Do you like spell and effect durations?

[I'm A Banana]

I can't XP ya, but I'm into the idea. I mentioned in this thread that this is absolutely the kind of change and tweak I'd be comfortable with in a 5e that wants to include encounter-based play as a possibility.

I think that accounting minutes and hours and even rounds is kind of tedious and abstract and fiddly. I'd much rather have spells limited by concrete events.

Some of your specific solutions might have some mild issues, but the idea overall is absolutely boffo. I think 4e did a remarkable job in simplifying it, though I think we can improve on how 4e did things, too.

Day-long buffs might be in the department of rituals (or something similar) in that they're not really part of your standard resources, but are something you can acquire and can spend. Rather than balancing them against a fighter's attacks (or whatever), they're balanced against the value of potions and scrolls and other consumable magic.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I'm with the Midget and the OP on this one.

My current Pathfinder character has a buff I use in every major combat that lasts 10 rounds (1 minute). Every time I use it, I put a d10 on the card I made with the information, and rotate it down 1 notch each turn.

Easy, right?

Well, sometimes, the combat gets exciting, and I have to look back and think, "Did I actually remember to rotate it down 1 notch? Let me replay my last three turns in my head to make sure ..."

And then, there are so many, many combats that end after 5 or 7 rounds - the extra duration is "wasted."

In the 4 levels I've been playing that character (not much, admittedly), I've run out mid-combat once.

A duration of "one encounter" would have been, in 95% of the cases, functionally identical to the 1 minute duration without all the fiddliness.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I strongly feel that spells need to have time based durations like minutes, hours, days, etc. But, that doesn't mean that we need to always use them. I handwave all the time, and I would be wise to provide solid guidelines as to how to do this.

To make this easier, many spells could be made to last for a minute, an hour, and a day. These are easy to manage time frames.

Spells that last rounds require the most tracking but give the most benefit from having to track them. I suggest that spells measured in rounds not exceed five or six rounds total. 1d4+1 being a common duration.

 

[pemerton]

I strongly feel that spells need to have time based durations like minutes, hours, days, etc. But, that doesn't mean that we need to always use them. I handwave all the time, and I would be wise to provide solid guidelines as to how to do this.

If durations are going to be handwaved, why are they needed? And how do you avoid GM unfairness/arbitrariness in the handwaving?

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

If durations are going to be handwaved, why are they needed? And how do you avoid GM unfairness/arbitrariness in the handwaving?

The durations are needed because a spellcaster, as a character, will want to know how long something lasts. "I can create light," he says, "but it'll only last for an hour and then we'll need torches."

A roleplaying game needs these details sometimes, but that doesn't mean they always need to be mechanically important.

As for GM unfairness, a good GM tries to be fair, working with the players to make the game enjoyable. This is a case where I don't feel the mechanics need to enforce good behavior. Getting out of the way is more valuable.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The way I see it, in the world, there's a few different durations:

• "Do it now!": The magic runs hot and fast for a little while, and then dissipates. The magic lasts until the end of the target's next turn.
• "I can help you!": The magic can be constant, but it's difficult to control - more like turning on a fire hose than turning on a faucet. The magic lasts as long as the caster concentrates on it.
• "It's delicate...": The magic has a stable form and doesn't need to be sustained, but it's fragile. A specific circumstance (damage, failure, success, etc.) will disrupt it.
• "It will fade with time.": The magic is stable, but only for a length of time. That time might be a few minutes (short rest) or a few hours (long rest). The body processes the magic and breaks it down as it recouperates in other ways. The precise length isn't known, but it is known that taking a rest long enough to get any benefit from will be longer than the magic lasts.

So for me, I don't need specific hours/minutes/etc. If the caster knows her magic will end within a general span of hours or minutes, that's good enough for me.

 

[Dausuul]

I think there should be seven possible durations for spells and other effects:

• Instantaneous.
• One round. In 4E parlance, this is "until the end of the caster's next turn." Basically, everyone who's affected by the spell deals with it for one (1) turn exactly. The sole exception is the spellcaster, who gets whatever's left of the casting turn plus the turn after.
• While sustained/concentration.
• 5 minutes. This is the "one encounter" duration.
• 1 hour. This is the "a while, but not a whole day" duration.
• 24 hours.
• Permanent.

The "one round" and "while sustained/concentration" durations should be used sparingly. Most non-instantaneous spells should be 5 minutes or longer.

 

[Lanefan]

I think there should be seven possible durations for spells and other effects:

• Instantaneous.
• Until the end of the subject's next turn. (And standardize on "end of" and "subject's," please. I don't want a mix of "end of" and "start of" like we had in 4E, nor do I want a situation where some effects are tracked by the subject and others by the caster.)
• While sustained/concentration.
• 5 minutes. This is the "one encounter" duration.
• 1 hour. This is the "a while, but not a whole day" duration.
• 24 hours.
• Permanent.

The biggest effect this has is to remove any chance of having duration scale with level*. Having spells last x-time per y-levels sometimes tends to keep low-level spells useful farther into higher levels of play, a good thing in my view.

* - it seems 4e may have already largely done this, but that don't make it right.

I don't have a problem at all with each spell having its own unique duration, rather than trying to shoehorn all durations into a 7-step list. That said, even in 1e with all its variances there's really only a few spell duration types:

• Instantaneous
• A fixed time (1 round, 30 minutes, etc.)
• Variable time (x-time per y-levels, etc.)
• Conditional (until triggered, until completed, etc.)
• Permanent

Tracking them is not that hard. Really.

Lanefan

 

[CM]

The biggest effect this has is to remove any chance of having duration scale with level*. Having spells last x-time per y-levels sometimes tends to keep low-level spells useful farther into higher levels of play, a good thing in my view.

* - it seems 4e may have already largely done this, but that don't make it right.

I thought it was established that 5e spells will not automatically scale with level, and that if you wanted a longer duration, perhaps you would use a higher-level spell slot. Maybe that mage armor is 5 minutes as a 1st-level spell, or 24 hours as a 4th-level spell, as one possible example.

I am cool with this.

 

[El Mahdi]

I understand the appeal of tracking such durations in rounds, minutes, hours, etc. There's a realism factor that some like, and I even liked at one time.

Now however, I prefer the simpler methods of tracking (like 4E uses): encounter, rests, etc. I find it easier and less intrusive in our play experience.