What do you think of one min per level spells?

[Mark]

Why does it take 90%, buddy?

When I look at the poll in this thread and see that 31.17% selected "Great" and only 39.86% selected "Bad Idea", if find it hard to understand how you grant yourself the latitude to use such slanted terms.

I'm sorry if I offended. It seriously was not my intent.

Fair enough. I am merely saying that ninety percent would be a vast majority...not saying that a vast majority is required for it to be a valid change. However, if less than half are enthusiastic, or even positive about the change, certainly there is something wrong with the thought process that brought us to this point, eh?

As previously stated, there are things that probably have required changes because the vast majority were not satisfied with how things were. Perhaps, Rangers (in general) is the most glaring example of such things. Polymorph has never really sat right with many people, though I would not be so sure that a vast majority wasn't happy adjudicating it how they liked at their own tables. I'll leave that one alone as I am neither pleased nor displeased that it has undergone some changes.

I've pointed out a myriad of examples why such changes were not needed in this case all as valid as the ones cited to support the reasons for change. I've further made mention of a number of additional reasons why such a change is not required and, in fact, is detrimental. When I see those reasons satisfactorially refuted then perhaps I could get on board. From my current position, though, I do not see how.

To be analagous, let's say that every game is a basket of oranges. Each piece of fruit is one aspect of the game or another. The rules that make up the system that governs the game are there, IMO, to peel away the rind and leave as much of the pulpy fruit to enjoy as can be had. There will always be a few bits that might be a little sour, others are sweet, but both can be enjoyed by different people. It seems to me that we had gotten through the rind with this particular factor of the game and had left as much fruit as could be expected. Now, with this change, it seems to me that we are removing sections of perfectly fine fruit simply because someone doesn't like either the sour sections or the sweet.

I disagree that just because some groups may press onward when they might be better off not pressing onward that the rules should be changed to discourage that choice. I do not thing that lessening a spell's variety of uses to accomplish the above end makes good game design sense. A change is being made in the game based on how some groups have played, not because the thing that is being changed was inherently broken. More is being lost by this change than is being gained.

*EDIT* Joe's got it in a nutshell.

 

[BryonD]

First of all, some of the neutrals have posted saying they are undecideds so your 61% figure is not accurate.

I read Mark's posts as saying that this is a mess because and near equal amount like as dislike this change. 31% vs 39% is nearly equal given how high the margin for error is on a typical "voluntary" poll.

His main question, never to be unanswered I feel, is why change something that is bad in a few games when it hurts other people with a different play style. Read the other thread about Buff spells to read comments from those who hate the change and why.

If they are undecided, then they are not "dissatisified". But now we are picking nits. If he had said, "a lot" it would be true. He said, "vast majority", when the evidence does not show even a simple majority.

The answer to your question, as I understand it, a lot of people, who do not necessarily hang out here, did express to WotC issues with the power of the spells. Add in the obvious red flag that virtually every cleric was taking the spells and it becomes a matter worthy of response.

I don't mind if you prefer 1 hour spells. Nothing wrong with that. But please, a lot of us DO like the change. Please show us the same curteousy and don't go saying that we are some fringe group outside of the "vast majority" and calling a change we like a "mess".

 

[Mark]

If they are undecided, then they are not "dissatisified". But now we are picking nits. If he had said, "a lot" it would be true. He said, "vast majority", when the evidence does not show even a simple majority.

The answer to your question, as I understand it, a lot of people, who do not necessarily hang out here, did express to WotC issues with the power of the spells. Add in the obvious red flag that virtually every cleric was taking the spells and it becomes a matter worthy of response.

I don't mind if you prefer 1 hour spells. Nothing wrong with that. But please, a lot of us DO like the change. Please show us the same curteousy and don't go saying that we are some fringe group outside of the "vast majority" and calling a change we like a "mess".

The point being that I think it requires at least a simple majority to even consider a change, and in the case of a sweeping change such as this, a larger prepoderence of people should be inclined to support the change. I do not see that here.

 

[BryonD]

Fair enough. I am merely saying that ninety percent would be a vast majority...not saying that a vast majority is required for it to be a valid change. However, if less than half are enthusiastic, or even positive about the change, certainly there is something wrong with the thought process that brought us to this point, eh?

If that is true (and we do not know that an ENWorld survey represents the feedback that WotC recieved), then I have no problem. But arguing that your side is valid is one thing. Attempting to marginalize the other side comes off as offensive.

As previously stated, there are things that probably have required changes because the vast majority were not satisfied with how things were. Perhaps, Rangers (in general) is the most glaring example of such things. Polymorph has never really sat right with many people, though I would not be so sure that a vast majority wasn't happy adjudicating it how they liked at their own tables. I'll leave that one alone as I am neither pleased nor displeased that it has undergone some changes.

I've pointed out a myriad of examples why such changes were not needed in this case all as valid as the ones cited to support the reasons for change. I've further made mention of a number of additional reasons why such a change is not required and, in fact, is detrimental. When I see those reasons satisfactorially refuted then perhaps I could get on board. From my current position, though, I do not see how.

To be analagous, let's say that every game is a basket of oranges. Each piece of fruit is one aspect of the game or another. The rules that make up the system that governs the game are there, IMO, to peel away the rind and leave as much of the pulpy fruit to enjoy as can be had. There will always be a few bits that might be a little sour, others are sweet, but both can be enjoyed by different people. It seems to me that we had gotten through the rind with this particular factor of the game and had left as much fruit as could be expected. Now, with this change, it seems to me that we are removing sections of perfectly fine fruit simply because someone doesn't like either the sour sections or the sweet.

I disagree that just because some groups may press onward when they might be better off not pressing onward that the rules should be changed to discourage that choice. I do not thing that lessening a spell's variety of uses to accomplish the above end makes good game design sense. A change is being made in the game based on how some groups have played, not because the thing that is being changed was inherently broken. More is being lost by this change than is being gained.

Fine.

I think that they have made the game better. I don't put balance over fun, but I do value balance. I think it was clear that the buffs were overpowered "must haves" and making the choice of which spell to prepare more than just power vs flavor is a good thing.

*EDIT* Joe's got it in a nutshell.

Then please see my reply to Joe.

 

[BryonD]

The point being that I think it requires at least a simple majority to even consider a change, and in the case of a sweeping change such as this, a larger prepoderence of people should be inclined to support the change. I do not see that here.

Fair point.
I do not see it here either.

As I understand it, WotC did see it in their feedback.
Maybe I am wrong, or maybe WotC was wrong.

 

[Mark]

If that is true (and we do not know that an ENWorld survey represents the feedback that WotC recieved), then I have no problem. But arguing that your side is valid is one thing. Attempting to marginalize the other side comes off as offensive.

If that is true then the change, and the making of that change, marginalizes those who disagree with the change...especially since the change is, in fact, now at the printers. Should I be offended?

I think that they have made the game better. I don't put balance over fun, but I do value balance. I think it was clear that the buffs were overpowered "must haves" and making the choice of which spell to prepare more than just power vs flavor is a good thing.

I do not see how the change brings more balance to the game. In fact, it has a domino effect into areas that have been mentioned subsequent to Monte's impressions and reasoning for the change. To name a few-

It decreases the number of ways in which that spell (and how ever many others are liewise changed) can be used in the course of a game. It increases the number of times that spell is required to be taken if a similar effect is to be achieved thereby reducing the number of alternative spells that can be taken. It affects roughly half of the core classes directly, and since it is a spell (or possibly a number of spells) that is mainly used as part of a group effort indirectly effects all of the classes as well as the group and the relation between the individuals and the group against each and every opponent where such a spell (or spells) might be used. It has not only a mechanical effect but also a roleplaying effect.

I get a strong impression that this wasn't thought through as fully as it could have been. Granted I am only privy to what information is shared on the subject but I would think that any change should present far fewer holes to be seen if it was thoroughly examined prior to implementation...if it is a good change, that is.

Then please see my reply to Joe.

Did and replied.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

You keep saying this, and it's just not true.

Would you turn up your nose at...

Yes I would.

... (Str) an additional +1 to +2 melee attack bonus *and* an additional +1 to +2 damage bonus *and* the ability to carry more?

Even assuming a best case scenario--+2 to hit, +3 to damage with a two handed weapon and a 6 round combat including 3 full attacks (for a total of 9 attacks), the best it's likely to do is 18 points of damage over three rounds. (I know that's not a full accounting because the PC wouldn't hit with every attack thus the damage from strength would be smaller but he'd probably hit with at least one attack that wouldn't otherwise hit thus increasing the total damage--I'm assuming that these (and the IME unusually long assumed combat duration and unusually high number of full attacks) balance out).

Compared to 1st level spells: Magic missile does at least 7 points of average damage (and most likely 11-14) in a single round (Which is considerably more useful than having the damage spread over 6 rounds). Burning Hands does an average of 7 to 13 points of damage (save for 1/2) in an area effect. Color Spray and Sleep have significantly more debilitating effects.

Bless offers 1/2 the attack bonus increase but offers it for the whole party.

Compared to good 2nd level spells: Sound Burst is likely to do 9 points of damage and stun at least one foe. Glitterdust is likely to blind several foes. Web is likely to entangle most of your foes. Acid Arrow is likely to deal 15-20 points of continual damage (making spellcasting more difficult which bull's strength's damage does not do). If you're playing in FR, Aganzzar's Scorcher is likely to do 13.5 points of damage (more at higher levels) to everyone in a relatively large area.

And, who are you kidding? The ability to carry more for 1 min/level is almost completely irrelevant. Any time I've seen PCs have problems carrying things, those things need to be carried for at least ten minutes--usually all day. There's a reason that all of the "carry more things" spells like Tenser's floating Disk and Unseen Servant and all of the travel spells like Mount and Phantom Steed have durations measured in hours rather than minutes

... (Dex) an additional +1 to +2 AC *and* an additional +1 to +2 ranged attack bonus *and* better Ref saves?

Hmm. First note that the dex AC bonus only applies if the AC cap on the armor is low enough. Even then +2 to AC--try Protection from evil or Shield of Faith. That's a first level effect. And by 3rd level, 1st level spells give characters +3 to AC.

+2 to ranged attack actions. Sounds a lot like blessed Aim (another 2nd level spell). Only Blessed Aim is for the whole party.

Better reflex saves are completely irrelevant for something you're going to cast in combat. A readied magic missile, acid arrow, or sound burst, stands a good chance of preventing all PCs in the party from having to make the save at all.

... (Con) an additional (character level) X (1 or 2) HP *and* better Fort saves?

Remember those hit points aren't temporary--if you're living off of them at the end of the combat, you'd better hope the duration lasts long enough for the cleric to heal you or you'll be dead.

The fort saves are largely irrelevant for the same reason reflex saves are. A second level spell--and more importantly, a standard action--could be far more productively spent preventing characters from having to make saves at all by killing the opponent more quickly or disrupting the spell. If you want saving throw type spells that are worth casting IN combat, you'll need to look to things like Protection from elements and delay poison. They don't just give you a slightly better chance of avoiding the effect you're facing at the moment; they render you almost completely immune to it.

... (Int/Wis/Cha) your spell save DCs increased by 1 or 2 *and* (Wis) better Will saves?

If I could pay my characters enemies to try that tactic, I would. My odds are far far better to make a single save with the DC 2 points higher than it would otherwise be than to make two saves against the normal DC. (Unless, of course, the DC is high enough to require me to roll an 18 or better to make the save--in that case though, I'll happily trade an extra round to kill the caster or for someone to ready an action to stop the spell for the save going from "you'll need to be very lucky to make it" to "you'll need God's own luck to make it").

And, in any case enemies usually have spells of higher level that they could be casting for greater effect in any given combat. If they waste their crucial 1st round on a second level spell to increase their DCs, less power to them. Better that than facing the fireball/Ice Storm/Summon Monster VI in round 1 when it would have the greatest effect. As a PC, OTOH, I'd far rather have another glitterdust or web in my arsenel.

Not to mention all the skills that get better with higher stats. Not to mention their uses as temporary counter-measures to some poisons or debilitating spells. Not the mention the other creative uses you can get out of higher stats.

Sure. You can be creative but the spells will still suck. 1 min/level is a pretty temporary countermeasure. It's also a very weak skill boost. Guidance gives 1/2 the bonus to skills and it's a zero level spell. If we take guidance as a baseline, the statbuffs have the cost effectiveness of a 2d3 ray of frost at two levels higher. Not worth it.

I don't see how the stat-buffing spells are "utterly hopeless" as 2nd level spells, even with their shortened duration. They may not longer be "must have" spells, but that in and of itself is a change for the better.

It's amazing how many people seem to equate "useful" with "must have." Just because statbuffs were an effective use of 2nd level spell slots doesn't mean they were the only way to use those spell slots. The stat buffs weren't "must have" spells in 3e although they were very useful. A character could be constructed whose primary contribution to the party was in terms of stat buffs. However, effective characters could be constructed who didn't use stat buffs at all. (I saw quite a few sorcerors and wizards who made great use of Web, glitterdust, and flaming sphere but no use of stat buffs and a number of clerics who rarely used stat buffs but made efficient use of Hold Person, Calm Emotions, and Sound Burst). Now, instead of those two categories of useful characters, there will be one category of useful characters and the statbuff specialists will be useless characters.

More choices? Not really.

 

[Mark]

Fair point.
I do not see it here either.

As I understand it, WotC did see it in their feedback.
Maybe I am wrong, or maybe WotC was wrong.

You may be right and I may be wrong but honestly, I rarely get into heated rules debates because I generally see both sides fairly clearly and usually have no problem with the rules as they are and how they get changed (errata, and such). When I have this much of a problem with something it is only because I see so many problems with such a change that I just cannot justify one side of it in the slightest in the face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

[BryonD]

If that is true then the change, and the making of that change, marginalizes those who disagree with the change...especially since the change is, in fact, now at the printers. Should I be offended?

If they falsely stated that a vast majority supported their side, then yes, you shoudl be offended. They did not, so you should not.

I do not see how the change brings more balance to the game. In fact, it has a domino effect into areas that have been mentioned subsequent to Monte's impressions and reasoning for the change. To name a few-

It decreases the number of ways in which that spell (and how ever many others are liewise changed) can be used in the course of a game. It increases the number of times that spell is required to be taken if a similar effect is to be achieved thereby reducing the number of alternative spells that can be taken. It affects roughly half of the core classes directly, and since it is a spell (or possibly a number of spells) that is mainly used as part of a group effort indirectly effects all of the classes as well as the group and the relation between the individuals and the group against each and every opponent where such a spell (or spells) might be used. It has not only a mechanical effect but also a roleplaying effect.

For a second level spell I consider all of these issues to be appropriate. Yes, it is weaker. You are presuming that a second level spell SHOULD do all the things that this spell no longer does. Again, every cleric taking the the spell evey day was a clear sign that soemthing was out of whack.

I get a strong impression that this wasn't thought through as fully as it could have been. Granted I am only privy to what information is shared on the subject but I would think that any change should present far fewer holes to be seen if it was thoroughly examined prior to implementation...if it is a good change, that is.

I disagree. I think it was not thought through enough in 3E and the fact that it became so integral to the game that a simple correction produces a domino effect throughout the game is evidence that it was far to significant for a simple L2 spell. NOW, it will be no more spectacular than any other L2 spell. AS, IMO, it should be.

 

[BryonD]

You may be right and I may be wrong but honestly, I rarely get into heated rules debates because I generally see both sides fairly clearly and usually have no problem with the rules as they are and how they get changed (errata, and such). When I have this much of a problem with something it is only because I see so many problems with such a change that I just cannot justify one side of it in the slightest in the face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Then please stop for a moment and look at the overwhelming evidence that the spells were to powerful for L2.