1 min per level spells and why they suck

[Endur]

Go, Go, Go! before the spells run out

Go, Go, Go! before the spells run out can be a lot of fun!

One of my characters is a low-level barbarian, who will often want to run from room to room after a fight before the rage duration wears out.

This is particularly fun when there is a cool trap in the next room after a fight where I had to rage.

In encounter #1, there was a fight against a stone statue with hardness. My barbarian raged in order to do enough damage to destroy the statue.

After the statue was destroyed, while the others searched, I ran down the corridor to the next room. And fell down a slide outside of the sight of the party and splashed into a large pool of acid.

The party heard me scream, but didn't know what happened to me.

Very cool trap.

Tom

 

[Crothian]

I like the change, I always thought spells lasted too long as it is.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Another 2% of that remainder results from spells that I think have cool story uses, but which have been reduced in duration to limit their combat usage. Take polymorph, which has been talked about by Ed Stark. Now that it lasts one minute per level, it doesn't work as a disguise spell so well, and the PCs can't change into birds to go scout. I'll miss that, so there may be a house rule in my game (polymorph forms under a 4 str last for 10 minutes per level, not 1 minute.) We'll have to see.

Might I suggest that perhaps seperate spells should be used for these purposes?

Specifically the 'feathers' spell that a druid has can achieve the second function.

The first function is easily achievable by illusion - specifically a multiply extended "change self", which would clock in at 40 minutes per level as a 4th level spell. The existence of a "greater change self" which is shadow magic would certainly be warranted.

Personally it always worried me that a transmuter should be the master of disguise, while the illusionist can simply never compete...

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

As a player, though, I've flinched once or twice at the change in power level. I'm coming to grips with it, though, especially if everyone (PCs, NPCs, and monsters) are on a level playing field.

It's worth asking exactly how level the playing field is going to be considering the dramatic boosts that every monster previewed so far has been given.

IME, the playing field usually pits melee PCs against monsters with natural ability scores better than the PCs ability scores after stat buffs to every stat (and equal to or better than empowered stat buffs to every stat after level 7 or so). Eliminating the enhancements that allowed the PCs to compete is not what I would call levelling the playing field.

 

[Piratecat]

It's worth asking exactly how level the playing field is going to be considering the dramatic boosts that every monster previewed so far has been given.

Pretty well, I think. You'll notice that they're previewing devils, and that devil power levels got moved around quite a bit in order to fill gaps in the CR ranges. I wouldn't judge all monsters by them.

 

[Jeph]

Do you really want a level playing field? That would mean a 50/50 chance of a TPK per encounter. The PCs are supposed to kick ass on the monsters; and unless the GM is either a sly rat bastard or some moron who thinks he can win by beating down the players, the field will almost never be level.

 

[Piratecat]

You know. Level-ish. Like now, only tweaked.

 

[Saeviomagy]

IME, the playing field usually pits melee PCs against monsters with natural ability scores better than the PCs ability scores after stat buffs to every stat (and equal to or better than empowered stat buffs to every stat after level 7 or so). Eliminating the enhancements that allowed the PCs to compete is not what I would call levelling the playing field.

It's been my experience that the raw stats (str, con etc) that a monster has are irrelevant.

What IS important is things like the monsters damage output versus the PC's AC in a round when compared with the PC's hitpoints, and vice versa.

Furthermore this comparison is not on an individual basis, but rather a comparison of the encounter versus the party.

I was quite impressed by the most recent d20 modern article which acknowledged this.

Stat boosting spells DO affect this balance, but not to the degree that they're a deciding factor. They contribute, that's all.

I think that encouraging the PC's to decide WHEN they need that little boost is a good thing. It also adds value to items which permanently boost stats (which in my eyes currently rank fairly low down the list) along with class abilities which boost abilities over a shorter period of time (like rage).

 

[Jeph]

You know. Level-ish. Like now, only tweaked.

Says he of the earth element dragon and the Toadbringer. I feel sorry for your players when they get to the tweaked part.

 

[Monte At Home]

Overall, I think the change in bull strength's duration is going to be a good thing. No longer will clerics cast all of their 2nd lvl spells at the beginning of each day. I'm okay with that.

It's a design mistake to believe that if you make something more costly you decrease its use proportionately. In a point based system (like 2nd edition's Skills and Powers, for example), if you have a power that is twice as good as most, and thus make it cost twice as much, the change won't see its use decrease by half. You'll see it used almost exactly as much, with people just learning to live with the expense.

The same thing will happen with many groups and bull's strength, cat's grace, etc. Now the fighter will want the cleric to cast bull's strength on him twice a day (particularly now that the short-term desirability of the effect has actually increased). The low-Con mage is going to want to prepare endurance for himself twice (or three times) a day rather than just once. The change creates more of a burden on the casters, not less of a demand for the spell.

Regarding the Design Diary that was copied into this thread, the big play change (other than what I said above) that will occur with these spells in 3.5 is that you'll be re-figuring your ability scores more often. (The up side is that the change will always be the same +4, so that's a good thing.) By more often I mean very often it was something a character did only once a day. You enter the castle, look around, figure out there's danger, cast bull's strength and refigure your score, and that will probably last you until you either stop to rest for a significant time or leave the castle. In 3.5, you're going to wait until the last possible moment to cast bull's strength, refigure your score, have a fight or maybe two, search some more and refigure your score, and possibly even do that again.

And, like I said, I personally think it's easier for a DM to on-the-fly guess how long an in-game hour is than six minutes. But I'm willing to accept that that's not true for everyone.

Regarding the "go, go, go" mentality being a good thing, I agree, once in a while. But for commonly-cast spells like this, I'm not so sure. I wouldn't want every session of my game to go like that.

Monte may be surprised to learn that occasionally there are fights which last beyond 3 rounds

I'm not at all sure why this was said.


Edit: I always seem to leave the "y" off of "every"