Shortened buff spell durations: Good or bad?
- Thread starter Grog
- Start date
Shard O'Glase
First Post
LokiDR said:
I'm fairly certain you haven't read the spell closely enough. 2000xp for a permanent until dispelled darkvision or see invis isn't even close to worth it.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
The problem is that high-level combat frequently opens with a flurry of Greater Dispellings from both sides.
"A measly 2000xp" for Darkvision and See Invisibility that lasts until the next combat isn't as great a bargain.
-Hyp.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
To turn around an old cliche...
When every problem is a nail, all you need is a hammer.
-Hyp.
Shard O'Glase said:
That would be 2000xp for BOTH spells, 1000xp a piece. Have you read the spell closely? And of the mosters in the MM or MM2, few throw around greater dispelling. This means they may last for a long time. Is there even a low cost item of see invisiblity? That is a hefty advantage for arcanes, especially in a dungeon campaign.
Hypersmurf said:
Depends on the opponents. I don't put an obligitory mage in every encounter I create, as that would get repedative and predictable.
Also, IIRC, an area dispelling affects higher level buffs first. They would more likely burn through your other buffs before the permancied ones.
Dispel in every combat defeats the concept of variety. At least there are a bunch of ways to fly. There are only 3 ways to dispell.
I like your analogy, hammers and nails. Here is mine: there is no problem that can not be solved by the proper application of high explosives. That doesn't mean it should be only effective way
kigmatzomat
Legend
I know I'm coming into this late but that's never really stopped me before.
The change to the buff spells is a design decision. You can tell from the 3.0 DMG that they really expected players to burn cash on stat buff items rather than relying on spells if you check out the typical NPC equipment lists. It's also pretty obvious that they essentially copy & pasted the 2E "Strength" spell and changed stat it affected. This is problematic because in 2E the stat adjustments were .... eccentric and hard to predict. I played 2E for years, often as a caster, and I never remember casting Strength and I'm a recovering min-maxer.
My guess is that the 3.0 playtesters were familiar with the standards of the designers or had similar styles and simply did not get around to using stat buffs as item replacements. When real-world players used the tactic en-masse it started causing some degree of havoc with the ECL/CR system. PCs were, basically, tougher than the system expected.
Rather than muck the with the system as a whole, they corrected the thing that got used in a way they didn't intend. I really don't think it will, or should, alter anyone's gaming experience that much. If your character becomes dysfunctional because of the loss of a spell you were well and truly a one-trick pony.
The sucky part will be all the GMs who have not adjusted and slaughter parties. They'll claim the game is broken and point fingers at WotC while newcomers will have no idea what the fuss is about. It'll be like the "good old days" of the 1E Assasin all over again.
The change to the buff spells is a design decision. You can tell from the 3.0 DMG that they really expected players to burn cash on stat buff items rather than relying on spells if you check out the typical NPC equipment lists. It's also pretty obvious that they essentially copy & pasted the 2E "Strength" spell and changed stat it affected. This is problematic because in 2E the stat adjustments were .... eccentric and hard to predict. I played 2E for years, often as a caster, and I never remember casting Strength and I'm a recovering min-maxer.
My guess is that the 3.0 playtesters were familiar with the standards of the designers or had similar styles and simply did not get around to using stat buffs as item replacements. When real-world players used the tactic en-masse it started causing some degree of havoc with the ECL/CR system. PCs were, basically, tougher than the system expected.
Rather than muck the with the system as a whole, they corrected the thing that got used in a way they didn't intend. I really don't think it will, or should, alter anyone's gaming experience that much. If your character becomes dysfunctional because of the loss of a spell you were well and truly a one-trick pony.
The sucky part will be all the GMs who have not adjusted and slaughter parties. They'll claim the game is broken and point fingers at WotC while newcomers will have no idea what the fuss is about. It'll be like the "good old days" of the 1E Assasin all over again.
LokiDR said:
At that point, the wizard might be hurt too and/or low on spells. He might decide that giving chase wasn't a good idea. Maybe he's satisified with chasing the PCs off. Who knows? I do know that no wizard would simply stand there after a party burst in and then ran away with their leader shouting, "Okay everyone, his spells will only last a few minutes! We'll come back and kill him when they've all worn off!"
Yes, they could easily know when the PCs would arrive to within a few minutes. And if the party can avoid detection, good for them, but that's going to be the exception, not the rule.
I don't know of anyone who played a wizard that way, for one very simple reason: it's boring. And as for the "instant archer", there are no spells that increase your BAB (except for Tenser's, but that's a 6th level spell that only lasts 1 round/level),
so no matter how many spells you cast, you'll be a crappy archer. Yes, your 11th level wizard can cat's grace, poly, and GMW, and maybe he can shoot his bow really well - one time per round.
Frankly, any wizard who plays this way is an idiot. If you want to play an archer, you should pick a class better suited to archery.
And what happens when you get dispelled? You're out 2000 xp and you have absolutely nothing to show for it. Just the chance that you might be dispelled and lose the spells you spent XP to make permanent is enough to deter most players from using Permanency.
And what's the problem anyway? So a mid- or high-level wizard gets darkvision - big deal, so does a dwarf, and he doesn't even have to pay for it. And his can't be dispelled.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
LordAO said:
Hey, hey... watch the attribution, there... that was Hong's line.
-Hyp.
Similar Threads
