1 min per level spells and why they suck

It seems quite like a lame overreaction to me. 1 hour/level was probably too long, but 1 min/level is too short. If they wanted to nerf 'em, 10 min./level would've been far better, or even (gasp!) break the mold, and go for 20 or 30 min/level.

Before, you could use the spells in non-combat ways -- bull's strength to boost carrying capacity for a day (quite useful in Running Away from overwhelming numbers, especially if cast on a mount) or increase a wizard or cleric's pathetic Climb skill modifier for a little jaunt up a mountain, use endurance to let you run or climb longer, or use polymorph self to run faster or climb better. At 1 minute/level, those spells are basically only good for combat.

This also nerfs Extend Spell; adding hours to a spell's duration == worth it. Adding minutes == not worth spending a feat, never mind spending a feat and using higher level slots.

Monte is, IMO, 100% right. 1 round/level spells are, IME, by mid-levels, approximately equivalent to "one combat" in length. 1 minute/level is "more than one combat, but not enough to be any good, unless you get into a whole lot of back-to-back combats."

Casting 1 min/level spells before combat only works if you are starting the fight, and know with absolute certainty when you'll be able to start the fight. If you know that beyond that door there is the Evil Priest, and that you'll be going through said door right after the spellcasters are done with their rigamarole, then 1 min/level is (barely) worth it. But if you're lying in ambush waiting for someone to wander by, 1 min/level is useless. If you're wandering through the Dire Marshes, and happen upon some unfriendly flora, you will not have 1 min/level spells up, so they're no good for preparation. If you're trying to sneak through the Caverns of Inexplicable Doom, 1 min/level is useless; you'll burn it all waiting for the rogue and dwarf to decide if the stone bridge is safe or not.

10 min/level is only a bit better -- if you're waiting in ambush, you better know within at least an hour when to expect your targets, or you'll waste a spell. If you want to wander with spells up, you'll have a short travel day (I've had commutes that would tax an archmage to cover @ 10 min/day, nevermind the work day). For creeping through a short cavern, it might work. But not for long distances.

Say, this makes scry-buff-teleport more effective, since the target will not be able to have his defenses up all day long. That's good, 'cause that tactic wasn't useful enough.

(Yeah, I know, they'll nerf teleport and/or scrying -- big whoop. It does look an awful lot like "make monsters tougher, PCs weaker". Maybe they thought there still weren't enough clerics.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Thanks for letting the tidbit slip, Monte. I wasn't aware that Bull's Strength was a solid +4 until now. :)

But seriously, thanks for the input. I myself hadn't considered that, because as a spellcaster, I would tell the fighter where to put his request for me to stock the spell twice as often. ;) That's valuable prep time for hold person, spirit weapon, or another useful 2nd level spell. We would just have to pick and choose our times more wisely. But your point about "rushing the party to the next encounter" is well made.
 

Monte At Home said:

It's a design mistake to believe that if you make something more costly you decrease its use proportionately... 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).

A superb point. See? This is why you're the dreeeeamiest game designer on the block! :D

(I can tell you all about sleep and alertness, though; I still have my work-related specialty. Clearly, it just isn't RPG rule design. *grin*)
 

Monte At Home said:


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.
I agree that you won't see a direct correlation between cost and use, but there is certainly a correlation. At some point a given individual will say "that's just not worth it - tactic B is far more viable".

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 ....
... 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.
I agree that re-figuring scores is a pain

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.
Certainly something I didn't think about.

I personally think there's much less of a problem with this than with 1rd/level spells - with a 1min/level spell you can basically say "it's guaranteed to last for this combat, and probably not for much more", at least at lower levels.

Once you get beyond about 10th though, it's certainly going to be a problem. Like I said though, it's not much more of a problem than the 1rd/level spells at such levels.

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.
I don't think they'll BE commonly cast spells. I really believe that the reduced duration is going to cut back their use, and certainly prevent them from being "must have" spells.


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.
Because the inital post quoted you as saying that a 1rd/level spell basically lasted for a combat. Previously I recall reading posts from you that have said that most combats will be over in 3 rounds (if it wasn't you, I apologise). My experience has been that while a great number of combats do indeed fit this model, there are quite often combats where this isn't true, and the barbarian needs to rage again, or 1rd/level spells wear out etc.

It's my feeling that the 1 minute/level spell more accurately fits the "1 whole combat" category than 1 round/level.

Like I've said before, this is coming from an experience of primarily pre-10th level characters, and thus is likely to be biased. Somehow I never imagine characters much beyond that being the sort to rush to the next fight for the sake of +2 to hit and damage...
 

I think coyote6 makes an excellent observation regarding the decreased utility of spells in regard to their non-combative variations by lessening their durations. I'm not sure that 3E ever had a problem being a combat oriented game, when it wanted or needed to be, but these decreases seem to herald an assurance that it will be becoming less about non-combat situations.

Maybe I should write a 3.5E book with all non-combat spells that mimic the effects of these combat spells but with increased durations where spells auto-end if the subject attacks as per invis... (tm) ;)
 

Mark said:
Maybe I should write a 3.5E book with all non-combat spells that mimic the effects of these combat spells but with increased durations where spells auto-end if the subject attacks as per invis... (tm) ;)

Better start typing before someone else snags this idea ...:D
 

Olgar Shiverstone said:


Better start typing before someone else snags this idea ...:D

Tell you what... I'll call it Non-Combat Spells and you can review the idea now and adjust the review after I finish it. ;) :p
 

Wulf Ratbane said:
One more thing nobody has mentioned.

You'll note the spells are already like this in d20 Modern.

They last for 1 minute/level, but instead of giving a random bonus, they give a flat +4 points.

Actually, it's +5, which is very nice. Also, in d20 Modern, it's one spell and the effect it chosen at the time of casting.

If that's the way it works in 3.5, having the shorter duration wouldn't be so bad, because you could just prepare a few "Enhance Ability" spells ahead of time and cast them for whichever effect is needed.

MadBlue
 

Two points:

1) Assuming true balance in game design; will point buy levels be increased (i.e. more points = same power-level) to account for the fact that players will have less options to long-term buff their stats? (huh PC? huh? Huh?)

2) I don't feel that the 'rush-to-the-next-room' types need help forwarding their play-style, but think it's quite the opposite. So I definately don't like rule changes that encourage RTS-style play over a more...considered(?) approach.


P.S. - Hey PC. Guess who can access the boards from work again with the new provider? ;)
 

Monte, you're looking at this all wrong: this is great news for Malhavoc.

You see, it doesn't matter whether the new Bull's Strength is balanced or not. What matters is that Quick Boost has become 10x more attractive as an alternative :D
 

Remove ads

Top