Quicken Spell slows down game

[Seule]

I play a high level Arcane spell user. I have and use Time Stop, and could take Quicken Spell and soon its Epic improvements. I find that anything that gives more actions in a round just slows down the game and makes it less fun for anyone. I'm contemplating removing anything from my game that gives extra actions including Haste, for gameplay reasons.
On the opposing hand, I just took Maximize Spell as a metamagic feat instead of Quicken Spell, because it speeds the game up: No die rolling.
Does anyone have any counter-examples, or comments on this? Is it a good idea? It would certainly stop the perception that Haste is overpowered, because it would be removed for entirely different reasons.

--Seule

 

[Creamsteak]

Dice do not slow down the game normally, it's indecision. If your players havn't thought out there move by the time it is there action, haste and time stop and such can be a pain. If your players are already decided, then it's just the time between dice and the table...

That's me at least.

 

[Balgus]

I love dice rolling- and thusly hate maximize. It just taks the fun out of a game. Instead of a fireball detonmating in front of you and taking (takes a minute to roll out 10 dice, and count them up) 40 points of damage- that really hurts!!! but then there is"he lobs a fireball and you take 60 points of damage"

The fun and anticipation to see if you live or die is not there. And to see all those 6's, or 1'2 is just fun- really gets the group involved.

And plus, DND is a game of luck of the dice. You roll well on some days, and poorly on others. No matter how well you RP, there is always that randomness that can kill you- that is what keeps you on your toes.

If you know what is going to happen ahead of time, you become complacent- not caring as much- and less prepared.

that is justmy take on things. I know th ethoughts are a little jumbled, but the idea is still there... somewhere.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I agree with creamsteak.

The extra moves are encouraging indecision because they give the player more options.

If the player knows what he is about to do when his turn comes up, his dice can be held ready, and away we go. If player is on the ball, Haste will actually speed up play because you will have less overhead caused by switching between PCs/NPCs. (A combat that takes, say, 23 separate total actions to complete is not likely to take more by throwing Haste into the picture.)

What you may have to do as DM is ruthlessly force quick play. If they hem and haw, then they just Delayed; go to the next character. They can jump back in when they have figured out what to do.

A round is 6 seconds. You are justified in not giving them more than 10 seconds to decide what to do.

 

[hong]

This is one reason why I prefer playing non-spellcasters.

"I hit him with my sword! .... uh, and I hit him with my sword AGAIN!"

 

[Oni]

What you may have to do as DM is ruthlessly force quick play. If they hem and haw, then they just Delayed; go to the next character. They can jump back in when they have figured out what to do.

As a player, I'd say about 80-90% of the time I've used the delay action was because I hadn't decided what I wanted to do yet and didn't want to hold everyone else up. I find the game goes much faster if you try to figure out what your going to do ahead of time, and don't have people sit around and wait while you make a decision.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I play a high level Arcane spell user. I have and use Time Stop, and could take Quicken Spell and soon its Epic improvements. I find that anything that gives more actions in a round just slows down the game and makes it less fun for anyone. I'm contemplating removing anything from my game that gives extra actions including Haste, for gameplay reasons.
On the opposing hand, I just took Maximize Spell as a metamagic feat instead of Quicken Spell, because it speeds the game up: No die rolling.
Does anyone have any counter-examples, or comments on this? Is it a good idea? It would certainly stop the perception that Haste is overpowered, because it would be removed for entirely different reasons.

--Seule

You are perfectly right there, Seule. Don't listen to the people who blame player indecision.

It's all in the game.

 

[StalkingBlue]

Suggestion for eleminating player-indecision delays:

Always call the next two characters, the one whose turn it is and the next one whose turn is coming up.
The next player up won't have so much of an excuse for dithering, plus it gives you all more of a feeling that things are happening simultaneously, as they should in combat.

Works well in both the groups I GM and play in. We have one player keep track of initiative for the GM, usually a non-caster (who has less to think about in terms of his or her own tactics).

 

[0-hr]

I've pretty much removed Haste from my current campaign simply because I would rather have players take frequent, short turns instead of less frequent, but longer, turns. It's working out fine so far.

We're not to a level where quickened spells and Time Stop are an issue.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

This is one reason why I prefer playing non-spellcasters.

"I hit him with my sword! .... uh, and I hit him with my sword AGAIN!"

When playing spellcasters I usually have a "default" action, too. "I hit him with Magic Missiles! .... uh, and I hit him with Magic Missiles AGAIN!" If that is not acceptable to me, I just delay and let the next person go while I think.

I think StalkingBlue suggestion of an "on deck circle" may help too.

When we use index cards to track initiative, the DM will just hand over the index card and say "You delay," if the player dithers in the least. The player hands the card to DM when he has figured out what to do. (We do the same thing for ready actions.) Holding that card in his hand helps focus the player's mind on the fact he will never get to act again until he has decided what to do, while combat continues around him.

Delaying is the optimal choice more often than you might think. Especially for spellcasters.