Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 9271345" data-attributes="member: 6690965">To be clear, I'd push for something like 75% effectiveness of a level-appropriate magic item in the same slot a buff could go, so that the magic item is an effective floor. That, and the ratio of available spell slots vs. available anchor points for buffs should skew thus that you generally can't afford to cover all bases with spell-slots alone (and/or you have to accept some significantly sub-optimal buffs as you rise in level and have to use lower level slots).The other thing is that buffs come at the cost of spells cast as active actions, which is likely going to be most of your battlefield control/debuffing and some amount of DPS. That trade-off should be hairy enough that it's not a simple calculation to toss all of your spell slots into the fighters each morning, but doing so might be worthwhile in some cases.Assuming we're talking about a 3.5 base, I don't have a ton of sympathy for the fireball wizard. If it is effective, it's such a drain on the niche of fighting types. Better that they actually are the most effective source of damage.More generally though, I don't think it follows that if buffing is good, all active uses of spells are outclassed. Summon Monster and Evard's Black Tentacles should be in competition with Haste, and deciding you want spells left to do them is an interesting daily choice.I don't think that's true. If you don't plan for it, then your casters are just even bigger force multipliers. What's the difference between &quot;planning buffs is usually necessary to do well&quot; and &quot;planning buffs will trivialize nearly all encounters&quot; from an optimization perspective? A party trying to succeed is still incentivized the same way, but the former will likely have more fun playing the actual game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pedantic, post: 9271345, member: 6690965"] To be clear, I'd push for something like 75% effectiveness of a level-appropriate magic item in the same slot a buff could go, so that the magic item is an effective floor. That, and the ratio of available spell slots vs. available anchor points for buffs should skew thus that you generally can't afford to cover all bases with spell-slots alone (and/or you have to accept some significantly sub-optimal buffs as you rise in level and have to use lower level slots). The other thing is that buffs come at the cost of spells cast as active actions, which is likely going to be most of your battlefield control/debuffing and some amount of DPS. That trade-off should be hairy enough that it's not a simple calculation to toss all of your spell slots into the fighters each morning, but doing so might be worthwhile in some cases. Assuming we're talking about a 3.5 base, I don't have a ton of sympathy for the [I]fireball [/I]wizard. If it is effective, it's such a drain on the niche of fighting types. Better that they actually are the most effective source of damage. More generally though, I don't think it follows that if buffing is good, all active uses of spells are outclassed. Summon Monster and Evard's Black Tentacles should be in competition with Haste, and deciding you want spells left to do them is an interesting daily choice. I don't think that's true. If you don't plan for it, then your casters are just even bigger force multipliers. What's the difference between "planning buffs is usually necessary to do well" and "planning buffs will trivialize nearly all encounters" from an optimization perspective? A party trying to succeed is still incentivized the same way, but the former will likely have more fun playing the actual game. [/QUOTE]

Verification