In praise of 1 minute/level spells

[Storm Raven]

5) I think that was the exact point of the change: to make sure that you cannot use them for multiple fights in the same day. I disagree with the idea that there is "little use" in spending the time to cast the spell. At low levels these spells are still very powerful. They aren't the god spells that they once were but they are still mighty for 2rd level spells. If you are only 3rd level, giving your melee types +2 to hit and damge is more powerful than most of the things that you can do at that level and the effect lasts longer too.

I doubt it. At 3rd level, a cleric is probably better off with a cure spell, hold person, or shield other over the shortened animal buff spells. It is likely that he is better off with spiritual weapon or summon manster II rather than giving his melee types a +2 to hit and damage. Summoning a celesital wolf for three rounds is going to be almost always a better option over a handful of rounds of a tiny increase in damage output from the party fighter.

A low level arcane caster is better off casting a wide array of spells, including glitterdust, hypnotic pattern or blindness over bull's strength.

Once casters get to be high level, you are correct there is little reason to cast them; but then again they are 2nd level spells. They SHOULD be less useful at higher levels: that is what higher level spells are for. Honestly, I see no reason why someone couldn't research improved versions of the buff spells at say 4th level that last 1 hour/lvl, but at 2nd level, that is way too much.

The problem is that at high level the problem with using the buff spells in combat is the opportunity cost of taking an action not consuming the spell slot. Casting an animal buff spell over any number of mid level offensive spells is silly for a mid level caster and beyond simply because you are wasting combat time doing that rather than using that spell slot to do something that scales better with your level.

Plus, the simple fact of the matter is that many spells scale with level. A 9th level caster is simply better at using magic missile, fireball, or acid arrow than a 5th level caster. The fact that the spells get better is not unusual, in fact, it is de riguer for D&D spells. The 3rd level spell lightning bolt is not useless when you are 10th level, because it deals more damage than it did when you were 5th level, but the 2nd level spell bull's strength now is, because the now 10 minute duration doesn't give you any real benefit over the value fo the spell when you were 5th level.

6) See above. The problem isn't with the giving of the bonus, the problem is with the fact that that you have 2nd level spells that last all day. The disaster that was caused when they allowed metamagic stacking was just part of the problem. They were simply too powerful for their level. Compare the buff spells to the other 2nd level spells and see if you think they are on the same level.

I find them to have been roughtly the same power as most of the other 2nd level spells when they were 1 hour per level. They were useful when they were low level, and they scaled well with level, like many other spells. Now, compared to the array of other spells out there at 2nd level, they are junk. Not useful at low levels, and completely worthless at mid to high level. Should magic missile not scale with level? How about negative energy ray? How about burning hands? Each of those 1st level spells is more valuable than the revised bull's strength. Now that is a nonsensical result, but that is what the change has effectively done. It has made an array of 2nd level spells less useful than many 1st level spells.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I too, like the change to 1min/lvl.

The 1hour/lvl was making these spells into an effective 24/7 class feature without having to even take extend spell.

When the cleric was running around with consistantly better str and con than the fighter/barbarian/ranger/paladin, this was a problem.

I had two players consistantly take cleric for this and it just goes against the type. Just imagine if the fighter routinely had better dex than the rogue. That is not d&d.

 

[AuraSeer]

At least for a wizard, spell slots are too precious to waste on crap that an item can easily duplicate.

You're talking about a 16,000 gp item there, which only a high-level character would consider "easy." A 3rd-level character may not be able to afford the item, but can cast the spell just fine.

If everyone in the party has sprung for a +4 Dexterity item, then sure, cat's grace will be useless. But the wizard can prepare bear's endurance instead. Once everyone has a +4 Constitution item too, he can instead prepare fox's cunning for himself, or owl's wisdom for the cleric, or whatever else they don't have an item for yet.

In order for all the stat buffs to be replaced by items, you'd need at least three +4 stat items per character. For the standard four-member party, that's a total of 192,000 gp spent only on stat-boosting items, leaving that much less for magic weapons or other important stuff. (Even then, there's a niche for some of the spells. When fighting spellcasters for instance, zap the fighter with owl's wisdom to boost his Will save.)

The spells may not mean much to a 20th-level character, but they have plenty of utility at low to mid levels.

 

[Tzarevitch]

I doubt it. At 3rd level, a cleric is probably better off with a cure spell, hold person, or shield other over the shortened animal buff spells. It is likely that he is better off with spiritual weapon or summon manster II rather than giving his melee types a +2 to hit and damage. Summoning a celesital wolf for three rounds is going to be almost always a better option over a handful of rounds of a tiny increase in damage output from the party fighter.

A low level arcane caster is better off casting a wide array of spells, including glitterdust, hypnotic pattern or blindness over bull's strength.



The problem is that at high level the problem with using the buff spells in combat is the opportunity cost of taking an action not consuming the spell slot. Casting an animal buff spell over any number of mid level offensive spells is silly for a mid level caster and beyond simply because you are wasting combat time doing that rather than using that spell slot to do something that scales better with your level.

Plus, the simple fact of the matter is that many spells scale with level. A 9th level caster is simply better at using magic missile, fireball, or acid arrow than a 5th level caster. The fact that the spells get better is not unusual, in fact, it is de riguer for D&D spells. The 3rd level spell lightning bolt is not useless when you are 10th level, because it deals more damage than it did when you were 5th level, but the 2nd level spell bull's strength now is, because the now 10 minute duration doesn't give you any real benefit over the value fo the spell when you were 5th level.



I find them to have been roughtly the same power as most of the other 2nd level spells when they were 1 hour per level. They were useful when they were low level, and they scaled well with level, like many other spells. Now, compared to the array of other spells out there at 2nd level, they are junk. Not useful at low levels, and completely worthless at mid to high level. Should magic missile not scale with level? How about negative energy ray? How about burning hands? Each of those 1st level spells is more valuable than the revised bull's strength. Now that is a nonsensical result, but that is what the change has effectively done. It has made an array of 2nd level spells less useful than many 1st level spells. [/B]

3.0 Hold Person may be better, but not the 3.5version. A consistant +2 Hit and damage for 3 minutes is better than a save to avoid spell that allows a re-save the next round . . . and the next . . . and so on. Basically, you've used your action for the round to cancel your target's action for the round.

I also dispute that summoning a celestial wolf is better than giving a dedicated melee type a +2 to hit and damage at 3rd level. For a 3rd level fighter that is a huge increase in his hit chance and some extra damage now and for the rest of the fight as opposed to the summoned wolf that has 1 weak attack, only lasts 3 rounds and arrives the round AFTER you need it.

If I cast Bull's Strength on my 3rd level fighter ally with a 14 Str, Weapon Focus and and a Greatsword+1 for example , his Str climbs to 18 and he inflicts 2d6+6 (13 average) damage EACH round at +9 to hit. Aganst 3rd level adversaries that is very likely to hit.

Using your Burning Hands example (which is admittedly lower level, but it is scaleable as you said), at 3rd level the burning hands will do 3d6 damage (10.5 average) If he fails his save. If he saves you are looking at half that, and to top it off you are standing way too close to your target. Note there is no save against the fighter's enhanced damage and he can do it again for the rest of the fight at no extra cost to me while I do something else useful.

As I said before, at low levels, 3.5 Bull's Strength and the other enhancement spells are still generally better than similar level spells. Yes there are some spells that are better, but there are also many that are less useful or only occasionally useful.

Tzarevitch

 

[sithramir]

I too, like the change to 1min/lvl.

The 1hour/lvl was making these spells into an effective 24/7 class feature without having to even take extend spell.

When the cleric was running around with consistantly better str and con than the fighter/barbarian/ranger/paladin, this was a problem.

I had two players consistantly take cleric for this and it just goes against the type. Just imagine if the fighter routinely had better dex than the rogue. That is not d&d.

To make these spells last 24/7 would make you 24th level. Epic. Using extend to make them last long to get 24/7 would take a 4th level spell (can no longer compare this to 2nd level spell slots) and would require 13th or so level. Using persistant spell would make it 6th level and 11th level caster but now takes a 6th level slot (hmm better compare to those to 6th level spells). The idea is when your not that high of level the spells may last all day but what if you are attacked at night? WHOH a creative DM and hence you'd need 2 slots to keep it up 24/7 if not more.

The cleric was running around with more str/con than fighter classes but not with better BAB and with no spells left at that level after casting them. PLUS he can cast them on those classes also making them more powerful hence why clerics are useful for being "buffers". So he was still weaker in attacking terms.

The fight having more than a dex being not d&d? What do you mean? I've never made a fighter without his highest stat being dex. Its called a duelist or an archer or a RANGER. Just because your idea of d&d is so one sided is irrelevant and doesn't make anything "not d&d".

Your players chose cleric over fighter? They just don't play the fighter to his full potential then. Ever seen a fight come in with 4 attacks and do 120 points of damage? Your cleric using buff spells can only do 3 attacks maybe at best and has less hps to tank. Remember that spells he can cast on himself can be cast on a fighter/emulated by an item too. The power of a class is based on the player and what he choosed to do with the character.

The idea is that 1min/level buffs don't stack with level like most spells do like magic missile and remove the role playing aspect of the game for someone who isn't using it for combat/something that takes a few minutes to do. (Cleric helping people lift rocks is a good example). The point is that restricting the use of a spell to mostly combat does not give more options because people may want more dex/str/con whether its a wimpy boost or not and the people who chose other 2nd level spells aren't affected anyways. Restricting something in an attempt to give more options is like "bombing for peace" or "f*cking for virginity".

 

[Kershek]

Do you really want to lose one round of attacking with that greatsword so that you can cast a spell that gives you 10% better to hit and +2 damage? You could have already done 2d6+3 damage instead of casting that spell, and still have gotten the +10% to hit on that round by charging. Plus, there's no way you'll have time to buff your fighter friend or whoever else.

 

[AuraSeer]

Do you really want to lose one round of attacking with that greatsword so that you can cast a spell that gives you 10% better to hit and +2 damage?

If I'm a wizard, I don't carry a greatsword, and I don't cast bull's strength on myself. My buddy the fighter is the one carrying great pointy bits of metal, so I cast bull's strength on him.

He doesn't lose any attacks at all. Of course I lose the opportunity to cast a damaging spell this round, but at the low levels we're talking about, it's worth it. Over the course of the combat, the increase in the fighter's damage output will equal or exceed the damage I would have done with a direct attack spell.

[edited to add]
Oh, and saying "10% better to hit" is misleading. It increases your percentage change to hit by 10, but that may be far more (or less) than a one-tenth change in your prospects.

The most extreme example: If Fred will exactly hit the BBEG on a 20, with bull's strength he will hit on a 18-20. That more than triples his damage output-- a 200% increase!

 

[Destil]

I don't really like the idea of being buffed 24 hours a day, personally. It does cut into the use of items. I think 10 mins/level was a good comprimise (but do you keep them at 1d4+1 or change it to +4?). I hadn't thought of the cap until my group mentioned it. I do agree with #3. The rest I grew to understand, though I disagree with #6.

IMHO the only time 'stacking' metamagic feats even comes close to being abusive is the multi empowering of buffs (getting you a massive bonus usualy unatanable before epic spells) or the multi enlarging of a cone spell to wipe out a city from high altutude...

The second one is more a parlor trick, anyway. Any wizard worth their salt can do better with other 9th level options.

The first can be a real problem at high levels. So I'd say make the buffs fixed:

+2 at 3rd to 6th level
+4 at 7th 10th level
+6 at 11th+

And then don't bother disallowing someone to use the same meta-magic feat more than once on a spell.

 

[Kershek]

For the record, I was talking about a cleric using the spell.

It's also a touch spell, so your wizard will likely need to be right there with the fighter when casting it. Even as a 5th level caster, there are many more things you can do that is more effective than running up to your fighter and giving him +2 to hit and damage. Buff spells need to be cast before battle or they won't be cast at all. With 10 mins/level, you can do that without it becoming a 24 hour boost.

 

[Tar-Edhel]

The fight having more than a dex being not d&d? What do you mean? I've never made a fighter without his highest stat being dex. Its called a duelist or an archer or a RANGER. Just because your idea of d&d is so one sided is irrelevant and doesn't make anything "not d&d".

No need to get excited about this... That's not what he said. The keyword was routinely.

You usually expect the fighters to have strength, the wizards to be smart, the rogues to be agile and the priests to be wise. Does it mean every single one of them follow these simple archetypes? Of course not.

A little less aggressivity would be much appreciated, thank you!