D&D 5E Reversible Spells

[Falling Icicle]

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?

 

[Tovec]

Put me down as a strong 'perhaps' as it entirely depends on how spell casting works in 5e. I find that most of the time in 3e having reversible spells would make all the sense in the world. But 5e is a different beast and so far works differently. Having an at-will or rechargeable form of transmute rock to mud (and vice versa) can be seriously breaking if not properly reigned in. The same may or may not go for healing/inflicting spells but again that depends on how they scale and how they are used to attack - so the mechanics of how the spell works.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think I would like such spells, but not all of them.

Transmute rock to mud and Flesh to stone would be good candidates.

Haste and Slow I prefer to remain separate spells since they are generally good enough on their own, and maybe also Enlarge person and Reduce person.

 

[delericho]

I would rather the spells remain separate. Very often, the 'reverse' spell actually works sufficently differently to warrant a separate write-up.

That said, I wouldn't mind seeing spells being 'twinned' such that a caster who has the ability to cast one can spontaneously switch it out for the other. Which has much the same effect as the spells being reversible, but not quite.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I would rather similar effects be grouped into a single spell. Transmute rock to mud/mud to rock is really just an advanced version of stone shape (or create water perhaps..) - why not have a general transmutation spell such as polymorph, but for materials instead of creatures. The difference between the material properties limit the duration and volume you can effect, much as polymorph any object, but exclude it from functioning on living creatures until you get said spell.

 

[Cleon]

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.

Eh? From what I remember of AD&D and BECMI, most such spells had to be prepared/memorized in either standard or reversed form.

So if a caster had X to Y in their repertoire and wanted to cast the reversed version, they had to prep Y to X.

There were a few exceptions (I vaguely recall there being a "fire cloak" type spell you could set as cold or hot when you cast it).

 

[Li Shenron]

I would rather similar effects be grouped into a single spell.

It would make sense in many ways, but it would also carry the risk of straying very far away from how magic traditionally works in D&D, i.e. a large list of spells organized in levels.

IMO the traditional way of D&D of having self-contained spells with only some parameters scaling, and only in a few cases allowing multiple versions of the spell with different effects, portrays a fantasy setting where magic is still mysterious enough that wizards have to rely on specific spells found and learnt from books or other wizards. This is why a wizard knows "Transmute rock to mud" which is a very limited-scope spell in the sense that it does one specific thing and in one specific way only. As the wizard gets more powerful and experienced, she may get increased effects, but she's still bound to that "closed" definition of the spell because she's never truly going to understand why or how this thing works.

What you suggest might be a different type of character (or fantasy world) which can in fact understand magic at a lower scale, like understanding the underlying "physics" of transmutation of materials (or invisibility, or creating visual illusions, or teleportation, or producing/controlling flames, and so on...) and therefore being able to more or less create flexible effects with ad-hoc parameters.

That is a totally legitimate character concept, and a very possible assumption for your fantasy setting. It's just that it wouldn't work well IMHO for the spellcaster classes as we know them... but as a separate magic system used by other characters (replacing or co-existing with a traditional wizard, why not) it would be totally feasible. I think there were several examples of that during 3e in the Encyclopaedia Arcane series.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

It would make sense in many ways, but it would also carry the risk of straying very far away from how magic traditionally works in D&D, i.e. a large list of spells organized in levels.

IMO the traditional way of D&D of having self-contained spells with only some parameters scaling, and only in a few cases allowing multiple versions of the spell with different effects, portrays a fantasy setting where magic is still mysterious enough that wizards have to rely on specific spells found and learnt from books or other wizards. This is why a wizard knows "Transmute rock to mud" which is a very limited-scope spell in the sense that it does one specific thing and in one specific way only. As the wizard gets more powerful and experienced, she may get increased effects, but she's still bound to that "closed" definition of the spell because she's never truly going to understand why or how this thing works.

What you suggest might be a different type of character (or fantasy world) which can in fact understand magic at a lower scale, like understanding the underlying "physics" of transmutation of materials (or invisibility, or creating visual illusions, or teleportation, or producing/controlling flames, and so on...) and therefore being able to more or less create flexible effects with ad-hoc parameters.

That is a totally legitimate character concept, and a very possible assumption for your fantasy setting. It's just that it wouldn't work well IMHO for the spellcaster classes as we know them... but as a separate magic system used by other characters (replacing or co-existing with a traditional wizard, why not) it would be totally feasible. I think there were several examples of that during 3e in the Encyclopaedia Arcane series.

The trouble is that the spell list has grown to become a mashup between the two flavours. We have specific mysterious spells that do one thing and one thing only, such as Rock to Mud or Detect Undead, and then we have spells like Polymorph or various Illusions. The highly flexible spells aren't really penalised (in spell level terms) for being so flexible - hence you can polymorph someone into a shrew with no legs before you can simply turn them to stone.

 

[frankthedm]

Eh? From what I remember of AD&D and BECMI, most such spells had to be prepared/memorized in either standard or reversed form.

So if a caster had X to Y in their repertoire and wanted to cast the reversed version, they had to prep Y to X.

There were a few exceptions (I vaguely recall there being a "fire cloak" type spell you could set as cold or hot when you cast it).

That is what I remember. Caster prepared the spell in reverse.

 

[steeldragons]

Eh? From what I remember of AD&D and BECMI, most such spells had to be prepared/memorized in either standard or reversed form.

So if a caster had X to Y in their repertoire and wanted to cast the reversed version, they had to prep Y to X.

There were a few exceptions (I vaguely recall there being a "fire cloak" type spell you could set as cold or hot when you cast it).

That is what I remember. Caster prepared the spell in reverse.

Yup. This is how it worked.

I'm not sure if having the one spell automatically meant you could prepare the reverse, but I'm pretty sure, at least for BX/BECM you could. 1e might have altered that.

But yes, one simply didn't memorize "Cure Light Wounds" or "Light" and then cast "Cause Light Wounds" or "Darkness" if the opportunity presented it self. Houserules, obviously, could/would/[undoubtedly]did change this easily.

EDIT PC: Oh! and [MENTION=57383]Cleon[/MENTION], that would be the oft overlooked and underutilized "Fire Shield" that could be cast with either burning or cold damage flames. And yes, if memory serves, you could decide at casting which you wanted./EDIT