D&D 5E Handling spells that take a long time at the table?

[Quickleaf]

Our last few sessions I've noticed the turns for my divination wizard & druid players taking significantly longer. The usual culprits seem to be certain divination spells like arcane eye, commune with nature, or scrying; but others are things like reading the fine print on Leomund's tiny hut, Mordenkainen's private sanctum, or rope trick; or a player narrating heroes' feast and describing the many effects it has.

I appreciate that the spotlight moves, lingers, and moves again. While some of this may be situational (delving aboveground ruined cities, players have some control over when they long rest, players having some control over how much risk they take on during an adventuring day), I am noticing a trend for my 11th level group, with the primary casters taking longer to resolve their turns than the rogue or paladin players. All experienced players who've been running these PCs for a while together.

Which spells do you notice eat the most table time? Which should I watch out for and anticipate?
How do you handle arcane eye and similar spells without it taking forever?
Have you noticed a discrepancy in turn length for primary casters vs. non-primary casters, and how have you addressed it (if at all)?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

There are definitely spells that take a long time to resolve, such as arcane eye and heroes' feast, but I never noticed it causing any problems with turn length. By and large, the really complicated spells are used outside of combat, and infrequently at that. While it does take some time to get everyone up to speed on the specifics of private sanctum, we only ever had to explain it the first time, and after that it took no time at all to resolve.

 

[aco175]

Some zone spells that move with the player like spirit guardians. Not only does it move the player makes multiple rolls each round. We play with a grid so I'm not sure if that generally takes longer.

I do not think punishing the players with losing their spell would be a good idea. I think it all balances out at some point, maybe next campaign someone is trying a caster for the first time or first time in 5e or such. I still have my father need to add up all the save bonuses, not to-hit because that is all added beforehand, just saves.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Our last few sessions I've noticed the turns for my divination wizard & druid players taking significantly longer. The usual culprits seem to be certain divination spells like arcane eye, commune with nature, or scrying;

That's prettymuch just netrunner syndrome. You're resolving an exploration scene that only involved one character, because that character is using a special ability. No different than the old halfling-thief scouts-ahead thing (minus the whole being eaten by ghouls thing, of course).

but others are things like reading the fine print on Leomund's tiny hut, Mordenkainen's private sanctum, or rope trick; or a player narrating heroes' feast and describing the many effects it has.

Some things just have detailed mechanics, sure. Like 3.x grappling, to give a non-spell example.

I am noticing a trend for my 11th level group, with the primary casters taking longer to resolve their turns than the rogue or paladin players. All experienced players who've been running these PCs for a while together.

I think either did a great job keeping the melee types interesting & engaged, or just weren't paying attention, prior to11th level.

How do you handle arcane eye and similar spells without it taking forever?

Maybe call for an Investigation roll, then hand 'em a map?

Have you noticed a discrepancy in turn length for primary casters vs. non-primary casters, and how have you addressed it (if at all)?

Yes. Frankly, even in editions that try to minimize it as much as possible. There's really nothing much to be done. You could try to pad the activities of characters with few choices, modeled by simple resolution mechanics by adding detail, but I doubt it'd make anyone feel better.

 

[Gadget]

Well, most of the those spells are 'out of combat' spells, and that, combined with the fact that many martials (though certainly not all) have limited out of combat utility, and that is what happens.

 

[iserith]

Have you tried aggressively pointing at your watch while they work on resolving the spell?

 

[Quickleaf]

There are definitely spells that take a long time to resolve, such as arcane eye and heroes' feast, but I never noticed it causing any problems with turn length. By and large, the really complicated spells are used outside of combat, and infrequently at that. While it does take some time to get everyone up to speed on the specifics of private sanctum, we only ever had to explain it the first time, and after that it took no time at all to resolve.

Sorry, I wasn't using "turn length" as a strictly combat term, I more just meant those spells shifted the amount of time those spellcaster players are in the spotlight. In the more general sense of it being a cooperative game where where everyone takes a "turn" and the DM manages pacing and spotlighting to include everyone. Yes, most of this has been outside of combat.

 

[Quickleaf]

Some zone spells that move with the player like spirit guardians. Not only does it move the player makes multiple rolls each round. We play with a grid so I'm not sure if that generally takes longer.

I do not think punishing the players with losing their spell would be a good idea. I think it all balances out at some point, maybe next campaign someone is trying a caster for the first time or first time in 5e or such. I still have my father need to add up all the save bonuses, not to-hit because that is all added beforehand, just saves.

Yes, my players are pretty good about knowing their spells. There's always a learning curve when they get a new spell and haven't figured it out yet. I definitely would not even consider "punishing the players with losing their spell." That was never on my mind!

 

[Quickleaf]

That's prettymuch just netrunner syndrome. You're resolving an exploration scene that only involved one character, because that character is using a special ability. No different than the old halfling-thief scouts-ahead thing (minus the whole being eaten by ghouls thing, of course).

It guess it is similar to that, yes. How did you resolve "netrunner syndrome"?

There's a few important distinctions that can make it harder to run.

First, arcane eye doesn't open doors. When arcane eyeing a ruined city with multiple adventure sites, I had to go back through each area description and check which structures had open doors/windows that would be open which the wizard PC could "drive" the arcane eye through.

Second, like you said, there's no risk of discovery (save in corner cases for enemies with truesight or other reliable means of detecting invisible sensors) ...which usually would get the other PCs involved

I think either did a great job keeping the melee types interesting & engaged, or just weren't paying attention, prior to11th level.

I suppose that could be. Historically, I have a pretty keen sense for keeping all the players roughly equally engaged. Recently, with these higher level spells, it does seem like I'm having to... worker harder, I guess... to get roughly equal engagement from non-spellcaster players when the spellcaster players are taking more time than they were before.

Maybe call for an Investigation roll, then hand 'em a map?

In this case, I've already handed them the area map of this ruined city. They can see it from an overlook and they've acquired an unmarked map. In this, with arcane eye being cast, would you just hand them the DM's keyed map of the area? I feel like my wizard player would not find that detailed enough. He has asked for location of monsters in the past, for example.

Yes. Frankly, even in editions that try to minimize it as much as possible. There's really nothing much to be done. You could try to pad the activities of characters with few choices, modeled by simple resolution mechanics by adding detail, but I doubt it'd make anyone feel better.

Yeah, I get that. But there's got to be creative ways to implement it. For example, what about just filling in the blanks as the PCs explore? It wouldn't give them as much agency up front, but then when they get to, say, Area #15: Ruined Bazaar, I could add a bit more to the description based on what the wizard PC arcane eyed. Essentially, fill it in after the fact to keep the game moving and everyone engaged?

 

[Quickleaf]

Have you tried aggressively pointing at your watch while they work on resolving the spell?

Oh, a couple folks are moving in mid-December, so there's already a bit of a time crunch with our campaign. Everyone is very well aware of it. I've also pointed out their tendency toward over-analysis, and they're doing better about reining in those tendencies. I've done a decent job of balancing their agency and moving things things along so they don't drag.

Fortunately, this last casting of arcane eye came toward the end of a session. I explicitly asked the player to play along for the last 15 minutes, and then cast arcane eye, so that we could resolve it between sessions. This was fortuitous, because the last two times he cast arcane eye were mid-session and I just had to run with it the best I could.

How do you handle spells like arcane eye? Do set a timer or something?