1 min per level spells and why they suck
- Thread starter Krug
- Start date
Keep in mind that permanant stat boosting items are likely to see a huge price increase. As Piratecat pointed out earlier!
I'm guessing that it won't be as cheap to get even a simple +2 stat boosting item, but that's just a guess.
Delgar
P.S. Check out my story hour!
The Unusual Suspects
I'm guessing that it won't be as cheap to get even a simple +2 stat boosting item, but that's just a guess.
Delgar
P.S. Check out my story hour!
The Unusual Suspects
Squire James
Explorer
I don't think there's anything wrong with 1 min/level spells in general. As has been mentioned, it gives that little kick of extra duration (over 1 rd/level) for those who prepare well for their combats.
I DO think reducing the buff durations to 1 min/level is too much, though. A more incremental change to something like 10 min/level is more reasonable. The spell would still be cast often, but with SOME selectiveness.
If someone wants to carry more gear, well I've heard Mr. Heward has a good deal on Haversacks over at Magic Item Mall (right next to the Wizard Spell Mall, where you can buy any spell you can afford). Only 2500 gp, and anyone's weight capacity increases by 75 pounds! There's also nothing keeping a PC wizard from researching his own darn "Nodwick" spell. Just about anything involving a Spellcraft check is absurdly easy (unless 3.5e changed that, of course).
I DO think reducing the buff durations to 1 min/level is too much, though. A more incremental change to something like 10 min/level is more reasonable. The spell would still be cast often, but with SOME selectiveness.
If someone wants to carry more gear, well I've heard Mr. Heward has a good deal on Haversacks over at Magic Item Mall (right next to the Wizard Spell Mall, where you can buy any spell you can afford). Only 2500 gp, and anyone's weight capacity increases by 75 pounds! There's also nothing keeping a PC wizard from researching his own darn "Nodwick" spell. Just about anything involving a Spellcraft check is absurdly easy (unless 3.5e changed that, of course).
ruleslawyer
Registered User
mmu1 said:
Do these folk of whom you speak house-rule away the item creation feats?
Seriously, a basic invisible hand paradigm should apply here. If stat-boosting magic items are really, really hard to come by, and all it requires to make them are 18,000 gp and 1,440 XP a pop even for the really powerful ones, then there should be at least one spellcaster in your party who takes CWI and pumps out stat-boosting items.
Personally, I agree with Monte regarding 1 min/level spells: Namely, that they're really just "one combat" spells with an uncomfortably-extended duration that can encourage players to rush their PCs through multiple encounters. I even more strongly agree with coyote6 that 10 min/level buffs also synergize better with the Extend Spell feat, whereas 1 min/level buffs cannot effectively be combined with that feat. That appears to rob PCs of some options, which I don't think is a good thing.
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
Which may be true for PC v classed NPC (although the inability to cast long term protective or buffing spells will make the effect of an ambush (normal or scry/teleport) where one party is buffed and the other isn't) far far far more devastating) but for PC vs Monster, it looks like: PCs have fewer hit points, and less AC, and have worse saves but face monsters with more hit points, higher AC, better saves, more damage dealing, and higher DCs on their special abilities.
Fenes 2 said:
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
Basilisk, where are you getting that info from?
So far, we've seen
The mummy.
The pit fiend - CR increased from 16 to 20. The original pit fiend was a wimp for it's CR.
The osyluth - CR increased from ~6 to 9. The original osyluth was a wimp for it's CR.
The hamatula - CR increased from something inaccurate to 11. The original hamatula was a wimp for it's CR.
The above sample is biased, since most fiends were weak (unless they used cheesy blasphemy spells).
So far, we've seen three monsters that needed a boost and one that didn't. It looks like WotC is showing us only greatly changed monsters so they can show off more accurate CRs - if they just randomly selected monsters from the MM 3.5 it wouldn't like like the above biased sample.
PS no more Empower abuse.
So far, we've seen
The mummy.
The pit fiend - CR increased from 16 to 20. The original pit fiend was a wimp for it's CR.
The osyluth - CR increased from ~6 to 9. The original osyluth was a wimp for it's CR.
The hamatula - CR increased from something inaccurate to 11. The original hamatula was a wimp for it's CR.
The above sample is biased, since most fiends were weak (unless they used cheesy blasphemy spells).
So far, we've seen three monsters that needed a boost and one that didn't. It looks like WotC is showing us only greatly changed monsters so they can show off more accurate CRs - if they just randomly selected monsters from the MM 3.5 it wouldn't like like the above biased sample.
PS no more Empower abuse.
KnowTheToe
First Post
If 1 hour or even 10 minutes per level is too powerful for a second level spell, what level would you make a greater stat enhancement spell that allowed 10 min or 1 hour per lvl duration?
BryonD
Hero
KnowTheToe said:
I am not saying that 10 min/level would be wrong at L2.
I won't claim that 1 hour per level would be over powered at L3, but I think it would still be taken a lot and shine as one of the better L3 spells. I certainly can't see it is L4.
But don't put to much in any of that, because I don't think it is that simple to just scale a spell from one level to another.
To me the evidence claerly shows that it was to powerful at L2. That does not require that it be perfect at any level.
Number47
First Post
If you think about it from the evil guy perspective, the new durations will make adventures more interesting. I mean, in 3E, was there any point to a lair of evil humans that didn't use magic? They would be toast! Conversely, 3E wizard or cleric evil guys could be insanely buffed up 24 hours a day.
Very well balancing.
Very well balancing.
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
This is the first I've heard about any CRs being assigned to the Pit Fiend or Hamatula. When it first came out, people were guessing that it's CR might be increased a little or that it might stay at 16. My reaction to the Osyluth is that it looks about right for a CR 9 monster. . . against 3.0e PCs although it's probably a little stronger than most 3.0e CR 9 outsiders (that didn't get CR 9 from advancement or character levels). In 3.5, I suspect that the Osyluth will be an extremely deadly monster (especially since the Osyluth's main weaknesses have been addressed--he's got more hit points and better saves which should let him live long enough to use his spell like abilities to make himself untouchable) for his CR. However, I've seen no CRs on any of the other creatures and just about everything else I've seen of 3.5 speaks volumes about Wizards dismissing their best designers so I don't want to extrapolate that other CRs will be accurately revised just because the Osyluth's appears to have been (working under the highly dubious assumption that 3.5e won't effectively drop PCs' power levels to the equivalent of 3.0e PCs one or two levels lower).
However, from all appearances--and especially if Piratecat's suggestion that the cost of stat enhancing items is dramatically increased pans out--3.5e spellcasters will have dramatically fewer effective ways to enhance their allies than 3.0e spellcasters, making 3.5e fighters, barbarians, paladins, and rangers somewhat weaker as well. The changes we've seen to spells indicate that buffing spellcasters will no longer be a viable type of character and that save or die focussed spellcasters are getting hammered as well (by a combination of removing or neutering save or die spells (Hold Person and Disintegrate) and increasing monster saves (the Osyluth's saves have doubled but his CR only went up by 3)), and that PC blaster spellcasters are also seriously weakened by the changes to Haste and increases in monsters' saves (and the 3e increase in monster's hit points and widespread elemental immunities had already rendered blaster wizards a suboptimal type).
Consequently, PCs will have much fewer options (which I think is a bad thing--if I wanted every PC to be like every other, I'd play a less flexible system; the revisions in 3.5 seem to go a long way towards making the differentiation 3e brought to spellcasters vanish) and PC parties are likely to be weaker across the board in 3.5. Monsters, OTOH, even accounting for the change in CR, seem to be a bit stronger. Now, it appears that lots of people on this board don't see that as a problem--apparently their PCs were walking all over their monsters on a regular basis. My experience, however, is very different. Encounters that are supposed to be challenging have usually taxed my parties to the limit and I've seen plenty of "tough" encounters that were just a few points away from being TPKs. If our PCs had been limited to 3.5e capabilities, the parties would have been torn apart.
However, from all appearances--and especially if Piratecat's suggestion that the cost of stat enhancing items is dramatically increased pans out--3.5e spellcasters will have dramatically fewer effective ways to enhance their allies than 3.0e spellcasters, making 3.5e fighters, barbarians, paladins, and rangers somewhat weaker as well. The changes we've seen to spells indicate that buffing spellcasters will no longer be a viable type of character and that save or die focussed spellcasters are getting hammered as well (by a combination of removing or neutering save or die spells (Hold Person and Disintegrate) and increasing monster saves (the Osyluth's saves have doubled but his CR only went up by 3)), and that PC blaster spellcasters are also seriously weakened by the changes to Haste and increases in monsters' saves (and the 3e increase in monster's hit points and widespread elemental immunities had already rendered blaster wizards a suboptimal type).
Consequently, PCs will have much fewer options (which I think is a bad thing--if I wanted every PC to be like every other, I'd play a less flexible system; the revisions in 3.5 seem to go a long way towards making the differentiation 3e brought to spellcasters vanish) and PC parties are likely to be weaker across the board in 3.5. Monsters, OTOH, even accounting for the change in CR, seem to be a bit stronger. Now, it appears that lots of people on this board don't see that as a problem--apparently their PCs were walking all over their monsters on a regular basis. My experience, however, is very different. Encounters that are supposed to be challenging have usually taxed my parties to the limit and I've seen plenty of "tough" encounters that were just a few points away from being TPKs. If our PCs had been limited to 3.5e capabilities, the parties would have been torn apart.
(Psi)SeveredHead said:Basilisk, where are you getting that info from?
So far, we've seen
The mummy.
The pit fiend - CR increased from 16 to 20. The original pit fiend was a wimp for it's CR.
The osyluth - CR increased from ~6 to 9. The original osyluth was a wimp for it's CR.
The hamatula - CR increased from something inaccurate to 11. The original hamatula was a wimp for it's CR.
The above sample is biased, since most fiends were weak (unless they used cheesy blasphemy spells).
So far, we've seen three monsters that needed a boost and one that didn't. It looks like WotC is showing us only greatly changed monsters so they can show off more accurate CRs - if they just randomly selected monsters from the MM 3.5 it wouldn't like like the above biased sample.
PS no more Empower abuse.
Similar Threads
