1 min per level spells and why they suck

[Joshua Randall]

Originally posted by Stalker0
I like the idea that WOTC is addressing the diablo IIness of 3e, how it seems to be all about the magic and not about the characters. In that regard I'm for the change.

Hear, hear.

Y'know that cliche, "The clothes make the man"? Well, D&D was getting to that point -- a PC's stats and abilities hardly mattered compared to his extended buff spells and magic items (carefully selected to optimize their slot placement, of course).

Anything that gets the game back to focusing on the character's skills and abilities (rather than all magic, all the time) is a Good Thing (tm).

 

[KnowTheToe]

As mentioned above, I think it is a good change especially if it includes greater magic weapon etc... More focus on the players abilities.

You could easily create greater buffing spells that take higher level slots and have a greater duration. I like the change a lot, but am not nearly as well versed as many of you on how it will effect game play.

 

[Valiantheart]

While I would have preferred a 10min/level duration, at least now Wizs and Clerics will be nearly as dependent on magic items as the melee classes.

 

[Enceladus]

1 min/level does not bother me, it just seems the BS will run the length of the combat rather than pooping out on the player before it resolves.

Speaking as a DM, I can certainly find something to occupy my players for the leftover 5-10 minutes it takes for the spell to wear off. For those other DM's who would gripe about players rushing off to the next battle, you know its your dungeon/world/campaign and you control where and when the combat encounters happen. Just a quick FYI.

 

[mmu1]

Have I missed something? What healing power are you losing?

I honestly think it is more fun to do something other than "I buff everyone, standard assortment", every game morning.

I also think the spells were a bit to much for 2nd level.

So this is a good/good choice.

Let me see: I can hold on to 2d8+5 healing, or I can use the spell to give someone +4 to a stat for 5 minutes... Really hard choice, there...

Even with those spells at 1 hour/level duration I routinely don't cast most of them right off the bat, because I don't know if we're not going to need the healing more - if they last 5 minutes, I'm just not going to memorize them anymore. Right now, it's a valid trade-off, in 3.5, it'll be a waste of time.

 

[D'karr]

I disagree that it is a good thing for my campaign.

I do believe that the 1 hour/level is a bit excessive for a 2nd level spell but the 1 min / level doesn't sound right either for preparing for combat.

Personally I'm going to house rule it to be 15 mins / level. That way at low levels the spell will last long enough that combat doesn't have to start with the spellcaster buffing up everyone right as they encounter the monsters. By 20th level the spell will last for 5 hours. I think this is an appropriate balance for buffing spells.

I don't like the trend towards moving things more in line with d20 Modern. The reason being that in d20 Modern you have technological advances and weapons that balance this out. You don't have the same luxury in D&D. D20 Modern is supposed to be a low-mid magic level world. D&D is definitely not low magic and has never been.

 

[Fenes 2]

Y'know that cliche, "The clothes make the man"? Well, D&D was getting to that point -- a PC's stats and abilities hardly mattered compared to his extended buff spells and magic items (carefully selected to optimize their slot placement, of course).

Anything that gets the game back to focusing on the character's skills and abilities (rather than all magic, all the time) is a Good Thing (tm).

I fully agree.

 

[Christian]

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.

You'd think so. And you'd think that when the state lottery officials add numbers to their big Lotto game and up the top prizes to compensate, that the number of people buying tickets would stay the same if the actual value of the ticket (odds of winning x prize value) stays the same. Oddly enough, it doesn't happen ... The popularity of the lottery increases when they do this, whether the ticket value increases, stays the same, or even decreases. (Now you get three guesses as to what generally happens to the actual value of the tickets when the lotteries make these changes. And the first two guesses don't count.)

 

[BryonD]

Admittedly, this isn't your point, but doesn't that mean that you will now have MORE healing power? I still don't understand your comment about reduced healing.


I think having a +4 to STR for a fight is a legitimate power for a L2 spell. Bull's Strength was one of those "every cleric preps this spell" spells. Obviously a sign that it was over powered. Now it is a fair comparison with a lot of other options.

 

[hong]

I like the idea that WOTC is addressing the diablo IIness of 3e, how it seems to be all about the magic and not about the characters.

Given that Diablo II is the most popular CRPG out there by a wide margin, WotC would have to be pretty stupid to move away from it, neh? Not to mention that this change will probably see MORE characters using stat-boosting items, rather than relying on spells.

But I don't mind. The prevalence of buff spells in our high-level game has got to the point where the DM has to print out a checklist of spells, just to keep things straight. Any change that reduces the "sh*t, shower, shave, cat's grace" phenomenon is fine by me.