1 min per level spells and why they suck
- Thread starter Krug
- Start date
Joshua Randall
Legend
Fortunately for our D&D characters, the Climb skill allows you to "advance up [a cliff] one-half the character's speed as a miscellaneous full-round action." Assuming a 30' (normal) move, that's 15' per round on a successful Climb check. Assuming a 3rd level spellcaster cast Bull's Strength on the climber, he would have enhanced strength for 3 minutes, or 30 rounds. That's enough time to climb 15 ft/rnd * 30 rnds = 450 feet, with enhanced Strength.Mark said:
How often do D&D characters really scale cliffs that high?
1 minute/level is a *long* time in D&D terms.
jmucchiello
Hero
So you print out more than one copy of your combat sheet to reflect your standard buff vs no buff. Our party sorcerer does this already.Monte At Home said:
Are the spells still separate spells or does it follow d20 Modern's "Enhance Ability" pattern of lumping them all together. I would hate to think that d20 modern mages have access to a better spell than D&D mages.
Mathew_Freeman
Adventurer
I think it's a good thing.
I believe that when every party wakes up and routinely casts about 5-10 spells a day, even if they think they're unlikely to be attacked, then it's getting a bit silly.
S'mon, my DM in one campaign, made a good point when he said "Why should Evil Overlords have a bunch of people hanging around them every day simply to cast BS, CG, Endurance, Magic Vestment, and GMW (as a start!)?" It doesn't make sense, and it's certainly not much fun.
Plus, putting the power back in the hands of the players abilities, rather than the long term buffs they use every day is a good thing.
I do however, believe that we'll see a few TPK's whilst DM's get the hang of the balance of things. Hopefully the new CR system will be a little more accurate.
I believe that when every party wakes up and routinely casts about 5-10 spells a day, even if they think they're unlikely to be attacked, then it's getting a bit silly.
S'mon, my DM in one campaign, made a good point when he said "Why should Evil Overlords have a bunch of people hanging around them every day simply to cast BS, CG, Endurance, Magic Vestment, and GMW (as a start!)?" It doesn't make sense, and it's certainly not much fun.
Plus, putting the power back in the hands of the players abilities, rather than the long term buffs they use every day is a good thing.
I do however, believe that we'll see a few TPK's whilst DM's get the hang of the balance of things. Hopefully the new CR system will be a little more accurate.
Mark
CreativeMountainGames.com
Tallarn said:
Perhaps. But that is their choice...to cast a handful of particular spells early in the day rather than choose other varieties of spells that might turn out to be more useful later.
It's an artificial way of limiting choices based on the limited experiences...and, yes, no matter how many examples can be cited where it might be considered a bad choice, just as many (in a game with infinite possibilities) can be cited where other choices are made to the contrary effect.
I'd rather leave more choices with the players rather than cite some examples of how I would choose to do, or not do something and then create a rules restriction that removes that potential choice from the players' hands.
Of course at this point, with books already off to the printers, we're not being asked if this is a wise idea. We're being told it is how it is while some try to convince us that we're better off for having fewer options.
Rel
Liquid Awesome
I'm really not sure that this change is what I'd consider a "good thing". I would rather have seen the duration go to 10 min/level instead of 1 min/level. Because I (unlike Monty) do think that this will result in these spells being used almost never under standard adventuring conditions.
Think of it like this: Unless the party knows the encounter is going to happen in advance (I'll talk more about that in a second) then these "buff" spells are going to be optimally cast on the first round of combat. I can't think of many circumstances under which casting one of these ability booster spells is going to be a good choice of what you do on the first round.
If you're the Wizard and the combat just started, you are probably best off trying to zip off an early area effect spell (sleep or color spray at early levels, fireball, etc. as you rise in level) before the combat area gets too crowded. Alternately you might need to slap up some kind of defenses to make sure you don't die the first time an enemy takes a whack at you. By the time you've got the luxury of casting the buff spells, the characters who could benefit from them are probably already in melee.
As the Cleric, you should probably be trying to put up some sort of defensive spells or other widely beneficial spell on that first round (Bless, Magic Circle Against Evil, etc.). Again, after that the battle is already joined and the question is further begged, "Am I doing more good by chasing down the fighter and giving him Bull's Strength or wading into melee myself and whacking a monster with my mace?" Add to that the fact that the Cleric needs to be running around healing folks and he just doesn't have a lot of time to do a bunch of this sort of buffing.
The obvious solution to this is that the PC's are the ones that need to be starting the fights. That means that they are going to need effective scouting. I'm all for scouting and fighting smart and our group does this frequently. But there is a fine line between "doing the proper amount of scouting" and "all the players sitting around doing nothing while the rogue scouts ahead or the wizard does a bunch of scrying".
My initial reaction to the duration change is that one or more of a few things will happen:
These buff spells will almost never get cast during an encounter that the party did not initiate.
These buff spells will only occasionally get cast during an encounter that the party initiates. Why would the casters prepare them when they know that under most circumstances they won't be able to use them.
Parties will spend a lot more time and effort trying to scout the enemy and then rush in with a carefully planned commando raid that will try to optimize the duration of the buff spells by hitting several close enemy positions at once and then withdraw or consolidate those gains.
The first two things just seem to relegate the buff spells to "second class spells". The third is cool once in a while, but it starts to feel a bit less like fantasy and a bit more like, well, D20 Modern.
Nonetheless, I'll wait until 3.5 comes out before I make any final decisions on how this fits with the rest of the rules.
I will make one other side note though. With fixed benefits, there won't be any more Empowered or Maximized Bull's Strengths going on. I'll leave the implications of that to others to discuss.
Think of it like this: Unless the party knows the encounter is going to happen in advance (I'll talk more about that in a second) then these "buff" spells are going to be optimally cast on the first round of combat. I can't think of many circumstances under which casting one of these ability booster spells is going to be a good choice of what you do on the first round.
If you're the Wizard and the combat just started, you are probably best off trying to zip off an early area effect spell (sleep or color spray at early levels, fireball, etc. as you rise in level) before the combat area gets too crowded. Alternately you might need to slap up some kind of defenses to make sure you don't die the first time an enemy takes a whack at you. By the time you've got the luxury of casting the buff spells, the characters who could benefit from them are probably already in melee.
As the Cleric, you should probably be trying to put up some sort of defensive spells or other widely beneficial spell on that first round (Bless, Magic Circle Against Evil, etc.). Again, after that the battle is already joined and the question is further begged, "Am I doing more good by chasing down the fighter and giving him Bull's Strength or wading into melee myself and whacking a monster with my mace?" Add to that the fact that the Cleric needs to be running around healing folks and he just doesn't have a lot of time to do a bunch of this sort of buffing.
The obvious solution to this is that the PC's are the ones that need to be starting the fights. That means that they are going to need effective scouting. I'm all for scouting and fighting smart and our group does this frequently. But there is a fine line between "doing the proper amount of scouting" and "all the players sitting around doing nothing while the rogue scouts ahead or the wizard does a bunch of scrying".
My initial reaction to the duration change is that one or more of a few things will happen:
These buff spells will almost never get cast during an encounter that the party did not initiate.
These buff spells will only occasionally get cast during an encounter that the party initiates. Why would the casters prepare them when they know that under most circumstances they won't be able to use them.
Parties will spend a lot more time and effort trying to scout the enemy and then rush in with a carefully planned commando raid that will try to optimize the duration of the buff spells by hitting several close enemy positions at once and then withdraw or consolidate those gains.
The first two things just seem to relegate the buff spells to "second class spells". The third is cool once in a while, but it starts to feel a bit less like fantasy and a bit more like, well, D20 Modern.
Nonetheless, I'll wait until 3.5 comes out before I make any final decisions on how this fits with the rest of the rules.
I will make one other side note though. With fixed benefits, there won't be any more Empowered or Maximized Bull's Strengths going on. I'll leave the implications of that to others to discuss.
Joshua Randall
Legend
You all have been spoiled by the super-long duration of the buff spells as they exist in the 3.0 rules. When I hear people saying, "I'm never going to cast Bull's Strength again because it sucks with duration 1 min/lvl," all I can think is, "Are you completely insane?"
In Krug's other thread (the poll) I outlined all the many, many benefits that you get from stat-buffing spells, everything from increased AB to Saves to pumping up your spell save DCs to carrying capacity to AC to Init to skill bonuses, etc. etc. etc. So now those many, many benefits only last a short time instead of all day.
Good! That will force your PC to apply them selectively, instead of permanently. You'll only buff up before tough fights that you know about, instead of entering all combats pre-buffed. You'll only buff up your Strength for those really hard-to-open doors or difficult-to-scale cliffs instead of buffing it just to carry more crap. You'll only buff up your Int/Wis/Cha when you really need a high spell save DC against a key enemy, instead of having a stackable Spell Focus: Everything all day long.
How is this bad? Because the PCs are no longer semi-permanently enhanced via 2nd level spells? I don't understand that argument. We should want the PCs to walk around in a haze of transmutation effects?
Bah! I guess I play a different game. I'd like the PCs to rely on their innate stats, abilities, skills, and feats, temporarily enhanced by 2nd level spells in key situations. I would not like the PCs to cast the same suite of spells at the start of every single day, because to do otherwise is sub-optimal to the point of foolishness.
That would be limiting player choice, as surely as the 3.0 version of Haste did.
In Krug's other thread (the poll) I outlined all the many, many benefits that you get from stat-buffing spells, everything from increased AB to Saves to pumping up your spell save DCs to carrying capacity to AC to Init to skill bonuses, etc. etc. etc. So now those many, many benefits only last a short time instead of all day.
Good! That will force your PC to apply them selectively, instead of permanently. You'll only buff up before tough fights that you know about, instead of entering all combats pre-buffed. You'll only buff up your Strength for those really hard-to-open doors or difficult-to-scale cliffs instead of buffing it just to carry more crap. You'll only buff up your Int/Wis/Cha when you really need a high spell save DC against a key enemy, instead of having a stackable Spell Focus: Everything all day long.
How is this bad? Because the PCs are no longer semi-permanently enhanced via 2nd level spells? I don't understand that argument. We should want the PCs to walk around in a haze of transmutation effects?
Bah! I guess I play a different game. I'd like the PCs to rely on their innate stats, abilities, skills, and feats, temporarily enhanced by 2nd level spells in key situations. I would not like the PCs to cast the same suite of spells at the start of every single day, because to do otherwise is sub-optimal to the point of foolishness.
That would be limiting player choice, as surely as the 3.0 version of Haste did.
MarauderX
Explorer
Didn't realize there was more than the poll, which makes this thread redudant, so I thought I would copy over my reply which is still relevant IMO:
"If you have players that are so rambunctious that they need to get the most out of each and every spell, then perhaps they feel as though the adventures purposefully stretch them out to expend their abilities. Their actions are of course a logical choice, as the PCs may as well find any other challenges that are around while they are on the temporary steroids.
Instead of having close battles I would separate encounters more. Besides if the next room just has more critters, why didn't those critters hear what was going on? Battle is a loud thing, and IMC once a lair has been assaulted, the rest of the inhabitants become aware of what is happening. PCs can blaze forward while enhanced, but sometimes throwing a well placed trap can deter overly aggressive players that want to take advantage of every second of every spell or potion."
"If you have players that are so rambunctious that they need to get the most out of each and every spell, then perhaps they feel as though the adventures purposefully stretch them out to expend their abilities. Their actions are of course a logical choice, as the PCs may as well find any other challenges that are around while they are on the temporary steroids.
Instead of having close battles I would separate encounters more. Besides if the next room just has more critters, why didn't those critters hear what was going on? Battle is a loud thing, and IMC once a lair has been assaulted, the rest of the inhabitants become aware of what is happening. PCs can blaze forward while enhanced, but sometimes throwing a well placed trap can deter overly aggressive players that want to take advantage of every second of every spell or potion."
I get the feeling that everyone and their brother used those spells in some games - PC and NPC. Now, if they really are worthless, no one will use them in those games. Net result? Everything stays the same. People do less damage, but have less hit points and less AC, have worse saves but face lower DCs as well.
Similar Threads
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
June 16 2026 -
June 16 2026 -
September 16 2026 
Arcana Unleashed(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.
Replies (250) -
September 16 2026 -
October 1 2026 -
October 6 2026 -
January 1 2027 -
January 1 2027
