Two Quickened spells per round?

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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?

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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]

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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