1 min per level spells and why they suck

[Monte At Home]

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.

Hmm. I don't think that was me. Maybe it was. I'd probably say that the majority (certainly not all) are over in about 4 rounds, though. Half or so are probably over in 3. All but the really exceptional (and of course memorable ones) are probably over in 5 or maybe 6. Which simply means that you don't have to be very high level before 1 round/level simply means "for the rest of this encounter."

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."

Please note that I'm not actually advocating changing the durations to those vague labels. My point is simply that I think the need for 1 minute/level spells is actually quite small.

I also don't want to overstress the point. While I have indeed virtually eliminated 1 minute/level durations in AU, seeing more of them in 3.5 is not something that will bring the D&D game to a grinding halt or anything. It is something I wouldn't use in my own home game, though.

 

[mmadsen]

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.

If you make a power twice as good and twice as expensive, it should be almost exactly as popular as before; cost and benefit have increased in lock step.

If you make a power twice as expensive for the same power level, players will buy it less than if you hadn't doubled its price. There's some price elasticity for just about any power in the game.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Hmm. I don't think that was me. Maybe it was. I'd probably say that the majority (certainly not all) are over in about 4 rounds, though. Half or so are probably over in 3. All but the really exceptional (and of course memorable ones) are probably over in 5 or maybe 6.

On reflection, it may well have been some other designer who made the statement - I now recall it was in relation to the psionic monsters and their "unlimited use per day" powers being effectively equivalent to "3 times per day".

...Which simply means that you don't have to be very high level before 1 round/level simply means "for the rest of this encounter."...

I think that the point is that both 1 rd/level and 1 minute/level sort of straddle the "good for one encounter" line - at some levels and in some combats they WILL be good for an encounter, while at other levels and other encounters they won't be. That's why I'd be hesitant to say that 1min/level spells are inferior or superior to spells with other durations.

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."

Please note that I'm not actually advocating changing the durations to those vague labels. My point is simply that I think the need for 1 minute/level spells is actually quite small.

Actually those exact same vague labels were one of the first things to pop into my head when I started pointing out the variable lengths of combats, and you pointed out the hassle of re-figuring stats during a combat. They seem at first glance like a good solution to a number of problems, like - "how does my character time an hour anyway?" Or "Wow, this spell is really terrible if you cast it in the antarctic/the astral/some other place where time flows in an unusual way".

Doubtless there are many issues that would be brought up however, such as players insisting that an encounter isn't over yet because they let a goblin get away.

 

[LightPhoenix]

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.

Ah, but you could change Extend Spell so that it increases the duration units instead of a flat doubling, and you get something that might work. For example, Extend Spell could take something that's 1 min/level and make it 10 min/level for +1 level, or 1 hour/level for +2 or +3. Then Extend Spell is still useful, and people who want long-term buffs can still get them.

 

[BryonD]

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. Granted, a flat 10 min duration would get the job done. But the standard approach seems to be that effects scale with duration unless there is a reason to do otherwise. So if 1 min/level is "just as good" as 10 min, then stay with convention.

I don't know that 1 min is better than 10 min, but I think it is much better than 1 hour.

 

[drothgery]

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.

Or, more likely, wands of Enhance Ability will become nearly as common as Wands of Cure Light Wounds.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

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.

That's quite right. However, the monsters that have high damage outputs tend to have high strengths. The strength of a huge or greater earth elemental for instance is why it grinds nearly anyone dumb enough to stand toe to toe with it into pulp. Similarly, the strength of dragons is what enables their incredible damage outputs. I had the interesting experience of my party fighting a ghost templated dragon in one game. Since the ghost template prevented its strength bonus from being used in melee combat, it ended up quite anemic in the amount of physical damage it could deal out per round.

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

Well, sort of. A level 10 party will easily deal out 100+ points of damage per round--if it's a large party, they might even hit 200 against low ACs. However, a CR 10 monster that dished out an average of 100 points of damage/round against AC 22-26 would not work very well. Whoever was playing the fighter would die in round 1 and the monster would die in round 2.

While any encounter has to be evaluated against an entire party, it's important to remember that it's usually a single character who ends up absorbing most of the damage.

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).

It will certainly increase the value of permanent stat-boost items. No argument there. (IMO, it takes them from "nice but not essential" to "essential if you don't know about all of your battles in advance").

I imagine it will also increase the value of rage and similar class abilities invokable as a free action (which brings me back to the single most tempting multiclass in 3e that 3.5 for all its concern about rangers multiclassing to rogue is apparently doing nothing about: the amazing "no lose" attractiveness of one level of barbarian to every non-lawful fighter).

It will certainly increase the attractiveness of Bear's Heart and any similar spells introduced in 3.5

However, I don't think that encouraging PCs to "choose when they need the little boost" is a good thing. PCs can do that now at one level lower (and more certainty) with Enlarge but most have the sense not to (because just about any other choice is better). What this really does is take a viable tactic (buffing with 2nd level spells) and make it nonviable.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Unlikely. How common are wands of enlarge (clvl 4)? I don't think the absence of Bull's Strength would have changed that.

In any event, under the current system (which I don't see changing), a wand of Enhance Ability would cost 4500 gp. For that price, you're better off getting a +2 statboost item. It might be worth it as a first level spell. As a second level spell, it competes with Blur and Aid for "bottom of the second level, and wouldn't even be an outstanding 1st level spell" status.

Or, more likely, wands of Enhance Ability will become nearly as common as Wands of Cure Light Wounds.

 

[Capellan]

the amazing "no lose" attractiveness of one level of barbarian to every non-lawful fighter

Provided that the fighter is a dwarf, a human, or part-human. Or if your DM throws out the favoured class rules.

 

[mmu1]

I just started playing a 3E cleric, and my DM plans on making the switch over to 3.5... I think I'm going to be making a new character.

Considering that probably at least 75% of my spell list (5th level character) consists of spells that either heal, don't do any damage, or are only useful in very limited circumstances, it's been really nice to be able to have the option to fall back on a few spells - Magic Weapon, Bull's Strength, Endurance, Magic Vestment, etc. that aren't very flashy or spectacular but provide various members of the party with tangible and long-lasting benefits. Under this system, considering how much healing power I'll be losing, they just won't be worthwhile anymore... Being purely a utility caster with only a very short-time buffing ability is no damn fun.