Constant Effect Spells

[Kobold Avenger]

Thinking about spells that were 1 hour/level most significantly in 3e, such as Mage Armor makes me wonder how they'd deal with such things in the next edition. Now while it was ridiculous to keep track of 3 or more ongoing spells in 3e and all the stacking bonuses and effects. In 4e they mostly nerfed them all by making a lot of them dailies that only lasted a encounter or with sustain actions. But the thing is I feel that a wizard with a lot of ongoing enchantments is iconic.

The ones that had durations measured in hours were essentially the always-on effects. So I'm speculating would it be better to have such things as a different silo from most spells and the like, let's say a certain number of slots for always on effects? Or perhaps as just feats available to wizards and the like.

As a feat I guess a Mage Armor feat would be something that's good and wizardy for a wizard to take, and could be comparable to a Leather Armor Proficiency feat that was quite a good thing for 4e wizards to take, as I don't see why they'd try to extra penalize wizards for wearing armor again like they've done before.

 

[SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS]

I really want that they don't bring back the 1/hour per level effects, I like the until the end of encounter and the minor action to sustain duration, anything above it should be "until the spell slot is recharged" or something like that, I hate counting in game time.

 

[Sammael]

I really want that they don't bring back the 1/hour per level effects, I like the until the end of encounter and the minor action to sustain duration, anything above it should be "until the spell slot is recharged" or something like that, I hate counting in game time.

Yes. This is one thing that 4e handled beautifully, getting rid of time-keeping for spell effects.

So I'd like to see the following:

Sustain: Minor, Move, or Standard
Duration: Encounter (which I would rename Scene) or Day (though I would actually make all spells that last all day into rituals)

 

[Izumi]

The effects should last only as long as it makes the story interesting. I trust it has nothing to do with the rules or the player's desires?

 

[FireLance]

The scarcity of spells (or powers) per day makes it less of an issue in 4e. You can have a daily spell that grants a bonus that lasts until the end of your next extended rest (effectively, until the next day), but the cost is seldom trivial since you're giving up one of your (up to) seven utility powers or one of your (up to) four daily attack powers.

If 5e avoids spell/power slot inflation, constant spell effects will (IMO) not be an issue.

 

[Sammael]

The scarcity of spells (or powers) per day makes it less of an issue in 4e. You can have a daily spell that grants a bonus that lasts until the end of your next extended rest (effectively, until the next day), but the cost is seldom trivial since you're giving up one of your (up to) seven utility powers or one of your (up to) four daily attack powers.

If 5e avoids spell/power slot inflation, constant spell effects will (IMO) not be an issue.

With the heralded return of Vancian casting, it's a given that the larger number of daily slots will be returning.

 

[FireLance]

With the heralded return of Vancian casting, it's a given that the larger number of daily slots will be returning.

IMO, nothing about "Vancian" spellcasting implies a large number of spell slots. At least to me, "Vancian" simply means preparation/memorization of specific spells in a limited number of slots, as opposed to a spell point system or the 3e spontaneous casting system where the spell cast is chosen at the point of use. Arguably, a smaller number of slots is truer to the spirit of spellcasting in the actual works of Vance, where a powerful wizard could hold (IIRC) no more than four greater or six lesser spells at a time.

 

[DogBackward]

If I recall correctly, Vancian Magic was actually number of spells prepared at one time, not number of spells prepared per day. I would LOVE for them to do this. Say, a Wizard can have a number of spell levels prepared at any given time equal to his caster level (0-level spells are at-will, a la Pathfinder) plus a bonus based on his Intelligence. Maybe simply "Equal to Intelligence modifier, maximum +1 Spell Level per character level." It takes 10 minutes to attain a proper spell-preparation state, then one minute per total spell level to be prepared. Maybe say that you can only have one or two of your highest level spells prepared at a time.

Thus, your Wizard 5 with a +3 Intelligence would have 8 Spell Points. Before heading into the dungeon, he takes 18 minutes to prepare Magic Missile [1], Mage Armor [1], Prismatic Spray [1], Scorching Ray [2], and Fireball [3].

After clearing out the dungeon, you're all getting ready to head back to town. The Wizard takes a bit to sit down and prepare a different set of spells: Charm Person [1], Identify [1], Identify [1], Comprehend Languages [1], Detect Thoughts [2] and Codespeak (from PF) [2].

Obviously, spells would have to be designed around this. Healing would have to change (I'm a fan of Reserve Points myself) so that you can't just re-prepare all your healing spells and heal up to full after everything. But a new edition is the perfect time to change spell specifics, yeah?

This allows the Wizard to be as versatile as he claims to be. Before, you weren't actually versatile unless you already knew what was coming. If you didn't know you were about to face a red dragon, you couldn't be prepared for a red dragon. Now, if you see a lot of fire and brimstone when trudging through the dungeon, the Wizard can say "Hey, let's stop a sec, I have just the thing for this!"

 

[Sammael]

IMO, nothing about "Vancian" spellcasting implies a large number of spell slots. At least to me, "Vancian" simply means preparation/memorization of specific spells in a limited number of slots, as opposed to a spell point system or the 3e spontaneous casting system where the spell cast is chosen at the point of use. Arguably, a smaller number of slots is truer to the spirit of spellcasting in the actual works of Vance, where a powerful wizard could hold (IIRC) no more than four greater or six lesser spells at a time.

That's still quite a bit more than in 4E, IIRC.

It bears mentioning that I'm in favor of Vancian casting even though I do not use it in its pure form in my own games. IMC, mages prepare their spell lists for the day, and can then cast any spell from their list freely. Sort of like 3E sorcerers who can change their spell list every day.

 

[Yora]

Thinking about spells that were 1 hour/level most significantly in 3e, such as Mage Armor makes me wonder how they'd deal with such things in the next edition. Now while it was ridiculous to keep track of 3 or more ongoing spells in 3e and all the stacking bonuses and effects. In 4e they mostly nerfed them all by making a lot of them dailies that only lasted a encounter or with sustain actions. But the thing is I feel that a wizard with a lot of ongoing enchantments is iconic.

The ones that had durations measured in hours were essentially the always-on effects. So I'm speculating would it be better to have such things as a different silo from most spells and the like, let's say a certain number of slots for always on effects? Or perhaps as just feats available to wizards and the like.

As a feat I guess a Mage Armor feat would be something that's good and wizardy for a wizard to take, and could be comparable to a Leather Armor Proficiency feat that was quite a good thing for 4e wizards to take, as I don't see why they'd try to extra penalize wizards for wearing armor again like they've done before.

As fireballs won't scale by level, I assume that spell durations won't either. In which case I think it just makes more sense to simply say "This spell remains active for the whole day" and "this spell lasts to the end of the encounter". Encounters are really quite short, with very long fights of 10 rounds being only a minute of time. Spells with 1 round/level will very soon last for the whole encounter, but not last long enough to remain until the next one. So why keep track of individual rounds at all? Those tiny fractions of encounters that are really long and in which a spell ends one round before it's all over are probably so very rare, that they can be ignored.