What about just ruling that the extra partial action is not in effect the round haste is cast? Sounds like a good compromise, imho. That way you get the buff effects to AC and movement, but you cannot cast haste and another spell in one round, making it a bit more of a decision whether to open with haste, or a damage spell, or a buff spell in a combat encounter.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Haste spell
- Thread starter Simulacrum
- Start date
dcollins
Explorer
I picked option #3.
The main problem with the proposed solution is simply that it's overly clever with itself. A spell "warmup time" is not a standard mechanic for D&D magic -- no other spell does such a thing. I would not want to see any such akward mechanic introduced with such poor in-game flavor ("haste makes you really fast -- it's just really slow in doing so"). I'd hate to see the game slide into such an atmosphere of collectible-card-game type balancing akwardness.
May I speculate that the person who proposed this is a CCG'er?
The main problem with the proposed solution is simply that it's overly clever with itself. A spell "warmup time" is not a standard mechanic for D&D magic -- no other spell does such a thing. I would not want to see any such akward mechanic introduced with such poor in-game flavor ("haste makes you really fast -- it's just really slow in doing so"). I'd hate to see the game slide into such an atmosphere of collectible-card-game type balancing akwardness.
May I speculate that the person who proposed this is a CCG'er?
Last edited:
Simulacrum
First Post
dcollins said:
No I've never played a card game in my life. Though I've played D&D for 13 years and I think that there were a lot of spells (through all the editions) that went way outside the *standard mechanic*. What is this standard anyway? If they would include a spell with a warmup time tomorrow you all would praise it for being an exellent idea that totaly fits into the system (that it does). Haste itself is breaking and bending the standard mechanics in many ways, also your argument fails logic and holds not much water.
The idea was to do something that undo's with the abuse and unrealistic overusage of the haste spell by making it not an all decisive spell (that it is undoubtly). Haste as it is is a far better ambush spell than it would be in this variation, that argument falls short while looking at the great amount of buff spells that exist. Sorry you are missing the point.
Haste and many other spells (even some game mechanics) will be changed soon, so why are you so narrowminded about it?
Maybe we can suggest some ideas as we the players always did.
Partial Action = Move-equivalent Action
I think you are missing the point about what exactly is unbalancing about the Haste spell. The unbalancing factor is the extra partial action.
As several people mentioned, combats can be over in a few rounds. Actions are the most precious commodities during combat, and are worth the most at the beginning of combat. No spells that would give character an extra partial action (and an AC bonus to boot) would ever be balanced IMO. If you delay the advantage to where the extra action would count less, the spell is worth less, as already pointed at by some others.
I would opt for a much simpler solution. Allow those under the effect of a Haste spell an extra move-equivalent action instead of a partial action. Now haste would give an AC bonus and an immediate effect, but the extra actions possible would not be as unbalancing as allowing partial actions would. Its keeping in the spirit of the spell, making only minimal changes and not adding new game mechanics.
If you desperately want to give Haste to give you extra partial actions, you just won't get it balanced without inventing all kinds of weird extra rules, which in turn partially invalidate the usefullness of haste.
I think you are missing the point about what exactly is unbalancing about the Haste spell. The unbalancing factor is the extra partial action.
As several people mentioned, combats can be over in a few rounds. Actions are the most precious commodities during combat, and are worth the most at the beginning of combat. No spells that would give character an extra partial action (and an AC bonus to boot) would ever be balanced IMO. If you delay the advantage to where the extra action would count less, the spell is worth less, as already pointed at by some others.
I would opt for a much simpler solution. Allow those under the effect of a Haste spell an extra move-equivalent action instead of a partial action. Now haste would give an AC bonus and an immediate effect, but the extra actions possible would not be as unbalancing as allowing partial actions would. Its keeping in the spirit of the spell, making only minimal changes and not adding new game mechanics.
If you desperately want to give Haste to give you extra partial actions, you just won't get it balanced without inventing all kinds of weird extra rules, which in turn partially invalidate the usefullness of haste.
dcollins
Explorer
Simulacrum said:
Not you... I'm speculating about your friend who came up with the idea.
Simulacrum said:
See DMG p. 95 for suggestions on "good balancing forces". These include: (a) XP costs, (b) costly material components, (c) change in level, (d) change in range, duration, or target area. There are enough options to play with there that one doesn't need to invent out-of-the-blue brand new ones. (Even a full-round casting time would be legitimate.)
Simulacrum said:
Don't hold your breath. The chances that "many other spells" will be changed in a rules update is very, very, very slim. (We can revisit this in a number of months to verify, if you like.)
Consider the just-released d20 Modern rules as the most likely model for any rules alterations. Almost all spells therein are directly copied from the existing D&D rules. Haste has been reduced to granting only an added 30 feet of speed, or one added attack action.
Last edited:
I think introducing new kinds of ways to balance spells is fine. After all, if you start looking at all the supplements out there, spells start to look a lot alike since they all work on the same rules. New rules=new kinds of spells=possibility of a good thing.
And I wouldn't even say the extra partial action is the reason haste is unbalanced. What I mean is that its not getting one more action a round that's the big prob. Its the fact that there's a huge difference between a standard and a fullaction. The fact that I can take a moveequivalent or standard action, and still get the benefits of a full round action is huge especially at high levels. The move in, and then take 4 attacks for a fighter is one example.
With that in mind, I would go with the haste kicks in one the next round solution. That's how I used to play haste until I understood how it actually worked, and I think its a great compromise. It adds the oppurtunity cost mentioned above, and since high level combats are usually very quick, then the player has to seriously consider it. It becomes a useful spell, not a no-brainer spell.
If that doesn't fix it (but I think it will) then the delay idea should be tried.
And I wouldn't even say the extra partial action is the reason haste is unbalanced. What I mean is that its not getting one more action a round that's the big prob. Its the fact that there's a huge difference between a standard and a fullaction. The fact that I can take a moveequivalent or standard action, and still get the benefits of a full round action is huge especially at high levels. The move in, and then take 4 attacks for a fighter is one example.
With that in mind, I would go with the haste kicks in one the next round solution. That's how I used to play haste until I understood how it actually worked, and I think its a great compromise. It adds the oppurtunity cost mentioned above, and since high level combats are usually very quick, then the player has to seriously consider it. It becomes a useful spell, not a no-brainer spell.
If that doesn't fix it (but I think it will) then the delay idea should be tried.
Hashmalum
Explorer
I'm with Destil on this one. The one round casting time is a much more elegant solution than a "warm-up time". But if it's still a problem balance-wise, why not bring back the old penalty for the spell (premature aging)? Unlike the other spells that aged the caster, haste actually had a good reason to do so (metabolic speedup) other than "it would be broken if there was no penalty for casting it". I'm not really sure why aging/youthing effects were removed in the first place.
Destil
Explorer
They were very unfair with reguards to the various demi-human races, and really just not a very fun aspect of the game, IMHO. But if you want to replicate this in 3E an XP component for casting is the way to do so. 10-100XP per cast could really curb the spell, as well.Hashmalum said:
Aging is such a bother, and it maybe it would re-introduce weird things like system shocks etc. We used to kill enemy wizards with Haste spells back in the old days. No save, 25% instant kill chance (considering the average Con of wizards) and if they did not die, they wouldn't have much of an advantage. Worked well on groups too.Hashmalum said:
None of our characters would give up a year of their lives for a few minutes of extra speed, would you?
Similar Threads
