I think buff spells are eroding my enjoyment of D&D.

[Wiseblood]

I'll tell you why I feel this way. The character's inherent abilities can be overshadowed by buffs especially when they start stacking up. They shore up too many weaknesses to the point that the once frail are mighty. They also add more bookkeeping to the game. Quite often I feel like some buff spells (especially from splatbooks) were designed just so they could stack with another buff spell. Many of them do the same thing a different way until they seem kind of bland. I would rather see a spellcaster unleash a spectacular spell that ends the fight than see another enlarged dwarf. Does any of this make sense? Am I the only one that these things bother? What can I do either to suppress this feeling or tweak my game so that this isn't a problem?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Yep, they can get annoying.

There are a variety of ways to limit them. You could simply place a limit on how many ongoing harmless spells a character can have on him at one time, and rule that anything beyond that limit fails, a limit which could be based on level or ability scores or be a hard number.
You could have each buff spell effectively take up a magic item space.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

You could say "You can only benefit from X number of buffs at a time. Because [insert hand-wave explanation]." (Hey, it's magic. Who's to say how it works!) This one potentially screws over casters who rely on buffs to stay alive, but maybe you'd consider that a plus.

Or you could go the 4e route and say that all buff spells grant 'buff bonuses,' and therefore don't stack with each other.

Or you could just play 4e.

 

[TerraDave]

I remember thinking that in about 2006. Before that, well a few years before that, it was just a bless here and a chant there, so no big deal.

By early 2008 elaborate buffing routines made me ready to move to 4E. Now I am ready to move on again...for different reasons.

 

[Zardnaar]

I've been playing OSR games and buff spells exist but they usually do not stack and they are not that good by 3rd ed standards. Prayer is a good spell in AD&D next to useless in 3rd ed. Scaling buff spells are the big offender compare the AD&D emotion or enchant weapon spells to Divine Power and Greater Magic weapon. +1 to hit, +3 damage+5 temp hit points or +2 to hit, damage and saves is about as good as it gets with a 4th level AD&D buff spell and they are still usable.

Divine Power, Divine Favor and Greater Magic Weapon being the unholy trinity since 3.0.

 

[MJS]

I share your desire to not see another enlarged dwarf. Some things are just wrong.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I don't like 3.x buffs either. I much prefer 4e's short-term, generally non-stacking buffs. I call these "active buffs" because you have to earn them (usually by hitting someone), and there's almost no standard action buffs.

Funny thing was, many of 2e's buffs were as powerful. The Strength spell puts 3.5's Bull's Strength to shame, and yet I had literally never seen it used. In fact I only learned it's rules after 4e came out, and was delighted that it worked on creatures when you didn't know their Strength score (so NPCs could use it too). The only buff spell I recall seeing in 2e was Haste. There weren't bonus types then, so stacking was confusing, and I think that's one reason we didn't see them.

The thing I really didn't like about 3.x buffing was how it could make you powerful for a relatively brief period. If you got caught without preparation, you didn't get much out of them (unless you used Haste, some things never change), but with prep, you got a huge boost. Obviously players should be rewarded for preparation, but this was "too much of a good thing", and also something only casters can do, generally

About those cheesy splat buffs... selling splats seems to require cheese. DMs should control this stuff.

 

[dd.stevenson]

Funny thing was, many of 2e's buffs were as powerful. The Strength spell puts 3.5's Bull's Strength to shame, and yet I had literally never seen it used. In fact I only learned it's rules after 4e came out, and was delighted that it worked on creatures when you didn't know their Strength score (so NPCs could use it too). The only buff spell I recall seeing in 2e was Haste. There weren't bonus types then, so stacking was confusing, and I think that's one reason we didn't see them.

I'm just one data point, but my experience has consistently been that 2E caster players prefer to rely on control, utility and especially damage spells instead of buffs. I could come up with a list of mitigating reasons why buffs aren't as attractive in 2E as they are in 3E, but really? I think the most important factor is that buffs are less fun to cast, and unless they're actually comparatively very powerful players will avoid them naturally.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Funny thing was, many of 2e's buffs were as powerful. The Strength spell puts 3.5's Bull's Strength to shame, and yet I had literally never seen it used.

That's odd. I wonder why that is. To me, "cast a bunch of spells and drink potions before the boss fight" was pretty much standard in Baldur's Gate, but I kind of concur that it didn't seem happen as much in the actual tabletop game.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Maybe it was the number of spells you got. In 3e you get more spells, and can make scrolls and other resources to have extra spells when needed. But IMO, more important reason is the clearer rules.