Do you like spell and effect durations?

[Mattachine]

The first time I saw durations expressed based on story was Toon--some things lasted for "a scene". Storyteller does this often, too. I was happy to see D&D adopt story-based durations (for the most part).

It's not about bookkeeping for me--it's about how I like magic to work. Though some spells should have specific time elements, I don't think most should. The flavor is all wrong.

 

[Jacob Marley]

This is one of those issues (like hit points and movement) where the duration expression can be written in multiple ways thereby giving individual groups the option to choose what is best for their group. Perhaps something like the following:

• Encounter (1 round/level)
• Adventure (10 minutes/level)
• Day (1 hour/level)
• Etc.

Some people like abstraction in game-time, others like specifics; why not give them both?

 

[Mengu]

I don't want to keep track of x rounds or y minutes, or z hours. I like some of the 4e approach, but not all.

I like end of your next turn effects, those are typically the simplest, but some of them suffer from timing issues, mainly those that trigger off-turn. The effect may last such a short time that it wasn't worth it. I'd prefer if that issue was eliminated either by not having immediate powers with a duration, or some other solution.

I'm fine with end of encounter, until you take a short/extended rest, with a sustain or dismiss as needed.

I'm not too happy with save ends. First of all, the general player perception is that end of next turn is a better duration than save ends. But that's because of the timing of saves. If save timing was changed so that you had to make the save at the end of the attacker's next turn, that would solve one issue, but create an even more awkward tracking. As it is, I have players constantly forgetting to make saves, and I forget them as DM too.

I'm wondering if the save ends mechanic could be removed altogether, and replaced with the aftereffect mechanic to introduce basically a 2-round duration, not to mention a degrading effect that might simulate a more natural process. For instance you might be stunned after effect dazed, or you might be taking ongoing 10 aftereffect ongoing 5, or you might be blinded after effect all enemies have concealment. This also conveniently removes the chance that someone might be stunned for 4 rounds due to failed saves. I'm sure there are better ways to go about this too, but I'd like to see something different than the 4e save mechanic.

One thing I do not want to do is track durations like one round per level or ten minutes plus one minute per two levels, or other weird and funky time intervals.

 

[Harlock]

This is one of those issues (like hit points and movement) where the duration expression can be written in multiple ways thereby giving individual groups the option to choose what is best for their group. Perhaps something like the following:

• Encounter (1 round/level)
• Adventure (10 minutes/level)
• Day (1 hour/level)
• Etc.

Some people like abstraction in game-time, others like specifics; why not give them both?

I think that's likely a better solution.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think that's likely a better solution.

That's also one I like if I can't have the entire cake. I think it requires a bit of work to ensure that the durations are fairly standardized.

I believe the per/level duration could go, though. Having 1 minute, 10 minute, 1 hour and 1 day should be sufficient. Durations expressed that way caused some spells to be totally useless at low levels - like a Summon Monster spell that lasts only one round. (4E also has spells and powers like that - but then the duration is alway that short, regardless of your level, and it is balanced against all other abilities for that level).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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

I am asking because I don't. 4E had largely done away with them - stuff lasted either one encounter, or until the start or end of someone's turn, until a save occured, or until you ended an effect. There are some rituals that break these rules.

I like having spell durations- indeed, magical effects of all kinds with durations- and of various lengths. I never hsd a headache with pre-4Ed tracking as a DM or player. As a player, I have to say I HATE the way 4Ed handled it- so many effects were so short that my math changed every damn time it was my turn to act. (I don't run 4Ed at all.)

I like JMs formulation, as long as there is also the "Save Ends" duration as well.

 

[Mercule]

This is one of those issues (like hit points and movement) where the duration expression can be written in multiple ways thereby giving individual groups the option to choose what is best for their group. Perhaps something like the following:

• Encounter (1 round/level)
• Adventure (10 minutes/level)
• Day (1 hour/level)
• Etc.

Some people like abstraction in game-time, others like specifics; why not give them both?

We must have very different play-styles. In my 30 years of gaming, I can't remember a single adventure that lasted less than a day. There probably was one, sometime, but it sure wasn't normal. Many forays into a single dungeon require camping in the dungeon, and some adventures have multiple locations. Non-dungeon adventures involve days of exploration, negotiation, spying, etc.

Storyteller had the concept of a Chapter, which (IIRC) was equivalent to a gaming session (or a couple hours, real time, for marathon sessions). That was a kinda dicey thing, but could work for the middle ground.

I think whether tracking exact duration matters is based on play style. If you have a more war-game (simulationist?) style that encourages precision in combat and good timing, then duration matters. Those same games benefit from tracking exact encumbrance (which is an eye-opening experience).

If you have a more narrative style, in which encounters serve to further the plot more than being challenging in themselves, then no one probably cares about which specific round an effect ends. The Storyteller model of Round, Scene, Chapter, Day works very well and provides all the more granularity you need.

Personally, I think the duration "saves" are one of the things that should be continued from 4e combined with narrative times for longer spells. I'd like to see a new name for them, though. It might be nice to see some modifiers to the rolls, too, to indicate when an effect is more (or less) "sticky". I wouldn't want it to go overboard, though. If every spell has a different duration DC, it's no better than tracking duration. Used sparingly, though, it could let specialist Conjurers have their summonings stick around longer, which is probably balanced with an Invoker getting a bonus to the DC of his lightning bolt.

Really, this is probably one place where a module would be extremely effective. Arbitrarily pick a base; let's say tracking duration, because that's got the most history. Now, publish a module that follows the Narrative framework for long duration effects and one that deals with the "save" duration for short effects. There should be no balance issues with using them in the same group.

For instance, one of my players -- the one most likely to play a wizard -- hated the duration saves. But another player really liked them because she doesn't care for a lot of paperwork. Both of them could play a wizard and use a different module without one outshining the other because of it. I'm not sure whether I could split monster effects against the PCs in the same way, but I could use the duration saves without it weakening or strengthening the standard issue wizard. The same holds true for how longer duration effects were handled.

 

[Aenghus]

I came to dislike long duration buffing spells in my 3e days, as my players I evolved a ever-increasing list of standard buff spells to cast while adventuring. Each of the spells was undeniably effective, but the combination of the layered spells combined to create a huge gap between the buffed and unbuffed power level of the group, which made encounter creation very difficult.

Spell durations directly affect this issue, as medium and long spell durations last for multiple encounters and encourage players to sprint between encounters to maximise the benefit of the buffing magic.

It looks like buffing magic is coming back in the new edition. If I run the new edition I will need to come up with a limit on buffing magic, as I came to hate long lists of buff spells as disproportionately effective (ie more effective than they should be, dominating other strategies), and contributing to short adventuring days.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

One thing I haven't seen D&D do too much of, at least not systematically, is event-based durations that aren't all or nothing. There have been a handful of such effects in various editions.

For example, there could be a mage armor spell where every time you got hit, you made a saving throw to avoid the damage. If you fail the save dramatically, you lose the mage armor entirely, as the attack overwhelms it. Maybe you have to roll a 1 for the first attack, but every time the mage armor succeeds in blocking an effect, this number rises.

In general, this becomes instead of tracking a flat duration, you are tracking the difficulty or modifier of keeping the effect going. And this is precisely the kind of mechanic, especially in a bounded system, where I don't mind the ability stat having an effect. That is, an Int 20 wizard doesn't get any more direct blocking power out of mage armor spell than an Int 16 wizard, but he does tend to keep the spell up longer under attack.

Dispel magic can then force such duration checks, possibly at a minus, instead of being a flat spell killer or more or less random.

A spell that goes down with a predictable duration is one that becomes mostly permanent after awhile, especially when wands are involved. The wizard keeps the mage armor up all the time, and it loses its sense of being a spell. Mage armor that might die right when you need it is more interesting.

For similar reasons, for spells that traditionally last 1 round/level, I'd like them to start with a "sustain number" or such, which degrades each round at the end of the caster's turn, and forces a check to keep going. It's pretty easy to set the numbers so that most such spells will last 3-5 rounds, which is long enough to be useful, but short enough to be interesting.

 

[tlantl]

Maybe limit the number of buffing enchantments a character can wear. Sort of like the layering of different spells causes something similar to distorted harmonics or something that cancels spells cast on the same creature or object.

This way there is less of a chance for this to cause problems.

Of course they could do it my way and just discard most of them. I kind of think that because of bounded accuracy we aren't going to see strong buffing spells any way.