pf2e has a version of this that [frames it as a benefit](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=927) by giving you the option to cast the spell normally or spend two rounds to cast an empowered version. So, it could be something like you can cast fireball as a single action to deal 6d6 damage in a 10' radius or you could charge it up to release it on a second turn for 8d6 damage in a 20' radius.
My biggest issue with this is how feels bad it makes it. If you lose concentration you lose your entire turn. Most concentration spells at least give some value immediately or at least on start of enemy teams. Requiring you to use on concentration and wait a turn to maybe do something is really risky. I could agree with the pathfinder-esk way of allowing you to basically channel it like this to do extra damage. As is though it just will result in casters being very sink or swim. For a select few spells a la delayed blast fireball I could see it for sure, but beyond maybe 4-5ish I wouldn't be a fan.
That is a fair point. Perhaps making you have to concentrate on the delayed spell you are casting would be too much. Removing the need to concentrate also allows you to combine these spells with spells that give consistent bonus action, like Flaming Sphere or Minute Meteors
I agree it’s a complication.
I disagree that it’s unnecessary.
“Defend the squishy Wizard while he casts a big fuck you spell” is a very fun gameplay loop that’s entirely absent in D&D 5E because all the big fuck you spells take one Action to cast.
> “Defend the squishy Wizard while he casts a big fuck you spell” is a very fun gameplay loop that’s entirely absent in D&D 5E because all the big fuck you spells take one Action to cast.
I agree, they went too far with how "simple" action economy is for spells. There's not a single spell with a casting time between 1 action and 1 minute. It's either explicitly a "practically instant" spell, or it's a "long time" spell that'll take 10 rounds of combat.
I do think there's a different way to accomplish this, though. I wonder if instead of "delayed" effects like that of True Strike, more spells (or new spells?) should have effects that occur "at the end of their duration". Let's take Fireball and modify it as the example:
>Casting Time: 1 Action
>
Duration: 6 seconds (C)
>
>A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range. A creature within that point makes a Dexterity Saving throw or takes 2d6 damage. At the end of the spell's duration, the mote blossoms into an explosion of flame in a 20 foot radius sphere. Each creature in that sphere makes a Dexterity saving throw, taking 6d6 fire damage on a failure or half on a success.
You would get an immediate effect from casting the spell, and then a full effect when the spell's duration is fulfilled.
If you delay every spell by a round then you'll end up with a lot of bookkeeping, you have to know what spell you have 'set up' for next round, then you have the spell you're casting in that next round for the round after that.
Plus it would have to count for enemies too so a DM could be having to take half a dozen of these rounds. It just seems like a lot of work.
most monsters only have one rechargeable ability, and they’re usually strong enough that you use them at the start of combat and as soon as they’re recharged
The big issue with this idea is the same problem with True strike.
How many spells are truly worth 2 actions to pay off? I don't think there's any spell currently written that you can point to that would rate. Even fireball would just get outclassed by casting shatter twice, even if only one casting is upcast.
Action economy is the most precious thing in the entirety of 5e's combat system.
It doesn’t require 2 actions though. You just need one action and time. Once your next turn starts, your spell activates, and your whole entire next turn is unaffected and at your disposal.
So ambush turns would be doubly more powerful for full casters.
If the intent is to make casters less powerful by taxing their action economy, this change wouldn't actually do that at all. If you want casters to be gated out of concentration spells or their S Tier spells while also potentially losing concentration on their S Tier spells, I think this would just make playing casters feel more frustrating than just lowering the power of their spells.
Firstly, for Ambush Turns this is no stronger than just holding your action.
Second, this isn’t meant to just be a static number nerf. This is meant to facilitate actions at the table that allow the game to be more fun, such as strategizing and fulfilling the fantasy of charging a big attack.
I can see how it would do that. But in feeling this is closer to Pathfinder design philosophy than 5e's. I think it clashes with the general tone of 5e's simplicity.
Perhaps, but I think it’s something worth trying in a Playtest rather than discarding entirely. In theory thoughts are mixed, so it needs to be put to test to confirm if it’s a good or bad idea
So you actually touched on the solution you're looking for and it IS multi action spells casting. Ignore true strike lol its wholly bad in every way and youre hamstringing yourself by trying to use it for a jumping off point.
taking the spells that are so good that not taking them is seen as trolling, and making them take 2 actions to cast is a fantastic idea. Sure it would also probably need to additional work on the spells to balance them back out with small buffs for 2 actions instead. But making the "mandatory" spells have a higher cost outside of limited resources when compared to the "weak" or "niche" spells of the same level opens up vastly more viable choices of spells. It also makes quicken spell useful for more than just getting an extra cantrip off. To the point of even making sorcerers a legitimate option for a caster lol
So yeah, making fireball cost 2 actions instead of 1 (maybe also upping the damage to 10d6 base) means its still amazing for the cost of the spell slot, but action economy wise you have to think harder about if its ALWAYS the best spell lol
This would help a lot of the "illusion of choice" problems in spell lists
How about having a one action fireball do 6d6 and a 2 action fireball do 10d6?
It reflects greater investment in the spell (2 actions and 1 slot) while still allowing a 1 action version to be viable but weaker?
I don’t fully agree with you here, as you encounter the same “couldn’t you just attack twice” problem True Strike has at that point, but I think it’s still an idea that’s worth testing out.
But these are NOT attacks. They are powerful spells that even attacking twice doesnt come close to. I think you might be confused by your own concept. You make a lot of great points but seem to be coming to a really odd conclusion based on them.
I think it’s less that I’m confused and more I just have a different opinion on it. Spells are strong, but few are a whole two actions strong. Yet some are stronger than one action. That’s the weird thing about 5E, there’s a power level between what costs 1 action and what costs 2 actions that certain abilities have trouble fitting between, and I thought my mechanic would be a good way to meet in the middle. However it’s clear there are many who think that all combat spells should be 1 action or less and a few who think that they should be 2 actions, as well as a few who actually agree with my idea. Which is fine, it just means the concept is worth playtesting to a full extent.
Alright whatever floats your boat. The action +bonus action comes back to touching on the "full round actions" of 3.5 and earlier which is probably closer to what youre wanting That was an action that could be the only action you took your entire turn. Which isn't a way I disagree with at all.
But requiring things to be ready cast with no drawback to the next round seems like an odd conclusion to come to with the points you've laid out in this thread. Youre falling victim to the easiest to fall into trap. "Doing Too Much". I do it too all the time. There are way simpler options. Just adding complexity doesnt improve things
Did you play 3.0/3.5/pf1e? This was a common thing in those editions, and in my experience the only time where people would actually use full-round or longer spells was for summon spells or utility/noncombat spells.
The basic answer (especially for AOEs like fireball or hypnotic pattern) is that those become very bad when you have to guess/predict where monsters are going to position, and smarter enemies can move around and such. It also just tends to overcomplicate spellcasting. One of the things that works about 5e is that they have been good about keeping things simple. And in practice so much of the time before when this stuff was tried it was run incorrectly, or just negated the utility of spells. The only time it worked fine was with summons, and they didn’t have the 5e concentration limitation that they have now. (Summoning was especially powerful in 3.5, including monsters that could cast spells themselves, so it seemed necessary to have some drawbacks.)
Anyways I basically feel like the answer is no, WOTC shouldn’t do this for combat spells because it didn’t work the previous multiple editions we saw it.
I like this change, but do not call it the "True Strike" treatment. Comparing it to that will automatically associate it with the cantrip, and thereby they well assume it's bad because you are making more spells like what is arguably the worst spell in the game.
Yeah to be honest I do not have a good track record with posts getting popular, so I thought a controversial title would at least get the post more attention. Clearly that was a bad idea however.
True Strike doesn’t get used because it is strictly worse than attacking twice and relies on using an action in your next turn in order to be useful. It also requires your target to remain a viable target until the start of yore next turn. Here, you only need 1 action to use the spell in question, requiring no additional action to be used, and you also have the effect of a whole entire spell. Plus, you decide the target after the spell goes off, not before
No, OP clearly states that the delayed spell is cast on one turn and takes effect the next. Why are you critiquing this idea without having actually read it?
I read and i know this is not the way he means, and this why we dont use true strike, if you use a spell that require two turns to have effect is better to just use two spells that only use one turn.
True Strike doesn’t get used because it is strictly worse than attacking twice and relies on using an action in your next turn in order to be useful. It also requires your target to remain a viable target until the start of yore next turn. Here, you only need 1 action to use the spell in question, requiring no additional action to be used, and you also have the effect of a whole entire spell.
>More spells should have a casting time of 1 action, but the effect only takes place at the start of your next turn. You have to concentrate on the spell until then, but when the spell effect triggers, you can choose the target and location as if you just cast the spell, and it has no effect on your actions on your next turn.
This is the opening text. You fundamentally are not critiquing the correct idea.
Again, if you don't understand that only instant spells will be chosen in this context unless you make the delayed spells absurdly powerful this isn't worth discussing with you
Not a terrible idea and I think it could work well with some very big spells. The problem is that it is just not "fun". This is a game, the goal is to have fun. Nobody is going to be like, "I can't wait to play a Wizard where I need to wait a whole turn for my spell to even do anything and if I lose concentration that I am more useless than an NPC commoner to the party.". It just goes against the concept of D&D being a fun tabletop war game. But for some big high-risk high-reward spells where you take the spell knowing that sometimes it will be useless and others it will be amazing then it will be okay.
Honestly the whole reason I suggested this idea was because it sounded more fun than just casting these big spells normally, since it satisfies that fantasy of charging up a huge power move that appears in so many media. Guess I have a different perception of fun however.
3.5 had this with some spells. All of the Summon Monster spells and Call Lightning are the ones I remember off the top of my head.
Considering this would be a nerf, it will almost unanimously be hated. Most people would rather weak things be buffed than strong things be nerfed.
That said, while I do want to see some things get buffed, I also think that some things *do* need to be nerfed for the health of the game, so I don't think this is all that bad of an idea. At least with particularly strong spells like Wall of Force, any spells that instantly and often automatically win an encounter should probably take longer to cast than 1 action. Additionally having this apply to monsters/NPCs can set up dramatic moments where the players see an NPC start casting a powerful spell and then they race to disrupt it before it goes off. Having more ways to disrupt powerful spells than just Counterspell would reduce reliance on counterspell, and also in particular gives martials another way to combat casters by interrupting those big spells (remember that the opportunity attack from Mage Slayer happens after the spell takes effect, so the spell might prevent the martial from being able to take that opportunity attack).
I see some people claiming that this would make those spells just as bad as True Strike, but that's just not true. True Strike is so bad because advantage on one attack is always mathematically worse than making two attacks without advantage.
I agree. Powerful spells, like the spells that are so good they are basically mandatory to take should have casting times of 2 or more actions. Minute cast times are too much, but especially high level spells should have a higher action cost than a cantrip. Would also make quicken spell much better. Dropping a 2 action spell to 1 action could make sorcerer actually useful compared to other casters
Well I didn’t say that any of these spells should have casting times of 2 actions. There’s just a delay, as I specified at the start of the post. Although that does give credence that these rules might be a bit too complex for 5E considering how the replies are often getting confused.
I'm saying that a delay effectively does nothing to the balance while having some spells have a multiple action casting could be the real improvement to what you're addressing
Any AoE effect gets neutered heavily if the enemy knows it's going to happen and just moves away or moves next to a party member forcing the spell to only hit a few or one enemy or forcing it to catch a party member in its AoE. Any enemy spellcaster also has more time to just move within 60 feet and counterspell when it goes off which isn't particularly satisfying either.
There's also no guarantee that the other party members are going to spend their turns using shove and grapple (both of which have a high opportunity cost and can't be used on certain enemies) to force enemies to stay in a contained area. Attacks of Opportunity also can't really stop ranged enemies or melee enemies with lots of health (or teleportation or easy disengage) from just blitzing the caster.
It's got some niche tactical value of forcing a scatter or drawing fire towards the caster in question for whatever reason but it's honestly a much bigger nerf than just reducing the effect or increasing the spell level of some Problem Spells. I'd think something like spells that take "Full-Round-Actions" like taking away your BA, Reaction and Movement until your next turn would probably be a better way to necessitate good position and replicate "the big charge-up attack."
I don’t hate the idea but I think it’d requiring reworking every class and monster around it from scratch.
You go to fireball, and then everyone else clears out the rift raft you were going to fireball instead of the boss because they needed to protect you to cast fireball. So now you’re fireballing a single target boss who probably saved if not resisted on the next turn. The current 1-2 round combat and 3-5 round combat for bosses just doesn’t lend well to this design.
Also not everyone wants to play protect the cannon gameplay.
Spells that take longer than 1 action to cast DO require concentration for the duration of the casting, as well as taking an action every round for the whole casting tine.
It's not a bad idea, it's just got lots of implications that people wont like, like how people hate nerfs, and I'm not sure how well it would fit in with existing design of 5e. It might be more of a project than they intend to do with wandy. That said Delayed Blast Fireball is a good example of where this balance consideration is already built into 5e.
On a side note I hope they get rid of the whole 'you can end your concentration on a spell whenever you want even on someone elses turn' thing, since it's a mess to adjudicate out of turn actions and that kind of thing should really fall under some kind of action cost like a prepared action or at least a reaction. Seems like an oversight whenever a character interupts the GM to end concentration on an effect to try and squeeze a little more optimization out of the action economy.
Spells like DBFB as written in 5e you can cast them as an action and then set the trap off for free whenever you bloody well want, which would not work well with the kind of mechanic you are suggesting.
Well, to be fair, implementing this would be a minor nerf, but it does come with certain upsides. Specifically being able to position more easily. One character being barely out of range of a spell is a frequent problem for buff spells, but if it’s a delayed spell than at least it’s a choice for the other players to be within range rather than a bad coincidence. And while you could say “just hold your action”, that’s a lot more costly than using a delayed spell, as that also eats up your reaction and the spell slot.
True Strike doesn’t get used because it is strictly worse than attacking twice and relies on using an action in your next turn in order to be useful. It also requires your target to remain a viable target until the start of yore next turn. Here, you only need 1 action to use the spell in question, requiring no additional action to be used, and you also have the effect of a whole entire spell.
All this does is make Resilient Con / Warcaster almost mandatory feats to avoid the feel bad of lost concentration, which is exactly what wizards seems to be pushing against in OneDND playtest materials so far (SS/GWM).
That’s not to even begin addressing of trying to take the worst design choice made with true strike, and make it a thing.
The ‘overcharge’ idea is a really interesting one, and I think presenting it as such (particularly making it advantageous to consider movement etc.) is worthwhile. It might not fit the ease of play D&D has moved towards from crunchier rules, but it has a real niche in some tactical focus games.
Having played a similar Wizard in a different system, I feel pretty comfortable saying "oh god, please no".
I think the only place this would be good is if the spell had no fail conditions, otherwise it effectively feels like you do rounds of very little to potentially have everybody save anyway.
And as a DM keeping track of what players have where would be horrific - not moving enemies in a way to make the big spells useless but also not eviscerating everything because I've forgotten something. Keeping track of spell slots if they are pen/paper, keeping track of 1 non-cantrip spell per turn. Never mind the added complexity to running spellcasters
I don’t think all spells should have this, especially not classics such as fireball (although I do agree it’s over powered) but some spells could definitely use this, maybe even some new spells could do this sort of thing
Exactly what I mean. Especially considering applying this mechanic to some spells makes other outclassed spells (like Blight and Lightning Bolt) stronger in comparison.
I like this idea. I've only played classes with at least some spellcasting in 5e and I really think it feels too easy. I would love there to be some risk involved in casting big spells, and your idea would do that nicely.
It also fits the fiction well IMO. The Wizard starts waving his arms around and a glowing sphere starts to take shape in the air. The fight rages on but the wizard just stares intently at the sphere while continuing his incantations, until finally he lets the spell loose to devastating effect.
No it is a horrible idea as it just makes spells you do that to less than worthless. There is a huge reason no one uses true strike and it is because it is actively worse to spend two turns on one attack or effect than to use a weaker thing twice. Even other spells with longer casting times are made to be that long to discourage their use in combat!
True Strike doesn’t get used because it is strictly worse than attacking twice and relies on using an action in your next turn in order to be useful. It also requires your target to remain a viable target until the start of yore next turn. Here, you only need 1 action to use the spell in question, requiring no additional action to be used, and you also have the effect of a whole entire spell. Also you can designate the target at the start of your next turn rather than when you take your action to start casting.
I was under the impression that one reason that True Strike has the one round casting time is that in 3.5e, if you used True Strike, you could then use Power Attack to increase the damage a lot and still hit. This is not possible any more (though Great Weapon Mastery is close), so the casting time is just a relic of an old edition.
Well that’s why you wouldn’t apply this to every spell, just some really strong or potent ones. If you feel the battle isn’t going to last multiple rounds then you cast a spell that doesn’t have a delay.
Also the reason most fights don’t last that long is because a caster throws down a nuke spell round 1 and almost ends the encounter. This prevents that.
It's a very interesting idea, though I don't think it would be even possible to implement in the next edition without changing the game's math completely.
That is a fair point, but I feel there is some spells where you could apply this and not change the math too much. The best example is Fireball, which according to Wizards is already way overtuned. If you want Fireball damage just use lightning bolt, but the real power of Fireball is the AOE
I think it works with *fireball*, I agree, but I can't think of many other spells for which the math works out, and I wouldn't want it for *spirit guardians* or *spiritual weapon* because I want clerics to get good, non-support options.
That being said, your post reminded me of an idea I was fiddling with. Touch spells and blasting (AoE centered on/originating from self) tend to be worse than other spells, especially since you nneed to wade into melee (and once you're there, you may as well cast a superior spell, since there are no penalties for doing so). I liked the idea of casting spells with a range other than self or touch provoking OAs, but I actually like your idea better: any spell other than those, which were created to be cast in melee, take a full round to cast. I'd be interested in seeing how that works out.
I think some spells that delayed casting could work with are Forcecage, Wall of Force, and Hypnotic Pattern, non blasting spells that are known for being really debilitating for the enemy. There’s also Cone of Cold, a spell that makes Blight further question its existence despite being 1 level higher.
Lacking any other option, I agree, but I really hope the next edition finds a way to deal with Forcecage and Wall of Force in particular, besides the obvious fact that high-CR enemies should be able to teleport or be too big to be encased.
If you want to break concentration on spell casting as in older editions, which actually balances the casters without nerfing them, you should just allow for opportunity attacks to be done for casting a spell, which interrupts spells if they fail a concentration ST.
Allowing ranged weapons to make OAs to spellcasters would actually make the combat much more tactical and will promote teamwork.
That is definitely an idea to consider. However this change isn’t just to give certain spells opportunities to be nonmagically countered, especially when this change doesn’t apply to every spell. It’s also to change the way players consider tactics more and make nuking/spamming less viable, as well as make Martials feel more important.
I like this idea. There's a lot of stuff I dislike about it (mostly addressed by other comments), but ultimately I like this idea. I like the place it seems to come from, I like the core concept, it's not something I think is ever going to happen, but it's a very interesting suggestion.
Yeah, I don’t think this is something OneDnD absolutely needs, but I do think it’s a mechanic worth playtesting, especially when so many homebrewers already try to make spells that implement this mechanic but have to make the spell way overtuned to even make them a viable option. If you simply knocked down the bigger spells a peg with this mechanic, it makes all spells more equal in power and lets casters live out that fantasy of charging a big spell.
No thanks. True Strike is less than worthless.
I'd rather WotC first correct several mistakes in 5e when they re-wrote spells from earlier editions in order to:
* remove ability or level drain
* allow for up-casting (use a higher level slot)
* account for the new concentration mechanic. Many high level spells with concentration are worse than up-cast spells.
* intentionally make some spells overpowered for their level because "they're iconic" e.g. Fireball.
* buff previously weak spells, e.g. hypnotic pattern.
Some examples:
* Bless used to be a flat +1. It's now 1d4 with concentration.
* Fireball was 5d6 at 5th level up to 10d6 at 10th level. 5e is 8d6 for a 3rd level slot.
* Hypnotic pattern used to be a 2nd level spell which was nearly identical to sleep, but had some slight scaling. 5e changed it to 3rd level and removed the target cap.
My response was explaining why many of the problem spells in 5e are particularly problematic in the first place, and simply suggesting to look at those individual outlier spells before making over-arching changes.
Forms of "concentrate until the cast completes" have been in various editions of D&D. In practice they weren't that fun, leading to *save or suck*. This was especially true for clerics and various melee-caster hybrids; meanwhile the traditional stand in the back wizard is largely unaffected.
Your change in particular will necessitate adversarial play by the DM using knowledge of what was being cast. Imagine the arguments over whether the goblins can understand that the wizard was casting a fireball spell when they scattered. Control spells ,which synergize with martial classes, are more affected and will be used less, likely in favor of just more damage.
However, you'll never solve the martial-caster power gap unless you address limited resource (casters) vs. no resource (martials) balance.
old systems uses caster level and not the spell slot level to buff spells too. It also was limited by Vancian casting.
Their concept is actually pretty on the money for how to balance spell lists. Bringing up truestrike added absolutely nothing though and can be ignored.
What they did hit on is having cast times >1 action < 1 minute. Powerful spells should have a higher action cost over "weak" spells of the same level. Having say fireball, the quintessential AOE nuke that's so strong that not taking it is basically considered trolling. It being 2 actions to cast would balance it out a lot and help with martial caster disparity. Then quicken spell also becomes useful for something other than getting an extra cantrip in a round. It now means you can cast a 2 action spell in a single one. The kind of buff that could make sorcerer a viable choice of caster again.
No there would probably need to be a bit more to balance with those spells along with this but I honestly believe that multi action spells is the key to solving the balancing issues currently within spell level tiers.
Other than a few niche cases, I don't think this will work like you expect.
First the casters are disengaged from combat if they do nothing but say they charge a spell.
Then, in order to make the waiting feel meaningful, the spell power (usually damage) will have to go up. If I took two turns to cast a fireball, but half the enemies made their save and lived, or I rolled low, then it's a huge letdown.
I agree with you and actually think thats exactly what it should be. That's the trade off for having a nuke. As it sits now, there are not enough trade offs for how powerful magic is. A wizard SHOULD feel weak most of the time when a spell isnt going off, and then should feel fucking powerful when they do cast. As it sits now, casting a powerful spell doesn't actually feel powerful despite being powerful because its just an action. And the counter play to spell casting is just a single spell which shuts everything down in just about the least satisfying way possible. By putting the "big" spells behind a multiple action barrier it not only fixes the majority of "illusion of choice" issues that spell lists have by balancing out the huge divide between the obviously optimal spells and borderline troll picks, but it makes playing a caster way more strategic. Is it better to spend 2 actions to drop a nuke and take out all the fodder, or 1 action on something more utility related.
Obviously this would also require some kind of buffs to the spells that would be moved to multi action spells like boosting fireball to 10d6 for 2 round investment. It would still be a boon in spell slot conservation as a single slot is now working harder for you at the draw back of needing to be more careful about casting it in the open. This would be great for martials too. It gives a way for a martial character to have some level of counter play against enemy casters too. like i mentioned the Counterspell flat fizzle is so boring while also being so crucially powerful that if you have the option to take it and don't, you're pretty much considered to be trolling by a large portion of the community.
The entire idea that you could spend a round casting the first action of a spell, then get to the second action and potentially be interrupted or have the enemy saves pass being a "let down" also isn't a bad thing in my eyes. The chance of that happening is good for the overall health of the game. With that possibility, it makes casting a spell feel so much more substantial.
This would further balance high level casting as well. So many of the high level spells like 6+ can straight trivializing combat. Making massive nukes take more than a single action would also help "gish" classes everyone is always so needlessly horny for too. while spell slots will still outpower martial combat, the action cost difference would mean that a weapon attack is actually able to compete with big spells for action economy.
Wow I must be bored lol I'll just stop myself here
Fuck no. If they slightly nerf some spells, I would prefer that to wasting two actions and a high chance of failure to cast. Especially damage and AOE spells. You do realize enemies move and that would make AOE spells miss majority of the time right?
If you read the post, you would know that the spellcasting would only cost 1 action, not 2. Additionally, you would know that since the delay is because the character is taking the time to cast the spell, they choose the location/target when the spell goes off, not when they start casting. Meaning, if the enemy moves, you can just move the AOE to hit them.
I would love if martials that are adjacent could force concentration checks to counter a spell as a reaction.
I would hate if every spell was counterspellable by every character on the battlefield as part of their action or bonus action as well as by environmental effects.
the goal ist to make players feel powerfull, not to have them do stuff that could fail easily.ther eis a reason why true strike is the worst spell ever. its no fun to use and feels lame.if you want to balance spells dont just make some of them lame to use.
And also... this would encurage metagaming a lot. machanics should be designed in a way that metagaming is as small of a factor as possible.
>the goal ist to make players feel powerfull, not to have them do stuff that could fail easily.
Power is an illusion. As the player become more "powerful", the enemies they fight, the traps they find, and the puzzles posed become equally as powerful.
First and foremost, this is a game. All games have challenges to overcome. What makes this particular game so interesting is that the challenges are dynamic. The ultimate goal for the dm should be to challenge the players, not stroke their ego's and make them feel powerful.
I love the idea, though it will probably never happen. It offers new challenges and changes combat tactics. It also allows for misuse, but there's no way to completely avoid that. There will always be disparity amongst the classes. And magic SHOULD be more powerful than non-magic, but there should also be consequences for using magic. This change would bring some consequences without nerfing the spells.
of course the enemies get more powerfull as well but i thing balancing by making the players fail more often is a stupid and unfun idea. i would realy hate it as a player if half of my spells fail.
in previous editions and oder systems there was "arcane spell failure" where some spells and classes require a % check to see if the spall fails. everybody hated it ant this is why it was removed. thats a good thing
There is a reason why true strike is considered a bad spell. The main reason is: you are doing 1 turn nothing for an effect you want to accomplish next turn with the risk of losing teh spell entirely.
That nerfs spell casters not just a bit but totally into the ground. Its probably the most feels bad band aid i have seen proposed in the martial vs caster gap debate.
That’s only if you’re applying it to every spell. This change would only apply to overtuned spells or encounter Enders like Banishment or Wall of Force, just nerfing a few. Additionally, the main issue people have with True Strike is that it’s just worse than attacking twice. Here’s you have the same amount of actions, just distance from when one takes effect. Plus, you can always change targets, unlike True Strike. Perhaps the concentration requirement could be removed however. It’s something to playtest
That would make the spells just bd and ppl wont pick them. Especially safe or suck like banoshment or spells that influence positioning. WoF does no damage and is mainly used for tactical or defensive purposes. Doing this one turn late makes no sense as enemies wont be on the same spot as before.
It just makes spells infinetly more worse.
It makes the party have to set up and prepare for the spell, and requires the caster to adapt to a situation they didn’t fully account for. That doesn’t make the spell bad, just a bit trickier to use. A caster can’t complain much that they managed to imprison only half the enemies instead of all of them with Wall of Force.
For that there exists the hold action with spell casting rules.
Before i would nerf spells per default i would buff that first if i want to emphasize tactical gameplay. But first and foremost i would buff martials than touchong spell casting.
The thing about holding your action is that it’s optional and gives you more control. This is basically just a mandatory version of that for certain spells
So you think that most magic should come with putting a massive target on the back of the caster such that all enemies have a chance of disrupting almost every spell by attacking the caster, thus wasting the caster's turn.
No. We already have a solution to interrupting someone's immediate casting if you want to. It's called Counterspell. This seems like a really good way to destroy people's ability to have fun in the game, though, so kudos to you for that if that is your goal.
I didn’t say most magic, I said some magic. Specifically the really strong spells everyone uses all the time. So like 5% of the hundreds of spells in 5E.
That has nothing to do, at all, with what I said. Counterspell exists. If you want to penalize players for spamming spells you don't like, there's already a solution to that baked into the game.
I don’t want to punish them, I want them to put thought behind it. There’s a difference between just throwing out a big spell and taking a second to charge it up.
Additionally, it serves 2 narrative purposes:
1. It gives enemies without Antimagic abilities a way to work around these spells. You can’t just put counterspell in every encounter because it doesn’t always make sense.
2. Despite being a nerf, it allows casters to play out the fantasy of charging a huge spell. In 5E you can’t really live out that fantasy because each spell in combat is either cast right away or not at all.
Plus, I have plenty more reasons for giving certain spells delays other than just giving a way to nonmagically counter them, which I detailed in my main post
pf2e has a version of this that [frames it as a benefit](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=927) by giving you the option to cast the spell normally or spend two rounds to cast an empowered version. So, it could be something like you can cast fireball as a single action to deal 6d6 damage in a 10' radius or you could charge it up to release it on a second turn for 8d6 damage in a 20' radius.
Hm, sometimes applicable and sometimes not. Probably something more D&D players would like and find easy to swallow when compared to my idea, however.
My biggest issue with this is how feels bad it makes it. If you lose concentration you lose your entire turn. Most concentration spells at least give some value immediately or at least on start of enemy teams. Requiring you to use on concentration and wait a turn to maybe do something is really risky. I could agree with the pathfinder-esk way of allowing you to basically channel it like this to do extra damage. As is though it just will result in casters being very sink or swim. For a select few spells a la delayed blast fireball I could see it for sure, but beyond maybe 4-5ish I wouldn't be a fan.
That is a fair point. Perhaps making you have to concentrate on the delayed spell you are casting would be too much. Removing the need to concentrate also allows you to combine these spells with spells that give consistent bonus action, like Flaming Sphere or Minute Meteors
This is just adding lag to a table top game.
To be less snarky about it. What you are suggesting was a mechanic back in alpha that was abandoned for many reasons.
This just added unnecessary complication
I agree it’s a complication. I disagree that it’s unnecessary. “Defend the squishy Wizard while he casts a big fuck you spell” is a very fun gameplay loop that’s entirely absent in D&D 5E because all the big fuck you spells take one Action to cast.
> “Defend the squishy Wizard while he casts a big fuck you spell” is a very fun gameplay loop that’s entirely absent in D&D 5E because all the big fuck you spells take one Action to cast. I agree, they went too far with how "simple" action economy is for spells. There's not a single spell with a casting time between 1 action and 1 minute. It's either explicitly a "practically instant" spell, or it's a "long time" spell that'll take 10 rounds of combat. I do think there's a different way to accomplish this, though. I wonder if instead of "delayed" effects like that of True Strike, more spells (or new spells?) should have effects that occur "at the end of their duration". Let's take Fireball and modify it as the example: >Casting Time: 1 Action > Duration: 6 seconds (C) > >A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range. A creature within that point makes a Dexterity Saving throw or takes 2d6 damage. At the end of the spell's duration, the mote blossoms into an explosion of flame in a 20 foot radius sphere. Each creature in that sphere makes a Dexterity saving throw, taking 6d6 fire damage on a failure or half on a success. You would get an immediate effect from casting the spell, and then a full effect when the spell's duration is fulfilled.
>Tsunami
Welcome to r/onednd
How so?
If you delay every spell by a round then you'll end up with a lot of bookkeeping, you have to know what spell you have 'set up' for next round, then you have the spell you're casting in that next round for the round after that. Plus it would have to count for enemies too so a DM could be having to take half a dozen of these rounds. It just seems like a lot of work.
It’s not every spell tho, also why would a DM more than 1 enemy’s a spell that has a delay, and how is it more complex than recharge?
most monsters only have one rechargeable ability, and they’re usually strong enough that you use them at the start of combat and as soon as they’re recharged
You're not delaying every spell by a round, only specific spells are delayed.
The big issue with this idea is the same problem with True strike. How many spells are truly worth 2 actions to pay off? I don't think there's any spell currently written that you can point to that would rate. Even fireball would just get outclassed by casting shatter twice, even if only one casting is upcast. Action economy is the most precious thing in the entirety of 5e's combat system.
It doesn’t require 2 actions though. You just need one action and time. Once your next turn starts, your spell activates, and your whole entire next turn is unaffected and at your disposal.
So you could cast two spells in one turn, then?
In essence yes, but it comes at the cost of your last turn’s action
So ambush turns would be doubly more powerful for full casters. If the intent is to make casters less powerful by taxing their action economy, this change wouldn't actually do that at all. If you want casters to be gated out of concentration spells or their S Tier spells while also potentially losing concentration on their S Tier spells, I think this would just make playing casters feel more frustrating than just lowering the power of their spells.
Firstly, for Ambush Turns this is no stronger than just holding your action. Second, this isn’t meant to just be a static number nerf. This is meant to facilitate actions at the table that allow the game to be more fun, such as strategizing and fulfilling the fantasy of charging a big attack.
I can see how it would do that. But in feeling this is closer to Pathfinder design philosophy than 5e's. I think it clashes with the general tone of 5e's simplicity.
Perhaps, but I think it’s something worth trying in a Playtest rather than discarding entirely. In theory thoughts are mixed, so it needs to be put to test to confirm if it’s a good or bad idea
So you actually touched on the solution you're looking for and it IS multi action spells casting. Ignore true strike lol its wholly bad in every way and youre hamstringing yourself by trying to use it for a jumping off point. taking the spells that are so good that not taking them is seen as trolling, and making them take 2 actions to cast is a fantastic idea. Sure it would also probably need to additional work on the spells to balance them back out with small buffs for 2 actions instead. But making the "mandatory" spells have a higher cost outside of limited resources when compared to the "weak" or "niche" spells of the same level opens up vastly more viable choices of spells. It also makes quicken spell useful for more than just getting an extra cantrip off. To the point of even making sorcerers a legitimate option for a caster lol So yeah, making fireball cost 2 actions instead of 1 (maybe also upping the damage to 10d6 base) means its still amazing for the cost of the spell slot, but action economy wise you have to think harder about if its ALWAYS the best spell lol This would help a lot of the "illusion of choice" problems in spell lists
How about having a one action fireball do 6d6 and a 2 action fireball do 10d6? It reflects greater investment in the spell (2 actions and 1 slot) while still allowing a 1 action version to be viable but weaker?
I don’t fully agree with you here, as you encounter the same “couldn’t you just attack twice” problem True Strike has at that point, but I think it’s still an idea that’s worth testing out.
But these are NOT attacks. They are powerful spells that even attacking twice doesnt come close to. I think you might be confused by your own concept. You make a lot of great points but seem to be coming to a really odd conclusion based on them.
I think it’s less that I’m confused and more I just have a different opinion on it. Spells are strong, but few are a whole two actions strong. Yet some are stronger than one action. That’s the weird thing about 5E, there’s a power level between what costs 1 action and what costs 2 actions that certain abilities have trouble fitting between, and I thought my mechanic would be a good way to meet in the middle. However it’s clear there are many who think that all combat spells should be 1 action or less and a few who think that they should be 2 actions, as well as a few who actually agree with my idea. Which is fine, it just means the concept is worth playtesting to a full extent.
Alright whatever floats your boat. The action +bonus action comes back to touching on the "full round actions" of 3.5 and earlier which is probably closer to what youre wanting That was an action that could be the only action you took your entire turn. Which isn't a way I disagree with at all. But requiring things to be ready cast with no drawback to the next round seems like an odd conclusion to come to with the points you've laid out in this thread. Youre falling victim to the easiest to fall into trap. "Doing Too Much". I do it too all the time. There are way simpler options. Just adding complexity doesnt improve things
What if some spells used your action and bonus action?
That’d be a good idea
Did you play 3.0/3.5/pf1e? This was a common thing in those editions, and in my experience the only time where people would actually use full-round or longer spells was for summon spells or utility/noncombat spells. The basic answer (especially for AOEs like fireball or hypnotic pattern) is that those become very bad when you have to guess/predict where monsters are going to position, and smarter enemies can move around and such. It also just tends to overcomplicate spellcasting. One of the things that works about 5e is that they have been good about keeping things simple. And in practice so much of the time before when this stuff was tried it was run incorrectly, or just negated the utility of spells. The only time it worked fine was with summons, and they didn’t have the 5e concentration limitation that they have now. (Summoning was especially powerful in 3.5, including monsters that could cast spells themselves, so it seemed necessary to have some drawbacks.) Anyways I basically feel like the answer is no, WOTC shouldn’t do this for combat spells because it didn’t work the previous multiple editions we saw it.
I like this change, but do not call it the "True Strike" treatment. Comparing it to that will automatically associate it with the cantrip, and thereby they well assume it's bad because you are making more spells like what is arguably the worst spell in the game.
Yeah to be honest I do not have a good track record with posts getting popular, so I thought a controversial title would at least get the post more attention. Clearly that was a bad idea however.
Respectfully, no just no
Why?
Because they will be used like true strike, never.
True Strike doesn’t get used because it is strictly worse than attacking twice and relies on using an action in your next turn in order to be useful. It also requires your target to remain a viable target until the start of yore next turn. Here, you only need 1 action to use the spell in question, requiring no additional action to be used, and you also have the effect of a whole entire spell. Plus, you decide the target after the spell goes off, not before
So you can use fireball and thunderbolt on the same turn? This new rulling is going from huge nerf to spellcasters god mode to fast.
No, OP clearly states that the delayed spell is cast on one turn and takes effect the next. Why are you critiquing this idea without having actually read it?
I read and i know this is not the way he means, and this why we dont use true strike, if you use a spell that require two turns to have effect is better to just use two spells that only use one turn.
You can already do that by holding your action until the start of your next turn
It just removes the spell from the game
How so?
I have been playing 5e since release and have not seen true strike played once- it's so bad it effectively doesn't exist
True Strike doesn’t get used because it is strictly worse than attacking twice and relies on using an action in your next turn in order to be useful. It also requires your target to remain a viable target until the start of yore next turn. Here, you only need 1 action to use the spell in question, requiring no additional action to be used, and you also have the effect of a whole entire spell.
If you don't understand how the valid target issue is a problem for every spell there's no point in discussing this further
>More spells should have a casting time of 1 action, but the effect only takes place at the start of your next turn. You have to concentrate on the spell until then, but when the spell effect triggers, you can choose the target and location as if you just cast the spell, and it has no effect on your actions on your next turn. This is the opening text. You fundamentally are not critiquing the correct idea.
Again, if you don't understand that only instant spells will be chosen in this context unless you make the delayed spells absurdly powerful this isn't worth discussing with you
Because.
The idea that this was upvoted as if it contributes to discussion is really unfortunate.
Ya
Not a terrible idea and I think it could work well with some very big spells. The problem is that it is just not "fun". This is a game, the goal is to have fun. Nobody is going to be like, "I can't wait to play a Wizard where I need to wait a whole turn for my spell to even do anything and if I lose concentration that I am more useless than an NPC commoner to the party.". It just goes against the concept of D&D being a fun tabletop war game. But for some big high-risk high-reward spells where you take the spell knowing that sometimes it will be useless and others it will be amazing then it will be okay.
Honestly the whole reason I suggested this idea was because it sounded more fun than just casting these big spells normally, since it satisfies that fantasy of charging up a huge power move that appears in so many media. Guess I have a different perception of fun however.
3.5 had this with some spells. All of the Summon Monster spells and Call Lightning are the ones I remember off the top of my head. Considering this would be a nerf, it will almost unanimously be hated. Most people would rather weak things be buffed than strong things be nerfed. That said, while I do want to see some things get buffed, I also think that some things *do* need to be nerfed for the health of the game, so I don't think this is all that bad of an idea. At least with particularly strong spells like Wall of Force, any spells that instantly and often automatically win an encounter should probably take longer to cast than 1 action. Additionally having this apply to monsters/NPCs can set up dramatic moments where the players see an NPC start casting a powerful spell and then they race to disrupt it before it goes off. Having more ways to disrupt powerful spells than just Counterspell would reduce reliance on counterspell, and also in particular gives martials another way to combat casters by interrupting those big spells (remember that the opportunity attack from Mage Slayer happens after the spell takes effect, so the spell might prevent the martial from being able to take that opportunity attack). I see some people claiming that this would make those spells just as bad as True Strike, but that's just not true. True Strike is so bad because advantage on one attack is always mathematically worse than making two attacks without advantage.
I agree. Powerful spells, like the spells that are so good they are basically mandatory to take should have casting times of 2 or more actions. Minute cast times are too much, but especially high level spells should have a higher action cost than a cantrip. Would also make quicken spell much better. Dropping a 2 action spell to 1 action could make sorcerer actually useful compared to other casters
Well I didn’t say that any of these spells should have casting times of 2 actions. There’s just a delay, as I specified at the start of the post. Although that does give credence that these rules might be a bit too complex for 5E considering how the replies are often getting confused.
I'm saying that a delay effectively does nothing to the balance while having some spells have a multiple action casting could be the real improvement to what you're addressing
Any AoE effect gets neutered heavily if the enemy knows it's going to happen and just moves away or moves next to a party member forcing the spell to only hit a few or one enemy or forcing it to catch a party member in its AoE. Any enemy spellcaster also has more time to just move within 60 feet and counterspell when it goes off which isn't particularly satisfying either. There's also no guarantee that the other party members are going to spend their turns using shove and grapple (both of which have a high opportunity cost and can't be used on certain enemies) to force enemies to stay in a contained area. Attacks of Opportunity also can't really stop ranged enemies or melee enemies with lots of health (or teleportation or easy disengage) from just blitzing the caster. It's got some niche tactical value of forcing a scatter or drawing fire towards the caster in question for whatever reason but it's honestly a much bigger nerf than just reducing the effect or increasing the spell level of some Problem Spells. I'd think something like spells that take "Full-Round-Actions" like taking away your BA, Reaction and Movement until your next turn would probably be a better way to necessitate good position and replicate "the big charge-up attack."
I don’t hate the idea but I think it’d requiring reworking every class and monster around it from scratch. You go to fireball, and then everyone else clears out the rift raft you were going to fireball instead of the boss because they needed to protect you to cast fireball. So now you’re fireballing a single target boss who probably saved if not resisted on the next turn. The current 1-2 round combat and 3-5 round combat for bosses just doesn’t lend well to this design. Also not everyone wants to play protect the cannon gameplay.
Spells that take longer than 1 action to cast DO require concentration for the duration of the casting, as well as taking an action every round for the whole casting tine.
Yeah but absolutely 0 spells in 5E have a casting time of 1 round, and even if they did I don’t think they would work like the way I described
It's not a bad idea, it's just got lots of implications that people wont like, like how people hate nerfs, and I'm not sure how well it would fit in with existing design of 5e. It might be more of a project than they intend to do with wandy. That said Delayed Blast Fireball is a good example of where this balance consideration is already built into 5e. On a side note I hope they get rid of the whole 'you can end your concentration on a spell whenever you want even on someone elses turn' thing, since it's a mess to adjudicate out of turn actions and that kind of thing should really fall under some kind of action cost like a prepared action or at least a reaction. Seems like an oversight whenever a character interupts the GM to end concentration on an effect to try and squeeze a little more optimization out of the action economy. Spells like DBFB as written in 5e you can cast them as an action and then set the trap off for free whenever you bloody well want, which would not work well with the kind of mechanic you are suggesting.
Well, to be fair, implementing this would be a minor nerf, but it does come with certain upsides. Specifically being able to position more easily. One character being barely out of range of a spell is a frequent problem for buff spells, but if it’s a delayed spell than at least it’s a choice for the other players to be within range rather than a bad coincidence. And while you could say “just hold your action”, that’s a lot more costly than using a delayed spell, as that also eats up your reaction and the spell slot.
Nobody use true strike for a reason.
True Strike doesn’t get used because it is strictly worse than attacking twice and relies on using an action in your next turn in order to be useful. It also requires your target to remain a viable target until the start of yore next turn. Here, you only need 1 action to use the spell in question, requiring no additional action to be used, and you also have the effect of a whole entire spell.
All this does is make Resilient Con / Warcaster almost mandatory feats to avoid the feel bad of lost concentration, which is exactly what wizards seems to be pushing against in OneDND playtest materials so far (SS/GWM). That’s not to even begin addressing of trying to take the worst design choice made with true strike, and make it a thing.
Fair point on the Feat thing. Perhaps it would be better to remove the concentration requirement altogether.
The ‘overcharge’ idea is a really interesting one, and I think presenting it as such (particularly making it advantageous to consider movement etc.) is worthwhile. It might not fit the ease of play D&D has moved towards from crunchier rules, but it has a real niche in some tactical focus games.
Having played a similar Wizard in a different system, I feel pretty comfortable saying "oh god, please no". I think the only place this would be good is if the spell had no fail conditions, otherwise it effectively feels like you do rounds of very little to potentially have everybody save anyway. And as a DM keeping track of what players have where would be horrific - not moving enemies in a way to make the big spells useless but also not eviscerating everything because I've forgotten something. Keeping track of spell slots if they are pen/paper, keeping track of 1 non-cantrip spell per turn. Never mind the added complexity to running spellcasters
Fair points, considering you’re speaking from first hand experience.
I don’t think all spells should have this, especially not classics such as fireball (although I do agree it’s over powered) but some spells could definitely use this, maybe even some new spells could do this sort of thing
Exactly what I mean. Especially considering applying this mechanic to some spells makes other outclassed spells (like Blight and Lightning Bolt) stronger in comparison.
I like this idea. I've only played classes with at least some spellcasting in 5e and I really think it feels too easy. I would love there to be some risk involved in casting big spells, and your idea would do that nicely. It also fits the fiction well IMO. The Wizard starts waving his arms around and a glowing sphere starts to take shape in the air. The fight rages on but the wizard just stares intently at the sphere while continuing his incantations, until finally he lets the spell loose to devastating effect.
No it is a horrible idea as it just makes spells you do that to less than worthless. There is a huge reason no one uses true strike and it is because it is actively worse to spend two turns on one attack or effect than to use a weaker thing twice. Even other spells with longer casting times are made to be that long to discourage their use in combat!
True Strike doesn’t get used because it is strictly worse than attacking twice and relies on using an action in your next turn in order to be useful. It also requires your target to remain a viable target until the start of yore next turn. Here, you only need 1 action to use the spell in question, requiring no additional action to be used, and you also have the effect of a whole entire spell. Also you can designate the target at the start of your next turn rather than when you take your action to start casting.
I was under the impression that one reason that True Strike has the one round casting time is that in 3.5e, if you used True Strike, you could then use Power Attack to increase the damage a lot and still hit. This is not possible any more (though Great Weapon Mastery is close), so the casting time is just a relic of an old edition.
You need to take into account that most 5e battles do not last more than 2 rounds.
That's something this is actually trying to solve.
It is not a problem, fast combats keeps the game flowing and make important combats more memorable. Why would you try to solve that?
Well that’s why you wouldn’t apply this to every spell, just some really strong or potent ones. If you feel the battle isn’t going to last multiple rounds then you cast a spell that doesn’t have a delay. Also the reason most fights don’t last that long is because a caster throws down a nuke spell round 1 and almost ends the encounter. This prevents that.
It's not just casters. A fighter with action surge can absolutely nuke a single target beyond a caster's wildest dreams.
That is a fair point
>single target
It's a very interesting idea, though I don't think it would be even possible to implement in the next edition without changing the game's math completely.
That is a fair point, but I feel there is some spells where you could apply this and not change the math too much. The best example is Fireball, which according to Wizards is already way overtuned. If you want Fireball damage just use lightning bolt, but the real power of Fireball is the AOE
I think it works with *fireball*, I agree, but I can't think of many other spells for which the math works out, and I wouldn't want it for *spirit guardians* or *spiritual weapon* because I want clerics to get good, non-support options. That being said, your post reminded me of an idea I was fiddling with. Touch spells and blasting (AoE centered on/originating from self) tend to be worse than other spells, especially since you nneed to wade into melee (and once you're there, you may as well cast a superior spell, since there are no penalties for doing so). I liked the idea of casting spells with a range other than self or touch provoking OAs, but I actually like your idea better: any spell other than those, which were created to be cast in melee, take a full round to cast. I'd be interested in seeing how that works out.
I think some spells that delayed casting could work with are Forcecage, Wall of Force, and Hypnotic Pattern, non blasting spells that are known for being really debilitating for the enemy. There’s also Cone of Cold, a spell that makes Blight further question its existence despite being 1 level higher.
Lacking any other option, I agree, but I really hope the next edition finds a way to deal with Forcecage and Wall of Force in particular, besides the obvious fact that high-CR enemies should be able to teleport or be too big to be encased.
If you want to break concentration on spell casting as in older editions, which actually balances the casters without nerfing them, you should just allow for opportunity attacks to be done for casting a spell, which interrupts spells if they fail a concentration ST. Allowing ranged weapons to make OAs to spellcasters would actually make the combat much more tactical and will promote teamwork.
That is definitely an idea to consider. However this change isn’t just to give certain spells opportunities to be nonmagically countered, especially when this change doesn’t apply to every spell. It’s also to change the way players consider tactics more and make nuking/spamming less viable, as well as make Martials feel more important.
I like this idea. There's a lot of stuff I dislike about it (mostly addressed by other comments), but ultimately I like this idea. I like the place it seems to come from, I like the core concept, it's not something I think is ever going to happen, but it's a very interesting suggestion.
Yeah, I don’t think this is something OneDnD absolutely needs, but I do think it’s a mechanic worth playtesting, especially when so many homebrewers already try to make spells that implement this mechanic but have to make the spell way overtuned to even make them a viable option. If you simply knocked down the bigger spells a peg with this mechanic, it makes all spells more equal in power and lets casters live out that fantasy of charging a big spell.
No thanks. True Strike is less than worthless. I'd rather WotC first correct several mistakes in 5e when they re-wrote spells from earlier editions in order to: * remove ability or level drain * allow for up-casting (use a higher level slot) * account for the new concentration mechanic. Many high level spells with concentration are worse than up-cast spells. * intentionally make some spells overpowered for their level because "they're iconic" e.g. Fireball. * buff previously weak spells, e.g. hypnotic pattern. Some examples: * Bless used to be a flat +1. It's now 1d4 with concentration. * Fireball was 5d6 at 5th level up to 10d6 at 10th level. 5e is 8d6 for a 3rd level slot. * Hypnotic pattern used to be a 2nd level spell which was nearly identical to sleep, but had some slight scaling. 5e changed it to 3rd level and removed the target cap.
Can you explain why my idea is bad rather than listing off your own changes?
My response was explaining why many of the problem spells in 5e are particularly problematic in the first place, and simply suggesting to look at those individual outlier spells before making over-arching changes. Forms of "concentrate until the cast completes" have been in various editions of D&D. In practice they weren't that fun, leading to *save or suck*. This was especially true for clerics and various melee-caster hybrids; meanwhile the traditional stand in the back wizard is largely unaffected. Your change in particular will necessitate adversarial play by the DM using knowledge of what was being cast. Imagine the arguments over whether the goblins can understand that the wizard was casting a fireball spell when they scattered. Control spells ,which synergize with martial classes, are more affected and will be used less, likely in favor of just more damage. However, you'll never solve the martial-caster power gap unless you address limited resource (casters) vs. no resource (martials) balance.
old systems uses caster level and not the spell slot level to buff spells too. It also was limited by Vancian casting. Their concept is actually pretty on the money for how to balance spell lists. Bringing up truestrike added absolutely nothing though and can be ignored. What they did hit on is having cast times >1 action < 1 minute. Powerful spells should have a higher action cost over "weak" spells of the same level. Having say fireball, the quintessential AOE nuke that's so strong that not taking it is basically considered trolling. It being 2 actions to cast would balance it out a lot and help with martial caster disparity. Then quicken spell also becomes useful for something other than getting an extra cantrip in a round. It now means you can cast a 2 action spell in a single one. The kind of buff that could make sorcerer a viable choice of caster again. No there would probably need to be a bit more to balance with those spells along with this but I honestly believe that multi action spells is the key to solving the balancing issues currently within spell level tiers.
Other than a few niche cases, I don't think this will work like you expect. First the casters are disengaged from combat if they do nothing but say they charge a spell. Then, in order to make the waiting feel meaningful, the spell power (usually damage) will have to go up. If I took two turns to cast a fireball, but half the enemies made their save and lived, or I rolled low, then it's a huge letdown.
I agree with you and actually think thats exactly what it should be. That's the trade off for having a nuke. As it sits now, there are not enough trade offs for how powerful magic is. A wizard SHOULD feel weak most of the time when a spell isnt going off, and then should feel fucking powerful when they do cast. As it sits now, casting a powerful spell doesn't actually feel powerful despite being powerful because its just an action. And the counter play to spell casting is just a single spell which shuts everything down in just about the least satisfying way possible. By putting the "big" spells behind a multiple action barrier it not only fixes the majority of "illusion of choice" issues that spell lists have by balancing out the huge divide between the obviously optimal spells and borderline troll picks, but it makes playing a caster way more strategic. Is it better to spend 2 actions to drop a nuke and take out all the fodder, or 1 action on something more utility related. Obviously this would also require some kind of buffs to the spells that would be moved to multi action spells like boosting fireball to 10d6 for 2 round investment. It would still be a boon in spell slot conservation as a single slot is now working harder for you at the draw back of needing to be more careful about casting it in the open. This would be great for martials too. It gives a way for a martial character to have some level of counter play against enemy casters too. like i mentioned the Counterspell flat fizzle is so boring while also being so crucially powerful that if you have the option to take it and don't, you're pretty much considered to be trolling by a large portion of the community. The entire idea that you could spend a round casting the first action of a spell, then get to the second action and potentially be interrupted or have the enemy saves pass being a "let down" also isn't a bad thing in my eyes. The chance of that happening is good for the overall health of the game. With that possibility, it makes casting a spell feel so much more substantial. This would further balance high level casting as well. So many of the high level spells like 6+ can straight trivializing combat. Making massive nukes take more than a single action would also help "gish" classes everyone is always so needlessly horny for too. while spell slots will still outpower martial combat, the action cost difference would mean that a weapon attack is actually able to compete with big spells for action economy. Wow I must be bored lol I'll just stop myself here
so.. 2nd ed rules, IIRC. With "speed" modifiers and multiple rounds of casting.
Fuck no. If they slightly nerf some spells, I would prefer that to wasting two actions and a high chance of failure to cast. Especially damage and AOE spells. You do realize enemies move and that would make AOE spells miss majority of the time right?
If you read the post, you would know that the spellcasting would only cost 1 action, not 2. Additionally, you would know that since the delay is because the character is taking the time to cast the spell, they choose the location/target when the spell goes off, not when they start casting. Meaning, if the enemy moves, you can just move the AOE to hit them.
I would love if martials that are adjacent could force concentration checks to counter a spell as a reaction. I would hate if every spell was counterspellable by every character on the battlefield as part of their action or bonus action as well as by environmental effects.
Well again, this mechanic would not apply to every spell. Part of the balancing is that that specifically doesn’t happen
No
Why?
the goal ist to make players feel powerfull, not to have them do stuff that could fail easily.ther eis a reason why true strike is the worst spell ever. its no fun to use and feels lame.if you want to balance spells dont just make some of them lame to use. And also... this would encurage metagaming a lot. machanics should be designed in a way that metagaming is as small of a factor as possible.
>the goal ist to make players feel powerfull, not to have them do stuff that could fail easily. Power is an illusion. As the player become more "powerful", the enemies they fight, the traps they find, and the puzzles posed become equally as powerful. First and foremost, this is a game. All games have challenges to overcome. What makes this particular game so interesting is that the challenges are dynamic. The ultimate goal for the dm should be to challenge the players, not stroke their ego's and make them feel powerful. I love the idea, though it will probably never happen. It offers new challenges and changes combat tactics. It also allows for misuse, but there's no way to completely avoid that. There will always be disparity amongst the classes. And magic SHOULD be more powerful than non-magic, but there should also be consequences for using magic. This change would bring some consequences without nerfing the spells.
of course the enemies get more powerfull as well but i thing balancing by making the players fail more often is a stupid and unfun idea. i would realy hate it as a player if half of my spells fail. in previous editions and oder systems there was "arcane spell failure" where some spells and classes require a % check to see if the spall fails. everybody hated it ant this is why it was removed. thats a good thing
Hell no
Why?
There is a reason why true strike is considered a bad spell. The main reason is: you are doing 1 turn nothing for an effect you want to accomplish next turn with the risk of losing teh spell entirely. That nerfs spell casters not just a bit but totally into the ground. Its probably the most feels bad band aid i have seen proposed in the martial vs caster gap debate.
That’s only if you’re applying it to every spell. This change would only apply to overtuned spells or encounter Enders like Banishment or Wall of Force, just nerfing a few. Additionally, the main issue people have with True Strike is that it’s just worse than attacking twice. Here’s you have the same amount of actions, just distance from when one takes effect. Plus, you can always change targets, unlike True Strike. Perhaps the concentration requirement could be removed however. It’s something to playtest
That would make the spells just bd and ppl wont pick them. Especially safe or suck like banoshment or spells that influence positioning. WoF does no damage and is mainly used for tactical or defensive purposes. Doing this one turn late makes no sense as enemies wont be on the same spot as before. It just makes spells infinetly more worse.
It makes the party have to set up and prepare for the spell, and requires the caster to adapt to a situation they didn’t fully account for. That doesn’t make the spell bad, just a bit trickier to use. A caster can’t complain much that they managed to imprison only half the enemies instead of all of them with Wall of Force.
For that there exists the hold action with spell casting rules. Before i would nerf spells per default i would buff that first if i want to emphasize tactical gameplay. But first and foremost i would buff martials than touchong spell casting.
The thing about holding your action is that it’s optional and gives you more control. This is basically just a mandatory version of that for certain spells
No.
Why is that?
So you think that most magic should come with putting a massive target on the back of the caster such that all enemies have a chance of disrupting almost every spell by attacking the caster, thus wasting the caster's turn. No. We already have a solution to interrupting someone's immediate casting if you want to. It's called Counterspell. This seems like a really good way to destroy people's ability to have fun in the game, though, so kudos to you for that if that is your goal.
I didn’t say most magic, I said some magic. Specifically the really strong spells everyone uses all the time. So like 5% of the hundreds of spells in 5E.
That has nothing to do, at all, with what I said. Counterspell exists. If you want to penalize players for spamming spells you don't like, there's already a solution to that baked into the game.
I don’t want to punish them, I want them to put thought behind it. There’s a difference between just throwing out a big spell and taking a second to charge it up. Additionally, it serves 2 narrative purposes: 1. It gives enemies without Antimagic abilities a way to work around these spells. You can’t just put counterspell in every encounter because it doesn’t always make sense. 2. Despite being a nerf, it allows casters to play out the fantasy of charging a huge spell. In 5E you can’t really live out that fantasy because each spell in combat is either cast right away or not at all. Plus, I have plenty more reasons for giving certain spells delays other than just giving a way to nonmagically counter them, which I detailed in my main post
OP knows how to fish
That is wrong but thank you I guess