Reversible Spells

One thing I miss from 2nd edition is reversible spells. For example, transmute rock to mud and transmute mud to rock weren't separate spells. You prepared transmute rock to mud and could cast it either way. The same was true of enlarge/reduce person, haste/slow, flesh to stone/stone to flesh, etc. Not only did that help consolidate alot of spells, I thought they were alot of fun.

How about you? Do you want to see reversible spells return in 5th edition?
I too would like to see spells used this way. It sucks when you have to take non traditional combat spells, so why not make them a little more flexible? I don;t think it would break the game to go to this reversible spell concept.
It all depends on how those spells interact with spell level scaling. If, for instance, enlarge person were to  increase the size of a creature per spell level (and/or add creature types to target), it might provr too powerful and cumbersome to have it also be reverseable and scaleable the other way.

I think rock to mud/mud to rock, flesh to stone/stone to flesh, and the like should just be consolidated into one reversible spell instead of two opposite spells, but enlarge person and reduce person should require different spells because combining them would be a bit overpowering.
but enlarge person and reduce person should require different spells because combining them would be a bit overpowering.



Why?
but enlarge person and reduce person should require different spells because combining them would be a bit overpowering.



Why?



Just the way I think of it. I guess because they are for different strategies, it would be one spell that could provide two different kinds of buffs. At least it would have been in 3rd edition. Since there don't seem to be universal size modifiers in this game, it actually might not be overpowered at all, it would mainly have tactical applications and not make you very strong or very hard to hit. I didn't consider that.
Just the way I think of it. I guess because they are for different strategies, it would be one spell that could provide two different kinds of buffs. At least it would have been in 3rd edition. Since there don't seem to be universal size modifiers in this game, it actually might not be overpowered at all, it would mainly have tactical applications and not make you very strong or very hard to hit. I didn't consider that.



I see where you're coming from, but I don't remember them being a problem in 2e when they were a single spell. Even if they keep 3e-style size bonuses, I don't think it would be a problem since the two buffs are mutually exclusive. Of course, if they did reintroduce reversible spells, we'd have plenty of chances to playtest them and see if there's any problems.
Just the way I think of it. I guess because they are for different strategies, it would be one spell that could provide two different kinds of buffs. At least it would have been in 3rd edition. Since there don't seem to be universal size modifiers in this game, it actually might not be overpowered at all, it would mainly have tactical applications and not make you very strong or very hard to hit. I didn't consider that.



I see where you're coming from, but I don't remember them being a problem in 2e when they were a single spell. Even if they keep 3e-style size bonuses, I don't think it would be a problem since the two buffs are mutually exclusive. Of course, if they did reintroduce reversible spells, we'd have plenty of chances to playtest them and see if there's any problems.



We should get a chance to playtest them, it's worth experimenting with.
Reversible spells would be cool.

Enlarge and Reduce will never be spot on for weight/height/stat mods, we have the older versionsof the spells, we can put them in and playtest it, put it in the game and if required DM can house rule it by situation, same as everything else.

How far do you want to take Reversable though? eg could Summon Monster 1 be used to Dispel a monster from Summon Monster 1?

Other spells : Bestow/Remove Fear, Detect/Hide Undead, Daylight/Darkness, Read/Disguise Magic, Comprehend/Confuse Language, Invisibility/Visibility, Haste/Slow...

Key things for D&D - Where is the character from and why do they do what they do? / Recurring NPCs - allies and enemies / Plot, World and Personal Events.

How far do you want to take Reversable though? eg could Summon Monster 1 be used to Dispel a monster from Summon Monster 1?



No, only spells that have exact opposite effects, like stone to flesh and flesh to stone.
I would agree with reversible spells as well,  there's really no reason not to have them other than to cater to people who didn't actually read the description.

It also significantly helps with the limited spell slots thing,  and really encourages players to come up with creative solutions to problems by giving them that bundled utility.

 
the way to controll the power of these spells is to not change them, you have to memorize either version and who knows if that is the right choice thats what controlls the power.
the way to controll the power of these spells is to not change them, you have to memorize either version and who knows if that is the right choice thats what controlls the power.



I would prefer if you didn't have to choose when preparing them. Most of these spells are too situational to begin with. How often do you really need stone to flesh? Or transmute mud to rock?
then make scolls of them once you know the spell. or memorize them when you rest to fix a petrified character
I don't think it is necessary -as the game stands right now.

After all - when you prepared spells you had to choose the 'flavor' you prepared.  So its only real value was that it increased the wizard's flexibility without taking up slots in the number of spells known. Since we have no limit on the number of spells known (at present) it doesn't serve any useful purpose.


Drawbacks include:

If we get limits on spells know, I will revisit this opinion.  However, I think that the effect of allowing spells to exist in higher level spell slots already opens up space in the 'known spells list' and thus this change isn't necessary.

But it depends on where they set the limits, if they set limits.  If they go with something as low as my preference (either IntMod per level or Twice Preparation Slots) - then, yeah, I"ll probably be in favor of reverseable spells.  But if they go with values two or three times higher than that (as many have suggested) - then, no - I don't think they need this feature.



Regardless - what I do think makes a better rule is something like the following:  You acknowledge that there is a relationship between certain spells.  You give the players a chance to try to bring about the opposite effect with a very difficult arcana check (with, at best, nothing happening if they fail).  Thus if they really need the opposite effect from the spell, they can try to alter their magic on the fly - but it is not a 'typical use' of the spell.     In fact - I would suggest that this not even require exact opposites - but that magic in general can be adapted on the fly with difficult or higher arcana checks.              



Carl
All these scenarios could be addressed by have a mechanic to cancel spells based on what the wizard has memorized or is in their spellbook. It would be based on a contest of skills including based on the casters level and/or ability score, or would be automatic if it is the caster's own spell. The benefit of a memorized spell is you can do it immediately, while doing it from the spell book would be a ritual affect.
I would agree with reversible spells as well,  there's really no reason not to have them other than to cater to people who didn't actually read the description.

It also significantly helps with the limited spell slots thing,  and really encourages players to come up with creative solutions to problems by giving them that bundled utility.

 




If I recal in AD&D you had to memorize it in reverse.     

Reversible spells saves trees.  
There is no point in wasting space in the PHB with spells like Light/Darkness, Knock/Lock, etc.  


+1 to reversable spells.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.