No this thread is not about spelling! :D Rather, I want to share some thoughts about spells before the Spell Forum opens and I would like to invite others to do so too.
I want to talk first about enhancement/buff spells:
Spells that enhance the party, often referred to as ‘buff-spells’, have very short durations. At the same time, the 5-minute adventuring day is a problem for many groups. Wouldn’t it be logical to, therefore, simply extend the duration of these spells substantially? I would say change it to 10 mintues or 1 hour per level (or maybe even longer durations), rather than 1 round or 1 minute per level. This would provide less incentive for the party to rest and more to carry on with adventuring. I don’t foresee any game-breaking problems that this would engender, after all, durations of some spells used to be longer in past editions.
The longer durations would apply to the various ability-score enhancing spells and other spells that enhance the party, such as perhaps bless et al (though not necessarily all such spells).
|
The big issue I have with 'buffs' is that the party doesn't always get to initiate combat, and doesn't often know the *exact round* that combat will begin, making buffs that take one standard action to cast and then last one round per level situationally useful at best (and, primarily rewarding to powergamer sorts who use tactics like scry-and-die to micromanage exactly when and where combat occurs, which, IMO, is the *last* group of people who need more useful spells...).
Very short duration buffs, intended to function for a single combat (Shield, Mirror Image, Bull's Strength), should, IMO, be swift actions to cast, encouraging their casting *during* combat. Having them all last a minute would allow them to function throughout the average combat, but almost never be available for a second combat. 1 round / level buffs are, IMO, less useful, as they are crap at the lower levels (Ooh, I blew a second level spell slot to be blurry for 3 rounds, when I could have cast Glitterdust and been effectively invisible!), and have more duration than is needed at the higher levels (Ooh, I'm now blurry for an extra 16 rounds after the encounter ends! Let me run around and make everyone dizzy with my blurry-after-image-art.).
Buffs that last hours should mainly just include stuff like water breathing (since 1 round / level of water breathing is just silly).
If a buff is intended to be usable in multiple combats throughout the day (such as 3.0 Bull's Strength, it should just last 8-12 hours or so and be done with it). Mark off a 2nd level spell slot and have +4 strength for the adventuring day. BAM. Durations in the minutes per level, 10 minutes per level or hours per level ranges are, IMO, a huge pain in the @$$.
I think this topic should generally wait for the Spells playtesting.
However two notes:
Ability score enhancing spells are short duration because otherwise there is rarely any point in purchasing ability score items.
Universal 1 minute spells would be a hindrance, as not all spells are for combat, and not all combats last less than a minute (chases, etc.) Bull Strength for instance can be useful for helping a group scale a mountain, clear a collapsed tunnel, etc.
I'll agree though that 1st and 2nd level spells should probably not have 1 round/level durations, unless they are truly intended to be extremely short durations. 1 minute instead seems reasonable. At 3rd level though the duration is long enough, and should scale. If there's extra rounds at the end, who cares?
|
No this thread is not about spelling! :D Rather, I want to share some thoughts about spells before the Spell Forum opens and I would like to invite others to do so too.
I want to talk first about enhancement/buff spells:
Spells that enhance the party, often referred to as ‘buff-spells’, have very short durations. At the same time, the 5-minute adventuring day is a problem for many groups. Wouldn’t it be logical to, therefore, simply extend the duration of these spells substantially? I would say change it to 10 mintues or 1 hour per level (or maybe even longer durations), rather than 1 round or 1 minute per level. This would provide less incentive for the party to rest and more to carry on with adventuring. I don’t foresee any game-breaking problems that this would engender, after all, durations of some spells used to be longer in past editions.
The longer durations would apply to the various ability-score enhancing spells and other spells that enhance the party, such as perhaps bless et al (though not necessarily all such spells).
I have seen similar issues with "Buff" Spells. I can concur with the longer durations on stat buffs.
What I would like to see is a new mechanics that allow most spells to be “swifted”. The various splatbooks in 3.5 (expended in the spell compendium) presented swift version of many spells that ended up lasting only 1 round compared to their 1rnd/caster level bros.
Now I do not think that all the spells should be bumped to min/level, but those which are, are some who might need the bump, should have an alternate casting formula (same spell prepared and known) that can be cast as a swift action and only count as rnd/level for the duration.
That would help the action economy for casters at low level.
Having stat enhancing spells that last hours/level was a broken mechanics in 3.0. Especially since it was a variable stat increase back then. “Rolled a one on your bull’s strength? Cast it again you might get lucky!!” That was plain stupid.
And, of course, it renders stat increasing items of less than +6 obsolete for a mere spell slot per day. Nah, those should stay limited in duration.
Ability score enhancing spells are short duration because otherwise there is rarely any point in purchasing ability score items.
Having stat enhancing spells that last hours/level was a broken mechanics in 3.0 ... it renders stat increasing items of less than +6 obsolete for a mere spell slot per day. Nah, those should stay limited in duration.
Anyone who has ever played a Wizard or Sorcerer should be aware that there is never any such thing as a "mere" spell slot. These things are valuable. Just because you can use them to buff yourself and your party does not make them better than an item for that purpose. Especially at low levels.
I like the idea of reducing buff spells to a swift action to allow buffing in combat, perhaps at the expense of duration. This is especially important for fighter/mages who need their buffs up and running before entering combat.
|
|
Buff magics in general need to be looked at long and hard. They work ok for a team player who uses them wisely but for their cost vs other magics there isn't much incentive to add them to the daily pool. Most of my players see them as useful when they build items and little else.
Some "classes" of magic need the treatment polymorph got in PRPG Beta. Divinations need rehshed in general and Teleportation effects need more hard and fast rules, but that is a pet peeve of mine.
One thing about spells that always bugged me is how area effect spells are adjudicated. I was reading another thread lamenting the weakness of the Evoker and it reminded me of one of my long standing annoyances with D&D. Why doesn't a bigger critter inside a fireball take more damage then a medium creature?
Likewise Magic Weapon could be made enchantment as it alters a weapon on a mystic level but not physically. Transmutation would govern things that alter physical properties or change forces or physics. A spell that hardens a sword or grants it the flaming quality would be Transmutation while a spell that imbued a sword with the ability to strike incorporeal targets could be enchantment.
I agree wholeheartedly. There are some spells that should rightly be considered as belonging to 2 schools. Can't think off top of my head or I'd give a few examples.
Long-duration spells replacing items does not worry me in the slightest - it is one spell per person per boost... that is a fair sacrifice for the day. Besides, I don't allow my player's to have their characters simply 'purchase' magic items, so reducing reliance on magic items is a good thing in my book.
The big issue I have with 'buffs' is that the party doesn't always get to initiate combat, and doesn't often know the *exact round* that combat will begin, making buffs that take one standard action to cast and then last one round per level situationally useful at best (and, primarily rewarding to powergamer sorts who use tactics like scry-and-die to micromanage exactly when and where combat occurs, which, IMO, is the *last* group of people who need more useful spells...).
That's another argument in favor of longer-duration spells.
Buffs that last hours should mainly just include stuff like water breathing (since 1 round / level of water breathing is just silly).
Sure, water breathing should also last hours per level - no argument there.
If a buff is intended to be usable in multiple combats throughout the day (such as 3.0 Bull's Strength, it should just last 8-12 hours or so and be done with it). Mark off a 2nd level spell slot and have +4 strength for the adventuring day. BAM. Durations in the minutes per level, 10 minutes per level or hours per level ranges are, IMO, a huge pain in the @$$.
I like having spell durations affected by level and would be pretty angry to see that go. Hours per level spells are effectively 'last whole adventuring day' spells, considering that adventuring days are not all that long, and it is easy to handwave them as such if you so desire, but I like the extra level of precision for when I want/need it. Besides, I lose arbitrary non-specific/wishy-washy units of time (encounter, milestone, adventuring day) having an affect on durations - that was one of major dealbreakers for me in the 4th edition.
|
|
There are some spells that should rightly be considered as belonging to 2 schools. Can't think off top of my head or I'd give a few examples.
Oh heck, schools are a massive kludge.
The entire school of necromancy is just made up of 'scary gross theme' spells from other schools.
Call up forces from the positive energy plane? Conjuration. Call up a wall of stone? Conjuration. Call up a creature from the elemental planes? Conjuration. Call up forces from the negative energy plane? Necromancy.
Make someone happy? Enchantment. Make someone sad? Enchantment. Make someone angry? Enchantment. Make someone scared? Necromancy! Yes, that's right, your mind-manipulating specialist Enchanter Thrallherd who intends to dominate the King and rule from behind the throne *can't spook a schoolchild* because he took Necromancy as an opposition school. [Nelson Muntz] HA HA! [/Nelson Muntz]
Animate a table? Transmutation. Animate fire? Transmutation. Animate a golem stitched together from corpses you robbed from the graveyard? Transmutation. Animate a single corpse? Necromancy.
Illusion is no better.
Create light? Evocation. Create darkness? Evocation. Create sound? Evocation. Create an image out of light? Illusion.
Call up positive energy? Conjuration. Call up forces from the plane of Shadow? Illusion.
Confuse someone? Enchantment. Enrage someone? Enchantment. Wrack someone with despair? Enchantment. Hypnotise someone? Illusion.
Both Illusion and Necromancy are 'theme schools,' while the other six are 'schools of affect.' It's like six of the schools are verbs, while the other two are adjectives...
[walks off singing 'conjunction junction']
There are some spells that should rightly be considered as belonging to 2 schools. Can't think off top of my head or I'd give a few examples.
Oh heck, schools are a massive kludge.
The entire school of necromancy is just made up of 'scary gross theme' spells from other schools [...]
Illusion is no better. [...]
Both Illusion and Necromancy are 'theme schools,' while the other six are 'schools of affect.' It's like six of the schools are verbs, while the other two are adjectives...
[walks off singing 'conjunction junction']
Not so fast, the art of making an intangible image in immitation of something real is illusion. Yes, the "Plane of Shadow" is bunkum.
As I recall, Fear was classified as Illusion pre-d20. Now it is Necromancy. It really should be both. One can instill fear by impressing upon the mind a sense of dread which is illusory (or phantasmal if that's the correct term). One can also instill fear by radiating necromantic ickiness (if that's the correct term).
I agree with you both, Set and Kalyth, that the schools are not conceptually perfect. Illusion, for example, could be conceptually subsumed into Evocation and thus also give the underpowered Evocation school a rather useful boost. Abjuration could also perhaps be abolished or reworked. Necromancy, is a conceptually viable school on its own, I think, dealing with the manipulation of life/unlife-energy.
That said, the culling of schools, is simply not going to happen. It is too large a change for the Pathfinder RPG - just look at how many are already decrying that the Pathfinder RPG has moved too far away from 3.5E - imagine what would happen if we changed the schools.
Moving some spells from school to school, however, might be viable. Just to mention one example of the spells you discussed, I definitely agree that Fear should be in the Enchantment school.
|
|
Moving some spells from school to school, however, might be viable. Just to mention one example of the spells you discussed, I definitely agree that Fear should be in the Enchantment school.
Fear is the worst offender, IMO. I could totally get behind an Illusion spell that created a scary image that could frighten people, or a Divination spell that revealed scary information to frighten people, or a Conjuration spell that summoned up something that yelled booga-booga and scared people, or a Necromancy spell that, uh, did something involving completely neutral non-mind-affecting negative energy that for some inexplicable reason scared someone who had no idea what it was..., but Fear itself, and spells like Cause Fear and Scare, should be Enchantment all the way.
They are the very definition of mind-affecting spells! They are *totally* Enchantment spells.
And if we have to have an Abjuration school, Mage Armor belongs in it. Putting it in Conjuration makes zero sense. Evocation would make more sense (since that's where the other Force spells got arbitrarily dumped), but really, it's 'natural home' home should be Abjuration.
I kinda gave up on the schools nonsense in 2nd edition. Players Options: Spells & Magic (and Tome of Magic before it) came out with some pretty cool breakdowns, with schools of Wild Magic and Dimensional Magic and Alchemy and Elementalism, that were imaginative, and just reinforced how arbitrary the whole 'one school only' classification scheme ended up becoming, with spells being shuffled off to completely inappropriate schools to 'flesh them out' or 'because Transmutation already had too many!' or whatever.
Moving some spells from school to school, however, might be viable. Just to mention one example of the spells you discussed, I definitely agree that Fear should be in the Enchantment school.Fear is the worst offender, IMO. I could totally get behind an Illusion spell that created a scary image that could frighten people, or a Divination spell that revealed scary information to frighten people, or a Conjuration spell that summoned up something that yelled booga-booga and scared people, or a Necromancy spell that, uh, did something involving completely neutral non-mind-affecting negative energy that for some inexplicable reason scared someone who had no idea what it was..., but Fear itself, and spells like Cause Fear and Scare, should be Enchantment all the way.
They are the very definition of mind-affecting spells! They are *totally* Enchantment spells.
We are in complete agreement on this. Fear is a quintessential mind-effecting spell and thus should be in the Enchantment school and so should all the associated spells (Cause Fear, etc.). Other schools might achieve similar effects as you describe.
And if we have to have an Abjuration school, Mage Armor belongs in it. Putting it in Conjuration makes zero sense. Evocation would make more sense (since that's where the other Force spells got arbitrarily dumped), but really, it's 'natural home' home should be Abjuration.
Again, I cannot but agree. Abjuration school is a bit strange, but if it must exist, Mage Armor should be right in the middle of it.
The key difference between Illusion and Enchantment is that Enchantment directly effects the mind, introducing an element of control from the caster upon the target.
Illusion creates a sensory input, primarily audio-visual (possibly emotive rather than sensory, in the case of 1e Fear), and then the creature reacts "naturally" to the input (or saves, and recognizes it as unreal).
So while a sensory input has an effect upon the mind, it is not a direct manipulation of the mind.
The key difference between Illusion and Enchantment is that Enchantment directly effects the mind, introducing an element of control from the caster upon the target.
Illusion creates a sensory input, primarily audio-visual (possibly emotive rather than sensory, in the case of 1e Fear), and then the creature reacts "naturally" to the input (or saves, and recognizes it as unreal).
So while a sensory input has an effect upon the mind, it is not a direct manipulation of the mind.
Sure, I understand that, but the point is that those sensory inputs are dependent on the creation and manipulation of various energues: light, sound, force... which is precisely what the school of Evocation is supposed to be all about.
In the end, this is more a philosophical debate about schools and their consistency - schools are not going to change - they have a lot of history. The Illusion school is thematically archetypal and has a deep D&D history, so it's surely not going away. But individual spells can perhaps be shifted among the schools to make them conceptually more sound. As such, Fear belongs squarely in the Enchantment school, as do other spells that manipulate emotions directly. On the other hand, a spell that would create the illusion of a phantom causing fear, would belong in the Illusion school.
Sure, I understand that, but the point is that those sensory inputs are dependent on the creation and manipulation of various energues: light, sound, force... which is precisely what the school of Evocation is supposed to be all about.
Evocation is manifesting real energies or forces that physically cut, burn, zap, etc. If you were unconscious they would effect you. Illusion only has power by tricking the mind into believing it to be real. If you were unconscious they would not effect you.
In exchange, the Illusion has flexibility. Mimic a fireball one time, a lightening bolt another time.
Invisibility is another great example. Is it an illusion (as listed), or a mind-affecting enchantment, or does it transmute the subject to physically allow light to pass through the occupied space without interaction?