Five-Minute Workday Article

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I like 2. I'm a bit dubious about 1 - it can make life boring for the player of the caster, which in turn creates pressure to liberalise the timing rules, which in turn undoes the balance that was meant to be in place. Is there a way of doing preparation that makes it active in some fashion for the player - perhaps even some sort of active defence, rather than simply relying on Concentration checks if they get hit?

My examples goes in the direction that basically "something" happens while you cast the spell, so there is a visible effect and there may be side effects. Maybe it could even be stronger effects (say, while casting Fireball, everyone attacking you takes some fire damage, or when casting Cone of Cold, people too close to you get slowed down).

I am not sure what there is to make it directly active and work. Maybe one could require "caster checks" each round to determine progress, with the chance of failure, so you slow down, and great success, so you speed up.

Say:
"Many of the more powerful or strong spells require multiple actions to cast. Their casting consists of multiple steps. For each action you take to cast the spell, you make a caster check (1d20 + Spellcasting Ability Modifier) to determine the number of steps you advanced to completing the spell.

• less than 0 + Spell Level: You must start again
• 0 + Spell level: No progress
• 5 + Spell Level: Advance one step
• 10 + Spell Level: Advance two steps
• 20 + Spell Level: Advance three steps

If you took no damage during your last turn, you gain advantage on your caster check.
If you were bloodied and took damage, or if you moved or were forcibly moved, if you were exposed to strong winds or currents or similar distractions, you suffer disadvantage.

Spellcaster Interference (Counterspelling)
Spellcasters can attempt to interfere other spell casters. They must have line of sight to the casting character and the interfering character must spend an action to do so.
In such a situation, also use the casting's character check for an opposed check against the intefering character. If the caster loses the opposed roll, reduce the number of step you advance by one (this can set you back).

Counterspelling: Some spells act as counter-spells to other spells. A spellcaster that knows a counterspell to a spell being cast can spend his action to start casting the counterspell. In addition the opposed caster checks, the enemy spellcaster can subtract the progress he makes in casting his spells from the progress you make. If you lose all progress steps you made so far, both spells are harmlessly expended.

Optional Rules (in feats, modules, whatever)
Some advanced spellcasters also can use this ability to gain control over your spell. If the interfering caster wins the opposed check on the turn you complete casting the spell, he can set all variables of the spell as if he had cast it himself.

Even some characters that can not traditionally cast spells can learn to interfere and even take control over other casters spell, provided they dedicated themselves enough to the task. (opens the path for spell thieves and feats for mage-hunting warriors.).

The interesting side effect here is that save-or-die spells could become much more exciting when it becomes a tug of war between two spellcasters. And with rules to allow interference with spells for non-casters, it would not even make a spellcaster mandatory to deal with enemy spellcasters (but most likely very helpful).

I have run more than 3 sessions in my 4e campaign! Even more than 3 memorable ones! It's just that only some of them lend themselves nicely to explaining things on the internet.

Wait, there was a 3rd session?

 

[Hussar]

Note the "Encounters should take up X% of party resources" is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. I've too often seen people claim that 3e and 4e force DM's to use EL=Par encounters. That's flat out untrue and even a cursory reading of the encounter design guidelines in either edition would bear that out.

The point of that baseline is just that. To provide a baseline. If you want more encounters per day, use weaker encounters. Good for doing a sort of running battle scenario, or possibly a zombiepocalypse scenario. It lets the DM more easily gauge how a given encounter most likely will play out.

However, there is always the random element in there. Easy encounters can turn hard and hard encounters can turn easy with dice and/or player actions. An EL Par encounter should use 20% of PC resources, but, if all 20% come from one character and that character dies, then it obviously used considerably more than 20%.

Setting the baseline at 10% means that you have more fudge factor. If an encounter turns sour, then you don't wind up ganking PC's (usually). If it's easier, well, no worries, you get them next time. If you want a harder encounter, just use bigger/more critters and up the EL.

It's all about transparency. We know that in AD&D, throwing 5 orcs at a 2nd level party of 6 PC's is going to be a pretty easy encounter. No one should die. You can simply look at the math and determine that. Not to say that no one will ever die. That's not true. One PC gets mobbed for some reason and stabbed to death. It happens. But, all things being equal, it shouldn't.

I don't mind going back to monsters being less accurate and having somewhat swingier combats. Swinginess is fun. One of the criticisms of 4e is grind and I think a lot of that is because 4e is so transparent it becomes pretty obvious how a combat is going to resolve itself long before it does. The PC's have so many resources and the monsters have no real way of swinging the combat that you can pretty solidly predict the combat. To be fair, the 4e MM3 revisions have added a lot of swing to combat - monsters go down faster but hit a LOT harder.

 

[pemerton]

One of the criticisms of 4e is grind and I think a lot of that is because 4e is so transparent it becomes pretty obvious how a combat is going to resolve itself long before it does. The PC's have so many resources and the monsters have no real way of swinging the combat that you can pretty solidly predict the combat. To be fair, the 4e MM3 revisions have added a lot of swing to combat - monsters go down faster but hit a LOT harder.

I find that 4e combats can take a long time, but I don't find them especially grindy. Maybe because I've been using the MM3 numbers since upper Heroic.

Swinging combat is interesting - a recent encounter I ran involved the Moria-like map from p 35 of Siege of Boradin's Watch. I used 4 bodaks, 2 swordwraiths and a nightwalker. The bodaks and wraiths can weaken, and bodaks have a Death Gaze which drops a weakened target to zero hp. The Nightwalker has a Finger of Death that reduces a bloodied target to zero hp, and also has an at-will close blast push as a minor action.

Anyway, 3 of my 4 bodaks got their Death Gaze off, and at least one (maybe 2?) hit - at one stage the paladin was dropped from 107 to 0 hp. And the nightwalker hit with its Finger of Death. It also pushed multiple PCs over the edge of the upper platform onto the rocks below (and the paladin tumbled further down the rocks to fall over two further cliffs).

I tend to rely on multiple creatures with different and sometimes synergistic abilities, plus terrain, to maintain the swinginess and avoid the grind.

 

[MarkB]

1) Casting Times. 3E made most combat-relevant spells have a casting time of one standard action, a few a full round action. Change that. Require 3 rounds of casting to cast a fireball (and limit what people can do in the time they cast the spell, so people don't get in "pre-loaded"

I'm not keen on this option, especially with directed attack spells, simply because so much can change in a few rounds. With your fireball example, you could start drawing a bead on that tightly-grouped enemy formation in round 1, only to find that by the time you're ready to unleash it in round 3, half of them have been killed and the other half are dispersed across the battlefield and intermingled with your allies.

Plus, it makes spellcasters too tempting a target when they're in the midst of summoning up a major spell.

If you want to go for a system like this, a better option would be to allow spells to be cast immediately, but require a recovery time afterwards.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Plus, it makes spellcasters too tempting a target when they're in the midst of summoning up a major spell.

If you want to go for a system like this, a better option would be to allow spells to be cast immediately, but require a recovery time afterwards.

While I agree with your point about what timing does to targeting of spells, the targeting of casters is a big step in leveling the playing field btween casters and non-casters.

Perhaps a compromise...

I proposed elsewhere in this forum that spells have cantrip, spell, and ritual forms, with each step representing a change in power and casting time.

Returning to Fireball, its cantrip form would be, essentially, at will, quick to cast, and virtually impossible to disrupt due to its simplicity and speed. However, it would also be quite weak as far as damage (possibly even expressed in d4s), and it would have a reduced range & AoE (say...a 5x5 square). It would be like a small grenade.

(The alternative version of the cantrip could let the caster launch several 1d4 balls at individual targets, no AoE)

The spell form would be much as we know it today, but with a longer casting time. It would be like a stick of dynamite.

(One alternate spell form could let the caster cast multiple standard cantrip versions of the spell.)

One ritual form would have a much longer casting time, but it's range would be long, its AoE large, and it's damage high (more & bigger dice). This would be like an artillery round or a heavy bomb.

(Another form might let the caster launch multiple standard spell versions of Fireball.)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm not keen on this option, especially with directed attack spells, simply because so much can change in a few rounds. With your fireball example, you could start drawing a bead on that tightly-grouped enemy formation in round 1, only to find that by the time you're ready to unleash it in round 3, half of them have been killed and the other half are dispersed across the battlefield and intermingled with your allies.

Plus, it makes spellcasters too tempting a target when they're in the midst of summoning up a major spell.

If you want to go for a system like this, a better option would be to allow spells to be cast immediately, but require a recovery time afterwards.

Well, it could also have the opposite effect - the caster tells the party "I am gonna cast fireball, get the enemies in position". That is to some extent what 4E can allow.

One of my goals was to have it not too punishing - if you cannot complete the spell, the spell is not lost, merely your action. If we'd be willing to give this up, we could allow such spells to have a minor effect while being cast.

Fire Ball
1st Round: Gain Resist 5 to Fire. Adjacent enemies attacking you take INT fire damage.
2nd Round: Gain Resist 10 to Fire. Adjacent enemies attacking you take 1d6+INT fire damage.
3rd Round: 5d6+INT fire damage in a 20 ft radius burst within 400 ft. Dexterity Save for half damage.

But this would require making spells more complicated.

It may be enough to default to two rounds of casting time - situations do change less in that time, and it gives still plenty of time to try to cancel casting the spell. (Above I also describe a variant where the casting time is seperated by steps and depending on a check result, you may advance multiple steps - that could probably on average allow you to advance 3 steps in 2 rounds.)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Here is an alternate approach to casting times -basically reversing the situation.

Instead of taking time to cast spells, you must take time to recover between casting spells. So yes, you can lob your fireball with a single action, but afterwards you are mentally too exhausted to immediately cast a new spell (safely/reliably).

Of course, this sounds like... something from an MMO, and is thus probably a vile thing and the bane to all that is good and right for D&D.

But, ignoring that, but also ignoring MMO terminology:

Casting spells causes drain. Drain is temporary and weakens the casters focus and clarity of mind. Drain is usually expressed in rounds (but some very powerful effect may last much longer). After the spell is cast, the caster is drained for that many rounds.

While drained, the following effects apply:

1. The caster must make a Caster Check (1d20+spellcasting ability modifier) vs 10 + Spell Level to cast any spell or ritual. If he fails, the spell cannot be cast succesfully, and the caster must try again. Casting a cantrip grants advantage on this check.
   Optional Swingy Hardcore Rule: If he fails by 5 or more points (i.e. fails to beat a DC of 5 + Spell Levle), the spell is also expended in the process and a rituals material components are wasted.
2. The caster suffers Disadvantage on all checks related to his spellcasting ability modifier, except Caster Level Checks.
3. if you suffer Drain while being drained, you have also disadvantage on Caster Level checks. This penalty lasts until you are no longer drained, regardless of how long the new or old effect of drain lasted.
4. Drain is only applied when a spell is succesfuly cast.

Some example spells:

• Fireball: 2 Round Drain
• Scry: 1 hour drain
• Teleport: 1 minute drain
• Dimension Door: 1 Round Drain
• Fly: Drain for the entire Duration
• Invisiblity: Drain for the entire Duration
• Raise Dead: Drain for a Day
• Finger of Death: Drain for a Day
• Charm Monster: Drain for a minute
• Dominate Monster: Drain for the duration
• Summon Monster: Drain for the duration
• Shield: 1 Round Drain

Casters would still be able to try novaing, but they will often fail and lose their action for it. This allows non-casters to catch up. But they don't normally lose their spell nor do they take direct damage, so they have no reason to ask for going home to rest yet*.

Scry-Buff-Teleport basically takes the caster out of the fight - the sum of those drains will make it unlikely he can give any meaningful spell assistance afterwards.

*This is one of the biggest risks with dealing with fighting 15 minute adventuring days - that your counters just lead to more of it. If the wandering monster that attacks the party costs the party so much resources that it must rest again - and I had this happen! - then it was all for naught. Or if the party retreats early because they know that they'll face wandering monsters and need to have some reserves left to deal with them.

 

[MarkB]

Here is an alternate approach to casting times -basically reversing the situation.

Instead of taking time to cast spells, you must take time to recover between casting spells. So yes, you can lob your fireball with a single action, but afterwards you are mentally too exhausted to immediately cast a new spell (safely/reliably).

Of course, this sounds like... something from an MMO, and is thus probably a vile thing and the bane to all that is good and right for D&D.

But, ignoring that, but also ignoring MMO terminology:

Casting spells causes drain. Drain is temporary and weakens the casters focus and clarity of mind. Drain is usually expressed in rounds (but some very powerful effect may last much longer). After the spell is cast, the caster is drained for that many rounds.

Speaking of MMOs, there's another mechanic that I think can be adopted quite well from them (I've already suggested it a couple of times in discussions on this subject) - the one where you use basic, low-yield combat manouevers or powers to build up energy or focus which can then be expended upon more powerful attacks.

You could incorporate that into this system. Give spells longer Drain durations initially, but allow at-will cantrips to be cast reliably even when drained, and have each use of a cantrip reduce the drain duration by one round.

That way, when a character is obliged to fall back upon lower-level spells due to Drain, he doesn't feel like he's just using them to mark time - instead, each casting is actively working to restore his full spellcasting potential.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, we're getting more and more into dangerous WoW Territory! Are you sure that's a wise idea?

I find the energy-builder mechanic somewhat interesting. Iron Heroes used such a mechanic as well, to some extent, via the various way to address tokens. Sadly, the Arcanist was the only class that didn't use that approach - it used a more traditional (IMO boring) spell/mana point system. That said, the game wasn't genuinely finished when it came out, at least not in regards to spell.

Anyway, I think the problem with energy builder approaches generally is that it takes too long. YOu really don't want your combat to last 20 rounds or so so you have enough power to cast a fireball spell.

But you are correct - the mix of Drain/Energy Recovery could be interesting. But it wouild require different flavor and it may cause some weird "gaming the system "effects where people cast cantrip after cantrip for their Scry-Buff-Teleport...

I believe it kinda works better for martial classes - there the tokens/points/energy you gain can represent you reading your opponent and getting into a better position (also perfect for a gridless and miniless combat) to finally perform a powerful strike. Expending the energy would represent giving up your better position to perform a nasty strike and your opponent realizing that you spotted his weaknesses.
For magic it's more difficult to explain why casting spells at all would help cast more powerful spells.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Note the "Encounters should take up X% of party resources" is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. I've too often seen people claim that 3e and 4e force DM's to use EL=Par encounters. That's flat out untrue and even a cursory reading of the encounter design guidelines in either edition would bear that out.

Normally we agree. However, I at least partially disagree with this. The book states that the vast majority of encounters should be roughly par and that encounters outside of this range should be fairly rare. You are right that it doesn't say NOT to use other encounters(in fact it tells you to use them) but it does say they should be a rarity.

And my problem with encounters that weren't on par was that they always felt like a waste of time to both the DM and the players. Sure, you could run them if you wanted to, and maybe you'd even trick the players into using up their resources on an encounters that was "on par" for level 3 characters when they are level 10...but it would still cost you at least 30 minutes of time to do so.

We found that the average encounter in 2e was so easy that most people wouldn't pull out dice for an encounter. It was: "We go first? Alright, I'll let the fighter, thief and ranger handle this one....it's not worth me using a spell against 4 goblins in a room. Let me know if 30 of them attack and it's worth while for me to cast a fireball."

I know we were very happy to see that in 3e when we fought a battle it was because the battle meant something and actually risked real resources. So, we didn't want to run any encounters that were weaker than that. In fact, even encounters that only drained 20% of our resources still felt a little weak to us. It became fairly normal to fight APL+3 or APL+4 encounters as our "average" encounter simply because it felt like there was some actual risk involved. Which required us to actually USE our spells or we wouldn't win.

Which added to the effect of the 15MAD.