Shortened buff spell durations: Good or bad?

[Grog]

You aren't reading what I am writing. I never said the wiz was standing there drooling. Minions, deffensible position, or an entirely different location. You also forget the arrogance many wizards have.

If the buffed wizard does go after them, he may well be falling into a trap. Dim door in front of them and he might be attacked from both sides.

In his own stronghold? Not likely. A party would have to be suicidal to split up their group in the stronghold of a powerful wizard.

Anyway, we've drifted quite a ways from the original topic. The bottom line is, just because a wizard may sometimes chase the PCs when they run away does not mean he'll do it every time. It depends on the circumstances.

So having a good archer isn't useful for a party of adventures.

I never said that. What I have said, repeatedly, is that having the party wizard acting as an archer instead of a wizard isn't useful for a party of adventurers. In fact, it's likely to be very detrimental to them.

I have the option of using hold monsters if the cloud giants if it becomes a problem or we face another one in the same day. You don't have the option of decent archery. If we face lots of weak encounters, I will fare far better than a wizard should. That is the point about long term buffs.

If you wait until the cloud giant becomes a problem to use Hold Monster, then the party has already expended far more resources than they needed to.

This is the point I'm making. Wizards aren't meant to be archers. They're not very good at it. Sure, by using enough feats and enough spells, a wizard can turn himself into a mediocre archer. But by doing so, he's substantially weakening the whole party.

When a PC isn't doing what he or she does best, it hurts the whole party. Sure, you could have the fighter check for traps, but he's not very good at it, and he'll probably miss more traps than he finds. Similarly, a wizard acting as an archer isn't doing what he does best. A 12th level wizard archer is going to be roughly as effective as a 6th level fighter doing the same thing. Probably a bit more so, since the 6th level fighter probably won't have a +4 bow and arrows. So we'll say he's about as effective as an 8th or 9th level fighter.

Sure, he can perform as a 12th level wizard too (minus the feats and spells he expended to be an archer), but every round that wizard fires his bow instead of casting a spell, he's only contributing the resources of an 8th or 9th level fighter to the group instead of a 12th level wizard. This harms the group as a whole.

And as for having lots of weak encounters, if they're so weak, the wizard probably wouldn't have to do much of anything. An EL 7 or so probably won't be able to significantly harm a 12th level party regardless of what the wizard does or doesn't do (unless we're talking about girallons or dragons or something, but that's a whole other topic). In a weak encounter, my wizard can cast a weak spell. Or use a weak magic item. Or twiddle his thumbs. Doesn't make much difference. But you can't expect to still be fighting EL 7's at 12th level - it's just not going to happen very often, barring unusual circumstances.

I won't convince anyone by saying it over and over, so I won't bother any more. Everyone gets to form thier own opinion and that is what makes this game, and these boards, fun.

As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree here.

 

[Ravellion]

while i still say, wait and see, i can't imagine why there are so many people here who thought the 1hr/lvl was such a bad idea. i saw someone post something about the evils of a double empowered and extended buff spell. if a wizard wants to spend a 7th level spell to walk around all day with an enhanced stat, then why should he be able to? after all he would have to not only be at least 13th level, (at which time he should be able to do cool stuff like that) but he's also spent two of his valuable feats to allow him to do that. oh and in case you missed it, that's one 7th level spell he's not casting today. the balance is already built in.

so i guess it comes down to this; should a 7th level spell, AND two feats, allow you to increase the bonus of one stat by +5 for the day? i don't see why not.

~NegZ

Well, IMC, the caster casts everything before he goes to bed on a quiet day, if he knows next day is going to be hell. That way, he has both the spells and the bonusses. And what else is he going to spend the feats on? Toughness?

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I still don't think there was anything wrong with that strategy. It was one of the few really significant benefits that sorcerors had over wizards since they could employ it without the opportunity cost of leaving lots of empty high level slots during the day (We need a fireball/mass haste/etc. now. . . sorry, I was saving that slot for an extended and/or double empowered stat boost so I didn't prepare anything in it).

Plus, overreliance upon that tactic made parties incredibly vulnerable to dispel magics (especially a chained dispel magic or chained greater dispelling).

It also left parties more vulnerable to night attacks as their wizard or sorceror would potentially be without any high level spells available.

Well, IMC, the caster casts everything before he goes to bed on a quiet day, if he knows next day is going to be hell. That way, he has both the spells and the bonusses. And what else is he going to spend the feats on? Toughness?

 

[ruleslawyer]

I still don't think there was anything wrong with that strategy. It was one of the few really significant benefits that sorcerors had over wizards since they could employ it without the opportunity cost of leaving lots of empty high level slots during the day (We need a fireball/mass haste/etc. now. . . sorry, I was saving that slot for an extended and/or double empowered stat boost so I didn't prepare anything in it).

If you can cast buffs and then prepare again, what's this about "saving... slot"? The entire problem with the all-day stat buffs is that medium-to-high-level casters don't have to make those decisions. Worse still, the all-day mental stat buffs add extra spell slots, which means that you are experiencing negative feedback to your spell slot loss. Worse still, unless you're actually out in the wilderness and engaged in tough combats for more than one day, this issue doesn't even come up. You buff the night before you've got a big day ahead. If you're worried about multiple big days in a row, you teleport home in between shorter raids.

Plus, overreliance upon that tactic made parties incredibly vulnerable to dispel magics (especially a chained dispel magic or chained greater dispelling).

It also left parties more vulnerable to night attacks as their wizard or sorceror would potentially be without any high level spells available.

This argument is completely counterintuitive. It's like saying a 20th-level fighter with 1.2 million gp wealth in magic items is more "vulnerable" to disjunction, say, than a Ftr20 with 600,000 gp in magics, simply because he's got more stuff to lose. The 1-hour buffs last longer, meaning that you have the possibility of using them in more combats. The fact that someone can dispel them because you have them up longer, as opposed to the poor 3.5e party that will have used them and burned right through them, is not a disadvantage, but a fact that stems directly from the advantage of having longer buffs.

 

[Gaiden]

Aside from the MoF PrC and epic feats, I am confused about why people think empowered buff spells are so great and all that powerful.

Average 4th: +4
Max 4th: +7

Average 6th: +5
Max 6th: +9

Average 8th: +6
Max 8th: +11

While those buffs are certainly nice, IME and IMC's I have never had a problem. First off, not everyone takes empower spell. Even if they do, they have to burn between 1 - 4 spells of the appropriate slot to gain the max benefit and even with high mental stats, it is tough to get large numbers of higher level spells. So casting these empowered spells always comes at a cost. Consider the difference between divine power and bull's strength or cat's grace and divine agility. Consider Tensor's Transformation.

These spells are dispellable, and their are items that make them virtually obsolete, unless of course you are willing to burn your eighth level slots until you finally roll max to get better than the 32000 gp item (relatively cheap in my opinion - esp. at that level)

Moreover, the comparison between the items and teh spells serves as a good model for the spell. The items are really cheap.

I agree with Grog - the change is comletely unnecessary and if the only problem is empower than change the system to not allow it to function on these spells (which they are apparently doing anyway).

Changing the spell to a minute duration COMPLETELY nerfs the spell. Let's be realistic, no PC will ever waste a slot on a spell that must be used during combat to buff only a single individual as a regular tactic. It would require a special circumstance and alot of planning. Who is to say spells are not to be used ahead of time? That is in fact a wizard's most powerful method of combat - surveillance with divination and then teleport in with delayed spells.

Changing the spell to a minute duration unfortunately promotes the lets fight for 24 seconds or so and wait a full day (as clerics are usually the ones doing the buffing) to move to the next room - again barring special circumstances. Afterall, it simply is the most tactically sound method of gaining ground (so long as you have a hiding place of course).

Personally, I think the extend problem was more of an issue than empower. It basically lets a character get a free set of spells for 1 or more days. E.g. 9th level extended and empowered spell to last for more than 48 hours. Next day, you get all the benefits of the spell and now have an available spell slot for it. But again, there is a cost with extending the spell in this way and it only makes a difference beyond 9th level anyway at which point the minimum (the unempowered version) isn't really all that necessary anymore anyway, especially with the number of dispels possibly being tossed around.

Finally, the reason why many spellcasters take the spell has nothing to do with any sort of reason even close to the H P or M spells. Rather it is because almost every party operates with certain norms having the tanks and the spell slingers. These are by no means the only options in D&D but they are by far the most common. And it is that commonality that renders the buff spells a frequent choice but even still not an automatic one.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

If you can cast buffs and then prepare again, what's this about "saving... slot"? The entire problem with the all-day stat buffs is that medium-to-high-level casters don't have to make those decisions..

Actually, they still do. All spellcasters have spells per day not per 8 hour rest period. Consequently, spellcasters who want to have all day stat buffs have to either:
1. Prepare and cast such extended buffs at the beginning of the day. This prevents the slots from being available for other purposes that day.
2. Cast such extended buffs at the end of the day just before resting. This enables a character to potentially have the buffs AND a full spell preparation the next day. However, in order for wizards to do so they have to either know when the "next day" is in advance (fairly rare IME) or leave a high level slot empty for either preparing an extended buff if it isn't "the next day" or a full spell loadout when the wizard finds out that it is "the next day."

Sorcerors don't have to pay the opportunity cost in open slots to pull the trick off but wizards do and always will have to pay a significant opportunity cost in high level slots if they want to have multiply empowered extended buffs.

Worse still, the all-day mental stat buffs add extra spell slots, which means that you are experiencing negative feedback to your spell slot loss...

This is a common house rule but the mental stat buffs that appear in Tome and Blood all specifically state that they Do Not grant extra spell slots. If a house rule makes spells broken, it might be a good idea to change the house rule before changing the core rules.

Worse still, unless you're actually out in the wilderness and engaged in tough combats for more than one day, this issue doesn't even come up. You buff the night before you've got a big day ahead. If you're worried about multiple big days in a row, you teleport home in between shorter raids.

This assumes that the PCs have the initiative and are engaged in a relatively stable and long-term quest. If the PCs are investigating adventures as they come to them on a short-term basis or are engaged in a long-term quest in which the initiative is not solely theirs but they need to engage for multiple consecutive big days, they cannot get around the need to spend multiple 8th or 9th level slots to have always on (or almost always on) triple empowered stat buffs.

This argument is completely counterintuitive. It's like saying a 20th-level fighter with 1.2 million gp wealth in magic items is more "vulnerable" to disjunction, say, than a Ftr20 with 600,000 gp in magics, simply because he's got more stuff to lose. The 1-hour buffs last longer, meaning that you have the possibility of using them in more combats. The fact that someone can dispel them because you have them up longer, as opposed to the poor 3.5e party that will have used them and burned right through them, is not a disadvantage, but a fact that stems directly from the advantage of having longer buffs.

You are clearly misinterpreting the argument. The argument is that the 20th level fighter relying upon a triple empowered extended bull's strength for his average +6 strength is more vulnerable to dispel magic than the 20th level fighter who spent a tiny fraction of his wealth on a +6 belt of giant strength. IMO, by the time a +6 statboost item is affordable, it is almost always a better deal than relying on spells. Heck, by the time a +4 statboost item is available, it's usually better than the buff spells.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This is a common house rule but the mental stat buffs that appear in Tome and Blood all specifically state that they Do Not grant extra spell slots.

I just pointed out exactly the same thing in another thread.

I don't understand how so many people can misunderstand it. It's not exactly phrased in a confusing fashion in the spell description...

-Hyp.

 

[Darklone]

I just pointed out exactly the same thing in another thread.

It has already been pointed out in THIS thread too. Just shows you how people read threads (and spell descriptions).

 

[Simulacrum]

oversaw this thread, I'm all for the buffs toned down, for several dozens of reasons. Most of them have been layed out here perfectly. I like the change, and another browniepoint for 3.5e!!
I LUV IT!
Buffs and buffing machines can suck it....

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Really, I thought we were going to be nice on this thread. Because if all you're going to do is post "ha ha ha, you can suck it" the appropriate response is "F@!#k you too." And I think we want the dialogue on these boards to be more friendly than that. But it won't be if people persist on making posts like this.

oversaw this thread, I'm all for the buffs toned down, for several dozens of reasons. Most of them have been layed out here perfectly. I like the change, and another browniepoint for 3.5e!!
I LUV IT!
Buffs and buffing machines can suck it....