Canceling a 2-round spell

[Paul Zagieboylo]

The Secrets of Magic spells horizon thunder sphere and inner radiance torrent let you charge up your blast Mega Man X-style for up to two rounds for a bigger effect. This is pretty cool and the druid in my current game is really enjoying it.

My question is: what happens if, after the first round of charging up, you just don't need that bigger effect anymore? Particularly for horizon thunder sphere, if none of your remaining enemies are in range of each other (perhaps because your fighter just minced three of them in one round), so you have no use for the emanation. Can you still just zap the lesser version? What kind of action does it take?

My initial ruling would be to allow my druid to fire the 3-action version as his first action in round 2 (spending 4 total actions on it) and do something else with his other two actions. Is this reasonable? Too generous? Too punishing?

[Blave]

It's not really covered in the rules. I think your idea of spending one action on the second turn to get the 3-action version is solid. It's still a 1-action "tax" so he wouldn't just get to "wait and seee" for free.

[Claxon]

I think you're ruling is right.

The rules don't cover what happens if on your next turn you decide "I don't really need to spend another 3 actions on this". I would similarly rule you have to spend 1 more action and the spell acts as though it was the 3 action version.

Not spending any more actions would be too generous to have an effect other than "the spell does nothing and basically cancelled".

But forcing them to spend all 3 actions is a little too punishing.

However, the rules are incomplete on what happens in between so we have to make up our own.

[breithauptclan]

Claxon wrote:

Not spending any more actions would be too generous to have an effect other than "the spell does nothing and basically cancelled".

Not necessarily. There is the time cost. If you only spend the three actions on your first turn, the effect would happen immediately. Which could end up dropping an enemy. If you don't finish casting the spell at that point, that enemy is still actively battling for at least one more round even if you are allowed to finish the 3-action casting as a free action at the start of your next turn.

But I do also like the idea of spending one action on your second turn better.

[Paul Zagieboylo]

I figured that you needed to spend an action on the second round mostly to avoid the spectacle of a non-action that increases the multiple attack penalty (which horizon thunder sphere does). Thanks for reassuring me!

[Thezzaruz]

Paul Zagieboylo wrote:

My initial ruling would be to allow my druid to fire the 3-action version as his first action in round 2 (spending 4 total actions on it) and do something else with his other two actions. Is this reasonable? Too generous? Too punishing?

I'd say that it is generous (but possibly not too generous) because I see nothing in the spell descriptions that would allow for it.

And I don't see why people think it isn't covered in the rules. The rules say you need to finish an action/activity on the turn you start it, so you need specific text to get around that (like for the Ready action). These spells gives the specific option of getting around it by doing 3+3 actions, not 3+1 or 3+2 and thus you can't. It might be boring and/or restrictive but it's clearly covered by the rules.

[Claxon]

Thezzaruz wrote:

Paul Zagieboylo wrote:

My initial ruling would be to allow my druid to fire the 3-action version as his first action in round 2 (spending 4 total actions on it) and do something else with his other two actions. Is this reasonable? Too generous? Too punishing?

I'd say that it is generous (but possibly not too generous) because I see nothing in the spell descriptions that would allow for it.

And I don't see why people think it isn't covered in the rules. The rules say you need to finish an action/activity on the turn you start it, so you need specific text to get around that (like for the Ready action). These spells gives the specific option of getting around it by doing 3+3 actions, not 3+1 or 3+2 and thus you can't. It might be boring and/or restrictive but it's clearly covered by the rules.

I go ahead and disagree and throw out an example of you somehow get the slowed 1 condition between the end of your first turn and start of your second. You no longer have 3 actions to give. What happens?

At the worst case, abandoning the spell for no effect should always be an option. However, with 3 actions already spent giving no effect feels to bad to be true.

I think the balanced option is spending 1 more action to get the 3 action effect.

[Guntermench]

Quote:

What happens?

It's a free action to cry.

[Thezzaruz]

Claxon wrote:

I go ahead and disagree and throw out an example of you somehow get the slowed 1 condition between the end of your first turn and start of your second. You no longer have 3 actions to give. What happens?

At the worst case, abandoning the spell for no effect should always be an option. However, with 3 actions already spent giving no effect feels to bad to be true.

I think the balanced option is spending 1 more action to get the 3 action effect.

What happens? The player is SooL, that's what happens.

There are AoO's that disrupt spellcasting/other actions or you could Ready an action but get hit by a stun (or similar) effect before your trigger. Losing actions due to an effect that you didn't know of/expected when you started your action is hardly unheard of, it is part of the game. The player chose to commit to a 6 action cost because he wanted a big bang from a 1st/2nd level spell slot but something happened that made the big bang less appealing, it's a risk you take.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it would be completely bonkers to allow the player to do a 3+1 to get some effect of his spell. I'm just saying that that isn't an option that the spell (or rules) gives as written. DM's can add it if they want to.

[Claxon]

So then you agree that at the very least, the player isn't obligated to spend 3 additional actions?

That's a valid interpretation, and probably the most RAW one.

However, I think it personally falls under "too bad to be true" that the only options are either spend 3 more actions or lose the spell effect, and the rules do tell us that things that "too good (or bad) to be true" shouldn't be run that way.

[Castilliano]

While I understand the disappointment issue, I also dislike how one could (perhaps intentionally) do the 3+1 then cast a normal spell afterward so that both those spells hit in immediate succession. This tactic would be useful only against some types of enemies, but they exist and this includes most adventuring parties.
So yeah, I think I'd have to go with it being a gamble and the spell might be forfeit. This would be what I'd expect as a player. If I'm GMing a looser/kinder game maybe I'd allow 3+2 or a one-time only 3+1, but I doubt the situation will arise much if at all.

Maybe charge a Hero Point? Hmm.

[Guntermench]

Let's not forget this situation can also be avoided by the GM just not doing something that would cause said player to lose actions if you're that beat up about it.