D&D 3.x Increase spell casting time to a full-round action?

[Edgar Ironpelt]

For a very long time - ever since 3.x first came out - I've been toying with the idea of increasing the default casting time of spells to a full-round action. Not the kludge of "takes a round to cast and then takes effect on your next round" but a full-round action like the full-attack action. But I've held back due to wondering if the benefits in slowing down spellcasting would be worth the hassle of making and imposing the new house rule.

Is there anyone here who has actually tried this? How did it work for you?

 

[Mannahnin]

For a very long time - ever since 3.x first came out - I've been toying with the idea of increasing the default casting time of spells to a full-round action. Not the kludge of "takes a round to cast and then takes effect on your next round" but a full-round action like the full-attack action. But I've held back due to wondering if the benefits in slowing down spellcasting would be worth the hassle of making and imposing the new house rule.

Is there anyone here who has actually tried this? How did it work for you?

Maybe my memory of 3.x is missing a detail or two.

I remember some spells in 3.x (IIRC Summoning spells in particular?, though not just them) had a full round casting time as you mention, meaning you start casting it one round and don't complete it until just before your next turn in the initiative, the following round.

Which is very different from and much slower than, say, a Full Attack action, which still completes all on your single initiative count, but as I recall took away your ability to fully Move during that turn, only letting you make a 5' step. If we did this, it wouldn't really "slow down" spellcasting so much as limit movement alongside it, similar to how in OD&D, AD&D, and B/X you can't move and cast in the same round (though you can move and activate a magic item, which is a tactical benefit of wands and arguably scrolls as well, in those editions).

But what you're alluding to sounds like some new concept in between?

 

[Li Shenron]

Yeah I agree that it would not slow down spells but slow down movement. Also, since in 3ed some actions were move-equivalent actions, ot would prevent to do those on the same round as when casting a spell. Probably a minor nuisance except in particular scenarios.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Not the kludge of "takes a round to cast and then takes effect on your next round" but a full-round action like the full-attack action.

So you are not doing the 'casting last until next round, delaying spell effect until then (and opening them up to disruption attempts until that time),' what are you getting out of the change? Just the removal of move-equivalent actions?

I mean, not getting to move is a limitation. So it would have an effect. Probably not a big one. IIRC, in 3e you can't move part of your move, act, and then finish your movement (if so, feats like shot on the run would be pointless). So you aren't dashing out from behind cover, casting, and dashing back anyways. Fighting-withdrawal casting might be hampered, and there might be some more rounds where a caster is getting out of dodge rather than casting (although, for my money, if a caster's response to their squishiness is 'well, I move around a lot,' they've already lost).

I guess I'm interested in what you envision being lost and seeing if I think it would actually show up enough to justify the change.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

The primary upsides I see are: (1) putting spellcasting on a par with the full attack action rather than being, as a standard action, as easy as a single arrow or melee attack; and (2) slowing down spellcasting a bit by delaying spellcasters until the turn after they've moved into position, rather than being able to move into place and then cast on the same turn.

It doesn't look like much of a hindrance in theory, as the responses have pointed out. Which is why I asked if anyone has experience in practice on the effects this would have on a game.

 

[the Jester]

For a very long time - ever since 3.x first came out - I've been toying with the idea of increasing the default casting time of spells to a full-round action. Not the kludge of "takes a round to cast and then takes effect on your next round" but a full-round action like the full-attack action. But I've held back due to wondering if the benefits in slowing down spellcasting would be worth the hassle of making and imposing the new house rule.

Is there anyone here who has actually tried this? How did it work for you?

Is there a problem you're trying to solve here? What is the motivation for this change?

 

[Alzrius]

It'll be interesting to consider what this does to spells that require a touch attack. Unless you can reach your target with a 5-foot step, you'll need to try and touch them on a round subsequent to casting the spell.

 

[Mannahnin]

The primary upsides I see are: (1) putting spellcasting on a par with the full attack action rather than being, as a standard action, as easy as a single arrow or melee attack; and (2) slowing down spellcasting a bit by delaying spellcasters until the turn after they've moved into position, rather than being able to move into place and then cast on the same turn.

It doesn't look like much of a hindrance in theory, as the responses have pointed out. Which is why I asked if anyone has experience in practice on the effects this would have on a game.

Got it. Ok, so basically just not letting people move and cast in the same round (aside from a 5' step).

I have no experience doing this in 3.x, but I've played with this restriction in older editions. It definitely creates some tactical challenges. Given the conventional wisdom (largely true IME) that casters are at their apex of power in 3.x compared to other editions, this does seem like a simple way to dial them back a little.

One thing that occurs to me, too, is that it may also indirectly increase the lethality of the game and encourage characters to stay adjacent to the healer in many situations, given the relatively narrow window of death at -10, though giving First Aid (DC 15 to stabilize the dying) is only a Standard action (at least in 3.5), and I expect so would be feeding an unconscious character a healing potion (the 3.5 PH doesn't specify, though this may have been FAQ'd).

 

[Willie the Duck]

It doesn't look like much of a hindrance in theory, as the responses have pointed out. Which is why I asked if anyone has experience in practice on the effects this would have on a game.

Well beggars and choosers and all that. We're what you get, so let's see what we can come up with.

The primary upsides I see are: (1) putting spellcasting on a par with the full attack action rather than being, as a standard action, as easy as a single arrow or melee attack;

Okay, searching for symmetry. That makes sense. Unfortunately, there are plenty of other rules that make actual symmetry impossible. For starters, there is the option of a single arrow or melee attack -- there's no similar analog for spellcasting. Beyond that, there are charges, partial charges, and the various ways* that allowed one to get a full attack after some significant movement (pounce, etc.). YMMV, but I don't think there's a way to make the two things look aesthetically like full parallels of each other.
*i.e. that one could only get a single attack with any real movement was seen by many as a real flaw in 3e and several attempts were made to remove it.

and (2) slowing down spellcasting a bit by delaying spellcasters until the turn after they've moved into position, rather than being able to move into place and then cast on the same turn.

Yeah, this is where I think the rubber is going to meet the road. And I think there's some actual teeth to this as a limitation. However, I think it's partially redundant to the existing teeth of caster* fragility. With the proposed change, the optimal strategy is for the caster to lob long-range effects from behind the safety of the front-line, when before the optimal strategy was for the caster to lob long-range effects from behind the safety of the front-line. It makes more vulnerable strategies -- like trying to line up Burning Hands and other immediate-area spell effects -- which were already niche options.
*well, standard wizard/sorcerer at least. Examining the effects of this change on CoDzilla and gishes might be a subject unto itself.

It probably does have some knock-on effects. Most notably, that front line you are hiding behind also has to slow down, even if they've found a way around their 5'-or-no-full-attack limitations.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

Well beggars and choosers and all that. We're what you get, so let's see what we can come up with.

If the answer is "No, no one here on the forum has actual experience," then the thread has failed as far as I'm concerned, and I can give it up as a bad job.