Does anyone else think full-round casting rules are stupid?

Are the current full-round casting rules stupid, or what?

  • Yes they are, Dimwhit. You're brilliant!

    Votes: 25 33.3%
  • You're aptly named, Dimwhit. They're just fine.

    Votes: 50 66.7%

Dimwhit

Explorer
So when you cast, for example, a summoning spell, it doesn't come into effect until just before your next turn, and you're vulnerable to disruption for the entire round. Why? When Sorcerors use a metamagic feat on a spell, they become full-round spells, but they come into play that same round. Right? It's just takes a full-round, so all they can do other than cast is move 5'. Seems to me, that would be a better way to handle full-round casting. Any reasonable justification for the current rule? (For summoning, I think the spell should end the round you cast and the creature appears that same round. It just doesn't get to attack until the next round.)

Maybe this should do into another forum. I really don't know. I'm mainly questioning the current rule and asking if anyone knows of a good reason for doing it that way. It seems to severely penalize those full-round spells, and I just don't see a balance issue with it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

In principal, they're fine.

A full round casting time should be reserved for the "whopper" spells; those that will be nasty if cast.

Problem is, if the spell in nasty enough to require that kind of balance, it's probably the wrong level to start with. As a player I stay away from full round casting time spells.
 

i just wish there was a metamagic feat that could up the level & make it a standard action to cast. playing a summoner is hard, man.

as a side note, i like it how Gate is a standard & Summon Monster IX is a full round. heh.
 

I don't know. As a player, I like the summon monster spells starting with Summon Monster III. There aren't many other full-round spells. (Sleep in 3.5 but it was nerfed when it was reduced to effecting a maximum of 4 HD, so I probably wouldn't use it past level 2).

Nail said:
In principal, they're fine.

A full round casting time should be reserved for the "whopper" spells; those that will be nasty if cast.

Problem is, if the spell in nasty enough to require that kind of balance, it's probably the wrong level to start with. As a player I stay away from full round casting time spells.
 

Heres an evil combo of my cleric. I fight an opponent fighter, i go ethereal, start using scrolls of summon monster IX, I like elder elementals,air are my favorite but any type will do. (in ethereal plane).
When i have enough, usually 6-7, i make a gate back to the material plane and bam out come my elementals.....
 

as a side note, i like it how Gate is a standard & Summon Monster IX is a full round. heh.

Just remember that under 3.5, using gate to summon costs 1000 exp. But then it's well worth it to summon a solar, IMNSHO.
 
Last edited:

Dimwhit said:
Any reasonable justification for the current rule?
The purpose of the rule is to allow opponents to interrupt you when you spend nearly 6 seconds casting a spell.

But it doesn't really make sense (beyond the game mechanical justification).
 

To quickly summarize:

Nail said:
In principal, they're fine.

A full round casting time should be reserved for the "whopper" spells; those that will be nasty if cast.

Problem is, if the spell in nasty enough to require that kind of balance, it's probably the wrong level to start with. As a player I stay away from full round casting time spells.

I think that it would be very fine if every spell meant to be cast during combat was just a standard action to cast.

Every spell meant NOT to be cast in combat (in the sense that it shouldn't be easy to) could just require either few minutes or otherwise some hours/days ritual if it was permanent and wasn't supposed to be cast in the middle of adventuring, exploration, pursue or such.

Frankly, I too don't see why Summon spells were "so good" to require an increased casting time but not good enough to require a higher slot. I think another reason might have been that they didn't want the summoned creature to act in the same round when you start casting?
 

Frankly, I too don't see why Summon spells were "so good" to require an increased casting time but not good enough to require a higher slot. I think another reason might have been that they didn't want the summoned creature to act in the same round when you start casting?

I agree. And the easy solution is that the summoned creature either (a) appears at the end of your turn but can't act until your next turn or (b) still appears at the beginning of your next turn, but you're done casting the previous turn (it's summoned--just takes a round to get to the destination.

I just don't see a balance reason for the way it is. In 3.5, I liked that Druids can swap out for summon spells, but my Druid is never going to use them in combat--too risky.
 

Dimwhit said:
I agree. And the easy solution is that the summoned creature either (a) appears at the end of your turn but can't act until your next turn
That makes the spell less useful, IMO. Summoned creatures are nice of offense, but usually have low AC's and very little hit points. Allowing them to appear but not act, would give the enemy a (decent) chance to remove them before they ever had the chance to act. THat would pretty much suck, even if you cast the spell as a standard action.

Your option (b) seems quite reasonable to me.

Fanog
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top