Time in ALFA - Spells

[kid]

Exactly. But when you RP with your friends you should NOT be covered with the 10min buff that lasts a way too long percentage of your play time. Sometimes our time goes by too fast and sometimes waaaay to slow.
I could agree that prolonging hourlies fits, but there no way 10mins should not be shortened. These would never fade during one encounter and would last a few even if cut by half. However they should not by any means last your entire play time as you can now do by simply memoing them twice. Thats not what they are meant to do, that's not how they are meant to be used. Ignoring that major power increase when you cone to "fix" our caster "problem" (problem being... The are the strongest just not strong enough?) is irresponsible and has nothing to do with RP. RP wise they should fade is most cases. (Not always as our time is problematic but defenetly they should not be on at all times)

[vergin_sacrifice]

Exactly. But when you RP with your friends you should NOT be covered with the 10min buff that lasts a way too long percentage of your play time. Sometimes our time goes by too fast and sometimes waaaay to slow....

A couple of things to take into account here. If time is slowed down, so will rest periods. You won't be able to rest every 3 hours anymore. Also, you keep referring to 12th level casters. That implies at least 12th level players. Are there that many? I thought the average player character was 5th level on ALFA. Shouldn't we be thinking more of them? If they cast a spell that is 10m per level REAL TIME, that's only 50 minutes. If as you suggest, the average play time is 2.5 hours, that is only about a third of the time, not the majority. And I was under the impression from what I read that time was being considered to being reduced, not kept as real time anyway. I'm not arguing that 10 m/level spells should be kept real time, I don't think anyone is.

We should remember, as with most things, the higher level characters are the exception to the rules, the outliers. I don't think that we should be arguing so hard and using them as the examples when they are not the norm.

[kid]

Keeping 10 min at real time is exactly what is suggested. And with a fifth lv caster 50 mins out of 2.5h means he's covered about 33% of the time with his 10 min buff instead of about 3% that a pnp Mage would enjoy.
And in not saying 10 min spells should be 1/6 the length of hourly but the can't be as long as they are.

[vergin_sacrifice]

Keeping 10 min at real time is exactly what is suggested. And with a fifth lv caster 50 mins out of 2.5h means he's covered about 33% of the time with his 10 min buff instead of about 3% that a pnp Mage would enjoy.
And in not saying 10 min spells should be 1/6 the length of hourly but the can't be as long as they are.

I stand corrected, I went back and reread, and it was actually one of your posts Kid, that I was mis-remembering as being from one of the tech people. I am sorry.

Tech responses I saw were that there is no way to reduce the 10m/level spells without drastically impacting the game. Ok... I get this. And the problem of 7min hours, we can't have 60 minute hours, and 14 minute hours seems a good one, though 24 minute hours I like better. (2.5 x time dilation)

Tech Guys... I have an idea, that might work, but I don't know how viable it is. Maybe weigh in?

DMFI tools exist for doing all sorts of things. Can we set one up that will allow a player to voluntarily debuff 10m/lvl spell effects? I realize you can't identify which ones are because it's perm or not perm. but.. I am thinking if there are not that many 10m/lvl spells, maybe a tool that when activated removes those effects from the player that are detailed in it's programing?

It would not be equivalent to a rest, but maybe some sort of reward could be put into it that would reduce the time to next rest or something so that if you are on the overland map and would have rested you can be that much closer to it? Maybe with a timer or counter that could be put in to keep such a tool from being abused as well?

The largest thing that I try to remember when we are together here, is that we are none of us children, and trying to have a collective good time with our hobby. I think we should be trusted to try to stay within the rules, and giving us the power to debuff when it's not appropriate to keep it on makes sense. Having it triggered to ATs does not make sense, as sometimes the DMs will choose to have the PC followed through ATs and continue the encounters.

[Brokenbone]

I see a good deal of kid's point here.

Even a peep of "10 mins somehow being 10 RL mins maybe never made sense either, change as part of the package" seems to elicit boos and hisses. Doubt anyone'd say "whatever you pick for hours, make 10 minutes 1/6th of that", but imagine we had an 11 minute hour... vs. 10 minute as 10 minute, hah. Not as bad as the 10:7 reversal issue at the moment, but kinda close.

As long as things don't devolve into "power increase good, power decrease bad", this doesn't have as much stink discussion wise, right?

I do like the list Foam made though, helps put into perspective some of the limits of change to regular every day buffery. Missing Silence from it though, jack that one up, love seeing AI use that one now and again (last night it was a doozy once or twice...). I suppose the look twice idea (much like with Greater Stoneskin) could apply with ones like Premonition, that's supposed to be some kind of dice check boost spell isn't it (see into future, get a better roll on something like an upcoming skill...?) Only the nwn2wiki taught me that under 3.5 notes, haven't been interested enough in big time wizard spells to go and look up how non-dramatic this one is.

[FoamBats4All]

Tech responses I saw were that there is no way to reduce the 10m/level spells without drastically impacting the game.

I don't think that was said? Dropping 10 min/level spells down to something like 8min/level might be a good decision, so long as we increase hour/level to something like 17min/hour.. And it's just as easy to do.

DMFI tools exist for doing all sorts of things. Can we set one up that will allow a player to voluntarily debuff 10m/lvl spell effects? I realize you can't identify which ones are because it's perm or not perm. but.. I am thinking if there are not that many 10m/lvl spells, maybe a tool that when activated removes those effects from the player that are detailed in it's programing?

Eeeh... yesish? It's kind of a big pain in the butt. We've wanted to allow (D) spells to be dismissable for a while, but we'd have to write a UI, track all the spells, and provide some sort of interface for debuffing them. Far more work.

I do like the list Foam made though, helps put into perspective some of the limits of change to regular every day buffery. Missing Silence from it though, jack that one up, love seeing AI use that one now and again (last night it was a doozy once or twice...). I suppose the look twice idea (much like with Greater Stoneskin) could apply with ones like Premonition, that's supposed to be some kind of dice check boost spell isn't it (see into future, get a better roll on something like an upcoming skill...?) Only the nwn2wiki taught me that under 3.5 notes, haven't been interested enough in big time wizard spells to go and look up how non-dramatic this one is.

Will get around to updating the list when I have more time. Today is Homework from Hell Day.

[oldgrayrogue]

I voted yes for this because I totally agree that the way time works now it is disruptive to DMd RP. As a UMD wielding rogue that wand, ring or scroll buff can mean life or death to my PC. I hate when it expires while the DM is narrating a scene. Costly in many ways. Also immersion breaking.

I too see a lot of Kids point though. casters have always been the most powerful class in D&D and ALFA is no exception. The changes here can create a problem -- not with DMd play (which is pretty much the only time I play in ALFA now) but with non-DMd play where people are just running around killing everything buffed to the nines for hours on end. This is where the balance of power is upset, and it is a legitimate concern. In ALFA, the "free healing" that clerics get alone is a huge leg up on other classes. There are different considerations when playing in a 24/7 PW than apply in a sessioned PnP campaign. Many things don't translate and shouldn't for many of the reasons Kid states.

[danielmn]

+1

[vergin_sacrifice]

Tech responses I saw were that there is no way to reduce the 10m/level spells without drastically impacting the game.

I don't think that was said? Dropping 10 min/level spells down to something like 8min/level might be a good decision, so long as we increase hour/level to something like 17min/hour.. And it's just as easy to do.

Then I miss understood what you were writing before when you wrote this... seeing what you just wrote though, I can see how it was meant to be after the casting, and not in the coding itself.

One of the major limitations that we have right now with spells with duration is that we are unable to access the duration after it's applied, except in the crudest sense (we can identify permanent v. not permanent ... and that's as detailed as it gets).

Huh? So once we have a spell effect on the PC we can't trace back what spell it is? Or once we know "it's the effect of the haste spell", the code can't tell "haste is a round per level spell"?

Alas, yes*. We also can't access the duration to see how much time a spell has left, or modify that value.

(* Well, okay, we -can-, it'd just be expensive and cumbersome to write. We could make a list of every round/minute duration spell, and compare them to GetEffectSpellId for each effect on the player.)

[FoamBats4All]

Tech responses I saw were that there is no way to reduce the 10m/level spells without drastically impacting the game.

I don't think that was said? Dropping 10 min/level spells down to something like 8min/level might be a good decision, so long as we increase hour/level to something like 17min/hour.. And it's just as easy to do.

Then I miss understood what you were writing before when you wrote this... seeing what you just wrote though, I can see how it was meant to be after the casting, and not in the coding itself.

One of the major limitations that we have right now with spells with duration is that we are unable to access the duration after it's applied, except in the crudest sense (we can identify permanent v. not permanent ... and that's as detailed as it gets).

Huh? So once we have a spell effect on the PC we can't trace back what spell it is? Or once we know "it's the effect of the haste spell", the code can't tell "haste is a round per level spell"?

Alas, yes*. We also can't access the duration to see how much time a spell has left, or modify that value.

(* Well, okay, we -can-, it'd just be expensive and cumbersome to write. We could make a list of every round/minute duration spell, and compare them to GetEffectSpellId for each effect on the player.)

Ah, not sure what you meant then.

"Can we reduce 10min/level spells down to Xmin/level?" -- Yes, we can.

"Can we modify the time left in a spell after it has been cast?" -- No (other than by removing the effects entirely). Though as Zelk mentions, this may not be reliable.

[Ithildur]

So Kid's issue is with 10min/lvl spells; that's a related but separate topic imo. If someone wants to go over various different duration spells/effects and attempt to get them all tweaked because the hourly stuff finally got fixed, more power to them, but I think we should first establish a less speedy time compression overall and fix the hourlies; these are the most obvious flaws people want to see fixed, as clearly indicated by the polls and the original topic of these threads.

I do agree that, say, casting 10min/lvl spells and going through overland travel that should represent a day's worth of travel in 30 minutes real time is rather problematic, and recommend we refrain from casting 10 min/lvl spells before setting on such trips as much as possible (although in the case of higher lvl casters, it's possible such spells last hours). This is an extreme case of where time 'slows down' rather than 'speeds up' like during skillchecks/dialog etc., and is problematic with 10 min/lvl spells - though it should be noted that the issue is NOT with spell duration, but with choice of module design; i.e. TSM's Overland system or MS's portal to Waterdeep is far more problematic than say travel on BG. A possible solution would be to script long distance travel more sensibly, i.e. upon ATing from A to B dispell all buffs that should not last x hours of travel, give characters a chance to rest, roll for chance of random encounter perhaps (a DM can do all this obviously). But this is beyond the scope of this thread.

Ultimately this sounds to me like letting the less than perfect be the enemy of improvement, or simply a distraction to the main issue, which is that time compression is too fast for most ALFAns and that spells meant to last hours and hours should not poof after minutes.

We're never going to have time exactly precise. Even if we change the compression to say, 1:4, time is still moving faster than real time especially while 'speaking' (typing dialog), noticing things (typing descriptions, rolling spot checks, knowledge checks, etc), which have the net effect of 'speeding up' time. Hour/lvl spells lasting say, 14 minutes/lvl is still a fraction of a full hour, just as 10 min/lvl spells lasting longer than they should occasionally is not spot on correct. 10 min/lvls lasting the length of the journey from SM to RM is a bigger stretch, but again that's not the spell's fault, as the spell functions perfectly fine when the PC's travel is confined to shorter distances like in a dungeon.

The notion that reducing 10 min/lvl spells to be shorter duration is somehow more balanced is a fallacy. What about cases where the entire session is localized to small, short distance travel? Why should 10 min buffs be reduced in duration in such a case, when time is far more likely to 'speed up' than 'slow down'? What about days when a PC needs to engage in an important conversation where social skill boosts may help and casts Heroism, which is certainly meant to last long enough to last a good length conversation at midlvls? Or the most common situation perhaps when this might be an issue and hour/lvl spells poofing prematurely is an issue... when lives and more are at stake in a dungeon type of setting, where travel is limited to short distances over a session, skillchecks are being rolled aplenty, and dialog/descriptions definitely are being typed out (especially when a DM can always decide if he wishes 'you guys have ICly been traveling for 3 hours now, and Heroism expires' *forcerest/remove effect*, etc.)... how will you justify cutting the duration of the spells then?

Let's face it; in balance, even if the hourlies are improved, most nearly every spell will still run out before they should ICly when it counts: spells that should last several minutes will end before the party finishes trying to recognize creature x and what it can do, spells that should last half the day will still end after a few hours, etc. 10 minuters occasionally lasting longer has never been an issue raised by anyone before, whereas many, many folks both playerside and DMs have brought up the issue of time compression and hour/lvl spells.

[Rumple C]

There is no perfect solution, we work within an imperfect system. Any improvements and standardisation towards pnp is a good thing.

[Swift]

There is no perfect solution, we work within an imperfect system. Any improvements and standardisation towards pnp is a good thing.

Except we aren't PnP, never have been PnP and PnP rules often simply do not work or are not appropriate for the type of world we are running.

The blind acceptance that "everything should be like PnP" is laughable to me, because we aren't playing PnP here. We are playing a CRPG. We are playing a round the clock accessible persistent world.

The type of D&D we are playing is about as far removed from PnP as you can get while still calling it D&D.

Let's face it; in balance, even if the hourlies are improved, most nearly every spell will still run out before they should ICly when it counts: spells that should last several minutes will end before the party finishes trying to recognize creature x and what it can do, spells that should last half the day will still end after a few hours, etc. 10 minuters occasionally lasting longer has never been an issue raised by anyone before, whereas many, many folks both playerside and DMs have brought up the issue of time compression and hour/lvl spells.

Err...what? 10 minute/level spells lasting longer than hour/level spells has been raised multiple times since we launched our NWN2 servers. It has been one of the most persistently complained about 'class' issues we have had (along side how Stealth works and a couple of specific broken class feats).

[Ithildur]

We'll never be exactly like PnP, sure. But I have to ask, what the hell were folks doing when they put in hard work to covert stuff like NWN2's skills to match PnP skills? Or Background Regions and languages per the FRCS/PGtF? Or the myriad of over tweaks to the game in ACR that brings our game closer to PnP than vanilla NWN2?

Really really puzzling... no one seemed to have issues with Clerics getting even more uber by getting their domain stuff converted to match canon stuff more closely. This place really makes me scratch my head sometimes.

Err...what? 10 minute/level spells lasting longer than hour/level spells has been raised multiple times since we launched our NWN2 servers. It has been one of the most persistently complained about 'class' issues we have had (along side how Stealth works and a couple of specific broken class feats).

So entirely missed the point Swift; the issue there isn't that 10 min/lvl spells last longer than hour/lvl spells; we've moved on from there. The issue now is that they sometimes last longer than they should due to wacky travel times. I'm sure eventually someone will try and claim minute/lvl spells last too long and should become rnd/lvl, and rnd/lvl spells should be banned outright.

((actually, I think someone did just that once...))

[Swift]

We'll never be exactly like PnP, sure. But I have to ask, what the hell were folks doing when they put in hard work to covert stuff like NWN2's skills to match PnP skills? Or Background Regions and languages per the FRCS/PGtF?

Both of which are, for all intents and purposes, fluff. Skills are only as important as a DM chooses to make them. Background regions and languages are nice to have, but they are just seasoning.

Neither are mechanical changes, or changes that will affect class balance and how people play a class.

Add all the fluff from PnP that you want, they aren't game breakers. It is the mechanics of the game that start to break down when porting 1 for 1 from PnP to 24 hour accessible CRPGs and is why we shouldn't be holding it up as an end goal like many are increasingly doing.