1 min per level spells and why they suck

[Elder-Basilisk]

Nonsense. You don't even need a two-handed weapon to defeat DR 5. I expect DRs higher than that will be fairly rare.

Yeah, right. And I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. So, how many monsters have been previewed so far? And of the ones that have, what are their DRs?

Mummy DR 5/-; CR ?
Ossyluth DR 10/Good; CR 9
Pit Fiend DR 15/Holysilver; CR 20?

So, we're seeing DR 10 show up at on CR 9 monsters. Which is about where it showed up in 3e. The only change I see here is that the high end numbers on DR have been reduced significantly. There's no indication that DRs higher than 5 will be rare (I do remember that one of the designers said that; they also said 3.5e will be about options not restrictions but it's turning out to be quite the other way around).

Any self-respecting mid-level grunt will average 15+ points a hit -- quite sufficient against DR 5 or even 10.

15+ points of damage/hit is not "quite sufficient" agaisnt DR 5 or DR 10. Assuming that the average "mid level" monster has 100 hp and that the fighter attacks twice per round, the monster would probably last 5 rounds without DR. With DR 5, he'll last at least 7 rounds. With DR 10, he'll last 20 rounds. "Quite sufficient?" Doesn't look that way to me. It looks a lot more like "if the DR is affecting you, look to be seriously chewed up."

 

[Nail]

... Doesn't look that way to me. It looks a lot more like "if the DR is affecting you, look to be seriously chewed up."

Yep.

 

[hong]

15+ points of damage/hit is not "quite sufficient" agaisnt DR 5 or DR 10. Assuming that the average "mid level" monster has 100 hp and that the fighter attacks twice per round, the monster would probably last 5 rounds without DR. With DR 5, he'll last at least 7 rounds. With DR 10, he'll last 20 rounds. "Quite sufficient?" Doesn't look that way to me. It looks a lot more like "if the DR is affecting you, look to be seriously chewed up."

One character getting chewed up by a monster does not equate to a party of 4 characters similarly getting chewed up. Concentrating on one-on-one duels like this, is nonsensical.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Sure it does. If the fighter isn't beating DR, then nobody else is either (well the rogue might manage similar results to the fighter). And, since most critters with good DR have SR too, the wizard won't be solving the problem for the PCs.

The difference for one character or a party is "Defeat DR" combat lasts normal time; unable to defeat DR 5, combat probably lasts 50% longer with corresponding chewed-upness. Unable to defeat DR 10, combat lasts at least twice as long (maybe even more because a lot of secondary and defensive (sword and shield or dex-based) fighters and archers will find that their attacks deal only one or two points of damage per hit) as it would otherwise with corresponding really-chewed-upness.

One character getting chewed up by a monster does not equate to a party of 4 characters similarly getting chewed up. Concentrating on one-on-one duels like this, is nonsensical.

 

[Artoomis]

...One could certainly imagine a simplified version of the game where durations were "the rest of this encounter" (which would be the 1 round/level spells), and "the rest of the day" (basically, the 1 hour/level spells). You'd need another one, which I think would mean about "an hour" or so. I don't think you'd want or need one to mimic the "1 minute/level" style duration. That would be "the rest of this encounter and maybe one more if we hurry."...

I haven't read all this thread, having given up after the first page. Nonetheless, I'll comment. I see FOUR useful categeories of spell durations (not counting instant effects):

RIGHT NOW:

1rd/lvl = The rest of this encounter (tough decision, uses up combat rounds). It's very difficult to get several of these active at once.

SHORT DURATION

1min/lvl = The next encounter (short duration prep spells). These are the ones you can cast when you expect a fight in the next few minutes. It's not too difficult to cast several of these to prep for combat.

MEDIUM DURATION

10min/lvl = The next hour or so (medium duration prep spells). These are the ones you cast when you think combat is coming up, but you aren't absolutely sure.

LONG DURATION

1hr/lvl = All day. These are the ones you always cast. They last most of the day usually, and so are pretty much boring as they are always used. These are also the ones that might be very useful outside of combat because of the long duration. They are also the ones that help out when you are surprised and caught without your other prep spells up and running.

 

[Bismark]

Man, this seems like a lot of worry and foot stomping over books that haven't even come out yet.

3rd edition was great, and I presume most people who post about it feel similar. If not, don't feel pressured to tell me, cause it doesn't matter.

Sure, some things weren't perfect. Some of those issues were being changed. But I didn't often come across systems like damage reduction which were broken across the board. Some fights were a bit harder than they should have been, some easier. No big deal. It's not an exact science.

I'm sure it'll be the same thing this time around. Some problems might arise with DR, but I doubt many, and not any really major ones. I have faith in the creators, and past experience to point to. I can look at 3rd edition, and say 'Hey! They did a good job!' It's not like we're the only experts, and these guys designing the game have no clue. While mistakes are made, generally, they know what they're doing.

So don't worry about it.

Of course, for those powergamers who have had their characters 'nerfed', and suddenly not so powerful and doing 150 damage at mid level or whatever, my sympathy knows no bounds. I feel bad for you. Really.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I get really frustrated when I read that CR become useless etc. Before we go there could we discuss the very next page in the DMG that talks about what to do with easier to harder encounters and how to modify the experience etc? It gives pretty good instructions on how to think outside the box. The table given is not the law!

I hear you. I don't think CR is useless, even at high levels. I do think that a lot of high CR monsters have an inappropriate CR, eg not enough hp, not enough AC, wimpy save DCs (except poison), never seem to miss (many of them), and do so much damage that if they surprise the players they klll one of them in the first round!

The new monsters we've seen on the WotC site look really cool, pretty durable, will last a long time, and even the pit fiend won't be hitting that often.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Celtavian

Personally, I think it will be fun having long, drawn out fights with creatures the party is unprepared for, it should make battles more interesting and entertaining. I am all for making creatures more fearsome as long as they are not unbeatable.

Ridley

Because of the offense heavy aspect of the game, as it stands now, any battle that isn't pretty much over in round 3 is almost certainly a pyrrhic victory because PCs will start dropping like flies (if they haven't done so already). I think making defenses both more consistent and more manageable (weaker) is a good thing.

Me too.

KahunaBurger

I'm sure this would be fun for groups where the fights are over in no time flat, but one of my last groups was nothing BUT hidiously long fights full of "odd or even" "now again for the blink" "roll for spell resistance" "it doesn't seem to do as much damage as you were expecting" "natural 20 on your spot? still don't see him" and our all time favorite "suddenly its completely healed, and makes all attacks this round!"

A good balance is nice. IMO battles in 3.0 are usually too short.

Rangerjohn

That's the problem, unless you are a specific build they are unbeatable. It's tough for the 18 str barbarian with two-handed weapon. Unless your lucky enough to have the correct material which in some cases strikes of Dues EX Machina its unbeatable.

I hope there aren't too many DR-equipped creatures. Anyway, I think it's fair, seeing how fighters never need to worry about SR.

For instance: fighters always need to worry about AC, sometimes about DR.
Spellcasters (almost) always need to worry about saving throws, sometimes about SR.

I hope the "monster mix" is balanced.

 

[dcollins]

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.

Another poster mentioned it in passing, but I'll reiterate here. The strength spell (for example) has always existed in D&D and its duration has always been 1 hour per level.

From the AD&D 1st Ed. Player's Handbook (c) 1978, p. 72: "Strength... Level: 2... Duration: 6 turns/level" [where 1 turn = 10 minutes]

 

[hong]

Sure it does. If the fighter isn't beating DR, then nobody else is either (well the rogue might manage similar results to the fighter). And, since most critters with good DR have SR too, the wizard won't be solving the problem for the PCs.

The difference for one character or a party is "Defeat DR" combat lasts normal time; unable to defeat DR 5, combat probably lasts 50% longer with corresponding chewed-upness. Unable to defeat DR 10, combat lasts at least twice as long (maybe even more because a lot of secondary and defensive (sword and shield or dex-based) fighters and archers will find that their attacks deal only one or two points of damage per hit) as it would otherwise with corresponding really-chewed-upness.

An example will suffice.

A few sessions back in the RttToH, our 18th level group teleported into a chamber, and got attacked by a klurichir (demon from the FF). This thing had 210 hp, AC 34, DR 30/+5, and a list of special abilities as long as your arm. According to the book, it was CR 25.

The thing lasted ONE ROUND, after taking 80 points from my archer, and another 150 points from a full attack from the weapon master. The remainder of the group (another fighter, two wizards, a rogue and a cleric) contributed a mass haste, as I recall. So this uber-demon got splatted in one round by a bunch of peons 7 levels lower than its CR.

Now if we'd taken it on individually, it probably would have chewed us up and spit us out. As a group, we were easily able to handle it via teamwork, and the fact we were able to keep piling it on, thus preventing it from using its special abilities to advantage. It's this sort of encounter that makes a mockery of high-level CRs. If fights take longer to resolve, I'm all for it.