D&D 5E Options for Spell Duration

[Johnny Champion]

I looked over the Basic Rules and was hoping their would be option(s) for spell casting times other than 1 Action or Ritual.

• I know that breaking spellcaster's Concentration can be a major focus of an encounter. This is good IMO.
• However, what happened to the idea that a spell takes time to cast and that opponents (or the party) would be hopeful to interrupt before the Wizard completes that FIREBALL!
• Knowing that segments are gone (for many editions it seems), and initiative order fixed, all of this will have to be house-ruled. That is disappointing to me.
• I think that Initiative and casting times are frequently house-ruled. So I would hope there would at least be a 'gray box' in the rules stating there are various options in this regard.

Is anyone else disappointed in this? Or does the community like simplicity so much that (or too fond of Wizards) that 1 Action spells are great?


Though not a deal killer by any means, and the DMG could have options on various Initiative, Segments and Spell Casting Times; but I see nothing on this forum and I assume it is not important.

 

[Gargoyle]

I get that it can be dramatic and fun to defend a caster while they work furiously to cast that fireball over the course of several actions. But IMO it causes more problems than it's worth.

When your action every round for several rounds is casting the same spell, it gets boring for the caster. It's worse when your concentration is interrupted and the spell fails toward the end of your casting.

When your spells take several rounds to cast, they have to be very powerful. Otherwise, they will never be selected. This makes spellcasters even more powerful in a game where magic can be very advantageous.

Such rules encourage the party composition of a fighter wall to protect the casters. That can be fun teamwork, but it also precludes the formation of alternate party compositions, like spellcasters who like to wade into melee or parties with no fighter types.

I think one action spells are great, and I love that some spells can be cast as bonus actions or even reactions and think that's the best default. I also believe that if you want spells that take longer to cast (possibly for more oomph) you could probably hack the system to do it easily with house rules, whereas if that was the default, it would be difficult to house rule away.

 

[Crothian]

Tracking segments took too much time and was boring. I like the simplistic part of one action per spell. If I were to change it I would just make each spell have a full round casting time.

 

[Boarstorm]

1. Give spells full-round casting times.
2. Damage taken while casting requires concentration checks.

It should work fine, but it is one hell of a nerf to casters, PC and NPC alike.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

1. Give spells full-round casting times.
2. Damage taken while casting requires concentration checks.

It should work fine, but it is one hell of a nerf to casters, PC and NPC alike.

You could soften the blow (NPI) by having them not lose the spell if interrupted this way, but yeah, it's a nerf.

 

[Johnny Champion]

In my view it would require breaking a round into segments, not adding more powerful spells. In that way there would be no protection wall surrounding a wizard. I never thought the AD&D mechanic was workable either.

But at the root of the issue for me is the narrative...namely:

• don't most spells in D&D require at least some arm waving?
• and stating some combination of words?
• or whirling a wand/staff/rod around a few times?
• or using some material components?
• isn't there some 'time' issue at play?
• shouldn't these things be capable of being interrupted?

Having a little fun here but...we play Next now and enjoy it but IMHO 1 Action spells are basically instantaneously cast and they shouldn't work into anyone's narrative. Otherwise make all spells come from a wand (which I guess with the focus aspect is what spell casting has become in D&D).

But in the past, the horror of a Lich with Power Word Kill meant something terrifying...now all spells are Power Word [INSERT]..aren't they?

 

[the Jester]

But at the root of the issue for me is the narrative...namely:

• don't most spells in D&D require at least some arm waving?
• and stating some combination of words?
• or whirling a wand/staff/rod around a few times?
• or using some material components?
• isn't there some 'time' issue at play?
• shouldn't these things be capable of being interrupted?

Having a little fun here but...we play Next now and enjoy it but IMHO 1 Action spells are basically instantaneously cast and they shouldn't work into anyone's narrative. Otherwise make all spells come from a wand (which I guess with the focus aspect is what spell casting has become in D&D).

I think that your list of spell casting time-taking issues is pretty good. Now compare to an archer. He or she needs to:

• Draw an arrow;
• Nock an arrow;
• Pick a target;
• Take aim; and finally
• Loose the arrow.

Shooting an arrow, while arguably potentially faster than casting a spell (although I have no idea what 'real world' spell you can compare to firing a 'real world' arrow), is no more instantaneous than spellcasting. It also takes only a single action.

A sword wielder has it better, but for a greatsword, there's definitely some not-unimportant time that has to be spent, after a swing, recovering one's balance, getting the blade back in line for defense, etc.

Though I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of casting time module in the DMG, I think it's more trouble than it's worth. It adds more tracking to the game without providing a lot of improvement. YMMV, obviously.

 

[Crothian]

In the rules an opponent should be able to ready an attack to disrupt a spellcaster when they cast a spell.