Shortened buff spell durations: Good or bad?

[LordAO]

Hey, hey... watch the attribution, there... that was Hong's line.

-Hyp.

Sorry, there little smurf. I will be more careful about that in the future.

 

[Andion Isurand]

I will play with the buff spells lasting 10 minutes/ level.

Not too hot and not too cold, closer to being just right.

 

[melkoriii]

I personaly thought that the stat buffs spells should have been short duration scaling buffs that stack with everything but themselfs.

Like
Bull Strength
2+1 per/2 caster lvl for 1min/per lvl.

That makes it a good spell at any lvl. Not too powerful at low lvls.

And only lasts a short time.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Bauglir

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Every caster finds themself in melee at some point. Damn few of them don't take concentration.

Or if they're on the receiving end of fireballs...

Agreed on 2 counts, although I'd contend the recast point. How many buffs do you have memorised? I don't often see wizards and clerics memorizing backup buffs, in case the originals are dispelled. Sorcerers will likely take 1 or 2 of the 6, so there's some redundancy there I suppose, still it can hardly be assumed that they are available for recast.

I did. Usually an extended endurance and another endurance, possibly two more endurances. Of course, I saved them only for myself *grins evilly*

Don't look at me like that - I always cast mage armor on the monk

LokiDr

And of the mosters in the MM or MM2, few throw around greater dispelling.

I hope this changes. Lots of creatures in the Fiend Folio had dispel magic, but we've only seen, I think, four official 3.5 monsters so far, and the pit fiend's abilities weren't all listed.

Also, IIRC, an area dispelling affects higher level buffs first. They would more likely burn through your other buffs before the permancied ones.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't permanency count as a higher-level buff? And can't the permanency itself be dispelled?

Anyway, I prefer targeted dispellings, especially if someone is obviously buffed out. My players counter with mirror image, one of the sweetest spells in the game.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Anyway, I prefer targeted dispellings, especially if someone is obviously buffed out. My players counter with mirror image, one of the sweetest spells in the game.

Quickened Message, followed by a targetted Dispel

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

Agreed on 2 counts, although I'd contend the recast point. How many buffs do you have memorised? I don't often see wizards and clerics memorizing backup buffs, in case the originals are dispelled.

Buffs do not get dispelled that often, IME. As I said, it's rare that you'll find a monster with dispel magic. Liches and NPC wizards/clerics are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Sorcerers will likely take 1 or 2 of the 6, so there's some redundancy there I suppose, still it can hardly be assumed that they are available for recast.

Sorcs don't need more than 1 or 2 of the 6.

Full plate offers high ac, with a low opportunity cost. (A 12 can be allocated to dex). While your touch ac will be low alongside someone with lighter armour and higher dex, the total AC is unequalled. It depends on your preference really (and I feel it is balanced - I quoted heavy ar as an example because it is popular ime at least)

A very common belief is that heavy armour is _underpowered_, in terms of its disadvantages compared to its benefits. The armour check penalty and speed reduction can be major factors a lot of the time.

The actual rogue abilites are largely about good reflexes and about versitility, not about hiding.

What do uncanny dodge, evasion, sneak attack, crippling strike, slippery mind and defensive roll have to do with versatility? Rogues are _ninjas_. They have lots of skill points only because 3E represents most ninja schticks as skills, rather than attacks bonuses, spells, or other types of abilities. In fact, 3E represents _lots_ of things as skills, ranging from combat/adventuring-related skills (Spot, Listen) to social interaction (Diplomacy, Intimidate, Innuendo) to occupational (Craft, Profession). _This_ is why the "skilled guy" makes no sense as an archetype.

Hiding is optional, and one of the many options open to rogues, yet it is near universally taken. Does that mean it's overpowered? I don't think it does.

No, but it does mean that hiding is part of the ninja schtick.

Fair enough. On the other side of the coin, buffs are only sensible to cast before combat starts, and more often than not the players will not get advance notice of a combat, so this reduction will effectively take them from overused to near-unused; an entire reversal. Hence my opinion that the change was too much. Secondly it removes their out-of-combat functionality as many people have mentioned. Surely there's a middle ground?

A 2nd level spell should not be a major part of life as you gain levels. That's the way 3E's magic system works; it's why spell DCs scale by spell level as opposed to caster level, and damage dice caps exist. If you're taking on bigger beasties, you should be using bigger boom (and buff) spells.

If you want these buff spells to be a major part of life at high level, there's nothing stopping you recreating the old versions at 6th level or so, like I said before.

Again with the jibes.

Sucks to be you, doesn't it?

Depending on the adventure, easy access to sages may not be assumed. I've played in many adventures that occurred 'far from civilisation'. As far as cohorts go, well a feat costs more than a spell.

Leadership is one of the most underestimated feats around, in terms of bang for the buck. Think about it: you're effectively doubling your firepower/versatility, for the cost of one feat. If it was me, I'd have used some other mechanic to represent getting a sidekick, but it gets the job done.

 

[Bauglir]

Buffs do not get dispelled that often, IME. As I said, it's rare that you'll find a monster with dispel magic. Liches and NPC wizards/clerics are the exceptions that prove the rule.

And I agreed with you.

Sorcs don't need more than 1 or 2 of the 6.

Again this comes down to the self-buffer vs the party-buffer idea.

A very common belief is that heavy armour is _underpowered_, in terms of its disadvantages compared to its benefits. The armour check penalty and speed reduction can be major factors a lot of the time.

Interesting. IME it's quite popular; armour check penalties just don't come up that often, particularly since the heavy fighter will be avoiding those scenarios (and leaving the agile work to the rogue) Occasionally it becomes a problem but we usually find a way around it.

What do uncanny dodge, evasion, sneak attack, crippling strike, slippery mind and defensive roll have to do with versatility? Rogues are _ninjas_. They have lots of skill points only because 3E represents most ninja schticks as skills, rather than attacks bonuses, spells, or other types of abilities. In fact, 3E represents _lots_ of things as skills, ranging from combat/adventuring-related skills (Spot, Listen) to social interaction (Diplomacy, Intimidate, Innuendo) to occupational (Craft, Profession). _This_ is why the "skilled guy" makes no sense as an archetype.

Precisely my point: skills cover a wide set of bases, and the rogue has damn near all of them for class skills. While hiding will help with abilities such as sneak attack it is not required for it (flanking is sufficient). The rogue CAN be a ninja; it doesn't HAVE to be one, any more than the wizard HAS to be a buffer.

A 2nd level spell should not be a major part of life as you gain levels. That's the way 3E's magic system works; it's why spell DCs scale by spell level as opposed to caster level, and damage dice caps exist. If you're taking on bigger beasties, you should be using bigger boom (and buff) spells.

I'm of the thinking that lower level spells, while not being the big booms of high level games, should retain some use. It doesn't seem right to me that a large portion of a class' main abilities become useless. YMMV of course

Sucks to be you, doesn't it?

A little civility isn't much. Everyone else on these boards seems to manage it.

Leadership is one of the most underestimated feats around, in terms of bang for the buck. Think about it: you're effectively doubling your firepower/versatility, for the cost of one feat. If it was me, I'd have used some other mechanic to represent getting a sidekick, but it gets the job done.

Agreed. In fact many DMs I know have banned it, because they think it's much too good for just a feat.

 

[Darkness]

A little civility isn't much.

Right. And it also helps a lot.

So please be nice, everybody.

- Darkness

 

[Darklone]

Right. And it also helps a lot.

So please be nice, everybody.

- Darkness

Ohhh, a nice hong is no fun!

 

[LokiDR]

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!"

Ok, now you are just being petulant. Obviously, if they PCs make it clear they will come back in few minutes, it won't work. Haven't you ever heard of hit and run tatics? Have you heard of tatical combat at all? Retreat is a tatical option and should be used as such. A party that notices a caster is buffed up should consider running for a few minutes, to let the buffs go down. If a DM stops this option by simplely having the wizard always chase them, the wizard should chase them when they are near dead or you are just metagaming the whole thing.

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.

You have never seen a low level party with a sorcerer that knows invisiblity. You have never seen rogues. You have never seen a tatical assult. If the NPC always knows the PCs are comming, you are bending the situation to make the PCs lives more difficult. In my experience, from my own games, being a player, and judging Living Greyhawk events, the NPCs know the PCs are comming about as offten as the PCs know the NPCs are comming.

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.

I have done it more than once. Point blank and rapid shot are two feats, and apply to many spells. A 12th level wizard with those feats (2 of 8 for a human) can fire 3 times a round, +22 for 1d8+10. That is hardly a slouch considering they can fire 50 times, more if they take more GMW spells. They also have many other spells for the day, the ability to create and use scrolls, use wands and staves, and have skills like spellcraft to figure out the tatics of other spellcasters.

Ya, a big idiot.

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.

Dwarfs don't have prefered class wizard or an extra feat at first level. Are you saying because a PC can have darkvision without a spell, the permancy is useless? First, that is narrow and flawed reasoning, and second it doesn't explain See Invisibility or any others on that list.

I will pay 1000 xp after a good many adventures (the chance you will face a spellcaster AND they will dispell you) for an ability that no other PC has without an expensive magic item.

Do you know how disruptive a simple permanent detect magic can be if players wants to get annoying? See through doors, around corners, never miss magic items, see nearly every magical trap, and almost always identify people trying to decieve them by magic. I have done it to a DM and had it done to me. I won't let people in my game do it again.

What is 1000xp after several session at 10th level? Do you avoid casting Limited wish this hard as well? Permancy is cheese. If people want permanent effects, get magic items. At least everyone can get those and I can balance them with money the character is supposed to have.