[3.5] Increased casting time.

[Salanmander]

After playing Exalted and thinking again about casters in 3.5, it occurred to me that increasing the casting time of spells could help mitigate the problem of casters doing everything awesomely. Now, I don't mean turning standard actions into full round actions, that would hardly solve anything. I mean taking many of the high level, game breaking spells and giving them casting times of 1, 2, maybe even 3 rounds (for stuff intended to be used in combat). Possibly even having no spells beyond 3rd or 4th level castable in less than 1 round.

Why do I think this is a good fix? We all know that action economy is one of the most important factors of 3.5. This could allow wizards etc. to keep their incredibly shiny, world-shattering toys, but prevents them from shutting down enemies before they have a chance to do anything. Beyond a certain level, casters will /need/ to be protected by someone who can provide an immediate threat, or their spells will routinely be disrupted by intelligent enemies. This would also shut down most of the extreme "I win if I go first" and "Oh by the way, I always go first" cheese by severely limiting what can be done with celerity, and giving everyone a chance to react to what the caster is doing.

Of course, there are some substantial problems with it as well. The biggest thing that comes to mind is that actual protection options in 3.5 are fairly limited. A high-dex tripper with good reach can keep enemies away, but there isn't a whole lot you can do against ranged attacks without spells. Perhaps it would be wise to keep buffs and defense spells (like wind wall and mirror image, not like wall of thorns and otiluke's resilient sphere) to a standard action.

This could also turn the game into "protect the PC MacGuffin until the spell goes off" if implemented poorly, which can be fun occasionally, but wouldn't be fun all the time.

Obviously, this should only ever be attempted if the group feels like the casters are outshining everyone else, because it is a /major/ nerf.

What are you thoughts on this? Is it feasible? Is there a way to blanket-apply this, or would it need to be done spell-by spell? Has anyone tried anything similar?

[Eldan]

Things like this have been suggested before, and it mostly boils down to two problems with this setup:

1) Wizard: "I cast Meteor Storm." *Wizard goes to the toilet, to cook some tea in the kitchen, have a smoke and pet the cat* "Did I miss anything?" - "Not much. You can act again next round."

Basically, on high level, combat rounds can last long. Usually long enough that my players got a bit bored waiting for their turn even when they could act every turn. If they had to wait three turns? Not much fun, really.

2) All the most powerful and breakable spells a wizard has won't be weakened much by longer combat time. Wizards break the game out of combat, really. In combat, they are strong. Out of combat, they create money, armies and objects out of thin air, find out where the BBEG is and kill him from three miles away, then start summoning efreets for infinite wishes. None of these spells suffer much from having tripple caster time: you can break the game with Planar Binding even if it takes 24 hours to cast.

[The Big Dice]

The way I see things, the real advantage that casters have isn't based on the sheer number of spells in the game, or that can be used. Or even the effects they can have. It's the advantage that all casters have over every non caster in the game.

Automatic success.

A skill roll can fail, an attack can fail. Casting a spell can't fail unless outside forces intervene. And to be fair, defensive casting and five foot steps mean it's all too easy to avoid spells fizzling.

The problem is scaling the DC of the check needed. The obvious skill to use is Spellcraft, but what do you set the DC at? I figured that setting it so that a"typical" character, one with the relevant skill maxed out and a reasonable, but not maxed, bonus in the appropriate stat, should have a 50/50 chance of casting their highest level spell.

But a suitable formula eludes me, and I'm not playing D&D these days anyway, so I'm not that worried about it. But I do think adding a chance of failure would go a long way to redressing the balance issue.

[Zergrusheddie]

I have seen it used to where casting a spell took 1 initiative order for each spell level. So if the Wizard goes on Initiative 20 and he casts a 5th level spell, the spell will go off on Initiative 15. This basically makes it more viable to interrupt a Wizard's spells or to flee the area before the spell goes off.

The broken stuff is really broken and it really only made a difference when the Wizard was a Fireball thrower. When someone else played Batman, it didn't stop him from ending the encounter by the second round.

[Ernir]

Multi-round spells are a bad idea. Because it's boring to have nothing better to do than picking at the snacks on the table during your multi-round casting time.

However, I'd be very interested in seeing how making 1-round casting times the default casting time (rather than 1 standard action) would work out. The spellcasters still get to act every round, but the ease of interrupting them/getting defenses up in time skyrockets.
I get the feeling the designers thought this was a good idea for some encounter-ending spells (I'm looking at you, Sleep), but abandoned it once they started designing the higher level ones. :smallsigh:

[Eldonauran]

I have seen it used to where casting a spell took 1 initiative order for each spell level. So if the Wizard goes on Initiative 20 and he casts a 5th level spell, the spell will go off on Initiative 15. This basically makes it more viable to interrupt a Wizard's spells or to flee the area before the spell goes off.

The broken stuff is really broken and it really only made a difference when the Wizard was a Fireball thrower. When someone else played Batman, it didn't stop him from ending the encounter by the second round.

This. This I like. Gives 'Quicken' spell a whole new meaning. :smallamused:

[Endarire]

Cast in a minute or a second, most buffs last long enough that such a nerf is annoying, but not rebalancing. It also means casters can't use most crowd control or combat spells in a pinch.

If most spells required 1 round to cast, what happens to summon monster et al which are already 1 round cast times?

[Kylarra]

There's already Incantations (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm) as a potential variant. If you remove most fullcasters and then just use incantations, you might be able to achieve something along the lines of what you're hoping for.

[Sinfonian]

I have seen it used to where casting a spell took 1 initiative order for each spell level. So if the Wizard goes on Initiative 20 and he casts a 5th level spell, the spell will go off on Initiative 15. This basically makes it more viable to interrupt a Wizard's spells or to flee the area before the spell goes off.

The broken stuff is really broken and it really only made a difference when the Wizard was a Fireball thrower. When someone else played Batman, it didn't stop him from ending the encounter by the second round.
This is actually the way it was done in 2E, and the spell was automatically lost if any damage was taken during that casting. The removal of these were among the (many) ways in which wizards became more powerful in the change of editions.

[Eldan]

Cast in a minute or a second, most buffs last long enough that such a nerf is annoying, but not rebalancing. It also means casters can't use most crowd control or combat spells in a pinch.


Oh, yes. That's another thing, actually:
One of the main things which makes god wizards, well, less horrible for the rest of the group is that they can spread their power around instead of monopolizing combat. This usually takes two forms: buffing their allies and debuffing and crowd controlling their enemies.
Now, the first is still viable in this system, if the buffs have long durations. The second, however, becomes problematic: if a spell takes, say, three rounds, the party faces full strength monsters for the first three turns, which is potentially quite lethal. At that point, it becomes easier and much more viable for the caster to just end the encounter, instead of trivializing it.

[olentu]

Oh, yes. That's another thing, actually:
One of the main things which makes god wizards, well, less horrible for the rest of the group is that they can spread their power around instead of monopolizing combat. This usually takes two forms: buffing their allies and debuffing and crowd controlling their enemies.
Now, the first is still viable in this system, if the buffs have long durations. The second, however, becomes problematic: if a spell takes, say, three rounds, the party faces full strength monsters for the first three turns, which is potentially quite lethal. At that point, it becomes easier and much more viable for the caster to just end the encounter, instead of trivializing it.

This is quite a good point. If one is only going to get one spell off most people are going to choose the most powerful spells possible to end the combat a soon as possible.

[Roderick_BR]

I like this combination of effects:
1. All spells have it's casting time increased in 1 step. Swift becomes move, move becomes standard, standard becomes full round. Full round needs 1 round of "preparation", and then the spell is cast the next round as a full round action. Spells with more than 1 round, are unchanged. Direct damage (blasting) effects remain at their normal speed as well, as they are supposed to be fast.
2. The idea of deducting the spell level from the initiative is good too, making casting be just a bit slower.
3. Combat is considered a stenuous situation, needing to make a Concentration/spellcraft/caster check, with a DC = 10 + caster level, to cast. No spell is lost if it fails. Caster level can be willfuly reduced (to minimum needed to cast a spell) to make it easier to cast it. Out of combat, no check is needed.
4. Defensive casting is no longer an option. You need Combat Casting to use it at all (others options, like the 5ft step, are still available without feat tax).
Wizards can break the game as they wish, I don't care. I just want him to stop breaking the combat.

[Eldan]

Hmm.

A few things with that:

At level one, the spell caster will fail (given 18 int, 4 ranks in concentration) only on a roll of 1-3. Not very likely. On level 20 (28 int (+9), 23 ranks), he will fail on a roll of 1-8 unless he invests in feats for concentration. Should they really become less likely to succeed? it's a little weird.

However, the problem with making the caster fall is this: he has, on level one, around 4 first level spells per day. Screwing up one of those means that you have just lost 25% of your resources for the day.

Yes, fighters miss too. But they can hit as often as they want.

Now, true, spells are much, much more valuable than attacks, even at low levels. Still, it's something to consider.

[olentu]

Hmm.

A few things with that:

At level one, the spell caster will fail (given 18 int, 4 ranks in concentration) only on a roll of 1-3. Not very likely. On level 20 (28 int (+9), 23 ranks), he will fail on a roll of 1-8 unless he invests in feats for concentration. Should they really become less likely to succeed? it's a little weird.

However, the problem with making the caster fall is this: he has, on level one, around 4 first level spells per day. Screwing up one of those means that you have just lost 25% of your resources for the day.

Yes, fighters miss too. But they can hit as often as they want.

Now, true, spells are much, much more valuable than attacks, even at low levels. Still, it's something to consider.

Not to mention that again casters will probably tend towards the more combat ending spells.

[WeLoveFireballs]

I have thought about adding a custom ritual magic rule to E6. You can use more powerful spells but you have to pay the price. For each spell level beyond the highest you can cast you must use spell level+level beyond your highest rounds squared (min 3). And the same number of spell levels to cast the spell. For example for a 5th level wiz a meteor swarm spell would take 45 rounds and use 45 spell levels. If multiple casters are involved the time and cost is split between them.

And of course they need a feat to do this.

[Hanuman]

You can lengthen casting times on spells, it's just the extra DC is already accounted for in the given spell.

This is why epic spells have extra rules, because their DC's are so unreasonably high that the extra casting time is needed as a negative DC modifier.

[Salanmander]

I have seen it used to where casting a spell took 1 initiative order for each spell level. So if the Wizard goes on Initiative 20 and he casts a 5th level spell, the spell will go off on Initiative 15. This basically makes it more viable to interrupt a Wizard's spells or to flee the area before the spell goes off.

The broken stuff is really broken and it really only made a difference when the Wizard was a Fireball thrower. When someone else played Batman, it didn't stop him from ending the encounter by the second round.

That sounds like an interesting compromise. I assume it would delay the start of the wizard's next turn to their new initiative location, so that wizards will be going slightly slower than everyone else?

When the initiative gets to 1, would it reset to the initiative roll of the highest roller? to 20? to 20+the wizard's initiative modifier?

[Roderick_BR]

Hmm.

A few things with that:

At level one, the spell caster will fail (given 18 int, 4 ranks in concentration) only on a roll of 1-3. Not very likely. On level 20 (28 int (+9), 23 ranks), he will fail on a roll of 1-8 unless he invests in feats for concentration. Should they really become less likely to succeed? it's a little weird.

However, the problem with making the caster fall is this: he has, on level one, around 4 first level spells per day. Screwing up one of those means that you have just lost 25% of your resources for the day.

Yes, fighters miss too. But they can hit as often as they want.

Now, true, spells are much, much more valuable than attacks, even at low levels. Still, it's something to consider.
What are the DCs you are using? My idea is to give casters a 50% change of hitting or missing their highest level spells. At first level, the DC is 11. If we use Concentration (let's say maxed 4, con +2) +6, you just need to roll a 5. At higher levels, you can easily find ways to pump up your conc, that you'll only fail in a natural 1. For example, at level 20, your DC to cast meteor swarm is 30. With Conc at +28 (rank +23, con +3, something +2), you just need to roll a 2. Things get harder if we use only caster level, though, yes.
Also, I suggested that spells don't fizzle with this roll, just fail to start. You lose the action, not the spell.

Not to mention that again casters will probably tend towards the more combat ending spells.
Except the the combat ending spells would take longer to cast. Direct combat spells should be untouched, to regain the little advantage it lost in 3.x.


I have thought about adding a custom ritual magic rule to E6. You can use more powerful spells but you have to pay the price. For each spell level beyond the highest you can cast you must use spell level+level beyond your highest rounds squared (min 3). And the same number of spell levels to cast the spell. For example for a 5th level wiz a meteor swarm spell would take 45 rounds and use 45 spell levels. If multiple casters are involved the time and cost is split between them.

And of course they need a feat to do this.
You know, I really like that. I was working up something like that for E6.

[olentu]

What are the DCs you are using? My idea is to give casters a 50% change of hitting or missing their highest level spells. At first level, the DC is 11. If we use Concentration (let's say maxed 4, con +2) +6, you just need to roll a 5. At higher levels, you can easily find ways to pump up your conc, that you'll only fail in a natural 1. For example, at level 20, your DC to cast meteor swarm is 30. With Conc at +28 (rank +23, con +3, something +2), you just need to roll a 2. Things get harder if we use only caster level, though, yes.
Also, I suggested that spells don't fizzle with this roll, just fail to start. You lose the action, not the spell.

Except the the combat ending spells would take longer to cast. Direct combat spells should be untouched, to regain the little advantage it lost in 3.x.


You know, I really like that. I was working up something like that for E6.

The thing is blasting has not gotten better really it is just that doing things like throwing out sub par but fun non blasting spells is much less desirable. So blasting still sucks just as much as normal when compared to other characters options and now nonblasting spells that that end combat as quickly as possible would probably be tended towards.

Perhaps if blasting had been buffed in some way but since it has not it is not any better then it is normally which is not so great compared to getting some dread warriors or something like that unless stacking a bunch of metamagic. And if one is going to stack that much metamagic they were probably going to do so in the first place.

[Person_Man]

What you propose is much like the Chris Rock solution to gun control. If guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment, then put a $5000 tax on every bullet. That way, you really really have to hate someone if you want to shoot them. Nerfing the casting time of high level spells functionally makes them useless in most situations.

The solution that I use in my games is a bit simpler. If a player abuses a spell like Time Stop, I talk to him over a few beers and ask him to stop using Time Stop because it ruins the game for everyone else. You'd be surprised at how well it works.

[Salanmander]

What you propose is much like the Chris Rock solution to gun control. If guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment, then put a $5000 tax on every bullet. That way, you really really have to hate someone if you want to shoot them. Nerfing the casting time of high level spells functionally makes them useless in most situations.

The solution that I use in my games is a bit simpler. If a player abuses a spell like Time Stop, I talk to him over a few beers and ask him to stop using Time Stop because it ruins the game for everyone else. You'd be surprised at how well it works.

Do you really think that giving Evard's Black Tentacles a one-round casting time would make it functionally useless?

@olentu: Blasting isn't actually that subpar compared to other character types. What it is subpar to is actions that dramatically change the nature of the encounter (wall of thorns, solid fog, celerity+time stop, etc.)

[Telonius]

The way I see things, the real advantage that casters have isn't based on the sheer number of spells in the game, or that can be used. Or even the effects they can have. It's the advantage that all casters have over every non caster in the game.

Automatic success.

A skill roll can fail, an attack can fail. Casting a spell can't fail unless outside forces intervene. And to be fair, defensive casting and five foot steps mean it's all too easy to avoid spells fizzling.

The problem is scaling the DC of the check needed. The obvious skill to use is Spellcraft, but what do you set the DC at? I figured that setting it so that a"typical" character, one with the relevant skill maxed out and a reasonable, but not maxed, bonus in the appropriate stat, should have a 50/50 chance of casting their highest level spell.

But a suitable formula eludes me, and I'm not playing D&D these days anyway, so I'm not that worried about it. But I do think adding a chance of failure would go a long way to redressing the balance issue.

The lack of a suitable check DC formula is one of the two things that killed Truenamer. (The other is that even if the DCs weren't grade-a crazy, the effects you could get by making the checks weren't that terrific).

[olentu]

Do you really think that giving Evard's Black Tentacles a one-round casting time would make it functionally useless?

@olentu: Blasting isn't actually that subpar compared to other character types. What it is subpar to is actions that dramatically change the nature of the encounter (wall of thorns, solid fog, celerity+time stop, etc.)

I really have found blasting subpar compared to the damage output of other characters, cohorts, some undead you can get, etc. barring of course as I have said stacking metamagic, not to mention that you are burning double the spells.

[Person_Man]

Do you really think that giving Evard's Black Tentacles a one-round casting time would make it functionally useless?

No. The example I used was Time Stop, which is pretty much an auto-encounter winner unless you're fighting someone who is specifically prepared to stop it somehow. If you increase the casting time of Time Stop to 3 rounds, then functionally it's the same as banning the spell.

If you increased the duration of Black Tentacles to one round, and I'm determined to play a Tier 1 caster (which I personally rarely do), then it makes me want to play CoDzilla, who Wildshapes and cast long duration buffs before combat, when casting time is pretty meaningless. You just end up warping the metagame dynamic without fixing the underlying abuse. 3.5 is inhearently unbalanced, and can't be balanced without a complete rewrite (see 4E). I'm fine with that, cause it's fun to play. So again, I personally think that the solution to abuse is to just ask the player to stop being a jerk. But I also encourage and enjoy talking about theoretically fixes like this one, otherwise I wouldn't spend so much time on this forum.