# of active spells allowed by a spell casting class ( wizard, druid, etc. etc. )

[bookkeeping guy]

So have you guys talked with your people about this? It seemed to me like a very interesting topic to bring up...which is "how many active spells at a given time could a wizard juggle?"

Now to be fair I'm trying to get a feel for what would be realistic not trying to strip anyone of their fun.

But a couple of things seemed apparent;

1) it seemed like a veteran wizard like (level 12+) should be able to have more active spells than a level 2 wizard.

2) There might even be a spell for giving a wizard the ability to increase how many spells per level he can hold at once (concentrate on).

3) I don't want to penalize good role playing too, specifically if your wizard is defending a castle or hanging spells on his own home he is for sure going to have more than one spell. I mean just an alarm spell isn't going to cut it. Hell, the soldiers that don't have magic might even have their own wire trip thing made from tin cans and string. So just one defense spell shouldn't cut it.

4) There might be a way to distinguish between active defensive spells and active spells that are considered offensive. It wouldn't be fair if this turned into a rule so that a wizard couldn't cast anything anymore because he or she already has 3 or 4 protection buffs up. I like the idea of the counts being separate for defensive stuff compared to actives.

5) I also wouldn't want to discourage wizards from playing the buffer either. if you have a group of like 4 to 6 people and your wizard is buffing each of them then they are going to want more than one buff each and the wizard isn't going to want to be just standing around after the fighting starts. There's also the issue in the case of buffing if the wizard buffing another character would have the buff counts counted differently when cast on others, or on ground targetted stuff like a trap mage thing too.

6) So I don't want to limit mages because heck they are fun and people get into fantasy games because they want to be something that overcomes their limits in real life. But it seems to me it would be more realistic that stronger mages could hold more actives.

7) I also don't want to limit how many magical items a character has too much because some classes might have been chosen and though of as being able to use many magical items was part of the actual class anyway ( like maybe an alchemist derivative and someone wanting to play a macguyver wizard type that uses tools. )

Anyway I'd like to hear what you think. Thanks.

[Beheld]

What's wrong with the current rules of "as many as he can cast while their durations are still up?"

What problem are you trying to fix?

[weckar]

Well, unless they have a duration of concentration spells require literally no effort to maintain. They are just called into life and peeter out from there.

Sooo this mechanic exists?

[bookkeeping guy]

Well I'm not against the concept of he or she could cast as many as she wants but I don't recall it actually saying that. I think it was always implied that you could cast as many as you want and let them die off with duration limits but I don't remember the old books actually having a specific heading talking about if there is a limit to actives or saying there was not either. I think it was always implied ? I'm totally open to the idea I could be in the wrong here.

What do you think?

Some of the other older books to seemed to think the mage was always hiding in the back too and not being a powerhouse and I don't think it has to be that way.

[Ualaa]

Our group played with buff slots, in our last campaign.

We allowed 2 beneficial duration spells per target initially.
With an additional spell at 6th, 11th, and 16th.
NPCs were under the same rules.

If an 8th level character has three buffs up already, and a fourth buff is cast on them, they can either block the buff to retain their original three or drop one of the existing three (their choice) to have the new spell take hold.



On the plus side, the buff stage was a lot faster.
And there is a lot less to track.

On the negative side, it does limit the power of casters.
The big NPC villains were much weaker.

And a group of caster PCs, each with their own buffs felt neutered.
A party doesn't need, or really want more than a single buffer character.
A bard or tactician (DSP) is severely nerfed...
And you need to adjudicate what is considered a buff, at times.

[Zanos]

RAW there is absolutely no limit on the number of spells you can keep active, other than their durations and your spells per day. You could use permanency to make a million permanent walls of force if you had the resources to expend.

You can only concentrate on one spell at a time, but that's a very small subset of spells, and it will tell you in the duration line when a spell requires concentration.

[Extra Anchovies]

This sounds much like the concentration rules in 5e. Certain spells (including most buffs) require concentration, and a caster can only keep one concentration spell active at a time. I *think* casting any other spell breaks concentration (which can't be resumed), but I'm AFB so don't quote me on that. This goes a very long way towards keeping casters in check, because a lot of their power in 3.5 comes from stacking buffs to become nigh-invulnerable/unstoppable. (5e also cuts down spells per day quite a bit, and provides at-will cantrips, e.g. Magic Missile Chill Touch, so casters don't run out of damage spells)

Adapting this to 3.X shouldn't be too hard, although 3.X material assumes multiple active spells is possible so spell-stacking should be allowed at some point. If you want it to be more based on the caster's power, it could be one spell of CL 1 or higher, one spell of CL 6 or higher, one spell of CL 11 or higher, and one spell of CL 16 or higher.

When a spell is cast on a subject, the spell fills the highest empty slot it meets the requirements for. If there are no empty slots the spell meets the requirements for, you could use one of the following resolution systems.

1. The new spell fails.
2. The new spell succeeds and replaces the [oldest, newest, highest-CL, lowest-CL] active spell.
3. If any active spells have lower CL than the new spell, the new spell replaces the lowest-CL active spell. Otherwise, the spell fails.

[Troacctid]

This sounds much like the concentration rules in 5e. Certain spells (including most buffs) require concentration, and a caster can only keep one concentration spell active at a time. I *think* casting any other spell breaks concentration (which can't be resumed), but I'm AFB so don't quote me on that. This goes a very long way towards keeping casters in check, because a lot of their power in 3.5 comes from stacking buffs to become nigh-invulnerable/unstoppable. (5e also cuts down spells per day quite a bit, and provides at-will cantrips, e.g. Magic Missile, so casters don't run out of damage spells)
I was thinking the same thing. 5e's solution is pretty good, IMO. However, I'm not sure it translates well to 3.5, since you kind of have to go through every spell and determine case-by-case which ones should take concentration.

For the record, only casting other concentration spells will break your concentration. (http://www.5esrd.com/spellcasting#TOC-Duration) Also, Magic Missile (http://www.5esrd.com/spellcasting/all-spells/m/magic-missile) is still a 1st level spell in 5e, although it was an at-will power in 4e. But other than that, you're correct.

[weckar]

How is the 5e system different from the 3.5e "contentration" duration spells?

[Knitifine]

How is the 5e system different from the 3.5e "contentration" duration spells?
The systems are different in two ways.
1. Concentration spells typically require a standard action instead of what amounts to a free action.
2. Very few spells have a concentration duration in 3.5e and Pathfinder, where as almost all buff spells in 5e have one.

Edit: Also, I believe that, in theory, if you could get numerous standard actions in one round you could concentrate on as many spells as you like.