Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Technik4" data-source="post: 913760" data-attributes="member: 7211">I'm pro.Personally I thought those buffs were too powerful, to the point where if a new player didn't memorize any buffs the rest of the party would berate them on their "mistake".Has anyone made a character that didn't memorize a single buff spell in the "bull's strength" series? I know I have, but its fairly a rare thing to see.Especially at higher levels its silly not to. They last forever, you have better (higher) spell slots with which to use in battle, and it saves money on expensive items.Thats why they were "too good". I think had they been reduced to 10min/level things would be ok. It would be a prep spell but it wouldn't be cast in a pow-wow at the beginning of the day, rather before a fight or perhaps on the first round.By relegating it to a "battle-only" spell I believe its potency to be reduced, though changing it to a flat +4 vs 1d4+1 helped. I think it really needs to be like the d20 modern rules, where there is one spell that can be cast for whatever ability score you need on the fly. If necessary, perhaps 2 divisions, one for mental one for physical. These might work as 1min/level spells as they have many more possibilities.It would also appeal to sorcerors more, as spells with more options are always better for sorcs.At the end of the day we are left waiting to see the actual books and how 3.5 will actually be. I think there is something flawed with the way it is presented in the dungeon article, too much power was lost, it was nerfed instead of toned down.Technik</blockquote>

Verification