1 min per level spells and why they suck

[sithramir]

I agree

I agree with some of the above posts. It seems strange to me that an RPG game. In case you don't get what that stands for its Role Playing Game is going to have "gasp" role players.

The change in duration is a one sided look at things. Yes some people abused it in a way by having it last all day. Big deal. There was an earlier post explaing using the skill buffs for jumping or for endurance. Well if it lasts a few minutes. then its going to wear off RIGHT when i'm going to need that "endurance". These spells are practically now only useful in combat which sucks for people who actually thought up better uses.

The carrying treasure idea never even occurred to me until I heard it here but wow that'd be great to use but now its like "well, I can get it about 100 feet from here but then i'm weak again." Seems kind of useless. Who cares if people boost themselves 1-5 str/dex/con all day. At the levels they are at to be doing that they can afford to buy equipment to do the same thing anyways. It just makes it so magic users are more dependant on items like a warrior is. The whole point of a caster to me is that at higher levels he can do things that a normal fighter couldn't.

Plus it seems now that it seems they changed it just so people would have "more " choices of other spells because they'd think its too weak or something. Again agreeeing with above posts, the demand to boost stats by casters isnt' going to go down. THe number of slots of spells needed to do the same thing is only going to go up making them weaker and making them use LESS spells than normal!

My 2 cents on DR... Some guys seem to think drawn out combat is a good thing. I sometimes have a 4 hours 8 round combat in my campaigns which means like one fight a week and nothing happens. What would happen with more drawn out things? (Realize I have 9 players in my groups) but fighting already takes up the brunt of time a lot of the time.

 

[Nine Hands]

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.

Wow!!

That is a good example of why I changed lots of the rules in D&D. I've added action dice (slightly changed from Spycraft), tweaked a bunch of spells to avoid making haste the best spell for 3rd level, etc).

The party (4 x 16th level PC's each with templates ranging from Celestial to Half Dragon) took on a 17th level Vampire Cleric, his 16th level Cohort, 3 Abyssal Ghouls, and a handful of skeletons. Now the skeletons and the Abyssal Ghouls were not much of a match for the party (they were there to act as a buffer). This battle lasted almost 4 hours of real time, 10+ rounds of combat. The party was kept at bay by the clerics spellcasting and a very good stategic use of cover and concealment. I am very pleased with how things went. I'm now considereing getting rid of the day long buff spells too, sort of an "arms treaty" with the players.

 

[Grazzt]

In all my years of playing, I can not really think of any times the "go, go, go" thing has been an issue. Not saying it has not happened. But not enough to make any impression on me.

I have always seen 1 min per level as having a very solid tactical value, even on a single encounter basis. The assumption in the "go go go" arguement seems to be that spells are cast at the start of round by round combat. Frequently, the party knows that an encounter is imminent. A 1 min/level spell can be tactically cast a minute or three before an ambush or door bashing and still be relied upon to be there for a fight. A 1 round per level spell is pretty limited to taking up time during combat. Even if your 10th level, it is hard to claim you are casting a spell 30 seconds before combat, so you have 5 rounds left....

So the point of 1 min/level is not "leftovers" after combat, but potential for preparations beforehand.

I agree and like the new changes to 1 minute/level. I believe Monte Cook missed it with his "go go go" example.

I myself have used the 1 min/level for the power-up spells just about since the beginning of 3e and none have complained. Hell, many DMs I am friends with use the 1 min/level in their games and never once have I seen or heard of players getting the "go go go" mentality nor have I heard any complaining either.

If anything, it makes the caster decide WHEN to use the spell to be most effective. Characters can no longer power up in the AM and walk around all day long with the spell's effects. Seems like a great change and great idea to me.

 

[Beckett]

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]

Keep going and I'm pretty sure you'll find that Strength was much less effective in AD&D- topping off at 18/00, iirc. A nice bonus, yes, but not quite as nice as giving another 4 or 5 points to that 20 strength half-orc over there. Also, it being a magic-user spell, and magic-users not getting bonus spells, a party would probably have fewer Strength spells than a 3e party has Bull Strengths available, necessitating the longer duration in the earlier editions.

 

[PaulGreystoke]

Keep going and I'm pretty sure you'll find that Strength was much less effective in AD&D- topping off at 18/00, iirc. A nice bonus, yes, but not quite as nice as giving another 4 or 5 points to that 20 strength half-orc over there. Also, it being a magic-user spell, and magic-users not getting bonus spells, a party would probably have fewer Strength spells than a 3e party has Bull Strengths available, necessitating the longer duration in the earlier editions.

I'm glad someone finally mentioned this. The 1e/2e Strength spell was useful, but it wasn't a no brainer 2nd level spell choice for Magic Users. While I preferred to memorize one a day, most Magic Users preferred another Invisibility out of this slot. And if the fighters in the party already had high exceptional Strength scores (or Gauntlets of Ogre Power/Belts of Giant Strength) the spell was almost useless, as it could only marginally raise the stats of non-fighter types up to a max of an unexceptional 18 - that is +1h/+2d - which rarely seemed worth it. The 3e version stacks on top of whatever unenhanced STR the character has & also with Barbarian Rage & the like. This makes a big difference is the general usefulness of the spell.

So the 3e version of the spell was already likely to be more popular than the the 1e/2e versions. Then add in the fact that there were now buffs available for the other abilities, that more classes could cast these spells, that spellcasters had more slots with which to cast them, & that they could now metamagic them into even greater usefulness, & we were in a completely different situation than in 1e/2e. Being able to Extend the spell so that it can be last all day at the cost of only a 3rd level slot was just too good. We saw the predawn party buffup ritual become the norm. 3.5e is just taking the logical step to rebalance the spell in the light of the new paradigm.

 

[sithramir]

paradigm

Paradigm(pair a dime). My 4th year advanced HVAC teacher loved that word. For some reason it just brings a smile to my face!

Blah I want 1 hour/level spells because it makes sense to me in a magic like world. Poweful mages seem strange to me when half their spells last a few minutes. I like the idea but if the game designers want it that way then they gotta make it like that.

Since i always play an abjurer i'll just be the wizard character that the DM is expecting to bring in lots of damage that decides he's not protected enough and spends the 6 rounds of combat it took the REST of the group to defeat the evil monster by placing prot spelsl on myself. If theres something left after that i'll send a magic missile in assuming I had extra spell slots after i used my prot spells!

 

[Tidus4444]

Ugh. This reminds me of the argument over whether Bracers of Archery are "cheating".

-Hyp.

Ah yes, I remember that thread. I hated it. Off topic, what do you think the next batch of "This is broken" threads will be about? The Archer ones died out a while ago, so I think we're due for another one.

 

[Henry]

The 1e/2e Strength spell was useful, but it wasn't a no brainer 2nd level spell choice for Magic Users. While I preferred to memorize one a day, most Magic Users preferred another Invisibility out of this slot. And if the fighters in the party already had high exceptional Strength scores (or Gauntlets of Ogre Power/Belts of Giant Strength) the spell was almost useless, as it could only marginally raise the stats of non-fighter types up to a max of an unexceptional 18 - that is +1h/+2d - which rarely seemed worth it. The 3e version stacks on top of whatever unenhanced STR the character has & also with Barbarian Rage & the like. This makes a big difference is the general usefulness of the spell.

However, it also means that bull's strength does NOT work with strength enhancing items. Most fighters do not have strengths above 18 without items, in most of the campaigns I've seen, and all items that offer enhancement bonuses make this spell still useless at higher levels, unless your DM runs a low-magic item world, in which case that spell in 3E SUPPLANTED the magic items, hence Wotc's desire to remove its long-term influence. In other words, lower-magic campaigns are more viable by default now.

 

[Henry]

In regard to the uselessness of mages in combat for 3.5e, Although I have not seen the rules, and still await judgement, I still don't see it. I rather see the need for MORE cooperation between mages and warriors, because mages will possess those spells which make weapons function effectively against various DR creatures.

And even should the mages in question be unavailable, I honestly can't believe a drop of 5 to 10 in damage is likely to make a fighter waste his funds by investing in multiple weapons, because it hurts his ability against the vast majority of creatures who don't sport damage resistance. As a player of a few fighters in the past, I would simply work on getting the group wizard or cleric the means to buff up my weapon to apporpriate specification for me to act.

 

[Creamsteak]

I predict that the changes to buff spell duration will be one of the most controversial changes. It won't get more jarring than this, folks, at least not as far as I've seen. Considering that I fully like 95% of the changes, this is 2% of the remainder that I'm still undecided on.

I can pretty much agree with this. My opinion though is, why is the duration switched from 1 hour/level to 1 minute per level? It seems like they skipped the 10 minutes/level step, which I think is more acceptable. I might house-rule on this, however, but for now I'm going to play 3.5 as it is, when I get the books.