Buffs and Maths (mini-rant)

[Turanil]

I don't like buffs, or buff-classes. Who's with me?

I do. Buffs not only make for tedious tracking of bonuses for both the DM and players, but also, they don't bring anything to the game where ambiance and immersion are considered. In fact, all that can result from buffed-up characters, are buffed-up (or more) monsters. Hence what's the use?! :\

(On the other hand, I much like beef...)

 

[Andre]

I guess perhaps I'm a bit snobbish - the math is simple addition. This should not be considered "complicated". Perhaps there's too much of it for your taste, but it isn't complicated by any stretch of the imagination.

It's not the addition that's the problem, it's the distraction. The average person can only keep track of so many different things at one time, and buffs require more effort than necessary (IMO). But as others have said, having buffs and de-buffs provides useful options, so the solution to me is to simplify them, not ban them. Having just three or four types of buffs would help enormously.

 

[the shmoopie]

I really don't do buffs, simply because it isn't my prefered way to play. Even as a spell caster I tend to go more conjeraton and let my summons fight for me. However, they do play a nice roll as a DM, being able to justify a uber beefed up fighter that attacks the party is always a nice way to keep PC's on their toes.

 

[Cabled]

In a sense

My problem isn't with buffing, but with the current number of different named bonuses running about the game, stacking up (or not) all about as the case may be. I've been DM'ing for the same basic group (4 of the 6) for 26 years..the 5th is my little brother who came in late because he was 4 when we started playing, and my wife came in about 5 years ago because that's when we got together And among them are engineers and college professors (IF anyone's wandering around the University of Montana in Billings, say hi to the thin and reclusive physics professor with the bushy black beard, tell'em Cabled sent ya :>)

It's not about the math, we're all perfectly capable of adding, subtracting, and doing things many orders more difficult than that. It's about the effort, and none of my group feels it is worth it. They don't feel it adds anything meaningful to our game. Energy and creativity are finite over a given amount of time, and *everything* you do takes some of that time, and we would rather spend our time on things besides applying and tracking buffs. I keep hearing "Preparation makes all the difference" and that's certainly true to some extent, but when the party is a fighter, a cleric, 1 wizard, 1 wizard/ rogue, and 2 druids...I shudder to consider the character sheet that could even begin to track the possibilities.

My next campaign will certainly be run with something leaning more back towards rules-lite than 3e. And before Diaglo pipes in, yes I do still have my old box editions sitting on the shelf too, but I think we've come too far from there for the players to go all the way back

 

[Nonlethal Force]

I personally find buffs a bit on the annoying side, but they're nearly a sacred cow in D&D. Getting rid of buff spells in D&D would be like getting rid of fireball. I suppose another way of thinking about buffs is as though they are a short-lived upgrade. In that respect their almost cultural to the post-modern world.

Would I want to see them leave the game? In an ideal world, sure. But I can live with them. It is simple math and there are enough people that like to have that ability that I really don't see the problem with them.

 

[interwyrm]

It's not the addition that's the problem, it's the distraction. The average person can only keep track of so many different things at one time, and buffs require more effort than necessary (IMO). But as others have said, having buffs and de-buffs provides useful options, so the solution to me is to simplify them, not ban them. Having just three or four types of buffs would help enormously.

Exactly. Assume your party uses a modest 4 different buff effects. That's 2^4 different possible states. (On/off for each one). Preparation is fine, but when it's not certain which buffs will be active, preparation becomes impractical.


And the ph33r my can of spinach was the I like big buffs option. It's like popeye, get it? It's funny!

 

[Stalker0]

Buffs to me are fine in small doses. Its a real thrill when the party buffs up for a big fight and you see your stats go through the roof. But when its on all the time, then what's the point? Removing buffs would make the game a little boring, as that throws out a huge section of the magic system.

But I would like to see buffs streamlined down a bit, especially at high levels. I'm very good with math, but I agree the amount of stacking can get tedious, especially when you get with a dispel and some of your buffs go away, so you have to recalculate everything.

This is why I greatly enjoy swift action buffs. They are shortterm so you only have them for one fight, and they make buffs lower in action cost so the wizard can still buff and blow stuff up.

 

[Sejs]

Who's with me?

I'm pretty much as far from with you as can be. Sorry, interwyrm.

I like buffs, debuffs, the whole bit. If magic were nothing more than chucking fireballs I would be bored so very quick.

 

[kolikeos]

in pnp games its very irritating, but i wont do without. in comp games its da best

 

[BryonD]

Fun and easy.

Go Buffs Go!!!!