Shortened buff spell durations: Good or bad?

True, Grog; I've actually been using a +4 flat bonus as a house rule practically since starting 3e. But then E_B and I were discussing 3.0 buff spells generally, and both the empowerable and all-day aspects of the buff spells are integral features of their 3.0 incarnations. Otherwise, you're looking at a single 3rd-level spell being substituted for a 16,000 gp item for an all-day buff , which seems to me a pretty good deal.

As I said, I don't like the 1 min/level duration either, but I also don't like the "always on" aspect of the 1 hour/level duration. I'd set it at a nice compromise 10 min/level, which allows you to keep the spells up for a nice long foray while still making initiative and surprise encounters important in the context of buffs.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I also dislike this change because of how it impacts metamagic feats. In fact, I don't even like reducing it to 10 minutes/level. How about something like 2 hours plus 10 minutes/level? This way, even low level casters will be able to provide buffs likely to last more than one encounter, and extended versions would still be attractive.

--Axe
 

And I would agree that changing the buffs to a flat +4 bonus at one hour/level would probably make them better than 2nd level spells should be. That 50% of the time, the result would only be +2 or +3 is one of reason that stat buffing items were a more attractive option than spells for characters with anything close to the recommended wealth levels.

That, of course doesn't mean that they were overpowered at 1d4+1 or that they are worth a 2nd level slot at 1 min/level.

ruleslawyer said:
True, Grog; I've actually been using a +4 flat bonus as a house rule practically since starting 3e. But then E_B and I were discussing 3.0 buff spells generally, and both the empowerable and all-day aspects of the buff spells are integral features of their 3.0 incarnations. Otherwise, you're looking at a single 3rd-level spell being substituted for a 16,000 gp item for an all-day buff , which seems to me a pretty good deal.

As I said, I don't like the 1 min/level duration either, but I also don't like the "always on" aspect of the 1 hour/level duration. I'd set it at a nice compromise 10 min/level, which allows you to keep the spells up for a nice long foray while still making initiative and surprise encounters important in the context of buffs.
 

Now that argument, to my mind, does not make very much sense.

A flat +4 isn't really as good as 1d4+1 for an all-day buff, because with an all-day buff, the loss of a single 4th-level slot to Empower it isn't as big a deal as with short-term buffs, where you'll need to use multiple 4th-level slots over multiple encounters to stay buffed. Yet a 4th-level Empowered buff is only worse than a 16,000 gp (+4) item (something which would represent over half the character wealth of an 8th-level PC) 25% of the time, and can be as good or better than a 36,000 gp (+6) item (more than an 8th-level PC can afford at all!) 50% of the time. That's a balance problem in the direction of "overpowered," not underpowered.

If you think that a +4 flat bonus is overpowered, then you're really just admitting that the buff spells are overpowered. As is, you get that now 50% of the time with your 2nd-level spell, and better than that 75% of the time with your Empowered 2nd-level spell. The uncertainty of "only" being able to duplicate or negligibly beat the effect of a 4,000 gp (+2) bonus item 50% of the time represents the worst-case scenario for using the buffs, and is a pretty small price to pay for being able to Empower the darn spells through the roof.
 
Last edited:

Nonsense.

The entire argument that the buff spells are overpowered rests upon the assertion that they come at no significant cost in terms of spell slots and can be kept up for 24 hours per day. (Attempts to get around this by casting spells the night before is not possible before level 8 and runs into the "Day 0 or Day 1 of the adventure" problems at all levels (and, IME, most adventures are either over on whatever turns out to be day 1 or go for multiple consecutive days)).

The empowered buff spells you're talking about are neither free in terms of spell slots nor can they be kept up for all day at 8th level. In order for an 8th level cleric or wizard to keep a single party member in empowered buffs all day, it's necessary for him to spend all of his highest level spell slots (including one for an 18 wisdom or int but excluding specialty and domain slots). It is also necessary for the character to spend a feat on Empower Spell (and it's generally recognized that metamagic spells ought to be able to be superior to other spells of that level; otherwise there would be no point in spending a feat to be able to cast them). That is hardly a "no brainer"; in fact judging from my experience it's pretty much a no-brainer NOT to do so. At 8th level, one empowered stat buff may be a good idea but it's not so dramatically superior as to squeeze out other spells from the spells prepared list. There's nothing inherently "overpowered" about a cleric with one particular spell and a specific feat being able to grant a bonus (25% of the time) that characters could not otherwise afford. This happens all the time with other spells--Divine Power, Shield, Magic Vestment, Greater Magic Weapon, etc.

The earliest that a single empowered buff spell would be able to be a 24 hour/day spell would be 12th level. And even at 12 level, 5th level slots for Empowered, Extended Buff spells are hardly free. (Note this also requires two metamagic feats which characters ought to be able to benefit from). A cleric or wizard with a mental statbuff item probably has 5th level 4 non-domain
/specialty slots and 2 6th level slots (3 if s/he has a +4 statbuff item). Thus empowered, extended buffs represent a very significant opportunity cost for the cleric or wizard. By 12th level, +4 statbuffing items are also very affordable (and are quite noticably cheaper than 5th level pearls of power).

By the time it is possible to get consistent +4 bonusses and likely +6 bonusses for 24 hours/day, (also the time that 5th level slots might be losing the sting of their opportunity cost) it is necessary to spend 7th level slots for double empowered, extended spells. By this time, however, antimagic should be quite common on the battlefield and +6 statbuffing items are readily affordable. I don't see any balance problem with allowing characters to spend valuable 7th level spell slots to duplicate the effects of an item they could easily afford.

By the time that those 7th level slots begin to lose their opportunity cost and spells that are reliably better than items (triple empowered, (possibly extended too) stat buffs in 8th or 9th level slots) become available, the cost shifts. Even at high levels, 5th, 6th, and 7th level slots are still very valuable (although more for utility spells like Teleport and Teleport w/out error, etc than for combat spells). New opportunity costs to casting the super-empowered statbuffing spells, enter in as well. Each 9th level triple empowered extended statbuff could have been a Foresight, or an Extended Mind Blank, for instance. Each 8th level triple empowered statbuff could have been an extended elemental immunity. And at this time, +6 items (which are equal to even the triple extended statbuff 25% of the time and better another 25%) are a drop in the ocean of money that characters have available to them.

In other words, I think that the opportunity cost of empowered statbuffs is always significant enough to prevent them from being overpowered.

The reason that I would consider a flat +4 buff at 1 hour/level to be overpowered is twofold.

First, at low levels (3-6) the caster is gambling that a 1st level effect will worth the 2nd level slot over the course of a several hour duration. This is something of a gamble. At 4th level and +4, Bull's strength on a fighter outperforms bless in terms of increasing the party's average damage/round only if it lasts through three combats. At sixth level and +4, Bull's Strength only needs to last through two combats to outperform bless. At +2 or +3 and 6th level, however (which are risks under the current system), it would probably still need to last through three or four combats to outperform bless in a single combat. Making the bonus a flat +4 would mean that PCs didn't have to take nearly as much risk when casting the spell at those levels. The power for duration exchange would be much more favorable.

Second, at mid-levels (6-10), the second level slots begin to lose their opportunity cost. Relying on Bull's Strength instead of simply buying gauntlets of ogre power or another +2 item (which are eminently affordable by level 8) is a gamble at these levels--exchanging 24 hour duration and non-dispellability for a 50% chance of getting a larger bonus. If the spell were a flat +4 however, the larger bonus would be guaranteed--and, by 10th level, PCs really could have a reliable +4 bonus nearly 24 hours/day at little cost (second and third level slots are a lot more available than 5th level slots which are required for extended empowered versions at the moment).

Beyond level 10, the spells would rapidly fade out as +6 statboosting items became increasingly affordable but the flat +4 bonus would have a disproportionate effect on the power of the spells during levels 6-10.

ruleslawyer said:
Now that argument, to my mind, does not make very much sense.

A flat +4 isn't really as good as 1d4+1 for an all-day buff, because with an all-day buff, the loss of a single 4th-level slot to Empower it isn't as big a deal as with short-term buffs, where you'll need to use multiple 4th-level slots over multiple encounters to stay buffed. Yet a 4th-level Empowered buff is only worse than a 16,000 gp (+4) item (something which would represent over half the character wealth of an 8th-level PC) 25% of the time, and can be as good or better than a 36,000 gp (+6) item (more than an 8th-level PC can afford at all!) 50% of the time. That's a balance problem in the direction of "overpowered," not underpowered.

If you think that a +4 flat bonus is overpowered, then you're really just admitting that the buff spells are overpowered. As is, you get that now 50% of the time with your 2nd-level spell, and better than that 75% of the time with your Empowered 2nd-level spell. The uncertainty of "only" being able to duplicate or negligibly beat the effect of a 4,000 gp (+2) bonus item 50% of the time represents the worst-case scenario for using the buffs, and is a pretty small price to pay for being able to Empower the darn spells through the roof.
 

"Affordable?"

+6 stat boost items cost over one-half standard PC wealth until 12th level. That's a MUCH bigger resource cost than a 5th-level spell slot to a primary caster (or a mystic theurge, for that matter).

I think we're just going to have to disagree on comparative cost, E_B. I will however note that with the singular exception of GMW (which is getting a retool in 3.5 as well, and with which many, many posters on these boards have expressed dissatisfaction in its 3.0 incarnation), none of the buffing spells you listed last longer than a few minutes. That instantly makes them different from the ability buffs in the precise manner that forms the core of my argument: Namely, that the darn spells last too long.

To be honest, I don't care about the buffs yielding a slightly better bonus at low levels, because the spell slots to cast them are that much more valuable at low levels. At high levels (heck, at 7th level, when you can make a wand of empowered bull's strength), the ability buffs become too powerful.

Second, at mid-levels (6-10), the second level slots begin to lose their opportunity cost. Relying on Bull's Strength instead of simply buying gauntlets of ogre power or another +2 item (which are eminently affordable by level 8) is a gamble at these levels--exchanging 24 hour duration and non-dispellability for a 50% chance of getting a larger bonus.

The probability isn't 50%, it's 75%. And this supports my problem exactly. I'm fine with the spell providing a reliable bonus... for a short duration. 2nd-level spell slots won't lose their opportunity cost when you need to use more of them each day to get those buffs on.

But, since this is beginning to just be a back-and-forth between the two of us, I'll back out. Thank you for the insights!
 

I have a unique thought here:

IF they change the bonus of the buff spells so that it stacks with *all other bonuses*, THEN it will be balanced at the new duration.

If not, these spells become pretty much useless and probably won't ever be used again.
 
Last edited:

A few last points:

ruleslawyer said:
"Affordable?"

+6 stat boost items cost over one-half standard PC wealth until 12th level. That's a MUCH bigger resource cost than a 5th-level spell slot to a primary caster (or a mystic theurge, for that matter).

There are two problems with this analysis:

1. The empowered extended bull's strength only grants a +6 bonus 50% of the time; the rest of the time, it grants a +4 bonus.

2. Mystic Theurge's don't have ANY 5th level slots until 12th level.

3. +4 stat buff items are quite affordable from 10th level on (before 5th level slots are regularly available for empowered extended statbuffs--seriously has any group you've ever played in or DMed for had their primary casters using all their highest level slots on empowered extended stat buffs? In the group I regularly play with, the 11th level cleric won't spend more than one 4th level slot on empowered statbuffs).

I think we're just going to have to disagree on comparative cost, E_B. I will however note that with the singular exception of GMW (which is getting a retool in 3.5 as well, and with which many, many posters on these boards have expressed dissatisfaction in its 3.0 incarnation), none of the buffing spells you listed last longer than a few minutes.

And all of them other than GMW have a much more dramatic impact on the one or two battles they effect than the statbuffs do. Improved Invisibility, for instance, generally cuts the amount of damage the target receives by 50% or more and, if the target has Expert Tactician and/or sneak attack, dramatically increases his damage output; Empowered Cat's grace can't boast nearly the same influence on a combat. Shield is in the same boat. Flame Strike (what could be in the 5th level extended, empowered buff slot) will deal enough damage in a single shot (assuming only one target but a failed save) that even an empowered bull's strength will need something like 18 rounds of full attacks to catch up in terms of damage dealt. Since that's three to five combats at high levels--maybe more if the fighter doesn't get many rounds of full attacks, even if it lasts through every combat in the day, Empowered Bull's Strength won't do much more than catch up.

The point is that at all levels, even empowered versions of the statbuffs are about exchanging big dramatic effects over a short time period for small, incremental effects over a long time period and hoping that the small ones add up. Without a long duration, they never will; even with a long duration, they usually don't add up to much more.

That instantly makes them different from the ability buffs in the precise manner that forms the core of my argument: Namely, that the darn spells last too long.

To be honest, I don't care about the buffs yielding a slightly better bonus at low levels, because the spell slots to cast them are that much more valuable at low levels. At high levels (heck, at 7th level, when you can make a wand of empowered bull's strength), the ability buffs become too powerful.

If you have 11,500 gp and 920 xp to throw around. . . . Of course, if you have that much gold and xp, you might as well just make a +6 belt of strength; it's only a little bit more. Or you could save both money and xp and make a +4 belt of strength.

The probability isn't 50%, it's 75%. And this supports my problem exactly. I'm fine with the spell providing a reliable bonus... for a short duration. 2nd-level spell slots won't lose their opportunity cost when you need to use more of them each day to get those buffs on.

The probability is 50% for normal statbuffs--the kind which can be extended to last most of the day and still not cause the wizard to say "forget it, I want to cast cone of cold" or the cleric to say "I'm prepping a flame strike instead" (and both of them to be right in their estimation that, not only will that choice enable them to seem to do more in combat, it will be a better choice in terms of the party's ability to deal damage to their opponents)--and 75% for empowered statbuffs. OTOH, empowered statbuffs aren't readily available at 8th level and even at 10th level aren't all day affairs unless extended (which is not usually available and carries a very significant opportunity cost).

Really, I think the crux of our disagreement comes down to whether there was anything broken about empowered stat buffs. The long duration seems to primarily concern you when attached to empowered and extended spells.
 

I played with a Cleric Archer (10th level) on Saturday for a major combat (a siege).

Over thirty rounds of combat. He spent most of that time shooting 3 arrows per round. He spent two rounds casting Flame Strikes.

The rest of his spells were spent on Buff spells for the party (except for a few slots for heals). 6 2nd level buffs (Bulls Strength, Endurance, etc.). Several 3rd level buffs (Magic Vestments). Three 4th level buffs (Greater magic Weapon). 1st level spells: Divine Favor, Shield of Faith, etc.

Worked very effectively.

Even with one minute per level, the buff spells would have lasted for all 30+ rounds.

I don't have any problems with minute per level.

Tom
 


Remove ads

Top