore a
    higher-level caster), it costs more to hire a caster to cast it, and
    costs more to enchant into an item?

    If so, you may be limited to quickened cantrips, because wands are
    limited to fourth-level spells. Staffs are another matter, of course.


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
    keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Michael Scott Brown wrote:
    >> So whatever basis for requiring a standard action comes from the
    >> generic spell-trigger rule ....

    Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
    > In that case it'd mean that a wand of $longcastingspell would actually
    > work faster than casting the spell directly. Unless there's another bit
    > (not quoted) that says '... or the normal casting time of the spell".

    There is. It's quoted elsewhere in the thread IIRC.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    mistermichael@earthlink.net wrote:

    > So whatever basis for requiring a standard action comes from the generic
    > spell-trigger rule. I'm rather sad - I was all vim and vigor to argue the
    > other case, and expected the spell trigger text to say "as the spell being
    > cast". It was mildly surprising to see otherwise (notice how feather fall
    > can't be used normally from a wand, now?). But if you want to justify a
    > quickened item, you have to attack the problem at the source and let
    > spell-triggers of quickened things be swift actions.

    Definitely.

    > Do we have any evidence from official sources of a staff or wand of
    > quickened foo?

    Well, it's very non-explicit, but the artificer infusion in question,
    metamagic item, lets you apply a metamagic feat to a spell trigger item,
    and doesn't say it can't be done with Quicken. I'd expect it to be
    explicit, if Quickened wands were supposed to be impossible.


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jasin Zujovic wrote:
    > mistermichael@earthlink.net wrote:
    >
    >
    >> So whatever basis for requiring a standard action comes from the generic
    >>spell-trigger rule. I'm rather sad - I was all vim and vigor to argue the
    >>other case, and expected the spell trigger text to say "as the spell being
    >>cast". It was mildly surprising to see otherwise (notice how feather fall
    >>can't be used normally from a wand, now?). But if you want to justify a
    >>quickened item, you have to attack the problem at the source and let
    >>spell-triggers of quickened things be swift actions.
    >
    >
    > Definitely.
    >
    >
    >> Do we have any evidence from official sources of a staff or wand of
    >>quickened foo?
    >
    >
    > Well, it's very non-explicit, but the artificer infusion in question,
    > metamagic item, lets you apply a metamagic feat to a spell trigger item,
    > and doesn't say it can't be done with Quicken. I'd expect it to be
    > explicit, if Quickened wands were supposed to be impossible.
    >
    >

    Well, it may not be impossible, it may just be a bad idea. Like a
    sorceror trying to
    Quicken a spell--it doesn't work because the fact that a metamagiced
    sorceror spell
    becomes a full-round action or longer negates the Quickening.
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jasin Zujovic wrote:
    > Say you have a staff of Quickened fireball. Can you use it to fire
    two
    > fireballs in one round? What about if you have two Quickened
    fireballs
    > prepared? Can they both be fired in the same round?

    eh.

    Not technically, bot that seems like a beneficial magic item creating a
    penalty for you, so I don't like the resriction. game balance
    certainly indicates that you can.

    But I'm also opposed to game balance.

    An easier option would be to allow a staff of quickened fireballs to
    also fire non-quickened fireballs at the wielder's option. It's not as
    if the staf has spell levels, it's got charges. So that sounds like a
    simpler solution and I can't think of a proper reason that it would
    ever be a problem.

    The only real problem is that the second spell should really require a
    standard action (preventingthe wizard from performing other
    non-spell-like standard actions in the same round). But you can easily
    rule that it takes up the standard action for that round if you like.
    Either way no harm no foul.
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
    news:slrnd6dhu0.pos.bradd+news@szonye.com...
    > Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
    > > So whatever basis for requiring a standard action comes from the
    > > generic spell-trigger rule. I'm rather sad - I was all vim and vigor
    > > to argue the other case, and expected the spell trigger text to say
    > > "as the spell being cast". It was mildly surprising to see otherwise
    > > (notice how feather fall can't be used normally from a wand, now?).
    >
    > A wand of feather fall isn't particularly useful anyway; unless you
    > carry it in hand all the time, it's a move action to draw, and therefore
    > no good for emergencies. A staff with feather fall in its repertoire
    > would be more useful (since you normally do have those in hand), but
    > alas that doesn't work either because of this rule.

    It isn't a big deal. A ring of feather falling isn't exactly going to
    break the bank and you don't have any pesky charges to worry about. You
    really don't want a 1st level spell from a 1st level caster if you are
    falling any real distance either. IIRC from a 3rd level caster the costs
    are about the same.
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    someguy@thedoor.gov wrote:

    > >> Do we have any evidence from official sources of a staff or wand of
    > >>quickened foo?
    > >
    > > Well, it's very non-explicit, but the artificer infusion in question,
    > > metamagic item, lets you apply a metamagic feat to a spell trigger item,
    > > and doesn't say it can't be done with Quicken. I'd expect it to be
    > > explicit, if Quickened wands were supposed to be impossible.
    >
    > Well, it may not be impossible, it may just be a bad idea. Like a sorceror trying to
    > Quicken a spell--it doesn't work because the fact that a metamagiced sorceror spell
    > becomes a full-round action or longer negates the Quickening.

    In fact, by the book, Quickening sorcerous spells is not only a bad
    idea, it doesn't work.

    From the Quicken Spell description: "Special: This feat can’t be applied
    to any spell cast spontaneously (including sorcerer spells, bard spells,
    and cleric or druid spells cast spontaneously), since applying a
    metamagic feat to a spontaneously cast spell automatically increases the
    casting time to a full-round action."


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
    >(notice how feather fall
    >can't be used normally from a wand, now?). But if you want to justify a
    >quickened item, you have to attack the problem at the source and let
    >spell-triggers of quickened things be swift actions.

    And immediate actions if the spell is inherently an immediate action,
    like Feather Fall is...

    Donald
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1114101719.444658.85640@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > But I'm also opposed to game balance.

    Heh.
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    > An easier option would be to allow a staff of quickened fireballs to
    > also fire non-quickened fireballs at the wielder's option. It's not
    > as if the staf has spell levels, it's got charges. So that sounds
    > like a simpler solution and I can't think of a proper reason that it
    > would ever be a problem.
    >
    > The only real problem is that the second spell should really require a
    > standard action (preventingthe wizard from performing other
    > non-spell-like standard actions in the same round). But you can
    > easily rule that it takes up the standard action for that round if you
    > like. Either way no harm no foul.

    With Quicken, you can cast an extra spell. With the
    Epic feat Multispell, you can cast another Quickened (and another
    each time you take Multispell). THere is an Epic feat called
    Automatic Quicken that makes all your spells Quickened. Imagine
    if you then, as a result of taking that feat 3 times, you now
    can only cast 1 spell a round, because you have no un-quickened
    spells.

    But - there is an Epic staff called Staff of Rapid Barrage
    that may shed some light here. It has 2 quickened spells in
    it - MM and Fireball. It specifically says that it can be
    activated as a free action, but, only once per round. So from
    that I would conclude that any staff or wand can only be activated
    once per round, but it can be a quickened (free or swift as the
    naming convention goes) action to do so. You could cast
    your Automatic quickened spell with Multispell, quicken activate
    the wand, and still cast another automatic quicken spell in a
    round, for example.

    ROB
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games