In praise of 1 minute/level spells

[mmu1]

In 3.5E....Eric the Cleric has to actually *think* and *use strategy* before casting that bull's strength/endurance. Perhaps after the rogue has scouted out a camp of ogres a short distance ahead he'll think "now might be a good time to buff". The buff spells actually become more valuable and less of a automatic "good morning" spell.

Which means Eric the Cleric will start using Divine Favor and Magic Weapon more, and stop wasting 2d8+3 healing on a stat-boost that lasts one combat.

I can see perfectly well why some people thought 3E buffs were too powerful (I don't agree, but can understand the point of view), but anyone who thinks the new ones are actually worth a 2nd level spell slot just doesn't approach reality in a conventional way...

 

[DreamChaser]

I used to agree with you until I read an interview with Monte where he stated that the 3.5 revision was released more for financials/marketing reasons than actual problems with 3.0.

From the article:

To be clear, I have no relation to the revised edition. Not so much as a "Monte, we're thinking about doing this to the material you created, what do you think?" I personally think it's too soon to revise the books and have it on good authority it's got more to do with economics than what's best for the game. That said, the creative team for D&D over the years has a long history of taking the lemons handed them from the business people and making lemonade. I suspect that they've done that here.

"On good authority" is the beginning of a basic logical fallacy. I'm not going to try to ascribe motive to Monte's statement but there are indications of hard feelings over being left out and his indicator as to the "real reasons" behind the change is completely unsubstanciated.

I like most of Monte's game designs. That doesn't mean he can't fall into the the error of assuming his opinion is the right one no matter what.

Also note that he says that the creative team makes lemonade from lemons...so according to him, he has faith in the designers to do a good job EVEN IF the motive behind the revisions is economic. This statement actually negates Tar-Edhel's point in posting the link to the interview.

Regardless of the reasons, Monte feels that the creative team has done a good job.

Thus, they would not have set out to frell the system or use just broken/munchkin examples to set the rules.

DC

And for the record: of course it was for marketing and economic reasons. WotC is a business. The brass who make the decisions only use economics and marketing as standards for making decisions...that does not mean that someone else didn't propose the idea first with other (Read: gaming) reasons behind it. It doesn't mean that it does.

 

[DreamChaser]

<double post>

 

[DreamChaser]

<snip>
...but anyone who thinks the new ones are actually worth a 2nd level spell slot just doesn't approach reality in a conventional way...

OUCH!!!

Anyone who doesn't agree with that is insane?!?!?

That's quite a statement.

I'll try to take it as the compliment I'm sure it was intended to be.

DC

 

[S'mon]

I would have been a lot happier with this change if they had made the bonus +6 rather than +4... that would be more worthwhile. If anything the bonus should scale a bit, from +2 to +6 around 11th level IMHO.

Of course I think simply giving them a 10 min/level duration is more reasonable. It's not the entire day by any means and solves the issue of a sorcerer throwing around extended, extended, extended, extended, extended, extended, extended, versions of this spell at some point before going to sleep to use up any left over spell-slots...

I think 1 min/level and a scaling power would be about right, maybe +2 & +1/3 levels, capped at +6:

Level 3-5: +3
Level 6-8: +4
Level 9-11: +5
Level 12-14+: +6

That would work for Mage Armour, too.

 

[BenjaminB]

1 min/level pretty much boils down to "1 combat or encounter" so why not just use this sort-form spell duration instead? Spells with tactical uses can either last for a few rounds, the entire combat, or longer spans. When it comes right down to it, the DM still conrols whether you get to use those buffs in a given enconter simply by expanding the 'travel time' between encounters. You throw up 'Bull's Strength' for one combat, and then try and haul ass before it claps out to get to the next encounter. But really, its up to the DM to determine how much juice your spell will still have.

Rounds per level is fine, but I'd change to Minutes to simply 'scene' or 'combat' duration. Thats what it boils down to anyway.


-B

 

[mmu1]

OUCH!!!

Anyone who doesn't agree with that is insane?!?!?

That's quite a statement.

I'll try to take it as the compliment I'm sure it was intended to be.

DC

Hey, reality is what I think it is, sorry if that puts you and your fellow wackos in an uncomfortable position.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Just want to state for the record that I don't consider this a good, funny insane. Its not that look at me I'm cool and quirky insane, or the if I was rich I'd be ecentric insane.

It's one of those sad pathetic insanes.

dang forgot the

 

[Tar-Edhel]

Also note that he says that the creative team makes lemonade from lemons...so according to him, he has faith in the designers to do a good job EVEN IF the motive behind the revisions is economic. This statement actually negates Tar-Edhel's point in posting the link to the interview.

But maybe what we needed was orange juice...

Why make a new edition when all was needed were a few minor changes that could have been addressed in an errata?

Would an errata be enough or did we really need a revised rule set?? I have no idea. But I trust WotC less and less to assess this objectively.

And for the record: of course it was for marketing and economic reasons. WotC is a business. The brass who make the decisions only use economics and marketing as standards for making decisions...that does not mean that someone else didn't propose the idea first with other (Read: gaming) reasons behind it. It doesn't mean that it does.

Well, that's bad business. Trying to fool your customers is never a good idea in the long run. And after what Monte said, I'm afraid the process was the other way around. The revised version was first started for economical reasons (we need money, guys) and then the search for gaming reasons began.

WotC needs to stay in business, no arguments about that. But if they start writing new editions each time their stock holders aren't happy with the financial results, I'll start playing monopoly.

The same way I stopped playing Magic: The Gathering when they started to publish a new expansion set each week.

YMMV.

 

[drnuncheon]

The damage you might get form a str buff doesn't = the direct damage you get from other spells.

I think that this - and a lot of other objections - are true to varying degrees based on the level of the people involved. Ironically, the higher level you are, the more benefit you'll get out of many of the buffs - more attacks to benefit from hit & damage bonuses, more levels to get extra hit points from, etc.

On the other hand, the save boosts you get from the heightened stats can be livesavers at low levels, when they can double your weak save bonus, or give a decent boost to a strong one.

One of the designers mentioned that in testing, they saw use of those spells dropping off to nothing, and then slowly coming back as preparation for the really tough fights. That suggests to me that there really is a use for them, and that a large portion of the online community is still in the 'denial' phase of grieving over their lost buffs. (I'll trust people who have actually tested something over Internet pundits working off of incomplete information any day.)

J