1 min per level spells and why they suck

[JacktheRabbit]

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.

I disagree these spells did not exist in 2nd Edition so obviously play adapted to include them. In fact I often found them to be more harm than good.

A party often casts Bulls Strength in preference to other buff spells. So now you have a problem. Your party has increased damage dishing ability but since Endurance is rarely cast the party cannot take damage proportionate to the damage they can dish out. In fact even if they do cast Endurance its not the equal to Bull Strenth. A Bulls Strength will generally grant you 1 or two levels worth of BAB bonus for a fighter. An Endurance spell barely grants enough hit points to equal 1 level of experience increase.

So hopefully these spell changes will make the spells less common thus making the DM's job a bit easier.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I tend to agree with those who've said the 3.5e changes will result in a dramatic decrease in the number of buff spells cast. As they all pretty much have to be cast at the beginning of battle, the mage/cleric simply won't have the time to cast more than one of them in each combat. And he's not going to want to waste that round in any case.

My prediction is that we see most mages stocking up on Fox's Cunning or Eagle's Splendor only. Increase your DCs, don't worry about how close the fighter is. First round: buff yourself, start casting your spells.

Fighting-types are going to go unbuffed or pay through the nose for the increased-cost ability items.

Not a good idea, I think.

 

[frankthedm]

I disagree these spells did not exist in 2nd Edition so obviously play adapted to include them. In fact I often found them to be more harm than good.

A party often casts Bulls Strength in preference to other buff spells. So now you have a problem. Your party has increased damage dishing ability but since Endurance is rarely cast the party cannot take damage proportionate to the damage they can dish out. In fact even if they do cast Endurance its not the equal to Bull Strenth. A Bulls Strength will generally grant you 1 or two levels worth of BAB bonus for a fighter. An Endurance spell barely grants enough hit points to equal 1 level of experience increase.

So hopefully these spell changes will make the spells less common thus making the DM's job a bit easier.

I agree with you on this, though the 2nd level strenght spell did exist, though it was IIR 10 minutes to cast and only lasted one round a level [a minute pre combat and tactics]. as such it was mostly a non issue for combat use.

Auto pumping the buff durations to an hour a level is a mistake i am glad to see rectified in the revision.

Lord Pendragon
Fighting-types are going to go unbuffed or pay through the nose for the increased-cost ability items.

Not a good idea, I think.

This is the way it was before 3E and is now again. Many parts of 3e were good but wotc went too far in some aspects of3e, giving too much to the players, and this was one of them.

 

[rangerjohn]

Fighter types are going to go unbuffed or pay through the nose for the items.

Or be a barbarian, which only works for str and con, and still leaves out the fighter, paladin and especially ranger. Unless the paladin's hd has also been lowered. Wouldn't surpise me, with all the nerfing going around.

 

[rangerjohn]

Sounds like without bending the wealth rules, the only ones by -passing DR will be raging barbarians with two-handed weapons. How is this fun? When you only have one viable option. It's no longer an option at that point.

 

[rangerjohn]

This is the way it was before 3E and is now again. many parts of 3e were good but wotc went too far in some of 3e, giving too much to the players, and this was one of them.

But they increased the monster as well, and again with 3.5. Your saying its balanced to have 2.0 pcs go against 3.5 monsters?

Oh, and nevermind the only restriction on magic items in 2.0 was the DM. Now unless he rule zeroes half of the book its not viable.

2.0 may have had problems, but 3.5 has simply changed to other problems, possibley worse.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Isn't this the same board where people use the saying, "If everyone wants to use it, its broken."? And even though I do find the 1 mind/lvl to be kind of harsh, the 10 min/lvl would be too high. I see this as putting a lot more relevance on the characters stats, which I find to be a good thing. If you have a spell for everything, then you're far too dependent on them...once stripped of them, you'll be operating a lot lower than before. I can see why this is seen as a bad thing, but I personally find this to be good. This way, you can just use a spell to boost your poor stats and you'll be relying more on yourself.

 

[Number47]

You know, ever since they announced 3.5, I have been saying that the hour-duration buffing spells would be going bye-bye. Was it because I have some psychic power or inside knowledge? No. It was because I took one look at what people were doing with these spells and said, this is silly. For PCs to be constantly increasing their combat effectiveness for the entire day, while in no real danger while doing so, is simply boring. When you got to mid levels and higher, you would often see a group leave town with multiple-extended buffs cast the day before, so that they could also have full spells. That is ridiculous. When the big bad evil guy must be a spellcaster, so that he can match the party's always-on buffing, something's gotta change.

 

[Hypersmurf]

PS no more Empower abuse.

That was similar to my first thought... but mine was "no more Empower, period".

I don't see an Empowered - or even a triple-Empowered - 3e Bull's Strength as abuse, for the slot you're paying for it.

-Hyp.

 

[rangerjohn]

Forget empowered, I don't see spell casters. This has gone from D&D to SCA. When the deciding factor is class abilities(and spells don't count, according to this board and WOTC), who beats the barbarian with a natural +8 to str and con, DR and hd12? Oh ,and 4 skill points per level if thats important. Are we playing D&D or Lankhmar?

When the only purpose for a spellcaster is to supplant the warrior who is going to play one. This reminds me, someone stated the big bad COULD be a warrior now. No he had better be a warrior or monster, a warrior will tear a spell caster to shreds now. Or the spell caster just became the rogue, his best bet is CDG after hold monster. Which means as he leaves mid-levels he doesn't stand a chance. As has been said before no matter which class the pc's take, the DM is going to have to make excuses not to do a TPK. If its a monster there is no excuse.

This is especially true with spell casters, if there were a few nerfs it might be one thing, but they have nerfed every spell. The ones not nerfed in 3.5, were nerfed in 3.0.