No Casting Time?

So are they getting rid of casting time besides the 10 minute rituals?  I always thought it made more sense to use casting time because the magic user uses v, s and m components.  This has been done by using a set number of segments of a round (1st ed.) adding casting time to the initiative result (2nd ed.),  or type of action (3rd ed.).  All editions had casting time of rounds or turns for some spells.  Seems like over time they are gettting rid of casting time.

For example: 
Fireball
1st - 3 segments (3/10 of round*) = 18 seconds
2nd - 3 added to initiative roll (in 2nd d10 lowest number goes first [4 - 13 init])
3rd - 1 action** = aprox. 6 seconds
4th - sorry never played
5th - 1 action** = aprox. 6 seconds
  
*remember in 1st and 2nd ed. 1 round = 1 minute
**3rd and 5th 1 round = 6 seconds        


I hope they bring back higher casting times for more powerful spells.  It makes the players use more strategy by making sure no one interrupts the caster while he/she is saying the incantation, digging through pockets of robes for m component or gesticulating the somantics to disrupt his/her powerful spell than just shelling out bombs like a video game.
Or, it means those spells will never be used because they're impossible to get off ... or it means those spells will break the game when PCs find ways to protect themselves from attack to cast them.  Having all combat spells simply use an action is clean, elegant, and easy.

And I really hope v,s,m components stay dead.  4e did just fine without them.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Verbal and somatic components are implied in spell casting.  Personally, I can do without bat guano in my pockets to cast Fireball, which is why I always took Eschew Materials in 3rd games.
The simpler casting time is a good thing as it goes along with speeding up combat. With that I would like some Rituals that could be used in combat. Nothing to overpowered or to long in casting. It could be used to add another level of depth to an encounter.
just a thought & my 2cp. 
I also agree with no casting time, and removing material components, for many of the same reasons stated above. I'd also like to add that no casting time is better for tactics.

Delaying an action means you suddenly are guessing. Let's say you target a group of orcs with Fireball and it takes you until the start of your next turn to cast the spell. Now many things could happen. The orcs could scatter, meaning a less powerful spell could have been more efficient and you wasted a good spell. The fighter, rogue, or some other ally could rush into the middle of the orcs, now you have to decide if you are going to finish the spell and possibly kill your ally or lose the spell by letting it fizzle out. Your team could roll awesomely and kill all the orcs, fight over and you wasted your turn.

The wizard still needs protecting to get off his spells, after all he has the lowest hp and armor of any class so it is very easy for him to go down. And now he can hold an action to cast a spell and be able to get it off.

Mainly it allows for the wizard not to waste his turn, or accidently blast an ally while not removing any of the tactics you advocated.
I'm also in favor of "no casting time" and "no meaningless material components." However, spells that require costly material components can keep them (they serve as a sort of balancing factor against the spell's power). Usually that means those spells will probably have a ritual form as an (either additional or only) available casting choice.
James
I like the 'idea' of cast times. Really powerful spells 'should' have a long swing. However, they are tedious and would throw a huge brick in the 'fast combats' that I really like. Make it a module where spells have cast times and modify spells based on it.
Or, it means those spells will never be used because they're impossible to get off ... or it means those spells will break the game when PCs find ways to protect themselves from attack to cast them.



This was never a problem, even before 4e gave us a bunch of inane caster protection utilitites.



 Having all combat spells simply use an action is clean, elegant, and easy.

And I really hope v,s,m components stay dead.  4e did just fine without them.





This isnt Dancing with the Stars. Who wants clean, elegant and easy magic? Give me dirty, gritty and hard.

Verbal and somatic components are implied in spell casting.  Personally, I can do without bat guano in my pockets to cast Fireball, which is why I always took Eschew Materials in 3rd games.
The simpler casting time is a good thing as it goes along with speeding up combat. With that I would like some Rituals that could be used in combat. Nothing to overpowered or to long in casting. It could be used to add another level of depth to an encounter.
just a thought & my 2cp. 



*Facepalm city*
A simple quick ritual is the same thing as a spell that requires components and takes more than 6 seconds to cast.


..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
This isnt Dancing with the Stars. Who wants clean, elegant and easy magic?..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />



Me and lots of other people.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Or, it means those spells will never be used because they're impossible to get off ... or it means those spells will break the game when PCs find ways to protect themselves from attack to cast them.



This was never a problem, even before 4e gave us a bunch of inane caster protection utilitites.



 Having all combat spells simply use an action is clean, elegant, and easy.

And I really hope v,s,m components stay dead.  4e did just fine without them.





This isnt Dancing with the Stars. Who wants clean, elegant and easy magic? Give me dirty, gritty and hard.

Verbal and somatic components are implied in spell casting.  Personally, I can do without bat guano in my pockets to cast Fireball, which is why I always took Eschew Materials in 3rd games.
The simpler casting time is a good thing as it goes along with speeding up combat. With that I would like some Rituals that could be used in combat. Nothing to overpowered or to long in casting. It could be used to add another level of depth to an encounter.
just a thought & my 2cp. 



*Facepalm city*
A simple quick ritual is the same thing as a spell that requires components and takes more than 6 seconds to cast.




First off, I'm sure the city's faces and palms all hurt where you live.
Second, clean and elegant makes for a smoother game. Which, it seems from various posts throughout this forum, people actually seem to want. Bizarre I know. And Dancing with the Stars isn't that pretty. Did you see Nancy Grace??
Third, I didn't say "simple quick ritual," I said "Rituals that could be used in combat." Evidently, clarification is needed. What I was talking about was a type of Ritual that would take 3 to 6 rounds to cast. This type of ritual we will call "Wipe out undead for 100 yards" (name sucks but you know what its going to do). The party needs to cast this ritual with a horde of undead coming at them. You have the majority of the party protecting the ritual caster. You, now have another level to a combat. And with the way combat seems to be in Next, the ritual caster wont get to bored waiting for the spell to go off. Maybe to alleviate the potential boredom they could add in skill checks or caster checks or something checks to punctuate the caster's turn. That is what I was saying.


First off, I'm sure the city's faces and palms all hurt where you live.
Second, clean and elegant makes for a smoother game. Which, it seems from various posts throughout this forum, people actually seem to want. Bizarre I know. And Dancing with the Stars isn't that pretty. Did you see Nancy Grace??
Third, I didn't say "simple quick ritual," I said "Rituals that could be used in combat." Evidently, clarification is needed. What I was talking about was a type of Ritual that would take 3 to 6 rounds to cast. This type of ritual we will call "Wipe out undead for 100 yards" (name sucks but you know what its going to do). The party needs to cast this ritual with a horde of undead coming at them. You have the majority of the party protecting the ritual caster. You, now have another level to a combat. And with the way combat seems to be in Next, the ritual caster wont get to bored waiting for the spell to go off. Maybe to alleviate the potential boredom they could add in skill checks or caster checks or something checks to punctuate the caster's turn. That is what I was saying.



Explained this way, this is really an interesting idea. What with adversaries getting through the protection the group is trying to mount and the caster trying to keep his concentration. However, did you ever throw 100 undead at your players in one huge go ?

I liked the way things were done in 2E but moved forward and did not really miss the casting time in either 3E or 4E. Having spells you use during your turn or rituals that are usually only used out of combat is an easy way to get the things rolling...
Casting time in segments really only made sense in the 1st/2nd version of rounds, which were minutes rather than 6-second bits. It's harder to divide 6 seconds into rational intervals for casting time. So casting time turned into "cast on your initiative."

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.


First off, I'm sure the city's faces and palms all hurt where you live.

Second, clean and elegant makes for a smoother game. Which, it seems from various posts throughout this forum, people actually seem to want. Bizarre I know. And Dancing with the Stars isn't that pretty. Did you see Nancy Grace??
Third, I didn't say "simple quick ritual," I said "Rituals that could be used in combat." Evidently, clarification is needed. What I was talking about was a type of Ritual that would take 3 to 6 rounds to cast. This type of ritual we will call "Wipe out undead for 100 yards" (name sucks but you know what its going to do). The party needs to cast this ritual with a horde of undead coming at them. You have the majority of the party protecting the ritual caster. You, now have another level to a combat. And with the way combat seems to be in Next, the ritual caster wont get to bored waiting for the spell to go off. Maybe to alleviate the potential boredom they could add in skill checks or caster checks or something checks to punctuate the caster's turn. That is what I was saying.


First off, Zing!

The idea about a ritual in combat to eliminate a vast number of undead or dismiss a very powerful extra-planar creature was one of the first things I thought of when I read your suggestion. But what if a party just casts that ritual at the entrance to a dungeon and then every 100 ft after that? I think that that kind of thing might be better expressed as a plot device that works only once in a specific setting. Not as a ritual that is on the books.

Ex. Your party learns about a powerful necromancer from locals and a sage puts the party on a quest for the Crystal of Kallalalash giving them a secret ritual that can will consume this singular instrument along with all products of necromantic magic in 100 feet. Then when they get to the boss level they have to protect the caster while she performs the ritual.

I do think that some very powerful spells could work as rituals in combat as long as their use was moderated by components.
Casting time in segments really only made sense in the 1st/2nd version of rounds, which were minutes rather than 6-second bits. It's harder to divide 6 seconds into rational intervals for casting time. So casting time turned into "cast on your initiative."




Actually many spells in 3.5 had more than 1 standard action for casting time.  Some had a casting time of 1 round which went into effect at the beginning of the caster's next turn.  Some of these were: Call Lightning, Fire Storm, all the Summon spells, Insect Plague, Sleep, Changestaff, and others.  

Or, it means those spells will never be used because they're impossible to get off ... or it means those spells will break the game when PCs find ways to protect themselves from attack to cast them.  Having all combat spells simply use an action is clean, elegant, and easy.

And I really hope v,s,m components stay dead.  4e did just fine without them.


I guess I view magic differently in my games.  Most games I've played or ran the spells went off fine, but there should always be that worry of interrupt or a break in concentration (3.5).  If they are making 5.0 like a video game then maybe they should include interrupts.  Even in WoW you can see the enemies cast bar and use a skill that interrupts them.  It makes for a more challenging game, but is more rewarding in the end.

So no components in 4E eh?  I've always heard from purists that 4E was too watered down to make it easy for the video game generation.  I think that's why I never played it.    

I'm also in favor of "no casting time" and "no meaningless material components." However, spells that require costly material components can keep them (they serve as a sort of balancing factor against the spell's power). Usually that means those spells will probably have a ritual form as an (either additional or only) available casting choice.


It seems like they are going with this route in Next.  Most DMs I've played with (including me) were usually loose with the material component side except for those needing rare or expensive mats.


In the end it will be decided by house rules.  For those of you who like the "clean and elegant" I say, at least, basic spells = 1 action and powerful spells = 1 round.
So no components in 4E eh?  I've always heard from purists that 4E was too watered down to make it easy for the video game generation.  I think that's why I never played it.


Even in 3E, spells had components like "a tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur."  And the rules went on to say ignore most spell components: "Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible. Don’t bother to keep track of material components with negligible cost. Assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch."

In 4E, combat spells used "negligible components" that all wizards had on hand.  It just wasn't worth putting them in the power description, because they had no mechanical effect on the spell.  The expensive stuff came into play when casting rituals.
Rituals can eventually be the compromise most players want between quick, easy play and proper balancing for powerful spells.
For some spells, like summoning high level extraplanar creatures, I would prefer changing that to a ritual as described in the packets over making it a standard action spell with no material components. Another example is Resurrection; I'd be surprised if anyone here thinks it should be a standard action spell with no material components.

Whether you want to call them rituals or just spells with costly materials and extra casting time, at least *some* spells should have extra requirements. That doesn't mean most spells need them, so play can still be quick and easy for the most part. 
Explained this way, this is really an interesting idea. What with adversaries getting through the protection the group is trying to mount and the caster trying to keep his concentration. However, did you ever throw 100 undead at your players in one huge go ?

I liked the way things were done in 2E but moved forward and did not really miss the casting time in either 3E or 4E. Having spells you use during your turn or rituals that are usually only used out of combat is an easy way to get the things rolling...


Maybe not 100 undead, but I have had a game that required a party member to conduct a ritual to trap the series of monsters that the party released. 

@Quidhala:  I do intend something like this to be plot orientated or similar to the one time-use Xen'drik power spells. 
Rituals can eventually be the compromise most players want between quick, easy play and proper balancing for powerful spells.
For some spells, like summoning high level extraplanar creatures, I would prefer changing that to a ritual as described in the packets over making it a standard action spell with no material components. Another example is Resurrection; I'd be surprised if anyone here thinks it should be a standard action spell with no material components.

Whether you want to call them rituals or just spells with costly materials and extra casting time, at least *some* spells should have extra requirements. That doesn't mean most spells need them, so play can still be quick and easy for the most part. 


I like those examples and hope they are adopted.

First off, I'm sure the city's faces and palms all hurt where you live.
Second, clean and elegant makes for a smoother game. Which, it seems from various posts throughout this forum, people actually seem to want. Bizarre I know. And Dancing with the Stars isn't that pretty. Did you see Nancy Grace??
Third, I didn't say "simple quick ritual," I said "Rituals that could be used in combat." Evidently, clarification is needed. What I was talking about was a type of Ritual that would take 3 to 6 rounds to cast. This type of ritual we will call "Wipe out undead for 100 yards" (name sucks but you know what its going to do). The party needs to cast this ritual with a horde of undead coming at them. You have the majority of the party protecting the ritual caster. You, now have another level to a combat. And with the way combat seems to be in Next, the ritual caster wont get to bored waiting for the spell to go off. Maybe to alleviate the potential boredom they could add in skill checks or caster checks or something checks to punctuate the caster's turn. That is what I was saying.



Wow Nancy Grace lol... had to youtube that. Yeah that's more like it.

 I get what you are saying. A combat ritual of 18-36 seconds is essentially a long spell. The only difference is the name. At least for now rituals dont even have their own spells. Any spell that takes 18-36 seconds to cast is just not worth the effort. You have to exploit stupid tactics by a DM. +6 seconds is reasonable and it adds depth, strategy, flavor, and personality. When you get to that 20 second threshold its just an exploit search or something that is too situational. You would probably have such a decisive advantage the spell wouldn't really move the bar. 
I also agree with no casting time, and removing material components, for many of the same reasons stated above. I'd also like to add that no casting time is better for tactics.

Delaying an action means you suddenly are guessing. Let's say you target a group of orcs with Fireball and it takes you until the start of your next turn to cast the spell. Now many things could happen. The orcs could scatter, meaning a less powerful spell could have been more efficient and you wasted a good spell. The fighter, rogue, or some other ally could rush into the middle of the orcs, now you have to decide if you are going to finish the spell and possibly kill your ally or lose the spell by letting it fizzle out. Your team could roll awesomely and kill all the orcs, fight over and you wasted your turn.

The wizard still needs protecting to get off his spells, after all he has the lowest hp and armor of any class so it is very easy for him to go down. And now he can hold an action to cast a spell and be able to get it off.

Mainly it allows for the wizard not to waste his turn, or accidently blast an ally while not removing any of the tactics you advocated.



Thats narrow. To make that argument you have to ignore a bunch of stuff. 

I also agree with no casting time, and removing material components, for many of the same reasons stated above. I'd also like to add that no casting time is better for tactics.

Delaying an action means you suddenly are guessing. Let's say you target a group of orcs with Fireball and it takes you until the start of your next turn to cast the spell. Now many things could happen. The orcs could scatter, meaning a less powerful spell could have been more efficient and you wasted a good spell. The fighter, rogue, or some other ally could rush into the middle of the orcs, now you have to decide if you are going to finish the spell and possibly kill your ally or lose the spell by letting it fizzle out. Your team could roll awesomely and kill all the orcs, fight over and you wasted your turn.

The wizard still needs protecting to get off his spells, after all he has the lowest hp and armor of any class so it is very easy for him to go down. And now he can hold an action to cast a spell and be able to get it off.

Mainly it allows for the wizard not to waste his turn, or accidently blast an ally while not removing any of the tactics you advocated.



Thats narrow. To make that argument you have to ignore a bunch of stuff. 




What did I ignore? I mean, I know I assumed some actions and scenarios but I don't think I outright ignored anything. Unless you are talking about party cohesion, aka the fighter knows what you are doing and won't charge forward, but that is true in any situation, I just assumed a stubborn or oblivious party, after all people don't always listen when you tell them you got it
In 4E, combat spells used "negligible components" that all wizards had on hand.  It just wasn't worth putting them in the power description, because they had no mechanical effect on the spell.  The expensive stuff came into play when casting rituals.


In that instance I was referring to verbal and somatic as well.  Material components seem to be the type that are enforced the least by DMs in my experience. 
Rituals can eventually be the compromise most players want between quick, easy play and proper balancing for powerful spells.
For some spells, like summoning high level extraplanar creatures, I would prefer changing that to a ritual as described in the packets over making it a standard action spell with no material components. Another example is Resurrection; I'd be surprised if anyone here thinks it should be a standard action spell with no material components.

Whether you want to call them rituals or just spells with costly materials and extra casting time, at least *some* spells should have extra requirements. That doesn't mean most spells need them, so play can still be quick and easy for the most part. 


I agree with this for the most part, but rituals, as they are now, give no benefit for casting spells as one.  From what I've read I can cast the spell right away or spend 10 minutes casting the same thing with the same effect. 


As for interrupts the only thing I see is "Spell Distruption" which is similar to Concentration, but split into DEX check (similar to AoO) and a CON check.  It lists DC 10, but I imagine this can be adjusted by the DM.  Maybe they will elaborate on this in later packets.  At least "Silence" still works, lol.   


What did I ignore? I mean, I know I assumed some actions and scenarios but I don't think I outright ignored anything. Unless you are talking about party cohesion, aka the fighter knows what you are doing and won't charge forward, but that is true in any situation, I just assumed a stubborn or oblivious party, after all people don't always listen when you tell them you got it



Yeah I can see that happening when players don't communicate, but back in the day we had to declare actions before initiative.  I'm not saying bring that back, but it is the player's responsibility to formulate a plan.  If they don't then they suffer the consequences.  Then maybe next battle they will act as a team.  


Rituals can eventually be the compromise most players want between quick, easy play and proper balancing for powerful spells.
For some spells, like summoning high level extraplanar creatures, I would prefer changing that to a ritual as described in the packets over making it a standard action spell with no material components. Another example is Resurrection; I'd be surprised if anyone here thinks it should be a standard action spell with no material components.

Whether you want to call them rituals or just spells with costly materials and extra casting time, at least *some* spells should have extra requirements. That doesn't mean most spells need them, so play can still be quick and easy for the most part. 


I agree with this for the most part, but rituals, as they are now, give no benefit for casting spells as one.  From what I've read I can cast the spell right away or spend 10 minutes casting the same thing with the same effect. 
 




The big thing with being able to cast them as rituals is, as I understand it, you don't have to memorize that spell. This means you can save your spell slots for more immeidately useful spells. The problem I have with rituals right now is that there are just so few of them. We have three rituals in the entire wizard spell list... and maybe one or two in the cleric list. If they added a few more spells that could potenially be rituals I think it would be a much better mechanic



What did I ignore? I mean, I know I assumed some actions and scenarios but I don't think I outright ignored anything. Unless you are talking about party cohesion, aka the fighter knows what you are doing and won't charge forward, but that is true in any situation, I just assumed a stubborn or oblivious party, after all people don't always listen when you tell them you got it



This -
no casting time is better for tactics.



You could make the same argument with reloads in a FPS.
Step out of the role of the caster. I cant picture someone who is roleplaying a rogue assassin trying to flank a mage stating that universal casting times are better for tactics.  When that mage can toss a meteor swarm as fast as a dem-door or mirror image its simply going to be easier for the mage. It seems like you are gauging tactics on ease and difficulty. How about the amount of meaningful decisions you can make? Universal casting time certainly wont increase the amount of meaningful decisions.


What did I ignore? I mean, I know I assumed some actions and scenarios but I don't think I outright ignored anything. Unless you are talking about party cohesion, aka the fighter knows what you are doing and won't charge forward, but that is true in any situation, I just assumed a stubborn or oblivious party, after all people don't always listen when you tell them you got it



This -
no casting time is better for tactics.



You could make the same argument with reloads in a FPS.
Step out of the role of the caster. I cant picture someone who is roleplaying a rogue assassin trying to flank a mage stating that universal casting times are better for tactics.  When that mage can toss a meteor swarm as fast as a dem-door or mirror image its simply going to be easier for the mage. It seems like you are gauging tactics on ease and difficulty. How about the amount of meaningful decisions you can make? Universal casting time certainly wont increase the amount of meaningful decisions.



I'm not sure where the rogue assassin comes in, unless you are trying to say that what is good for one class might not be percieved the same way by someone trying to take down that class. In other words, the rogue doesn't want universal casting times because that makes his job harder. I don't see how that affects a wizard's tactics, after all I am speaking from a PC wizard's perspective not a PC rogue's perspective. In fact, the only affect it has on non-spellcasters is that spellcasters become more dangerous to fight, since they have less time to try and stop a spell, but their approach will probably still be the same. Get to the spellcaster quickly and take him out.

I understand the point of meanigful decisions much better, but I do not see how increasing the casting time for spells adds decisions, it only seems to add complications. Using your rogue example above what are the wizard's options. With multiple casting times let's say Meteor swarm takes 3 turns, dimension door 2, and mirror image 1. With the rogue 1 turn away from closing in and attacking the wizard has 4 potential options: Move away, Cast Mirror Image to attempt to confuse the rogue's attacks, Cast Dimension Door to teleport to a safe distance, Cast Meteor Swarm to attempt to kill the rogue. However, if we look at the chances of these succeeding there is a problem.

If they cast when in melee they could lose the spell or be attacked, and there is a chance the rogue's damage is severe enough to drop the wizard, especially after multiple attacks. This means anything taking more than 1 turn is impractical, and may in fact just be a useless waste of time. That means he has in reality 2 options, Mirror Image or move away. If we have universal casting times though his options jump back up to 4, because he can get the spell off before the rogue's turn.

The more I think about meanignful decisions and realistic options, the less I see multi-turn spells being more tactical, except in the case of it giving more time to people attacking spellcasters, which may sound okay to the fighter or the rogue, but it also means the wizard is more vulnerable. I know a lot of people say wizards are too incredibly powerful so they should have this limitation and that limitation, this restirction and that restriction, but I don't think we need to go back to long casting times and wizards just twiddling their thumbs for a few turns. Instead chuck spells like meteor swarm, which I cannot imagine, even as an arcane player, ever seriously needing. I mean, it's cool but dropping the equivalent of 4-5 fireballs in a single attack is overkill, I shouldn't need that much spread and if I need that much damage why can't I just upgrade fireball?

Also, to respond to the FPS angle, reloading serves a couple purposes, one being to allow an opening to opponents. However, DnD is a turn-based system meaning we do not need to give openings to opponents, since we cannot usually act on an opponents turn and dodge their attacks.
It's kind of funny, that the same people who bitched about certain spells being too powerful are the same ones complaining about material componets. It makes you wonder if they ignored the material componets for those certain spells in their games. If they did then they have no real reason to rant about certain spells being too powerful.


The big thing with being able to cast them as rituals is, as I understand it, you don't have to memorize that spell. This means you can save your spell slots for more immeidately useful spells. The problem I have with rituals right now is that there are just so few of them. We have three rituals in the entire wizard spell list... and maybe one or two in the cleric list. If they added a few more spells that could potenially be rituals I think it would be a much better mechanic



Yeah.  My thing is 10 minutes seems a bit too long in game time.  If doing a ritual in a dungeon with monsters nearby it is pretty certain they'd wander into the PC within a time frame of 100 rounds.
Well, if they are few spells, and/or regular spells that have "powered up" lenghtier versions, I would love to see 2/3 rounds-casting times (or just a full round that goes off at the start of the next turn, given the quickness of combat) for flavor reasons.

Because, honestly, "I need one more round to cast Greater Awesome Dramatic Spell on them, hold on!" is awesome. Cliché, but awesome.
My character is called Ryotto Tyrannicide, wich comes from "tyrannicidal riot". He wields two magic swords: King Beheader (as in "Beheader of Kings", not "King the Beheader") and Chain Splitter. He's also a bit of a skirt-chaser. So yeah, I REALLY hope you have some Lawful Evil bad guys prepared for me. Government/trade/church conspiracies are optional, but highly recommended.


I'm not sure where the rogue assassin comes in, unless you are trying to say that what is good for one class might not be percieved the same way by someone trying to take down that class. In other words, the rogue doesn't want universal casting times because that makes his job harder. I don't see how that affects a wizard's tactics, after all I am speaking from a PC wizard's perspective not a PC rogue's perspective. In fact, the only affect it has on non-spellcasters is that spellcasters become more dangerous to fight, since they have less time to try and stop a spell, but their approach will probably still be the same. Get to the spellcaster quickly and take him out.



You cant just look at it from one class's POV.  In that scenario the Wizard is more likely to go to the high damage spells and be done with the encounter. When casting times are not a factor its puts a greater premium on damage over spells like web, and mirror image. Knowing that the assassin has to pigeonhole their tactics to adjust. 


I understand the point of meaningful decisions much better, but I do not see how increasing the casting time for spells adds decisions, it only seems to add complications. Using your rogue example above what are the wizard's options. With multiple casting times let's say Meteor swarm takes 3 turns, dimension door 2, and mirror image 1. With the rogue 1 turn away from closing in and attacking the wizard has 4 potential options: Move away, Cast Mirror Image to attempt to confuse the rogue's attacks, Cast Dimension Door to teleport to a safe distance, Cast Meteor Swarm to attempt to kill the rogue. However, if we look at the chances of these succeeding there is a problem.



Complications add decisions when they limit the effectiveness of  the 'best' decision. Thats the wizards POV. From the Rogue's POV its even more complex when they know they simply arent going to get shelled toa quick death with damage spells. With the ability to close and interrupt the casting it forces the Wizard to think defense . Maybe they might attempt to take cover and slack a mirror image spell with ranged shots, or wait out other buffs with stealth. Incorporate metamagic and there is even more depth.




If they cast when in melee they could lose the spell or be attacked, and there is a chance the rogue's damage is severe enough to drop the wizard, especially after multiple attacks. This means anything taking more than 1 turn is impractical, and may in fact just be a useless waste of time. That means he has in reality 2 options, Mirror Image or move away. If we have universal casting times though his options jump back up to 4, because he can get the spell off before the rogue's turn.



With Mirror Image as a quick spell the Wizard is more likely to use it with other less powerful melee spells instead of wasting the one shot kill Meteor Swarm. A one round Meteor Swarm is just an example of how a spell that was designed to take time to cast could limit the rogue's approach and the Wizards.  



The more I think about meanignful decisions and realistic options, the less I see multi-turn spells being more tactical, except in the case of it giving more time to people attacking spellcasters, which may sound okay to the fighter or the rogue, but it also means the wizard is more vulnerable. I know a lot of people say wizards are too incredibly powerful so they should have this limitation and that limitation, this restirction and that restriction, but I don't think we need to go back to long casting times and wizards just twiddling their thumbs for a few turns. Instead chuck spells like meteor swarm, which I cannot imagine, even as an arcane player, ever seriously needing. I mean, it's cool but dropping the equivalent of 4-5 fireballs in a single attack is overkill, I shouldn't need that much spread and if I need that much damage why can't I just upgrade fireball?

Also, to respond to the FPS angle, reloading serves a couple purposes, one being to allow an opening to opponents. However, DnD is a turn-based system meaning we do not need to give openings to opponents, since we cannot usually act on an opponents turn and dodge their attacks.



Slower spells arent just more tactical to the person fighting the Wiz its more tactical to the Wizard. Limitations on certain more valuable spells adds value to lesser but quicker spells that typically makes for a more diverse magic dual. You are going to have more openings when every spell isnt turn vs turn. If Im knowing a mage is going through some lengthily ten second incantation and I have only one round to act I am more likely to exploit that opening with a lesser but quicker spell. Incorporate metamagic and its even more organic.


I'm not sure where the rogue assassin comes in, unless you are trying to say that what is good for one class might not be percieved the same way by someone trying to take down that class. In other words, the rogue doesn't want universal casting times because that makes his job harder. I don't see how that affects a wizard's tactics, after all I am speaking from a PC wizard's perspective not a PC rogue's perspective. In fact, the only affect it has on non-spellcasters is that spellcasters become more dangerous to fight, since they have less time to try and stop a spell, but their approach will probably still be the same. Get to the spellcaster quickly and take him out.



You cant just look at it from one class's POV.  In that scenario the Wizard is more likely to go to the high damage spells and be done with the encounter. When casting times are not a factor its puts a greater premium on damage over spells like web, and mirror image. Knowing that the assassin has to pigeonhole their tactics to adjust. 


I understand the point of meaningful decisions much better, but I do not see how increasing the casting time for spells adds decisions, it only seems to add complications. Using your rogue example above what are the wizard's options. With multiple casting times let's say Meteor swarm takes 3 turns, dimension door 2, and mirror image 1. With the rogue 1 turn away from closing in and attacking the wizard has 4 potential options: Move away, Cast Mirror Image to attempt to confuse the rogue's attacks, Cast Dimension Door to teleport to a safe distance, Cast Meteor Swarm to attempt to kill the rogue. However, if we look at the chances of these succeeding there is a problem.



Complications add decisions when they limit the effectiveness of  the 'best' decision. Thats the wizards POV. From the Rogue's POV its even more complex when they know they simply arent going to get shelled toa quick death with damage spells. With the ability to close and interrupt the casting it forces the Wizard to think defense . Maybe they might attempt to take cover and slack a mirror image spell with ranged shots, or wait out other buffs with stealth. Incorporate metamagic and there is even more depth.




If they cast when in melee they could lose the spell or be attacked, and there is a chance the rogue's damage is severe enough to drop the wizard, especially after multiple attacks. This means anything taking more than 1 turn is impractical, and may in fact just be a useless waste of time. That means he has in reality 2 options, Mirror Image or move away. If we have universal casting times though his options jump back up to 4, because he can get the spell off before the rogue's turn.



With Mirror Image as a quick spell the Wizard is more likely to use it with other less powerful melee spells instead of wasting the one shot kill Meteor Swarm. A one round Meteor Swarm is just an example of how a spell that was designed to take time to cast could limit the rogue's approach and the Wizards.  



The more I think about meanignful decisions and realistic options, the less I see multi-turn spells being more tactical, except in the case of it giving more time to people attacking spellcasters, which may sound okay to the fighter or the rogue, but it also means the wizard is more vulnerable. I know a lot of people say wizards are too incredibly powerful so they should have this limitation and that limitation, this restirction and that restriction, but I don't think we need to go back to long casting times and wizards just twiddling their thumbs for a few turns. Instead chuck spells like meteor swarm, which I cannot imagine, even as an arcane player, ever seriously needing. I mean, it's cool but dropping the equivalent of 4-5 fireballs in a single attack is overkill, I shouldn't need that much spread and if I need that much damage why can't I just upgrade fireball?

Also, to respond to the FPS angle, reloading serves a couple purposes, one being to allow an opening to opponents. However, DnD is a turn-based system meaning we do not need to give openings to opponents, since we cannot usually act on an opponents turn and dodge their attacks.



Slower spells arent just more tactical to the person fighting the Wiz its more tactical to the Wizard. Limitations on certain more valuable spells adds value to lesser but quicker spells that typically makes for a more diverse magic dual. You are going to have more openings when every spell isnt turn vs turn. If Im knowing a mage is going through some lengthily ten second incantation and I have only one round to act I am more likely to exploit that opening with a lesser but quicker spell. Incorporate metamagic and its even more organic.



I really wish I knew how you guys divide up the posts like that when responding. It would make things easier.

I do think it is proper to look at spellcasting from a wizards or clerics point of view, becuase it is their major class feature. I do not tend to look at how sneak attack or CS dice work towards a cleric or wizard, because it isn't their feature. For everytime the PC's are up against an enemy spellcaster there are probably 5-10 times that the spellcaster PC's are up against nonspellcasting enemies.

I get your point about giving the rogue an opening, about it increasing the effectiveness of pure damage spells, but I don't think the rogue is at such a "disadvantage" tactically. A wizard is always thinking defense, because they have the lowest (almost pitiful at this point IMO) health and no armor. I suspect that if the math was done a wizard can be one-shotted by the rogue's sneak attack at every level. So in this PvP scenario we are discussing if the rogue attacks with advantage the wizard is dead, why then would we want to have him stationary and distracted for 3-4 turns? In fact, I cannot imagine casting a spell that took 3 turns to get off, especially in Next where the entire design philosophy is increasing the speed of combat. If we use our meteor swarm spell again, let's say it takes 3 turns and you cast it at the start of the battle. First of all if, as I have seen done, you must target the spell at that point you have no idea what you will hit, even if you hit anything, becuase you are trying to predict what the field of battle will look like 3 turns from now. Secondly, you are stuck in that one place, unable to do anything, until your spell goes off. The player might as well take a snack break or go to the bathroom, because they can do nothing for the next three turns. It is not fun to want to play then be regulated to a spectator, though I know you will argue this is the price of power, I still would get bored waiting while everyone else is acting. Which leads me to my thrid point, the battle could well be over by the time your spell goes off. Your teammates get lucky hits, and by the end of the second turn the monsters are fleeing and you have wasted your role in the battle, and , if the DM rules, you have lost a powerful spell. Tactics like delayed casting are best in slower combats, you don't toss a grenade in an FPS that detonates a minute later, that is too slow for the pace of the combat.

Also, with the magical duel, delayed casting times just mean that certain spells will never be used. If a wizard is fighting a wizard, no spell that take more than one turn would be used unless they had incapacitated their opponent and had multiple turns to act, because magic missile is an auto-hit and if we have spell disruption due to damage no spell that takes more than one turn could possible go off. True, a one turn meteor swarm makes it just a matter of initiative, but I find that a problem with spell power not casting time.

I think if I had to pick the one aspect of casting times that bother me the most it is that it forces the wizard further into the role of fortune teller. They have to guess if they have the time to pull of a spell, if it will be effective when it goes off, if the battle will last long enough for it to go off. This is on top of the predicting they do with Vancian casting and trying to figure out what spells they will need. Feather fall for exampe is probably the most useful spell never taken, because you can't predict when you will fall down a hole and it is useless in any other situation. but that is a different topic
For many of the reasons Chaosmancer stated, I hope they don't put in Casting Times into D&D:Next. Casting components (ala Verbal, Somatic) were ok by me but I could take them or leave them. Same with mundane components that most wizards are expected to have on-hand when adventuring.
Really, I don't think I've ever liked Casting Times or expensive components for Broken spells. I don't think they make for good balance points. I never saw them work that way in my 2E or 3E days and think 4E did fine without them. If they want to make Rituals a more focused and ingrained element in D&D:Next (something I'd love to see) then this is where multiple casting rounds, mundane and expensive spell components should become a paramount aspect. Don't make it for all the spells on the list, just ones that are Rituals.
I'm all for casting times for flavor. To avoid slowing down combat, make the big ones be cast at the start of your next turn, or in 2 rounds at best. Them allow the caster to choose the target/AoE at the time the spell goes off, not at the time he/she decides to use it. Also let the caster take move actions while casting it.

Then make it optional, and no one will complain.

To make it seamlessly modular, create an optional rule that lets you cast a slowed spell: you make the spell have a casting time, but you also spend a lower spell slot/less magic points.

This idea means you don't need to create hard-coded slower spells at all, allowing you to use all spells even if you don't like casting times, and keeping the balance solid.

It's definitely not the best approach, it needs work and refinement, but it's a very good starting point.
My character is called Ryotto Tyrannicide, wich comes from "tyrannicidal riot". He wields two magic swords: King Beheader (as in "Beheader of Kings", not "King the Beheader") and Chain Splitter. He's also a bit of a skirt-chaser. So yeah, I REALLY hope you have some Lawful Evil bad guys prepared for me. Government/trade/church conspiracies are optional, but highly recommended.
I'm all for casting times for flavor. To avoid slowing down combat, make the big ones be cast at the start of your next turn, or in 2 rounds at best. Them allow the caster to choose the target/AoE at the time the spell goes off, not at the time he/she decides to use it. Also let the caster take move actions while casting it.



To me this kills any sort of dynamic spellcasting or tactical employ of offensive spells in the game. Like the fireball example: if at the start of the round 6 orcs are clustered together and when it comes to your turn, you cast fireball to get them all. So you cast and as the next round unfolds people get in the way and Orcs move and now your faced with a situation where you might only get 2 orcs together least you hit one of your allies. You've now just wasted an AoE spell for 2 monsters. Even if your allowed to target as the spell goes off, there still that whole round were monsters and PCs move that make your selection far less significant. And for wizards, espically as Vancian casters, you can't afford to cast spells that have extreamly limited effects.

So, if Casting Times is going to be implemented, then they need to remove another restriction of spellcasting (like Vancian) and allow casting whenever you want but it's delayed. to have both is just bad game design.


I really wish I knew how you guys divide up the posts like that when responding. It would make things easier.






Just surround the text with html quote code. Im going to remove the e in quote so it wont function [quot] text here[/quot]
Add the e and this is what you see




I do think it is proper to look at spellcasting from a wizards or clerics point of view, becuase it is their major class feature. I do not tend to look at how sneak attack or CS dice work towards a cleric or wizard, because it isn't their feature. For everytime the PC's are up against an enemy spellcaster there are probably 5-10 times that the spellcaster PC's are up against nonspellcasting enemies.



But battling powerful mages is so much fun, especially in video games.



I get your point about giving the rogue an opening, about it increasing the effectiveness of pure damage spells, but I don't think the rogue is at such a "disadvantage" tactically. A wizard is always thinking defense, because they have the lowest (almost pitiful at this point IMO) health and no armor. I suspect that if the math was done a wizard can be one-shotted by the rogue's sneak attack at every level. So in this PvP scenario we are discussing if the rogue attacks with advantage the wizard is dead, why then would we want to have him stationary and distracted for 3-4 turns? In fact, I cannot imagine casting a spell that took 3 turns to get off, especially in Next where the entire design philosophy is increasing the speed of combat. If we use our meteor swarm spell again, let's say it takes 3 turns and you cast it at the start of the battle. First of all if, as I have seen done, you must target the spell at that point you have no idea what you will hit, even if you hit anything, becuase you are trying to predict what the field of battle will look like 3 turns from now. Secondly, you are stuck in that one place, unable to do anything, until your spell goes off. The player might as well take a snack break or go to the bathroom, because they can do nothing for the next three turns. It is not fun to want to play then be regulated to a spectator, though I know you will argue this is the price of power, I still would get bored waiting while everyone else is acting. Which leads me to my thrid point, the battle could well be over by the time your spell goes off. Your teammates get lucky hits, and by the end of the second turn the monsters are fleeing and you have wasted your role in the battle, and , if the DM rules, you have lost a powerful spell. Tactics like delayed casting are best in slower combats, you don't toss a grenade in an FPS that detonates a minute later, that is too slow for the pace of the combat.



I dont think any spell should take more than 3 turns and only a handful like Meteor Swarm should take 3. Also I would allow for metamagic to quicken certain spells like fireball to 1 turn.


Also, with the magical duel, delayed casting times just mean that certain spells will never be used. If a wizard is fighting a wizard, no spell that take more than one turn would be used unless they had incapacitated their opponent and had multiple turns to act, because magic missile is an auto-hit and if we have spell disruption due to damage no spell that takes more than one turn could possible go off. True, a one turn meteor swarm makes it just a matter of initiative, but I find that a problem with spell power not casting time.



This is my point of contention. There are so many spells in D&D that you have a greater chance of stunting their use by reducing battles to quickdraws. There is a ton of stuff that could delay an opponent long enough for a two or the rare three round spell.  Grease, slow, web, confusion, confidence in your ability to cast while distracted, a summoned creature can help a Wizard get their spells off. Even a house cat familiar scratching someones face could do it. I havent ran the numbers, Im just going based on instincts and experience.  Mage duels or even 1on1 2on1 against other classes are more strategic with casting time. The first seconds of the battle are contingencies, quick low damage attacks, and buffs with casting time. Without casting time its cone of cold vs chain lighting and you win the fight by winning two of three initiatives. Its the Emperor vs Darth Vader.


I think if I had to pick the one aspect of casting times that bother me the most it is that it forces the wizard further into the role of fortune teller. They have to guess if they have the time to pull of a spell, if it will be effective when it goes off, if the battle will last long enough for it to go off. This is on top of the predicting they do with Vancian casting and trying to figure out what spells they will need. Feather fall for exampe is probably the most useful spell never taken, because you can't predict when you will fall down a hole and it is useless in any other situation. but that is a different topic



Feather Fall has always been a really quick spell and you can certainly predict when you might fall. Might be a good spell for someone who flys a lot or fights in towers or mountains. Im ok with the 3 round spells like Meteor Swarm requiring some stealth with a scout signaling the location of a bandit camp. Its a special type of spell. A clean friendly fire free, 1 round, Meteor Swarm is the stuff of Final Fantasy.

For many of the reasons Chaosmancer stated, I hope they don't put in Casting Times into D&D:Next. Casting components (ala Verbal, Somatic) were ok by me but I could take them or leave them. Same with mundane components that most wizards are expected to have on-hand when adventuring.
Really, I don't think I've ever liked Casting Times or expensive components for Broken spells. I don't think they make for good balance points. I never saw them work that way in my 2E or 3E days and think 4E did fine without them. If they want to make Rituals a more focused and ingrained element in D&D:Next (something I'd love to see) then this is where multiple casting rounds, mundane and expensive spell components should become a paramount aspect. Don't make it for all the spells on the list, just ones that are Rituals.



Im back to facepalm city.
Rituals are not for combat. They take ten minutes. Even if you reduced the time by 90% they would be too slow. At that point they wouldnt even be rituals. Orkbard's example is barely conceivable with slow stupid zombies. You might find three pages in the monster manual of creatures that would let you pull a ritual on the battlefield.
I'm a fan of cast times and components. I think they add a tactical element and are just as clean and elegant as no cast times.  I like the idea of spells being interrupted as that adds additional tactical elements to the fight, and cast times assist in that.  OTOH I think anything past start of the next round takes it too far and the spells become overpowered gimmicks.  I don't expect to see them even the breathtakingly simply 2e initiative modifier system in 5e though.  

What I'd like to see to replace it is a casting delay between daily spells.  This is mainly to help balance things like limited resource casting in a campaign that does not follow the standard 4 fights style.  Without something like a cast delay in a game with one encounter per day you can unload the best left and right.  How do you balance that with a game where you have to save your spells over 6 encounters.  I mean you can make the limited resource only as effective as a standard at will from other classes and that works for the one encounter a day style but then starts to fall apart in the 6 encounter per day style.  A system where you can't unload helps protect things in the one encounter per day style and forces you to save resources helping keep the 6 encounter per day style stay balanced as well.  

Casting delays also add a tactical element since you have to plan for the delay where you are stuck with just your at wills or their equiv depending on the casting system.