Ridley's Cohort
First Post
I think you just limit to 3 Wardings and 1 Boost or somesuch that which a PC may benefit from.
You could make most Boosts swift actions.
You could make most Boosts swift actions.
Random Musings: Problemchild Buffs: Wardings and Boosts (really long)
- Thread starter Gold Roger
- Start date
Someone
Adventurer
I agree with the OP in most terms, and would welcome a major revision of spellcasters in 4e (or 5e) as warlock-spellcaster hibrids, as discussed in the first thread on the subject, with actual spells limited in number and being flashy, and a number of minor magical abilities either aways active or available at will. This would mimic how actually spellcasters currently work at high levels: they rely on the upper two or three levels of spells for combat, and the number of lesser level spells, plus wands and scrolls is high enough to consider they always have some magic trick to do, every round, if not as efective as they could do with their more important spells. changing to the invocation-plus-spells mechanic would streamline and simplify greatly how spellcasters work, specially at high levels and even more for DM's: writing a villian's spells prepared can take a very long preparation time.
In this context I'd see wards as "invocations", minor abilities that provide numerical, simple advantages, like bonuses to AC and stuff; wards in this context. Spells should be different, buffs as described in the OP and never providing some pure numerical or mechanical advantage.
In this context I'd see wards as "invocations", minor abilities that provide numerical, simple advantages, like bonuses to AC and stuff; wards in this context. Spells should be different, buffs as described in the OP and never providing some pure numerical or mechanical advantage.
HeapThaumaturgist
First Post
I'm of the opinion that the spells can stay as they are, for the most part, but that durations bound to level should be removed.
Buffs should be:
24hr or Encounter.
24hr buffs should be reduced in power ... PHBII has a 1hr/lvl spell (would be 24hr) that adds +2 Enhancement to Strength. The spell can be ended for a 1-round +8 Strength.
Similar spells should be available, I think, for the other stats, but maybe give them some flavor.
Mage Armor ... all day
Righteous Might ... one encounter
The only effect that has a similar non-combat-time duration is the Barbarian Rage fatigue debuff, which lasts until the end of the encounter and is gone.
I don't think it would be verisimilitude breaking to do spells that way ... they last until the encounter is over, then they're over. No tracking rounds, no rushing from place to place looking for something to fight, etc. Spells would have to be totally reimagined with that duration clock, of course, but I think the current system with a single minor change is easier than simplifying the confusion by adding alot more confusion.
--fje
Buffs should be:
24hr or Encounter.
24hr buffs should be reduced in power ... PHBII has a 1hr/lvl spell (would be 24hr) that adds +2 Enhancement to Strength. The spell can be ended for a 1-round +8 Strength.
Similar spells should be available, I think, for the other stats, but maybe give them some flavor.
Mage Armor ... all day
Righteous Might ... one encounter
The only effect that has a similar non-combat-time duration is the Barbarian Rage fatigue debuff, which lasts until the end of the encounter and is gone.
I don't think it would be verisimilitude breaking to do spells that way ... they last until the encounter is over, then they're over. No tracking rounds, no rushing from place to place looking for something to fight, etc. Spells would have to be totally reimagined with that duration clock, of course, but I think the current system with a single minor change is easier than simplifying the confusion by adding alot more confusion.
--fje
To those worried about tracking durations: Don't.
Do what I do, instead; it's not precisely the same as tracking durations, but it's a LOT easier to remember; especially as you're cutting out the mage's power level from the equation.
At the end of the player's action each round, roll d% for each boost active on them; there's a 25% chance that buff ended that round.
Thus we essentially figure out the 1d4's value that round. We could actually perform a corrected version of this, with the percentages shifting each round, but that's an awful idea ; )
This is cool!
Do what I do, instead; it's not precisely the same as tracking durations, but it's a LOT easier to remember; especially as you're cutting out the mage's power level from the equation.
At the end of the player's action each round, roll d% for each boost active on them; there's a 25% chance that buff ended that round.
Thus we essentially figure out the 1d4's value that round. We could actually perform a corrected version of this, with the percentages shifting each round, but that's an awful idea ; )
This is cool!
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
I'm really resisting any notion of going to encounter-based durations for anything, for various reasons. In this case, with boosts having a random duration measured in rounds (regardless of encounter length) there's always the chance the boost will run out just when you need it most...HeapThaumaturgist said:
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
In general, as I've mentioned elsewhere, encounter-based durations only work when an "encounter" can be clearly defined; not always possible. (and, what if you want to cast a boost spell in a non-encounter situation; how long does it last then?)
Lanefan
oh, and a second thought -- as for limiting the number of wardings, tying it to (ack, Magic of Incarnum!) body slots might be a great idea.
It's a little more work on the outset, and it adds to the problem of D&D stacking, but since the wardings are relatively static, per-day kinds of things, it doesn't seem like that much of a problem, and it's a lot easier than trying to remember whether circumstance bonuses stack with themselves.
Besides, it provides a reason you can't stack a bull's strength spell with gloves of giant strength -- they both sit squarely in the 'hand' slot.
Howzat?
It's a little more work on the outset, and it adds to the problem of D&D stacking, but since the wardings are relatively static, per-day kinds of things, it doesn't seem like that much of a problem, and it's a lot easier than trying to remember whether circumstance bonuses stack with themselves.
Besides, it provides a reason you can't stack a bull's strength spell with gloves of giant strength -- they both sit squarely in the 'hand' slot.
Howzat?
WizarDru
Adventurer
Some thoughts, to be taken with a grain of salt:
I'm not entirely sure I see the problem that your system is addressing, per se. It sounds like you're main thrust is removing existing spells for two new limited kinds of spells to make everything always-on or a combat one-shot with no middle ground. While I agree that buffs can add paperwork....I'm not sure how this is really alleviating that. It sounds like it's just removing the time you buff, not the actual buff.
Some of the features of the system may be attractive to players, but also sound like they're removing certain scenarios because the DM has overused them. Being ambushed and suprised is very much a classic scenario...but if buffs are running 24/7 (except for the super-short super-powerful buffs), all buffs cease to be interesting. They then become Supernatural abilities that you occasionally swap out.
How would this system interact with existing classes and spells? The sorceror is going to need rejigging, for example, as this system potentially has less to offer him than the wizard, cleric and druid. How will dispel magic effect all of these wardings and buffs and how will they interact? Unless you make changes, those wardings will still require book-keeping as some or potentially all of them get wiped out during the first or second round of combat when the initial dispels and other magic counter-measures are launched. Item interaction has been touched on, and is important. Many items will need to be changed, as well as the item creation rules. A ring of Bull's Strength becomes much more attractive than any spell-based solution as a shortie, but becomes way over-priced if it's a warding. How will abilities like the paladin's aura change? Circles of Protection? Invis sphere? These are just as much effort to track, even if you remove the timing aspect.
This all assumes that players always have ample time to rest, cast spells and prepare for any combat...which I think should happen from time to time, but it should not be the standard all the time. If a sense of urgency strikes the players as it sometimes should, moving on without a buff or holding a buff back until the right moment becomes a crucial and tense part of the adventure. Your system sounds like it means to remove that....but I don't think it will unless you change things like dispellilng. Many spells are going to be held off upon until the players are certain they need it. And with dispels flying, sometimes they MUST be cast in combat, which removes the attractiveness of your system, which sounds like mostly handwaving spell duration entirely or throwing it into the 'just for now' box.
While it is true that there are great advantages to buffing prior to combat, this is the norm at high levels BECAUSE the players have far more resources AND far less incentive to have multiple combats repeatedly. Once the group has access to things like travel magic, the tenor of battles changes. Piratecat has a story of how he planned this extensive dungeon crawl for his players, and instead the cast Earthquake and collapsed the entire complex, waited from the boss to crawl out and smacked him down. With access to magic like Scrying, Find the Path, and other high-powered divinations, players will have fewer combats as they increase in levels (instead emphasizing more sophisticated, dangerous or large-scale battles, rather than room-to-room searches).
I disagree that the cost of a spell is an action in combat. Many spells have no such cost. The cost for a spell is a SLOT. What is the cost of a contingency spell? What is the cost of a rope trick? What is the cost of a obscurring mist? A faithful hound? A Phantom Steed? Will creating two new classes of spell make things simpler or just shift the emphasis to another part of the system?
Buffs can be boring...or they can be exciting. I can tell you that my party found it pretty exciting when the wizard turned the entire combat around with a Bull's Strength on the fighter when it looked like they were outnumbered and about to be slaughtered. It turned certain death into a rout at just the right time. Now, I agree that buffing doesn't fit exactly with many stories and legends. But Gandalf also didn't cast the same spell twice, nor did Morgan le Fey create the same potion twice....but that's because those were stories and legends, not a game inspired by them. Aragorn never fought a roper...a helluva lot of orcs and goblins, but no ropers.
Now, if you're making most buffs personal, there stands the issue that you've weakend...well, just about everybody who isn't a cleric or wizard, really. The sorceror certainly isn't going to be able to capitalize on buffs with his limited selection unless he starts living off of scrolls or becomes a buffing-only guy...which would run counter to your goal. And now some buffs become useless when only personal, unless multiclassing comes into play, and even then only for a short duration. Clerics or druids may enjoy bull's strength, but wizard's won't, for example. Now you've either made potions VERY valuable, particulary to non-spellcasters (who'll be wearing bandoliers of the things) and made them far more vulnerable. Bodaks and similar creatures now should have a +4 CR, when DeathWard is no longer on the table for the melee characters, and things like poison and elemental damage becomes far more dangerous.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, by any measure. It's actually a pretty good idea...but you need to consider the effects beyond mere buffing itself. I like the feel of the concept, but it has lots of far-reaching consequences that might not be immediately apparent. I haven't even struck out beyond the core...artificers will have a lot of heavy thinking to do.
I'm only playing devil's advocate here to spur the creative process.
I'm not entirely sure I see the problem that your system is addressing, per se. It sounds like you're main thrust is removing existing spells for two new limited kinds of spells to make everything always-on or a combat one-shot with no middle ground. While I agree that buffs can add paperwork....I'm not sure how this is really alleviating that. It sounds like it's just removing the time you buff, not the actual buff.
Some of the features of the system may be attractive to players, but also sound like they're removing certain scenarios because the DM has overused them. Being ambushed and suprised is very much a classic scenario...but if buffs are running 24/7 (except for the super-short super-powerful buffs), all buffs cease to be interesting. They then become Supernatural abilities that you occasionally swap out.
How would this system interact with existing classes and spells? The sorceror is going to need rejigging, for example, as this system potentially has less to offer him than the wizard, cleric and druid. How will dispel magic effect all of these wardings and buffs and how will they interact? Unless you make changes, those wardings will still require book-keeping as some or potentially all of them get wiped out during the first or second round of combat when the initial dispels and other magic counter-measures are launched. Item interaction has been touched on, and is important. Many items will need to be changed, as well as the item creation rules. A ring of Bull's Strength becomes much more attractive than any spell-based solution as a shortie, but becomes way over-priced if it's a warding. How will abilities like the paladin's aura change? Circles of Protection? Invis sphere? These are just as much effort to track, even if you remove the timing aspect.
This all assumes that players always have ample time to rest, cast spells and prepare for any combat...which I think should happen from time to time, but it should not be the standard all the time. If a sense of urgency strikes the players as it sometimes should, moving on without a buff or holding a buff back until the right moment becomes a crucial and tense part of the adventure. Your system sounds like it means to remove that....but I don't think it will unless you change things like dispellilng. Many spells are going to be held off upon until the players are certain they need it. And with dispels flying, sometimes they MUST be cast in combat, which removes the attractiveness of your system, which sounds like mostly handwaving spell duration entirely or throwing it into the 'just for now' box.
While it is true that there are great advantages to buffing prior to combat, this is the norm at high levels BECAUSE the players have far more resources AND far less incentive to have multiple combats repeatedly. Once the group has access to things like travel magic, the tenor of battles changes. Piratecat has a story of how he planned this extensive dungeon crawl for his players, and instead the cast Earthquake and collapsed the entire complex, waited from the boss to crawl out and smacked him down. With access to magic like Scrying, Find the Path, and other high-powered divinations, players will have fewer combats as they increase in levels (instead emphasizing more sophisticated, dangerous or large-scale battles, rather than room-to-room searches).
I disagree that the cost of a spell is an action in combat. Many spells have no such cost. The cost for a spell is a SLOT. What is the cost of a contingency spell? What is the cost of a rope trick? What is the cost of a obscurring mist? A faithful hound? A Phantom Steed? Will creating two new classes of spell make things simpler or just shift the emphasis to another part of the system?
Buffs can be boring...or they can be exciting. I can tell you that my party found it pretty exciting when the wizard turned the entire combat around with a Bull's Strength on the fighter when it looked like they were outnumbered and about to be slaughtered. It turned certain death into a rout at just the right time. Now, I agree that buffing doesn't fit exactly with many stories and legends. But Gandalf also didn't cast the same spell twice, nor did Morgan le Fey create the same potion twice....but that's because those were stories and legends, not a game inspired by them. Aragorn never fought a roper...a helluva lot of orcs and goblins, but no ropers.
Now, if you're making most buffs personal, there stands the issue that you've weakend...well, just about everybody who isn't a cleric or wizard, really. The sorceror certainly isn't going to be able to capitalize on buffs with his limited selection unless he starts living off of scrolls or becomes a buffing-only guy...which would run counter to your goal. And now some buffs become useless when only personal, unless multiclassing comes into play, and even then only for a short duration. Clerics or druids may enjoy bull's strength, but wizard's won't, for example. Now you've either made potions VERY valuable, particulary to non-spellcasters (who'll be wearing bandoliers of the things) and made them far more vulnerable. Bodaks and similar creatures now should have a +4 CR, when DeathWard is no longer on the table for the melee characters, and things like poison and elemental damage becomes far more dangerous.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, by any measure. It's actually a pretty good idea...but you need to consider the effects beyond mere buffing itself. I like the feel of the concept, but it has lots of far-reaching consequences that might not be immediately apparent. I haven't even struck out beyond the core...artificers will have a lot of heavy thinking to do.
I'm only playing devil's advocate here to spur the creative process.
HeapThaumaturgist
First Post
Lanefan said:I'm really resisting any notion of going to encounter-based durations for anything, for various reasons. In this case, with boosts having a random duration measured in rounds (regardless of encounter length) there's always the chance the boost will run out just when you need it most...
In general, as I've mentioned elsewhere, encounter-based durations only work when an "encounter" can be clearly defined; not always possible. (and, what if you want to cast a boost spell in a non-encounter situation; how long does it last then?)
Lanefan
It would last "long enough to do what you wanted it to do", of course.
Does having a 1d4 round duration for a spell really add to the enjoyment of the game? Does having the buff run out "just when you need it most" really add to the enjoyment of the game? Is a "random duration measured in rounds" different than "a random duration measured by the encounter"?
I mean, both a 1d4 Rounds duration and 1 Encounter duration are "random". One means the player marks the changes to his character once, when the spell is cast, and doesn't have to mess with anything again until the encounter ... the time when we'd like things to move quickly because so much is going on ... is over. 1d4 rounds, or 1rd/lvl, or whatever ... those cause the player to mark changes to his character at one point (when the spell is cast) and then at some random point DURING THE ENCOUNTER, when everybody is engaged in an action sequence of the game, he has to go back and make changes to his character again to reflect the buff going away.
If the buff lasts until the end of the encounter, those un-buff changes can be made during post-encounter table talk or exposition, when time is less of a factor and people aren't going to be saying: "Joe, quick, what do you do?"
An Encounter need not be clearly defined, but it isn't hard to do ... an "Encounter" is similar to a "Scene" in a book or movie ... an encounter is the period of time in which a "complication" reveals itself and the characters take action to overcome it. We can further narrow it down into: "A period of time when one or more related decisions must be made and character abilities brought into play in order to confront a complication."
An Encounter could be ...
Lifting a fallen wagon off of a merchant.
A fight with a monster.
Convincing the king, during a state dinner, to support your adventure charter.
Now, if you cast Eagle's Splendor to up your charisma for the "State Dinner" ... suddenly here's this encounter which, before, was very open and loose ... perhaps the dinner lasts several hours ... how long is the conversation? A few moments as the king is on his way to the john or in bits and pieces of the course of the hour. Now the GM has to plan out the state dinner ... and the state dinner itself isn't the actual ENCOUNTER, it's just the backdrop and flavor for the actual encounter "Convincing the king to support your adventure charter". Is Eagle's Splendor going to last long enough to corner the king? Well now we've got to find out how big the building is and how long it takes to walk in there and the GM has to fiat a time it takes the characters to corner the king, etc etc, adding alot of thought and paperwork to the BACKDROP instead of to the role playing encounter between the king and the character. And it becomes his fiat as to whether the buff will work ... he can say: "You've only got four minutes, but it takes you five to find the king" or "you walk in and find the king and ...".
If the spell, say, gave +4 to Charisma for "One Encounter" the character casts it and the role playing goes on and that's the end of it.
--fje
Gold Roger
First Post
WizarDru: Thanks for the input, it's appreciated. Like I've said, this is work in progress.
Actually one of the reasons I put this out is that it touches on some areas of the game (like high level gameplay) I have little personal experience with, so having some that do have that experience looking at this is a huge boon.
Currently I'll propably do this:
I'll make a bunch of Warding/Boost spells to try out in my game alongside "traditional" buffs and see how it turns out. I'll propably post those here as well for those that like to test it as well.
Since they will go alongside the traditional spells, I'll propably do more than just replicate old spells with different durations.
Actually one of the reasons I put this out is that it touches on some areas of the game (like high level gameplay) I have little personal experience with, so having some that do have that experience looking at this is a huge boon.
Currently I'll propably do this:
I'll make a bunch of Warding/Boost spells to try out in my game alongside "traditional" buffs and see how it turns out. I'll propably post those here as well for those that like to test it as well.
Since they will go alongside the traditional spells, I'll propably do more than just replicate old spells with different durations.
I have to chime in and say that I really like the idea!
Wards could be handled so that you have to fuel it with a spell slot, but you only "activate it once". This is slightly better than 24/day, since you don't get in trouble if you're denied rest (or attacked in the night and hit with the recently-cast limit), but usually the same. I think it makes more sense thematically, though.
As for boosts, I don't think the duration or casting time shouldn't be standardized for all boosts, but should have a narrow range of possibilities (1 round, 3 or D4 rounds, or 1 minute). 1 round for "special super strikes", 3 or D4 rounds for climatic effects a la righteous might, and 1 minute for something that's meant to last for one combat.
Casting time can very well vary between boosts - swift for "super special strikes" (like wraithstrike), standard action for some 1 minute boosts, especially those who are not range: personal, and even 1 full round for those huge mega-effects, just to give your opponents a round to go "oh,..." 
Wards could be handled so that you have to fuel it with a spell slot, but you only "activate it once". This is slightly better than 24/day, since you don't get in trouble if you're denied rest (or attacked in the night and hit with the recently-cast limit), but usually the same. I think it makes more sense thematically, though.
As for boosts, I don't think the duration or casting time shouldn't be standardized for all boosts, but should have a narrow range of possibilities (1 round, 3 or D4 rounds, or 1 minute). 1 round for "special super strikes", 3 or D4 rounds for climatic effects a la righteous might, and 1 minute for something that's meant to last for one combat.
Casting time can very well vary between boosts - swift for "super special strikes" (like wraithstrike), standard action for some 1 minute boosts, especially those who are not range: personal, and even 1 full round for those huge mega-effects, just to give your opponents a round to go "oh,
..." 
