Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 907444" data-attributes="member: 5890">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".I agree that re-figuring scores is a painCertainly 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.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.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...</blockquote>

Verification