CRGreathouse
Community Supporter
I'm going to split my answer. I don't mind the math, and wouldn't mind more, but I do think the buffs are overboard and I'd like to tone them down severely.
Buffs and Maths (mini-rant)
- Thread starter interwyrm
- Start date
Mouseferatu
Hero
CRGreathouse said:
Word.
I wouldn't mind seeing a reduction in the "types" of bonuses. Rather, I'd like to see most types of buffs stack, but have a limit to the number a given character can have at a single time.
Two of my experiences with "buff spells" and other out of combat “buffs” stand out:
1) The players (level 13-15 or so) get an in-game opportunity to ambush a hated foe (we learn his secret location, he doesn't know that we know. etc.). We spend over an hour preparing for the encounter by more or less figuring out every buff spell that anyone could cast. We cast them all. Then we deal 400+ damage to him in the first round of combat (this was 3.0, where Haste was all-powerful). It was the most anti-climactic thing ever.
2) In 3.5, our 17th level party discovers that the Druid can summon Dire Rhinos. Plus he can Animal Growth them. My sorcerer could use a Chain Rod (I think- maybe it was a Mass Version of a spell) to make them all invisible and flying. We proceeded to destroy an army with a half dozen summoned flying, invisible Dire Rhinos. Aside from the fact that we could potentially dispel the Rhinos, they would definitely have destroyed the party in a fight. We use this same tactic against one of the campaign's main enemies (a very powerful evil Titan) and the Rhinos do more damage than the party in defeating him. We develop an inside joke that our answer to any question is “Rhinos”.
3) Next campaign starts. It's Mutants and Masterminds (and now one is Blue Rose). No buff spells, no arsenals of magic items, no abilities that you can use before combat to power your group up to 300% power. If I'm helping people create characters (particularly high level ones), I no longer have to assemble an armory of magic items to make their character effective. It's glorious.
1) The players (level 13-15 or so) get an in-game opportunity to ambush a hated foe (we learn his secret location, he doesn't know that we know. etc.). We spend over an hour preparing for the encounter by more or less figuring out every buff spell that anyone could cast. We cast them all. Then we deal 400+ damage to him in the first round of combat (this was 3.0, where Haste was all-powerful). It was the most anti-climactic thing ever.
2) In 3.5, our 17th level party discovers that the Druid can summon Dire Rhinos. Plus he can Animal Growth them. My sorcerer could use a Chain Rod (I think- maybe it was a Mass Version of a spell) to make them all invisible and flying. We proceeded to destroy an army with a half dozen summoned flying, invisible Dire Rhinos. Aside from the fact that we could potentially dispel the Rhinos, they would definitely have destroyed the party in a fight. We use this same tactic against one of the campaign's main enemies (a very powerful evil Titan) and the Rhinos do more damage than the party in defeating him. We develop an inside joke that our answer to any question is “Rhinos”.
3) Next campaign starts. It's Mutants and Masterminds (and now one is Blue Rose). No buff spells, no arsenals of magic items, no abilities that you can use before combat to power your group up to 300% power. If I'm helping people create characters (particularly high level ones), I no longer have to assemble an armory of magic items to make their character effective. It's glorious.
AdmundfortGeographer
Getting lost in fantasy maps
Yes! Yes! Yes! Consolidation would improve so much. Likewise, I'm right on board with your proposal to widen the ability to stack bonus types and limit the total number of buffs.Mouseferatu said:
CRGreathouse
Community Supporter
Mouseferatu said:
Yes, that's what I'm talking about. Make the spells better, very noticeable (more than +1 to this or that) but with a tight restriction on how many work at a time. Perhaps they could be more specialized, perhaps not -- but either way this would give magic the feel I'm looking for better than the current system.
Mouseferatu said:
Hmm - I'd prefer merely a reduction in the bonus types. I don't want stacking of named bonuses at all. The existence of the stackable "dodge" bonus is bad design; it should be untyped.
A limit on the buffs that can be active, but all types stacking, is not a good idea IMO. It emphasises the power of buffs, and can cause significant problems. Imagine that you could have four buffs active. A particular group has four bonuses from different sources that add +2 to attack rolls; that's a +8 when you allow them all to stack, which could well double the normal attack bonus.
The number of bonus types also allows such behaviour, which is why I'd like to see them reduced greatly. "Profane" is an absolute joke of a bonus type.
Cheers!
IceFractal
First Post
While I don't really mind the way buffs work now, and certainly wouldn't want magic reduced to just simple effects (complex tactics are the whole point of being a mage, IMO), I have thought about a buff-simplifying system that might be useful.
1) All effects stack with everything.
2) You get a limited number of slots, based probably on level. Anything that gives you a bonus (magic item, buff spell, permanent spell, etc) takes up a buff slot.
2a) Magic items with multiple effects either take up multiple slots or cost exponentially more.
2b) Slots are based on total number of items, not item category. Have 8 rings if you want.
Eliminates stacking questions, and if you don't want to fiddle around with buffs, just fill all your slots with magic items. Or if you don't like to be defined by items, go around itemless and use more buffs as needed.
1) All effects stack with everything.
2) You get a limited number of slots, based probably on level. Anything that gives you a bonus (magic item, buff spell, permanent spell, etc) takes up a buff slot.
2a) Magic items with multiple effects either take up multiple slots or cost exponentially more.
2b) Slots are based on total number of items, not item category. Have 8 rings if you want.
Eliminates stacking questions, and if you don't want to fiddle around with buffs, just fill all your slots with magic items. Or if you don't like to be defined by items, go around itemless and use more buffs as needed.
AdmundfortGeographer
Getting lost in fantasy maps
Personally, four buffs would be too many. Three would be more preferred... but that's my opinion. Generally, from my experience in countless Living Greyhawk tables folks go shopping for all the types no matter how obscure that the stacking limitation is mostly one a limitation to the time to search sourcebooks for the bonuses that will stack.MerricB said:
Similar Threads
