PDA

View Full Version : [3.0 to 3.5, P.E.A.C.H.] Wizard spell casting times



Agrippa
2010-02-04, 09:50 PM
In the works of Jack Vance and Roger Zellzany spells wizards could cast could take up to a half-hour or full hour to cast due to the complex mathematical and scientific formulas required. This rendered them mostly useless in combat if it weren't for memorization. Basically in this system of spell casting if you wanted to memorize a spell that would take ten minutes to cast spontaneously you would spend nine minutes to nine minutes and 48 seconds pre-casting 90% to 98% of the spell in your head. The two round to one minute casting time (reserved for highly powerful/complex spells) would only be a fraction of the real casting time thus setting off the spell.

{table=head]Level|Preparation time|Casting time
0|
30 seconds|free action
1st-2nd|
1 minute|standard action
3rd-4th|
5 minutes|one round, five rounds for non combat spells*
5th-7th|
10 minutes|two rounds, 1 minute for non combat spells
8th|
30 minutes|four rounds, 2 minutes for non combat spells
9th|
one hour|six rounds, 3 minutes for non combat spells
[/table]

Now I do plan to use a different spell slot method for wizards though which I'll post in a few hours.

*Spells like gate, clone, the wish line and animate dead. Of course durations for certain spells would have to be lengthened too.

Is this a promising idea, or just plain stupid?

lightningcat
2010-02-05, 01:21 AM
I'm away from my books right now, so correct me if I'm wrong. But I believe that in 2e it took 10 minutes per spell level to memorize a spell. Which means that a 20th level wizard would take better then a full day to rememorize all of their spells if they used all of them. There were no 0th-level spells at that time. But you could use this to create a limit on wizards, but you shouldn't need to alter casting times, as most of those that are meant for non-combat situations already have long casting times. (I've been reluctent to impliment this in my game, because of the lack of a counterpart for spontanous caster. Ideas welcome.) Even the summon spells have a longer casting time then they a currently worth, but if you increased their duration to 1 minute/level then they become fairly powerful and useful.
As a side note, I remember some pdf accessory that had spells that were more effective the longer you took to cast them. Casting as a standard action they were very minor, but if you spend a couple of rounds then they were fairly powerful.

Agrippa
2010-02-05, 04:54 AM
Well I've already decided to increase the summon spell lines from 1 round/level to 1 minute/level. As for spontaneous casters like sorcerers, I'd simply take a psion (switching Intelligence to Wisdom) or wilder and reflavor the classes.

Latronis
2010-02-05, 05:50 AM
six rounds of combat casting is insane. A great many encounters don't even last that long.

Cataphract
2010-02-05, 09:15 AM
Ι've been working on a similar variant, though people don't like it at all because it limits spellcasters (I did not allow combat spells for wizards pretty much, short of items), but for sorcerers I did a similar thing. Here's the link: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7819996&postcount=81

From the looks of it, however, there are the following issues:

1) People don't like wizards taking time. They want to cast spells immediately. That, however, is part of your concept, so it can't be changed for those who disagree with the concept entirely.
2) Part of it stems from a real problem that encounters last only a few rounds. This is an issue indeed. However, encounters last so quickly for two reasons:

1)Spells, mainly. When spellcasters fire powerful spells every round (at least), then yeah, encounters don't take long. By limiting that, you've increased encounter time severely.

2) Powerful non-spellcasting builds that cause a lot of havoc, usually in the form of massive damage (but not always, there's plenty of other examples). This is a different animal entirely, but you'll probably have to limit it too.

Cataphract
2010-02-05, 09:17 AM
six rounds of combat casting is insane. A great many encounters don't even last that long.

Also, that's for a 9th level spell. How many games do deal with 9th level spells anyways? There's no reason to dish a system because it penalizes uber spellcasting.

Latronis
2010-02-05, 10:35 AM
Also, that's for a 9th level spell. How many games do deal with 9th level spells anyways? There's no reason to dish a system because it penalizes uber spellcasting.

well the rules support high level play, and even this variant carries on into those high levels. And it's quite frankly mean giving players toys they won't be able to use.

Well unless you take pains to slow everything down. In which case you have the problem of casters doing nothing for rounds at a time (perhaps rolling a handful of dice every few rounds for concentration checks)

Anonymouswizard
2010-02-05, 11:06 AM
Spell slots for wizards:

{table]Level|7
1|Int
2|Int
3|Int
4|Int
5|Int
6|Int
7|Int
8|Int
9|Int
10|Int
11|Int
12|Int
13|Int
14|Int
15|Int
16|Int
17|Int
18|Int
19|Int
20|Int2[/table]

:smallbiggrin:

Cataphract
2010-02-05, 11:09 AM
well the rules support high level play, and even this variant carries on into those high levels. And it's quite frankly mean giving players toys they won't be able to use.

Well unless you take pains to slow everything down. In which case you have the problem of casters doing nothing for rounds at a time (perhaps rolling a handful of dice every few rounds for concentration checks)

Sure, but if said toys are so powerful (and the others players don't get such toys), then that's unfair, no? So you limit these toys (and let's face it, spells/day are not particularly limiting after a certain level).

Cataphract
2010-02-05, 11:11 AM
Spell slots for wizards:

{table]Level|7
1|Int
2|Int
3|Int
4|Int
5|Int
6|Int
7|Int
8|Int
9|Int
10|Int
11|Int
12|Int
13|Int
14|Int
15|Int
16|Int
17|Int
18|Int
19|Int
20|Int2[/table]

:smallbiggrin:

Ι can't believe you actually bothered to write 19 levels :smalltongue:

Latronis
2010-02-05, 11:21 AM
Sure, but if said toys are so powerful (and the others players don't get such toys), then that's unfair, no? So you limit these toys (and let's face it, spells/day are not particularly limiting after a certain level).

4-6 rounds to cast a spell isn't a limit in the game as it is. It's a practical joke.

At least getting rid of the 8 and 9 level spells altogether (and then giving them the non-combat ones as say.. UA style incantations) isn't cruel and unusual punishment.

Anonymouswizard
2010-02-05, 11:32 AM
Ι can't believe you actually bothered to write 19 levels :smalltongue:

I've read Dying Earth, and so with this system no-one would be 20th level. But I do some things for amusement, like homebrewing. God forbid it should ever be used!

Cataphract
2010-02-05, 11:35 AM
4-6 rounds to cast a spell isn't a limit in the game as it is. It's a practical joke.

At least getting rid of the 8 and 9 level spells altogether (and then giving them the non-combat ones as say.. UA style incantations) isn't cruel and unusual punishment.

Fluff-wise, firing a spell every 6 seconds is a practical joke.

Now, mechanics are a different animal altogether.

Mikka
2010-02-05, 03:02 PM
Fluff-wise, firing a spell every 6 seconds is a practical joke.

Now, mechanics are a different animal altogether.

Based on what fluff? : ) Certainly not D&D fluff or forgotten realms fluff where spells are slung around like. . say. . 3.5 rules : )

Sorry its just because you are the starter of the thread "[3.5] A way to nerf spellcasters?" your opinion is hardly objective so i can't help but stick my head into this.

Cataphract
2010-02-05, 03:16 PM
Based on what fluff? : ) Certainly not D&D fluff or forgotten realms fluff where spells are slung around like. . say. . 3.5 rules : )

Sorry its just because you are the starter of the thread "[3.5] A way to nerf spellcasters?" your opinion is hardly objective so i can't help but stick my head into this.

Opinions are never objective, it's their nature :smallwink: Facts are, and truth be told, there's no facts about actual working magic in the real world (or at least for its effects- there's plenty for the rituals themselves).

jiriku
2010-02-05, 03:23 PM
Instead of the progression free, standard, 1 round, 2 rounds, 4 rounds, 6 rounds, try the following:

Free, standard, full-round action, 1 full round, 2 full rounds (both 8th and 9th level spells).

This puts the breaks on the high-level spellcasting, which you're wanting to do, but avoids making spells so slow that a caster will spend a whole combat attempting to do only one thing.

Cataphract
2010-02-05, 03:27 PM
On the other hand, making every spell with a standard action into a 1 round casting time (with only extremely powerful ones taking 2) is a good compromise as well, since it still takes you only one round, but this time, your opponents have a chance to do something.

Jota
2010-02-05, 03:55 PM
You could have the casting time required scale based on the spell's level in relation to your class level, rather than solely on spell level. For example, when you first acquire access to a new spell level (at level 2n-1) the casting time is a full round action. When you can cast a spell two levels higher than that original spell level, the lower spell level's casting time is reduced to a standard action. See the more explicit example below for clarification, as I don't think I made that very clear.

So a 9th level wizard can cast fourth and fifth level spells as full round actions, but he can cast third and lower level spells as a standard action. It doesn't offer the same extremes the original variant had, but it's a little more user-friendly.

Anonymouswizard
2010-02-06, 05:10 AM
You could have the casting time required scale based on the spell's level in relation to your class level, rather than solely on spell level. For example, when you first acquire access to a new spell level (at level 2n-1) the casting time is a full round action. When you can cast a spell two levels higher than that original spell level, the lower spell level's casting time is reduced to a standard action. See the more explicit example below for clarification, as I don't think I made that very clear.

So a 9th level wizard can cast fourth and fifth level spells as full round actions, but he can cast third and lower level spells as a standard action. It doesn't offer the same extremes the original variant had, but it's a little more user-friendly.

Non-user friendly?

Jota
2010-02-06, 11:32 AM
Non-user friendly?

Yes, I was implying that the original wasn't user-friendly, so your question means what exactly?

Melayl
2010-02-06, 01:05 PM
I rather like the idea. Then again, I rather like the idea of restricting a caster's power, too. I always thought that casting such powerful spells in 6 seconds or less was quite unrealistic (you know what I mean).