Shortened buff spell durations: Good or bad?

[LokiDR]

Put me in the camp that says "If everyone wants something, it's overpowered" is a ridiculous argument. Pretty much all high-level characters are going to want some way to fly. Is flight overpowered? Pretty much every party is going to want some way to neutrailze poisons/cure diseases/remove curses - are all those things overpowered? Pretty much every spellcaster is going to take either Dispel Magic or Greater Dispelling - are those spells overpowered?

See what I mean? If everyone wants something, it doesn't necessarily mean it's too good - it might just mean that it's very useful for common situations.

There are several alternatives to the Fly spell: spider climb, numerous items, and several other spells or abilitites. Therefore, the Fly spell isn't overpowered.

Dispell, on the other hand, is the only real way to deal with over-buffed spellcasters. Poly Self, Divine Power, Transformation, and Divine Rightousness turn any spellcaster into the ultimate melee machine: far better than a comparable fighter. The only good way to fight that is dispell or greater dispell. This means that buffs are very powerful and need to be limited. All the spells mentioned have a fairly short duration and can be delt with by running away for a few minutes.

Long term buffs don't have this option. You hit the nail when you said dispell. It is the only way, in combat, to stop a buff monster, but not every party has dispel. So, you either change the buffs or you change dispell. WotC oppted for the first choice.

The fundamental weakness of the primary casters is supposed to be their dependance on spells that can run out. All the fighters need is a recharge on hit points, and a 6th level spell is enough for that (at least in 3e). Day long spells mean that a caster could just polymorph, cats grace, GMW, GMW, and become a pretty good archer. The number of combats lose their power as a limiter. Those spells on fighters are just another example. The caster did most of his work at the start of the day and doesn't need to do much more.

Shorter buffs mean more thinking on their feet for casters, something that has long been lacking in the campaigns I have been in.

 

[Coredump]

Hey guys, can we be careful about who we are quoting? The above was not me, it was Hong.


edit: Oh, and I agree with Loki

.

 

[hong]

Buffs' intended use are to be shared around.

Buffs' intended use is whatever the wizard damn well wants to use them for. If you want to restrict spells to their "intended" use, you have a much bigger problem than a bunch of buffs.

A wizard that keeps the bulls strength for himself is not the brightest bulb in the box. And I know wizards use int, clerics use wisdom etc. What's your point?

The number of times I've seen wizards use fox's cunning and endurance on themselves far outweighs the times they've used bull's str on the fighter.

Secondly these spells are not 'so important to me.' Just because I have a differing point of view to you does not necessarily mean I have a vested interest. In fact I play a sorcerer (the only spellcaster) in my current game, with no buffs at all.

So what do you care if they get nerfed?

Of course they don't. They can't. Common sense would tell you my post was referring to arcane casters.

I'd like to know, in that case, why you're using an arcane-only spell as an example, when the thread up to that point had been about casters in general.

Not true ime.

If your sorcs are willing to spend one of their known spells on identify, they're nuts.

And nobody in my game has buffs. They can get that done for them in items.

And in that case, the fact they're getting nerfed doesn't affect you in any way.

 

[hong]

And why would a Wizard need Fox's Cunning more than anyone else? He doesn't get any bonus spells from it. The only benefit to him is spellcraft and knowledges, which are useful to everyone else as well. The same goes for the Cleric and Wisdom. There is a possibility he may get a higher save DC on his spells, but most spellcasters I know have a stat boosting item for their primary stat (Headband of Intellect, etc) anyway, making such a buff virtually useless to them.

You've never seen the effect of a 3 times empowered fox's cunning on save DCs, have you?

 

[Hypersmurf]

You've never seen the effect of a 3 times empowered fox's cunning, have you?

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

That looks remarkably like one of the PCs in the Gamma World playtest sessions I ran, actually.

 

[Bauglir]

Buffs' intended use is whatever the wizard damn well wants to use them for. If you want to restrict spells to their "intended" use, you have a much bigger problem than a bunch of buffs.

The number of times I've seen wizards use fox's cunning and endurance on themselves far outweighs the times they've used bull's str on the fighter.

2 spells. Hardly dominating his spell selection are they?

So what do you care if they get nerfed?...
And in that case, the fact they're getting nerfed doesn't affect you in any way.

Precisely. It doesn't affect me. Nonetheless it is my opinion that the decision to reduce the duration was a bad one. What do you stand to gain by the duration reduction you're defending?

I'd like to know, in that case, why you're using an arcane-only spell as an example, when the thread up to that point had been about casters in general.

I could just as easily have said that all fighters carry a melee weapon of some kind, therefore all melee weapon damage should be reduced as they're clearly overpowered. My point is that independant of class just because something is popular doesn't necessarily mean it's overpowered. You have to examine the reasons why it is popular.

If your sorcs are willing to spend one of their known spells on identify, they're nuts.

I could say the same about your wizards and clerics that keep all their buffs for themselves . A sorcerer can know up to 5 first level spells, and needs to choose ones that will stay useful as he levels. Identify easily qualifies, and leaves plenty of room to cover other bases.

 

[hong]

2 spells. Hardly dominating his spell selection are they?

Hello in there. 2 spells that last the _entire day_ at high level means they don't _have_ to dominate the spell selection in order to dominate gameplay.

Precisely. It doesn't affect me. Nonetheless it is my opinion that the decision to reduce the duration was a bad one. What do you stand to gain by the duration reduction you're defending?

Repost for the befuddled:

Our spellcasters must have been less risk-averse than yours, then, judging by the number of N-times empowered endurance and cat's grace spells floating around. On a good day, the wizards could have more hit points than the fighters as a result.

Personally, I think the number of buff spells was getting silly. The DM was having to make up a tally sheet of who was buffed and how, just to keep things straight. If this change means more permanent magic items and less bookkeeping, all the better.

You can add in nerfing the more outlandish effects of N-times empowered fox's cunning and endurance spells.

I could just as easily have said that all fighters carry a melee weapon of some kind, therefore all melee weapon damage should be reduced as they're clearly overpowered.

Has anyone said that all spells should be nerfed, as opposed to a handful of them?

I could say the same about your wizards and clerics that keep all their buffs for themselves . A sorcerer can know up to 5 first level spells, and needs to choose ones that will stay useful as he levels. Identify easily qualifies, and leaves plenty of room to cover other bases.

He needs to choose ones that leverage his ability to cast spells spontaneously. Having one spell that takes (effectively) an entire day to cast and only reveals part of the abilities of an item does not fill this criterion.

 

[Bauglir]

Hello in there. 2 spells that last the _entire day_ at high level means they don't _have_ to dominate the spell selection in order to dominate gameplay.

That depends on the size of their impact. d4+1 to a stat is not an astounding influence on anything, although it does help, and is strangely enough, about right for a second level spell.

Repost for the befuddled:

You can add in nerfing the more outlandish effects of N-times empowered fox's cunning and endurance spells.

Repost for the befuddled:

Then you introduce empower spell, and you have a problem. People begin empowering the spells to combine their versatility with power (possible to get +12 to a stat by using an 8th level slot) - this is where the real problem lies imo.

So change the d4+1 to a straight 4 and you get balance once again. Only the second level slots are used to buff, and the buffs maintain their utility out of combat. However WotC did not stop there; they also reduced the duration making them near useless outside combat; further of extremely limited use in combat (unless one is prepared for the fight they will not be in place, and given the durations of combats, it is ill-advised to use them once combat starts)

Has anyone said that all spells should be nerfed, as opposed to a handful of them?

I didn't say all weapons should be nerfed though. Just the melee ones. The analogy stands. If you prefer, we could change it to 2 handed weapons, or heavy armour. Or we could say that the hide and move silently skills are overpowered because just about every rogue has them. Same for spellcraft and concentration for casters. Whatever floats your boat. Popularity is NOT sufficient evidence to prove something overpowered.

He needs to choose ones that leverage his ability to cast spells spontaneously. Having one spell that takes (effectively) an entire day to cast and only reveals part of the abilities of an item does not fill this criterion.

An average adventuring party will come across innumerable magic items throughout their career. A first level spell is small cost to a sorcerer for the ability to identify these items' functions, and will continue to be useful for all things barring artifacts.

 

[hong]

That depends on the size of their impact. d4+1 to a stat is not an astounding influence on anything, although it does help, and is strangely enough, about right for a second level spell.

Getting up to +3 to a save DC or attack roll is not an astounding influence? Have you conveniently forgotten it costs 36,000 gp to get a +6 stat boost item?

I didn't say all weapons should be nerfed though. Just the melee ones.

I didn't say all buff spells should be nerfed though. Just the stat boosters.

If you prefer, we could change it to 2 handed weapons, or heavy armour.

If everyone in your world uses 2-handed weapons and heavy armour, clearly the colour of the sky there is slightly different to over here.

Or we could say that the hide and move silently skills are overpowered because just about every rogue has them.

That's the rogue's schtick, so what d'you expect? As far as I know, the wizard's schtick is much broader than casting fox's cunning and endurance on himself. Of course, as we know, the sky in your world is a slightly different colour. No doubt it's due to stray arcane emissions from constant use of these buff spells.

Same for spellcraft and concentration for casters.

Many casters won't bother with Spellcraft, especially if they're clerics without high Int. Others won't bother with Concentration if they're not primarily casting spells in melee.

Whatever floats your boat.

Ooh, does it have to be relevant?

Popularity is NOT sufficient evidence to prove something overpowered.

If you intend to introduce stupid analogies, sure.

An average adventuring party will come across innumerable magic items throughout their career. A first level spell is small cost to a sorcerer for the ability to identify these items' functions, and will continue to be useful for all things barring artifacts.

By the time the sorc can afford to waste a known spell on identify, the party will have far easier ways of identifying things.