Duration of Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, etc.

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

In other words, there really are some times in which a long-term buff is the only spell that'll be effective.

Hence, persistent spell.

I found under 3.0 that buffs eventually became a pre-requisite for action, not a tactical choice. Once I started hearing 'Let's wait till tomorrow so we can buff again' I knew that they'd become too much of a crutch. The extensive durations encouraged that.

I'd have no real quarrel with 10/minutes a level, except that Extended Spell starts pushing things back into the perma-buff range.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

The new versions of the spells are still stupid decrepit versions of spells that were once useful but now would be weak at first level. I've been running and playing 3.5 for quite a while now and I've only in one or two situations seen the new stat buffs be useful. And in both of those situations, it was bull's strength.

In one situation, a party was invading the lair of some Kuo Toa and I suspected that combat would break out when we entered but everything would probably be over in 8 minutes. At that point, Bull's Strength was worth casting because 1. It didn't take any time in the battle, 2. I couldn't do anything useful with that slot anyway (it was a domain spell, my other options were enlarge person and heat metal, and I already had enlarge person for the only person who wanted to be enlarged (it ruined the paladin's ability to ride, and it nerfed the rogues and archers' dex) So I prepped a bull's strength and cast it on the paladin.

The other situation featured a dwarven tripping expert. The 3.5 effectiveness of Improved Trip and the exponential importance of the trip check differential made bull's strength a decent choice to cast on my dwarf during battle.

As for the rest, WotC was smoking crack. There wasn't anything wrong with spells replacing items (especially since spells are easily dispellable). In fact, I thought that the choice to use spells to increase natural capacities or to use items and save the spell slots for things like scorching rays, etc was a very interesting tradeoff that made it possible to play 3.0 spellcasters in dramatically different ways. At higher levels, characters wanted items anyway because dispel magic becomes a very significant part of combats. The only real abuse was using multiply empowered mental buffs to boost DCs to unsavable levels and that was already solved by making the statboosts last a fixed amount of time.

As for the "morning buff session", anyone who's played 3.5 on a regular basis knows that it's still a large part of the game and that 3.5 has also introduced the "nearly there" buff session too. Mage Armor, False Life, Overland Flight, Rary's Telepathic Bond, Status, Moment of Prescience, Shield Other, Hero's Feast, etc are all morning buff routines by the time that bull's strength, etc. could become a part of such in 3.0 (around 8th level, they start to last long enough to be "all day"). However, in 3.5, that has been joined by the "nearly there" buff session that includes Resist Energy, Alter Self, Magic Circle, Freedom of Movement, Spell Immunity, Foresight, Heroism, etc. And then, because 3.5 makes characters weaker on a continuing basis, it becomes more important to be able to guess encounters to +/- a few minutes so there's also the "Go! Go! Go!" minute per level buff session. Animal Buffs, Enlarge Person (the significance of this spell in making the minute/level buff session a part of 3.5 at every level cannot be overestimated), Death Ward, Shield, Expeditious Retreat, Polymorph, Fly, Mirror Image, etc. are all a part of this routine. If the designers thought that remembering what your stats, attack bonusses, armor class, and damage was in any given situation would become easier with the new changes, they were sorely mistaken.

3.5 made a number of good changes (clarifying the grappling rules, reworking the ranger, reworking the druid, changing the bard, making Enlarge Person, Spiritual Weapon, and Aid more worthwhile, clarifying polymorph, giving Harm a save, clarifying that Sunder takes an attack action, removing the save from Ray of Enfeeblement, adding Scorching Ray at second level, etc.) It also introduced a number of bad rules changes. IMO, the changes to the animal buffs are near the top of that latter list.

If you want to change them without going back to 1 hour/level, making them like Monte Cook's Mark of X spells would be a good change. (They give a small bonus for 1 hour/level but can be expended for a more significant bonus that lasts 1 round/level). Alternately, hour/level switching to minute/level as soon as combat begins could work. Or you could just go with 10 min/level. (Although this would just make them a part of the "nearly there" buffing routine just like they were in 3.0 before level 6-8).

 

[Pielorinho]

Hmmm.... Here is another compromise, but I just thought of it, and I think it is a bit clumsy still.

Duration is 1hr/lvl; until initiative/saving throw; then each minute counts as one hour.

That's actually how we'd thought of doing it at first, and if your group is good at keeping track of time, it'd probably be better than the compromise I suggested. But we frankly suck at tracking time, and especially when a battle is about to start, we didn't want to be bogging the game down by saying, "Okay, how many hours ago did we cast Bull's Strength? Six hours ago, and I'm eighth level, so it's good for, uh, two minutes now."

So we went for the compromise instead: it's a lot easier to keep track of. It's also got the advantage of giving players a hard choice: chronic version that's useless in dangerous situations, or acute version that wears off after a couple of minutes?

But like I said, if you keep track of time well, that way could definitely work.

Daniel

 

[Pielorinho]

Hence, persistent spell.

I found under 3.0 that buffs eventually became a pre-requisite for action, not a tactical choice. Once I started hearing 'Let's wait till tomorrow so we can buff again' I knew that they'd become too much of a crutch. The extensive durations encouraged that.

I'd have no real quarrel with 10/minutes a level, except that Extended Spell starts pushing things back into the perma-buff range.

See, my solution does get away from that. Most of the time, people want the buffs for combat purposes, and my system does weaken them to 3.5 levels for combat. I actually think that weakening was a great idea.

But like so many other changes to 3.5, optimizing things for combat means making stuff worthless for non-combat situations. That's what I was trying to change.

Sure, persistent spell would work -- but that's an awful expensive solution to a tiny problem. My compromise allows the spells to work for creative, noncombat purposes, at the risk of wasting the spell if an unexpected combat begins.

Daniel

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I've found the duration to be great.

The only problem I found is 3rd-level clerics don't know what to do with their 2nd-level spell slots, since this isn't the first choice anymore, but at higher levels they will cast it. (Hey, who says low-level spells are useless at higher levels?)

PS if the new version nerfs trip-fighters all the better.

 

[jgsugden]

This belongs in house rules, btw ...

The question you need to ask is: Is the 'normal' state of your game going to be 'buffed PCs' or 'nonbuffed PCs'?

The answer is: It doesn't matter.

In 3.0, everyone was walking around with these spells up at all times. It ate up all the 2nd (or 4th, 6th or 8th) level slots of the spellcasters and did nothing to improve the game. To form the same challenge for the PCs as you'd find in a 3.5 game, the DM had to throw tougher creatures at the PCs.

Think about it for a moment: Is a PC with an 18 strength fighting against a creature with an AC of 22 any less likely to hit his foe than an otherwise identical fighter with a strength of 22 who is fighting a foe with AC 24? If the bull's strength adds 10% to the average damage of the attacker, is he going to take down a foe significantly faster (on average) if that foe has 10% more hit points? Will a wizard with a 22 intelligence that is casting a hold monster on an ogre be less likely to affect the creature than a wizard with a 26 intelligence against an ogre with a +2 to his saving throws?

The change to 3.5 actually allows these spells to have an effect on the game. Why? Because the 'normal' situation changes to assuming that the spells are not present. The DM assumes that the PCs do not have this type of buff, so he designs the foes to be balanced against the 'unbuffed' PCs. If the PCs then decide to use this spell, they get a benefit. In 3.0, it was so common for PCs to be buffed that DMs had to account for it - so there was no option and no effective way to increase stats above the normal situation.

Combined with 'returning' all those 2nd, 4th, 6th and 8th level slots to spellcasters, this change was a huge benefit to players in a well designed game.

 

[Scion]

I never saw any problems with the animal buffs as they were in any of the games I was in or ran.

Most of the time there would be very few animal buffs in play, they just werent worth the risk all of the time.

Your primary stats? You wanted items to buff those, not the spells. Your secondary stats? sure, maybe, but is it worth the spell slot?

Higher levels? You use up a high level spell slot to 'maybe' get something better than the item you already have? Not even worth it most of the time. An 8th level spell slot is worth 'more' than the item you are trying to replace with it. Much, much more.

So you had to spend a feat and a high level spell slot in order to 'maybe' get a benefit? Even then, the benefit has a very high cost.

The way there are now I would be surprised if they were cast at all, ever. Even in the situations where they might do something useful there are almost always other spells which would do the job just as well, if not better.

To short in duration, too small in magnitude, completely useless with the metamagic feats that used to be used with them.

I've never heard a useful complaint about them other than two things:
1) some prc out there could make them too powerful (this complaint doesnt matter at all, if it is too strong with the prc then it is the prc's fault, not the spell)

2) they could last more than one day. Sure, it is possible, but it does cost at least one feat, most likely two. Plus a high level slot, and it may not even work. But a simple fix would just as easily have been to limit spells to 24 hours max duration or something similar. Then again, I never saw a problem with them lasting a long time. It was good management of resources.

So as they were before? they were a tough choice, but often neglected for other spells that could be more useful in a pinch, but still used now and then.

The new ones? Useless. Make them +5 and have a duration of 10 minutes/level along with work on the stat of your choice when you cast it. Then it will have some use. But I would still prefer the 3.0 version in any games I run, because it was just all around more useful, and more interesting, without being overpowered.

 

[Abraxas]

In one game the durations have been increased to 10 min/level and you can only have 1 physical and 1 mental buff spell running at the same time. They get used occasionally.

In another they use the 3.5 durations - I have seen Bull's strength cast once - and that was because it was the better choice of 2 domain spells.

I must game with unusual players because I never saw the abuse even when they lasted an hour per level. (I have never seen bear's endurance cast in any version because the sudden loss of hitpoints from a successful dispel magic/suppression/end of duration could easily kill a character.)

The idea that they were always being cast in 3.0 is just alien to my gaming experience. The idea that as DM I had to beef up the opponents because the fighters always had an 18 STR and got it boosted by an empowered extended Bulls strength to 26 for days at a time never occurred. Especially when you consider that without an equivalent boost to CON the feeble hit points of said boosted fighter wouldn't have survived 2 rounds of the increased damage oputput with these boosted challenges.

The real problems with the new durations - IME - are lack of non-combat utility and making non-traditional character concepts even more difficult (like the high Int & Cha fighter with a 12 strength, the high Str & Con rogue with a 12 dex, etc. etc.) and dependant on items.

All IMO of course - I'm really glad I never gamed with the people that made others think these (and some of the other) changes were necessary.

 

[the Jester]

Here's 3.0 bull's strength vs. prayer.

3.0 bull's strength- 1 hour/level; depending on how you roll, you get up to +3 (if you roll a 5 and have an odd str score) to attack and damage rolls and str skill checks. If you're using a two-handed weapon this can go up to +4.

Prayer- 1 round/level, +1 to attack, damage, skill checks and saves and -1 for your enemies; when you're opposing someone, it's essentially a net +2 for you. Also, it gets everyone within 40'.

Sure, you get more targets with prayer, but it's over in one combat or less. And it's a level higher. If you're already a high-str character and you luck out when you roll, you'll harvest pretty crazy bonuses for a 2nd-level spell that lasts for hours.

 

[Eldragon]

I use 10 Min/Level for the animal buff spells, with a maximum time of 90 minutes.

It gives players plenty of time to work with, AND keeps a pesky level 18 Wizard from using extend spell to get a 6 hour/day boost to Int.

In my games combat is over in about 5-8 rounds. 1 Minute/level spells are practically useless in this situation. The player is much better off casting a 1 round/level spell or a direct attack spell.