1 min per level spells and why they suck

[RigaMortus]

Re: min per level buff spells

They won't be "mandatory" buff in the morning spells anymore, but they'll be reserved for when you really need them (to bypass DR).

Someone hasn't read about the new DR rules I see...

 

[mmu1]

Well, my knee-jerk reaction to the change is "sigh, there went my favorite part of my cleric." Having had Extend Spell for three levels now, extended bull's strength, endurance, greater magic weapon, magic vestment etc etc. have become a very important part of my character. Character-defining, you might even say.

When my DM switches to 3.5 I'll have to adjust my thinking and start investing in magic items. Seriously, the best part of being a 3E cleric was the fact that I could buff the heck out of myself, thus superceding the need to spend money on magic item creation, be a powerful combatant, and still heal on top of that.

All I will say is this: if the 3.5 changes relegate my cleric to the back ranks due to massive nerfing of buff durations, I will probably retire the character. Having had prime rib, I can't settle for a hot dog.

It's not that I feel it's my divine right to be able to both fight well and be full-time spellcaster - I can see how that can be considered abusive. However, if my spell list and character role is designed mainly to cater to the needs of other members of the party, and I have no skills or special abilities to speak of beyond that, I'd better be able to buff up and have fun cracking heads once in a while, or I'm going to retire the character. Keeping the rest of the party alive is very praiseworthy, but it's the people with two handed swords and fireballs that get to have most of the fun as it is. No need to make it even harder on the cleric.

 

[Fenes 2]

Yeah, not reacting to everything the party does in the most extreme and absurd fashion possible - that's the definition of "pulling punches", you hit the nail of the head there. Because, of course, DMing is really about trying to kill the party. There's got to be a pony around here someplace...

Absurd? Any highly intelligent being would not throw wave after wave of "fair challenges" after a group of people. Heck, a Lich faced with a group adventurers derailing his plans should switch to extreme measures after the first retalation plan fails. He will not do that because the DM is not out to kill the party, but to provide the players with adventures that are fun.

For me, having a party being able to constantly face obstacles that are possible to overcome (i.e. appropriate challenges) or even survive from level 1 to 20 is pulling punches - and good DMing.

I see no problem with the reduced duration of buffs. Any DM who does not take this into account is not doing his job. I suspect the revamped CR system will also take this into account.

Does anyone really believe that a DM who does not hit his 25 point-buy core-rules only party with the same critters as his 40 point-buy with every splatbook under the sun allowed party is pulling his punches?

Does anyone really believe that there is a "fair" challenge that is applicable to any and all aprties, and to deviate from this is pulling punches (or killer-DMing)?

 

[ForceUser]

I had to nerf the last cleric from a player that wanted to play "a powerful combattant, buff the heck out of himself and cast spells on top of that". The player did not return, and I am glad for it. That mentality did not sit well with me or my group.

Well, I have always assumed that the reason clerics we so darn powerful in 3E was that it was incentive to get people to play them. Among my cirlce of gamer friends clerics have always been the least popular class. I certainly wouldn't have played the cleric if I had been forced into a 2E-esque role of passivity. I just sort of figured that the ability to kick butt was my "reward" for sucking up the role of party medic. Perhaps that is not what the designers intended, but that is certainly what has occurred in 3E.

 

[Fenes 2]

Well, I have always assumed that the reason clerics we so darn powerful in 3E was that it was incentive to get people to play them. Among my cirlce of gamer friends clerics have always been the least popular class. I certainly wouldn't have played the cleric if I had been forced into a 2E-esque role of passivity. I just sort of figured that the ability to kick butt was my "reward" for sucking up the role of party medic. Perhaps that is not what the designers intended, but that is certainly what has occurred in 3E.

I don't need a player to suck up the role of party medic. I don't run a game where a cleric is needed. If a player wants to play a cleric, fine, but it won't be a cleric that outfights the party fighters and cast spells with the best of them as well. (I ran the PC through a damage calculator - it did double the damage of the party fighters.) Add to that the fact that the party is based in a theocracy where clerics are the ruling class and are the centers of social advenures and anyone needing to kick more butt in melee than the fighter in order to play a cleric is not someone I want in my game.

 

[ForceUser]

I don't need a player to suck up the role of party medic. I don't run a game where a cleric is needed. If a player wants to play a cleric, fine, but it won't be a cleric that outfights the party fighters and cast spells with the best of them as well. (I ran the PC through a damage calculator - it did double the damage of the party fighters.) Add to that the fact that the party is based in a theocracy where clerics are the ruling class and are the centers of social advenures and anyone needing to kick more butt in melee than the fighter in order to play a cleric is not someone I want in my game.

Heh, easy there fella. We obviously have different play styles; I don't begrudge you yours, I'd appreciate the same consideration

My DM runs a high-fantasy Greyhawk game oozing with powerful dragons, demons, devils, giants, axiomatic half-celestial dire lions, etc etc...combat is fierce, deadly, and plentiful. As powerful as my character is, he is still only the 2nd or 3rd-most powerful person in the player group. I like to kick butt and do cool stuff, and healing is a nice fringe benefit, but is not the reason I played the cleric. In a game of high adventure, a good healer is almost required, and nobody else was going to play one. So I did - reluctantly at first - and soon after I discovered that it wasn't all bad; with the right feats and spell selection a cleric is every bit as exciting to play as a fighter or a wizard. What I'm saying is that IF the revisions take that away from me, then I'll want to retire the heal dispenser in favor of something more exciting.

 

[Fenes 2]

Heh, easy there fella. We obviously have different play styles; I don't begrudge you yours, I'd appreciate the same consideration

My DM runs a high-fantasy Greyhawk game oozing with powerful dragons, demons, devils, giants, axiomatic half-celestial dire lions, etc etc...combat is fierce, deadly, and plentiful. As powerful as my character is, he is still only the 2nd or 3rd-most powerful person in the player group. I like to kick butt and do cool stuff, and healing is a nice fringe benefit, but is not the reason I played the cleric. In a game of high adventure, a good healer is almost required, and nobody else was going to play one. So I did - reluctantly at first - and soon after I discovered that it wasn't all bad; with the right feats and spell selection a cleric is every bit as exciting to play as a fighter or a wizard. What I'm saying is that IF the revisions take that away from me, then I'll want to retire the heal dispenser in favor of something more exciting.

Sorry, I overreacted a bit. In your case I'd ask the DM to let me change the PC retroactively. Or just replace the stat buff spells with stat buff items if that is what it takes to keep the PC enjoyable.

In my game the cleric in question was especially overpowered since I seldom have more than one battle per session and day, so the cleric could have used his short-time buff (namely divine power) in almost every fight, easily overshadowing the fighters, and having enough spells left over to dominate the utility task as well.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Someone posted on the 3.5 changes in Dungeon #100 mag and said that now Bull's Str lasts 1 min/level. I have to agree with Monte's take on why this sucks.

http://www.montecook.com/diary12.html

Cry me a river Monte. Personally if your DM style results in 1 hour of action for 23 hours of inaction then you really need to look at how you DM.

It is not the spells fault. Furthermore I would like to point out that a spellcaster really needs to be 10th level before he can really guaruntee that his 1 round per level spells will last for the encounter. This is especially true if the parties foes have brains and chose to retreat to missle weapon range for a bit to let short duration buff spells to expire.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

My that was polite if your dming style doens't fit mine you suck.

Honestly this change is the dumbest of the dumb style changes. Its no where near worth a 2nd level spell for this. The 2nd level buffs were long term inor boosts to 1 person nice for a 2nd level spell. A short term minor boost to one character is a scuky 2nd level spell and a decent 1st level spell. I thnk someone pointed this out already but bless gives +1 to hit to every one for basicaly the fight.(about on par with +2/+2 to hit and daamge for the fighter alone) and is one level lower prayer +1 to hit and damage a bunch of other stuff penalties to your opponents and again the + is to the whole party and absolutely spanks thse alme spells and is only 1 level higher.(and actualy a fairly weak 3rd level spell at that) Yeah +2 to one specifc stats benefits for one person for a few mnutes is worth a 2nd level spell. About the only reason these spells will be cast is because 2nd level is a suck filled level of spells.

And besides I'm not so sure reducing spell dependency(buffs) for item dependecy(buff items) is such a great thing to shoot for.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

My that was polite if your dming style doens't fit mine you suck.

Actually I said if your gaming style results in 1 hour of play then 23 hours of rest then your style sucks.

If that is how your game runs then you might as well pitch the books and just play Baldurs Gate where you can rest for the night after every encounter where the spellcasters expend even a single spell.