Do you like spell and effect durations?

[Dannyalcatraz]

ME
1) limited by slots, like items.

It just occurred to me that we already had a part of this in place. You could only have one touch spell active at any one time.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

More specifically. Spell Durations expressed in time units like rounds, minutes, hours and so on?
[/sblock]

Yes, especially the ones that end in minutes and up.

I like the fact that once those are cast I don't have to worry about them for a long time.

I absolutely hate the way 4th edition does it, a few spells like that are okay but other than that I prefer the old way.

When you've too many bonuses and other modifiers coming and going round by round gets a bit confusing and just plan annoying at times.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I remember in our 4th edition games there were so many situational modifiers floating around that we would forget or not even bother with some of them.

"Hey Jimmy, just wanted to let you know that since my PC moved two squares to the left of the goblin it granted you a +2 to AC until the start of it's brother's roommate's best friends turn."

 

[frankthedm]

I can't stand durations measured by "encounters", "scenes" or "adventures". They are an artificial and gamist kludge trying to masquerade as "narrative".

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I can't stand durations measured by "encounters", "scenes" or "adventures". They are an artificial and gamist kludge trying to masquerade as "narrative".

But could you deal with durations measured by tangible, in-game-world events like "cast a spell", "get hit", "take damage", "move a distance", "fall asleep or unconcious", but not in seconds, rounds, minutes, hours or days?

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I like durations, preferably expressed in rounds, and have always found them dead simple to track. When the spell starts I jot it down on my notepaper along with the number of rounds it lasts. At the end of each round I add a hash mark to each effect, and if it's done cross it off. One of the reasons I didn't like 4E was that effects don't end at the end of the round, making them considerably more difficult to track by this method.

Conceptually, I like the idea of duration until an event, but it seems like in practice it would be more complicated than the method above.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I like durations, preferably expressed in rounds, and have always found them dead simple to track. When the spell starts I jot it down on my notepaper along with the number of rounds it lasts. At the end of each round I add a hash mark to each effect, and if it's done cross it off. One of the reasons I didn't like 4E was that effects don't end at the end of the round, making them considerably more difficult to track by this method.

Conceptually, I like the idea of duration until an event, but it seems like in practice it would be more complicated than the method above.

Keep in mind that my main concern is actually durations measured in minutes or hours. Rounds are tracked in combat and durations like that are more easily tracked, since you have the turn of initiative allowing yo uto count it.

But outside of combat, time is handled very abstract usuaully, and you rarely really have good idea whether something will take 5 or 20 minutes or 2 hours or 4 hours. But once durations are measured in minutes and hours, you would need to take more care tracking it, otherwise the party has difficulties predicting their options, because they otherwise don't know whether their spells are still on or ran out.

I will lead to discussions about how much something should realistically take because people want to make sure they still have their spells when they need it. Sure, as a DM the players should trust me and my word is final either way - but it's still an unnecessary complication IMO. It can lead to do-overs, like the players assuming it took x time and certain spells are still running, and the DM assuming it took y time which would need some spells would have ran out, and the players decided for one action based on their assumptions. It requires either communicating about details neither I or the players would normally care about, or it leads to back-tracking and do-overs.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I agree with TwinBahamut. I particularly like sustained effects. They limit just how much you can layer onto a given combat, reducing tracking burden for the DM, and putting it on the player using the effect (ie, keeping that player engaged, and making his contribution clear each round). Combined with a strict action economy, it could be one way to keep the lid on daily abilities - if dailies that aren't instantaneous consistently require actions to sustain, only so many can be in effect at a time, and a clear way (disabling the creature sustaining them) is available to end them.

And I agree that end-of-turn effects ended up being a tad trivial-feeling, for the most part. They work fine for 'set ups,' where a controller makes an enemy vulnerable and/or a leader buffs everyone up, and you all pile on while it lasts. But for anything less proactive, like defense buffs in particular, they're underwhelming.


Ultimately, though, the best (most flexible, DM-friendly) approach to durations might be 'story' based: 'scenes' or milestones or encounters or chapters or stories instead of minutes/hours/days/etc.

 

[frankthedm]

But could you deal with durations measured by tangible, in-game-world events like

All the ones you list are fine for spells that require concentration, but those limiters used for other spells range from good to terrible.

>"cast a spell"
Potentially overpowered for a non dedicated caster, cast it and it can last all day. Otherwise unless the spell is so strong you don't NEED to do your job, that is casting spells, then the spell is now KEEPING you from doing your job.

>"get hit" &"take damage"
Fantastic for one shot protective spells that BRUTALLY punish the attacker, Like a Shield of Glass that when broken shreds the attacker for significant damage. Terrible for most other combat spells since then the spell will be lost when you most likly NEEDED it. And putting this on non combat spells means the players who sat down at the table for combat are at odds with those who have these spells going.

>"move a distance"
Perfect if the spell is an immobile barrier or a "Last Stand" type spell. Maybe a summoned siege weapon might work too. Otherwise you'll get bull rushed out of the spell. And if getting shoved by others DOESN'T break the spell, then a crafty player will finagle a way to cart the mage around.

>"fall asleep or unconscious"
The 3Era showed the mistake of all day buffs. Plus this duration will get players trying to milk the rules of [not} sleeping. Also Unconscious should always be a single step away from Dead, so that is the worst time for a spell to fail.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

All the ones you list are fine for spells that require concentration, but those limiters used for other spells range from good to terrible.

One will certainly have to take care for what spells they apply and consider who can use the spells.

>"cast a spell"
Potentially overpowered for a non dedicated caster, cast it and it can last all day. Otherwise unless the spell is so strong you don't NEED to do your job, that is casting spells, then the spell is now KEEPING you from doing your job.

I think of spells like Tenser's Transformation or that Cleric spell that boosts melee damage. Temporarily, you may find them useful as you are almost as good as a Fighter, but you will likely need spells later. But this is clearly a case where we have to make sure that doesn't suffer from such a restriction can get the spell. But D&D Next could provide guidelines for this and suggest DMs to take a very close look.

>"get hit" &"take damage"
Fantastic for one shot protective spells that BRUTALLY punish the attacker, Like a Shield of Glass that when broken shreds the attacker for significant damage. Terrible for most other combat spells since then the spell will be lost when you most likly NEEDED it. And putting this on non combat spells means the players who sat down at the table for combat are at odds with those who have these spells going.

"Take Damage" may not necessarily be "any damage" but take "X amount" damage. So a caster may not be able to maintain flight if he has suffered 30 points of damage or so - this allows people to bring flying casters to the ground, but not hinder regular exploration and give them some time to really shine.

>"move a distance"
Perfect if the spell is an immobile barrier or a "Last Stand" type spell. Maybe a summoned siege weapon might work too. Otherwise you'll get bull rushed out of the spell. And if getting shoved by others DOESN'T break the spell, then a crafty player will finagle a way to cart the mage around.

My tendency is to think that involuntary movement would need to be controlled in some way, and the rule would probably be "make a check if you move or are moved". In other ideas, I use the concept of a "Caster Check", which is basicaly an ability check on your spell casting ability score, against DCs based on spell level. Something like 5+Spell Level (for checks that are meant as minor risks), 10 + Spell Level (for more significant risks) and 15 to 20 + spell level (for stuff you normally won't rely on making.)

>"fall asleep or unconscious"
The 3Era showed the mistake of all day buffs. Plus this duration will get players trying to milk the rules of [not} sleeping. Also Unconscious should always be a single step away from Dead, so that is the worst time for a spell to fail.

I don't necessarily agree that all day buffs are a mistake. They should just not be too straightfoward like those +4 to ability score spells.
I think it's generally in my mind as additional condition. And I think there are plenty of spells where this is a condition where a spell should fail - stuff like Invisibilty or Fly, for example.