Shortened buff spell durations: Good or bad?

[rhammer2]

Where did you read about the shortened durations on the attribute buffs?

I say BAD. Shortening the duration of Bull's Strength and other spells from 1 hour/level to 1 minute/level is a bad idea IMO. The reason being, now these spells will become mainly NPC spells.

Here's why. If a spell's only going to last a few minutes, it's pretty much only good for one combat. The problem is, PCs usually have multiple combats to worry about, while NPCs only have to worry about one fight - the one with the PCs. So they can afford to dump all their resources into that one fight, while the PCs have to be more careful. Also, the NPCs are more likely to know the PCs are coming (since the PCs are usually in enemy territory), so they can cast the spells as needed, while the PCs are rarely sure when a combat is around the corner.

I liked the long-duration buffs because it gave the PCs a chance to use buff spells more often than they otherwise would have been able to. Getting rid of them seems to screw the PCs over more than NPCs and/or monsters.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Shortened buff spell durations: Good or bad?

Where did you read about the shortened durations on the attribute buffs?

Dungeon #100 (haven't seen it myself yet).

 

[Negative Zero]

personally, i think that most of this arguing is kinda pointless, because we don't have all the info yet. for example; if the spell were left as is, but had its duration shortened, then it may indeed be not powerful enough for a 2nd level spell. but, what if the duration is shortened, but it also affects multiple targets now? that would go a long way toward correcting the power balance.

now, i don't have any special info that you don't, and i'm not suggesting that this should be the "fix" for the spell. i'm simply saying that there may be ways to adjust the duration and still keep the spell viable.

of course all of the above is decidedly anti-argumentative, so feel free to ignore it and argue amongst yourselves

~NegZ

 

[Apok]

I dig the change, myself. Although I think a 10 minute/level duration would've been fine also, either way it keeps the spells from becoming the All-Day Buffs they have been. To my mind, this is a Good Thing (TM). I also like the fact that it's a flat +4 instead of a random die roll.

I'd be suprised if this change actually does promote the "run & gun" method of playing for the very reasons hong mentioned. Trying to rush through a dangerous area just so you keep your spells intact for the next encounter is a fool's gambit. As to the opposite effect (parties moving along until their buffs run out, then leave & come back), I think that has always been the way of things. You adventure until your resources are low then you stop and rest, heal, regain spells, etc. That aspect of D&D is nothing new and not hard to deal with.

 

[Malin Genie]

I'm in the "should have been 10 mins/level" camp; but I do like the change to a flat number (not only making it more consistent, but preventing empowering/maximising.)

At 1 min/level as noted it pretty much is a 'single fight' spell; not hugely better than 1 round/level. At 10 mins/level it can be useful for two or three encounters if the party pushes forward and the *&#(*%^ rogue doesn't Take 20 searching every $@(&^_&($ 5ft square in the entire dungeon!

 

[Bauglir]

The designers said the same thing about feats, PrC, and several other 3e/3.5 things. If its something every caster/character would want, then its probably too powerful/too good.

In that case all hitpoints, saving throws and ac should be stripped from the game - after all these are all things that every character would want aren't they?

There's an important difference between people always wanting something because it's overpowered, and always using it because it's fundamental and universally applicable.

A caster's role can be ground down into 5 things - buffin', summonin', nukin', defendin' and utility. The 2nd level stat buffs are the fundamental part of buffin' - all classes and tasks can get some use from them. In that respect, while other spells are usually memorised only for the caster's own use and benefit, the buffs are taken to keep other party members happy as well (and hence more of them will be needed)

To make another example, almost every caster will take Identify - should that be considered overpowered as well?

 

[hong]

There's an important difference between people always wanting something because it's overpowered, and always using it because it's fundamental and universally applicable.

Why should a bull's strength spell be fundamental and universally applicable, as opposed to gauntlets of ogre power or belts of giant strength?

A caster's role can be ground down into 5 things - buffin', summonin', nukin', defendin' and utility. The 2nd level stat buffs are the fundamental part of buffin' - all classes and tasks can get some use from them. In that respect, while other spells are usually memorised only for the caster's own use and benefit, the buffs are taken to keep other party members happy as well (and hence more of them will be needed)

Nobody is going to want a fox's cunning except a wizard. Similarly, (almost) nobody is going to want an owl's wisdom except a cleric or druid. IME whether or not a spell is shared around is dependent far more on the player, rather than the spell itself. If these spells are so important to you, research them and make them 6th level or so (what a Persistent version would be).

To make another example, almost every caster will take Identify - should that be considered overpowered as well?

Clerics, druids, rangers and paladins never take identify. Sorcerers very rarely take identify.

Nobody in my game has identify. They can get that done for them in town.

 

[Coredump]

In that case all hitpoints, saving throws and ac should be stripped from the game - after all these are all things that every character would want aren't they?

I disagree. HP are too broad, that is like saying all casters want spells... If HP were *so* important, than everyplayer would choose to be a warrior. Since they don't, there must be other things that are 'more important' to some players, hence balance. Heck, even if you are going to be a 'front line' type, some choose to take the feats (fighter) some choose abilities (Barb) and some *forgo* the HP's for spells (cleric). Again, showing balance.

A caster's role can be ground down into 5 things - buffin', summonin', nukin', defendin' and utility. The 2nd level stat buffs are the fundamental part of buffin' - all classes and tasks can get some use from them

And you answer your own question. First, the duration of the buff spells in question (there are others) made them almost universal in appeal. It promoted "buffin'" into much more than 20% of the importance; and for those specific spells. (ie. not just for buff spells in general, but Bulls Strength/cats grace specifically) Yes, just about every caster will have some utility spells, but not always the same ones. Not all casters will memorize a summoning spell at all, and definitey not always the same ones. But the power of the BS/CG/etc spells made buffing jump in importance, and almost always for the SAME spells for every caster.


.

 

[green slime]

Good.

 

[Numion]

Good good good!

On so many levels I might add. But since hong already put it quite eloquently, I'll just shut up now