D&D 5E I want a return to long duration spells in D&D Next.

[Li Shenron]

Oh, and 4e has the condition track for long term matters - you could do an excellent geas on the condition track.

Umm, you do realize that 4e has curse mechanics for long duration curses right?

Never mind that the disease condition track mechanics make this sort of thing surprisingly easy to do. It's not like this is a terribly hard thing to add into 4e.

OK, so you want long term conditions - like petrification, disease and so on. That is something I would expect to (still) be there.

I don't know those mechanics because I don't play 4e. I realize that the OP started the thread as a sort of criticism against 4e, but I all have been saying is what I want from 5e. I assumed that the OP write correctly about 4e missing something, but it doesn't matter to me.

If those mechanics are good enough then they can just port them to 5e. For curses it is important IMO that the magic remains, now technically I don't bother if it is the spell having a long duration or it is instantaneous but the effect lingers on.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And the main point of D&D compared to Chainmail is that it always had ambitions to be more than just a combat game. Unfortunately, those were ambitions that the game started backpedaling away from in 3.5 and made worse in 4e in the name of combat balance. A poor trade.

Please! D&D always had ambitions to be more than just a combat game. And in 1974 that was genius. But it was barely prepared to take the necessary steps to follow through on those ambitions. The thief skills were hacked on the side in 1E. Again this was groundbreaking. But until 2000 it never actually went with much more than ambitions and sticking bits on the side.

2e had pure hackwork for the NWPs. An ugly kludge saying "Maybe PCs should be able to do things other than straight stat rolls".

3.0 at least had a coherent and consistent skill system for resolving out of combat activities. Games like WFRP and GURPS had been doing this since the mid 80s.

4e in addition to an integrated (and effectively capped) skill system had scene framing, explicit non-combat XP rewards, a level of meta-resource control, and a near end to magic being an "I win" button. I'd therefore rank it as early 21st Century level design for non-combat. Not a briliant example of such design but that's where they were aiming.

 

[pemerton]

See, this just reinforces my impression that 4e is a glorified combat engine. If the game's mechanics just emphasize combat time durations rather than non-combat encounter variabilities, then I think it gives up too much ground on its scope of play.

Why would you assume that "encounter" equates to combat? Since at least the AD&D PHB it has been clear that "encounter" doesn't mean combat. In 4e, encounter simply means "challenge" ie situation fraught with antagonism.

a duration of "encounter" might mean my spell lasted 2 minutes, or two hours depending on the length of the combat

Spells with durations of "encounter" can lead to situations like:
"Bob, grapple that ogre for a while, don't kill him. I need to climb this wall, and my spider climb spell only lasts for an encounter."

Ditto. You seem to be assuming that encounters and challenges are, per se, combat. 4e makes no such assumption (see PHB p 259).

As for the issue of differing spell lengths, what problem will that cause?

I wasn't picking on 4e, though, just durations of encounter in general.

Just out of curiosity, which game have you had this problem with?

Bookkeeping the time down to the minute is about the single thing least likely to encourage non-combat play that I can think of. What does encourage it is a robust and flexible scene resolution system.

I agree with this. Pedantic duration-tracking is the enemy of tight scene-framing, and tight scene-framing is the friend of robust action resolution (both in and out of combat).

 

[Manbearcat]

See, this just reinforces my impression that 4e is a glorified combat engine. If the game's mechanics just emphasize combat time durations rather than non-combat encounter variabilities, then I think it gives up too much ground on its scope of play. 3.5 was already moving in this direction to the point that I shouldn't have been surprised that 4e went even farther, but I wasn't in favor of it then and I'm not in favor of it now.

Outside of expressing agreement with Hussar, Neonchameleon, and pemerton on all the fine former posts (regarding the elegance of 4e tracks and its applications and the mechanics of 4e encounters in general and in regards to durations specifically), as I cannot XP them, I wanted to address this zombified non-sequitur that keeps resurrecting itself.

Just because a specific interface of a program, or a specific cog of a machine, or a specific mechanic within a rules system is tightly quality-controlled and provides depth of experience (in this case dynamism generally and tactical depth specifically), does not mean that the effort/time spent/attention to detail in deriving the program, machine, rules system was mutually exclusive to that interface, cog, mechanic. There is this unsupported assumption that there is some kind of anarchic, zero-sum allocation of time/effort within an engineering project (this one specifically) rather than a composed, coherent, compartmentalized focus on each moving part. You can have an engineering project that aims for multiple, disparate or synergized design metrics. That engineering project can meet some or all of them with flying colors.

- The fact that, to those who advocate it, the 4e combat system has embedded dynamism (from a PC-build and DM encounter-build standpoint) and tactical depth says nothing about the quality of the rest of the system's components nor is it specific evidence supporting a hypothesis of designer indifference in effort or time spent with regards to the rest of the system's components.
- 4e advocates find many aspects of the game - unrelated to the combat system - of equal value to its combat system. Among them are:

1) Its elegance, coherency and efficiency in prep and play.
2) Its ability to broadly create PC archetypes and how their mechanics are expressed symmetrically within the fiction.
3) Its Ritual System.
4) Its Skill Challenge System (conflict resolution).
5) Its Skill System (task resolution).
6) Its Track System (Disease, Environmental, etc)
7) Its Hazard System
8) Generally, its marriage of meta-game and narrative components that, for the first time in DnD history, allow for groups who appreciate that style of play to consistently render the genre relevant fiction they seek.

Its well understood that you do not like 4e and that you want to dismiss it as a Tactical Skirmish Game. I don't know why you, and others, insist on reminding 4e advocates this over and over and over again. 4e advocates do not agree with you, you will not convince them of your zero-sum theory nor will you convince them that they are mistaken on the above 1-8 (some advocates my like some of those less than others). You do not make compelling arguments sufficient to persuade them and all you are doing is "preaching to the converted." Its pointlessly, redundantly provocative.

 

[billd91]

- 4e advocates find many aspects of the game - unrelated to the combat system - of equal value to its combat system. Among them are:

1) Its elegance, coherency and efficiency in prep and play.
2) Its ability to broadly create PC archetypes and how their mechanics are expressed symmetrically within the fiction.
3) Its Ritual System.
4) Its Skill Challenge System (conflict resolution).
5) Its Skill System (task resolution).
6) Its Track System (Disease, Environmental, etc)
7) Its Hazard System
8) Generally, its marriage of meta-game and narrative components that, for the first time in DnD history, allow for groups who appreciate that style of play to consistently render the genre relevant fiction they seek.

Its well understood that you do not like 4e and that you want to dismiss it as a Tactical Skirmish Game. I don't know why you, and others, insist on reminding 4e advocates this over and over and over again. 4e advocates do not agree with you, you will not convince them of your zero-sum theory nor will you convince them that they are mistaken on the above 1-8 (some advocates my like some of those less than others). You do not make compelling arguments sufficient to persuade them and all you are doing is "preaching to the converted." Its pointlessly, redundantly provocative.

And 4e critics find that many of those elements detract from the D&D experience by taking a more open-ended, interpretive game and forcing it into overly gamist structures, losing a lot of its spirit and charm. I'm afraid you're going to have to continue to put up with our opinions as much as we are going to have to put up with yours.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm going to save us both the trouble in the future by not responding to your statements like the above billd91. My post was a focused, specific rejoinder of the non-sequitur that 4e is nothing more than a Tactical Skirmish Game. More importantly, even if not objectively so, it is subjectively so to the folks who advocate that position and have an extremely enjoyable time playing the system. Nowhere in my post did I say or imply that you cannot be critical of 4e. In fact, constructive, well-articulated criticism (subjective or objective) of 4e is quite helpful. I've seen many articulate very useful information to that end (yourself among them). If you want to convince 4e advocates of the "Tactical Skirmish Game Hypothesis", you have to make a compelling argument that provides evidence for the "zero-sum" engineering effort hypothesis and also convince 4e advocates that the fun that they are having (which they affirm is related to the other mechanical elements of the system) is an illusion or a product of circumstance rather than a derivative of the system interfacing with their preferences.

Presumably, when you are in a dialogue with others or posting on an internet message board of various tastes/preferences, some of which are diametrically opposed to your own, you are attempting more than mere, shallow "preaching to the choir/converted." In a specific forum dedicated to facilitating the next edition, finding possible areas of compromise and where compromise cannot be found, possible workarounds via modules, how are non-compelling (to the non-converted), seemingly gratuitous, incendiary, shallow provocations such as "4e is little (nothing?) more than a Tactical Skirmish Game" helpful to the end outlined above? Advocates have said, dozens and dozens of times over, that they do not agree with you (and there are dozens and dozens of posts why). The only end I see it helpful to serving is the "high-fiving or chest-bumping the choir/converted" end.

I'm genuinely curious, why do you post that? What end does it serve for you (and others)? If its not gratuitous provocation, what is it? Is it truly another attempt to convince the non-converted without addressing the requisite means to compel them? Is it somehow cathartic?

 

[billd91]

I don't really care how much fun people are having with 4e. If they're having fun with it, that's entirely their business. But in discussions about where we want D&D to go in the future, looking at 4e and where it loses a number of players brings us to a variety of impressions that 4e fans may not agree with or like. Many of these we've hashed over on the boards before but, since you're relatively new, we can certainly rehash.

4e and the general drift toward short encounter/combat-based times in 3.5 reduce the scope of things characters do in the game in part because it reduces the scope of their focus on what the PCs are doing in the story to a very narrow band. That may be done for combat balance purposes (there's that impression it's a combat game again), but ultimately it's myopic.

Example: When invisibility got its duration reduced in 3.5 to 1 minute/level, it had already lost most of its utility. Players were no longer thinking of using it for long-term reconnaissance or spying - it had become a combat time spell. 4e made it even worse since its duration is for a turn (unless they've changed that from my printed copy). Nobody's thinking in terms of "This effect lasts 40 minutes - what can I get done in that time?" It's now "What can I do this encounter?" If everything is short term tactical in scope, who's playing the strategic long game?

 

[herrozerro]

I don't really care how much fun people are having with 4e. If they're having fun with it, that's entirely their business. But in discussions about where we want D&D to go in the future, looking at 4e and where it loses a number of players brings us to a variety of impressions that 4e fans may not agree with or like. Many of these we've hashed over on the boards before but, since you're relatively new, we can certainly rehash.

4e and the general drift toward short encounter/combat-based times in 3.5 reduce the scope of things characters do in the game in part because it reduces the scope of their focus on what the PCs are doing in the story to a very narrow band. That may be done for combat balance purposes (there's that impression it's a combat game again), but ultimately it's myopic.

Example: When invisibility got its duration reduced in 3.5 to 1 minute/level, it had already lost most of its utility. Players were no longer thinking of using it for long-term reconnaissance or spying - it had become a combat time spell. 4e made it even worse since its duration is for a turn (unless they've changed that from my printed copy). Nobody's thinking in terms of "This effect lasts 40 minutes - what can I get done in that time?" It's now "What can I do this encounter?" If everything is short term tactical in scope, who's playing the strategic long game?

At least in my game combat spells that a player might want to use in a long term manner we just treat as a ritual of the same level. Component cost and all.

Everybody wins, even martial types, if they have some kind of utility or other power that can be applicable we turn it into a martial practice.

Now its not an official rule but it works.

 

[Dour-n-Taciturn]

Example: When invisibility got its duration reduced in 3.5 to 1 minute/level, it had already lost most of its utility. Players were no longer thinking of using it for long-term reconnaissance or spying - it had become a combat time spell.

I have a mind that Invisibility, and spells of similar potency, should be of a relatively short duration in order to lend weight to the skill of stealth (hide/move silent in 3rd Ed), rather than another means for casters to trump non-casters. Having a powerful spell effect last for a very limited amount of time renders it, to my impression of how magic should work, as more of a unique display of the arcane (or divine as may be), rather than a bland overarching utilitarian crux.

If you want a long term magic, apply rituals, as has been argued above, that way there is a more reasonable cost and casting time invested to, gasp, balance its power, rather than a reflexive action that overshadows skill, both in and out of combat.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

My response would be, "so?" Why does it matter? Who cares if you spell lasted 2 minutes or two hours? It's all one "encounter", so, other than bean counters, what difference does it make?

Matters a lot if I want to invisibly sneak into town or draw guards away with an illusion. 2 minutes might be fine for combat, but for anything else it's barely above useless.

 

[Manbearcat]

This is absolutely tedious. I cannot put this any more plainly. This is the 3rd time now. I asked you a very focused, specific question with clarifying points as to my incredulity. I did not ask you a general open-ended question that would prod you for a dissertation on your variance grievances with 4e. I actually was a 3e playtester and have lurked on these boards since this website's inception so I'm well aware of all of the dynamics and all the relevant players and their tastes/opinions/positions. I know where you stand on 4e and where you come from with respect to your gaming tastes.

One more time. On this thread specifically (but you, and others, have done it in the past with absolutely ZERO movement by the opposing side), you stated that you felt "4e was just a Tactical Skirmish Game."

I am not going to recount the clarifying reasons for my incredulity at this statement and why it is nothing more than a non-sequitur (see my initial post but you really need no further evidence beyond the fact that its advocates use the RAW rules system to play something more than a shallow "Tactical Skirmish Game"). They are readily available above if you actually would like to read the posts. I think the main idea is pretty clear and expressed pointedly (but perhaps not as you continue to meander towards some general unresponsive retort of "well, I don't like 4e and I can not like it all I want and I can say I don't like it all I want and dismiss it as a Tactical Skirmish Game all I want"...that's great, I'm hardly interested in trying to convince you otherwise or convince you that you should play 4e).

Focused Question:

1) If it has been proven to produce absolutely nothing constructive and causes conversations to devolve and go off-topic (should be well beyond obvious at this point), why do you insist on continuously posting that 4e is merely a Tactical Skirmish Game as it does nothing to compel 4e advocates to agree with you but rather it just serves (and has been plain to see every time it is invoked) as a gratuitous provocation?

I am truly curious because I honestly would rather give you the benefit of the doubt and find a way to attribute your continuance of this to some odd interpretation of good faith rather than malice or bitterness or something to that effect.

 

[Dour-n-Taciturn]

I suppose that critics of 4th Ed have argued that magic seems too bland or too common and undistinguished from skills and "base" mechanics. I would agree that the "everyone has magic in 4th Ed" does come off as perhaps a bit mundane, but the mechanics, at least, tend not to render other character traits obsolete.

That is what I do not want 5th Ed to do; return to the era of spell caster dominance in most scenarios. Now, I have no disagreement with magic being potent, when limited, either in duration or in cost (monetary, casting-time, or other dis-incentive).

 

[billd91]

I have a mind that Invisibility, and spells of similar potency, should be of a relatively short duration in order to lend weight to the skill of stealth (hide/move silent in 3rd Ed), rather than another means for casters to trump non-casters.

In our campaigns, this has never been a problem because invisible has never meant inaudible. Stealth still plays a big roll. Long term, close up scouting was almost always still done by the rogue (or ranger) whose job was made much easier. I have never seen a game in which a long invisibility spell duration led to the wizard trumping the rogue.

It was polymorph self or wild shape that allowed other classes like druids and wizards to get in on the direct spying game. Not invisibility.

 

[billd91]

.
Focused Question:

1) If it has been proven to produce absolutely nothing constructive and causes conversations to devolve and go off-topic (should be well beyond obvious at this point), why do you insist on continuously posting that 4e is merely a Tactical Skirmish Game as it does nothing to compel 4e advocates to agree with you but rather it just serves (and has been plain to see every time it is invoked) as a gratuitous provocation?

I guess I would ask why you say it has been proven to be nothing constructive. Is this just because a subset of 4e fans complain about it? That's hardly proof of anything but the characteristics of the players complaining.

If you find this tedious, that's not my problem. I don't really care how you feel about it. If you don't see 4e the way I see it, that its focus has become myopically centered on the encounter and fetishized combat balance, again, I don't care. I care a little bit more that you think I have to meet some personal standard of yours before my views become legitimate or non-tedious, but I'm not really answerable to you, so your views of my posts are largely irrelevant.

 

[Manbearcat]

Extraordinary. Thanks for the 3rd unresponsive reply to a simple question and a somehow complete misunderstanding on what has been tedious about this exchange (its in that sentence...its not your views) and thanks for somehow turning this exchange into somehow being about me not seeing 4e the way you see it.

I would ask a 4th time and ask for evidence that the generic, non-sequitur "4e is a Tactical Skirmish Game" has ever convinced a 4e advocate of it specifically or has ever served a positive end within a thread generally...but I'm just going to leave this be and apologize to the thread starter and those participating in it. I shouldn't have taken it off topic. Carry on.

 

[Dour-n-Taciturn]

In our campaigns, this has never been a problem because invisible has never meant inaudible. Stealth still plays a big roll. Long term, close up scouting was almost always still done by the rogue (or ranger) whose job was made much easier. I have never seen a game in which a long invisibility spell duration led to the wizard trumping the rogue.

For a 2nd level spell with relatively little investment on the part of the caster, Invisibility still trumps stealth on its own. How about Spider Climb? Would that be a better example? The vast improvement these spells provide over a long duration, whether coupled with other effects or on their own, still managed to eclipse many mundane abilities.

 

[billd91]

For a 2nd level spell with relatively little investment on the part of the caster, Invisibility still trumps stealth on its own. How about Spider Climb? Would that be a better example? The vast improvement these spells provide over a long duration, whether coupled with other effects or on their own, still managed to eclipse many mundane abilities.

So the spellcaster climbs around. Is that a big deal?
And yes, invisibility is really good, but without other stealth, it's still vulnerable. Invisibility + stealth even better.

One important question: why assume that long duration magic benefits only the wizard/other spellcaster?

 

[Dour-n-Taciturn]

So the spellcaster climbs around. Is that a big deal?
And yes, invisibility is really good, but without other stealth, it's still vulnerable. Invisibility + stealth even better.

One important question: why assume that long duration magic benefits only the wizard/other spellcaster?

The target is irrelevant, it's the effect. If a spell would significantly impact a related mundane ability, in some cases to the point of obsolescence, over a long period with relatively little investment (picking a spell from a broad list, filling a single slot), then I have issue with the mechanics. Even if the caster never uses the spell themselves; the question becomes, could a character accomplish a mundane task handily without the spell, or could the task be substituted by the spell entirely?

 

[Sunseeker]

My typical campaign settings desperately need spells with long, very long and permanent durations, including curses and enchantments to places and objects, much much much more than they need balance.

My counter-point would be that things that take a very long time to happen, or leave effects in place have two conditions.

1: curses, debuffs, and similar effects build up over time. Round one, even day or week 1 one of a curse may do very little other than make a person feel a little ill. As it proceedes and accelerates the effects become significantly more powerful.
-This prevents caster-blasters from dishing out a deckload of debuffs in the first round or two, and then blasting away for the rest of the fight. Curses are powerful, but only if your target lives long enough to suffer their effects.

2: standing magical effects, such as glamors, illusions, and so on take concentration and sustained effort on the part of the caster. The greater the effect, the greater the toll on the caster. Making a party of humans look like elves isn't as big a deal as making a party of kobolds look like dwarves. Making a party insivible, making them fly, ect... requires more concentration.
-in short: a concentration check per sustained effect, with a higher DC based on stronger effects. Depending on how mean you want to be, you could cause on fail to make them all fail, or be nicer.


Being able to toss out dangerous things is fine, but I feel that it really takes the whole "magic is powerful and has a cost" feeling out of D&D....of course, maybe you don't feel magic should have a cost. *shrug*

 

[Neonchameleon]

Matters a lot if I want to invisibly sneak into town or draw guards away with an illusion. 2 minutes might be fine for combat, but for anything else it's barely above useless.

Seriously? You get to be entirely unseen for five solid minutes? And you consider that useless? What the hell do you want to do? Make the rogue entirely obselete, and dance your way down the hallway in plain sight rather than use the spell to augment a plan, making the challenging parts doable.

I guess I would ask why you say it has been proven to be nothing constructive. Is this just because a subset of 4e fans complain about it? That's hardly proof of anything but the characteristics of the players complaining.

If you find this tedious, that's not my problem. I don't really care how you feel about it. If you don't see 4e the way I see it, that its focus has become myopically centered on the encounter and fetishized combat balance, again, I don't care. I care a little bit more that you think I have to meet some personal standard of yours before my views become legitimate or non-tedious, but I'm not really answerable to you, so your views of my posts are largely irrelevant.

OK. You've been challenged repeatedly. What possible value does an insult with almost no information content add to the conversation? It's a direct insult and attempt to deny that D&D is a roleplaying game - thereby attempting to shut down conversation, It therefore isn't a productive thing to say, any more than calling classic D&D a hacked tabletop wargame is.

Unless you think that somehow a four year old near-contentless and largely irrelevant accusation that always degrades the conversation as soon as it is made will somehow this time do something different. If it will, I'd love to say how.