|
12 months ago ::
Jun 03, 2012 - 2:17PM
#21
|
|
|
Heh, the pointless bookkeeping to *actually* track 1 minute, makes it a poor rule.
You might as well force players to keep track of how many moles each orc has.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 03, 2012 - 6:03PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2009
|
Who said a fight is never supposed to last longer than 4 rounds?
A PC claiming they wasted their spell is no different than a PC claiming they wasted hp and want the combat to retroactively not have occured. I doubt any DM would have an issue refusing that request so why would a "wasted" spell be any different?
Your second example the PC is in the right. If the spell allows them to access the benefits, it's a justified resource for them to use. If they can walk 30 feet in 6 seconds, yes, they have the right to the additional 3 rounds, or 18 seconds of buff.
1 minute spell = 10 rounds. Tracking 10 rounds is not unreasonable or difficult.
If the 4 round expectancy is part of the intrinsic design of the game, then the 1 minute duration is obviously supposed to represent "until the end of the encounter." I feel the 1 minute duration is just plain unnecessary.
Giving a spell a 1 minute duration only sets up players to try to exploit the rules & the resulting disappointment/exasperation. Case in point, I think you misunderstood my example about the doors. The 18-second buffed character's buff would wear off FAR before the character even reached the door, much less listened & opened it. To track the buff outside of combat "properly" would require combat rules, hence why this ficticious PC started whining about moving 30'/6sec. If we're not in combat, let'S explore & role play! Minutae of arthimetic is for detailed combat encounters. Otherwise, drop it. The core rules shouldn't give the PCs/DM opportunities to exploit something that obviously wasn't meant to be used that way.
All of this out-of-combat hassle is unnecessary, but more importantly, it is not fun. I honestly cannot see how whining at the DM for an extra 18 secs of buff is fun for anyone, especially not the DM.
And it's not just in the players favour. Players overbuff themselves with a host of spells? Have the monster run away for 9 rounds.
Ugh. Seriously. Ugh. Hearing this actually makes me worry about 5E. If THAT is the type of behavior the game rules encourage in the monsters, then 5E will not be fun at all. It actually makes me lose interest in the game. Speaking of which...
Precise, quantifiable mechanics eliminate arguements. Handwaiving those mechanics create the sort of game that reduce D&D to just going going through the motions. 4e style spoon feeding turned a lot of players off.
This sounds interesting. Do you have a poll or an article or something you can link? I'd like to read more.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 04, 2012 - 4:24AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
As a general concensus, perhaps durations should be more generally described as short, medium, long, and extended? Short being roughly equivalent to a round/action, medium is 1minute/encounter, long is 1hour, and extended is all day (until the next extended rest). It would allow for different interpretations of those durations based on group playstyle. This would not just be used for spells, but other effects such as fatigue.
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 04, 2012 - 4:41AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2009
|
As a general concensus, perhaps durations should be more generally described as short, medium, long, and extended? Short being roughly equivalent to a round/action, medium is 1minute/encounter, long is 1hour, and extended is all day (until the next extended rest). It would allow for different interpretations of those durations based on group playstyle. This would not just be used for spells, but other effects such as fatigue.
I could get behind this. +1
|
|
|
