What do you think of one min per level spells?

[Squire James]

I'm guessing there WAS a pretty large portion of people (in WoTC feedback) who thought 1 hour/level for buff spells was too long. Enough to make a change. However, I think they over-nerfed a bit. I think going down one "step" to 10 min/level is plenty, at least until further feedback indicates more should be done.

That being said, 1 min/level spells DO have a function as prep spells cast before important combats. For instance, I think the new Haste would be balanced as a 3rd level spell if its duration is 1 min/level.

On a slightly unrelated note, I'm kinda curious what 3.5e did with Slow. I'm aware that they basically want to eradicate "partial actions" from the game, and this spell uses that mechanic as much as Haste does. My guess is that it cuts speed in half and limits attacks to one per round (perhaps allowing a full-round action if a turn is skipped first).

 

[KnowTheToe]

Another thing to note with the results of the poll are that no one has even tried to use these rules and many people are happy with the powerful effects of the 2nd level spell. It is hard to take power away from people, they never like it. People don't like change. I think in the long run and for new players this will be a good balancing change.

The one person it really hurts in the DM and buffed up bad guys, I think that was the real motivation behind the long duration of the spells in the first place. They gave a DM a quick and easy tool to make a baddie a little more difficult to overcome.

 

[Mark]

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

Allow be to digress first to point out that I was saying not that my side was supported by the vast majority but rather that (and I cannot make this clear enough) your side doesn't appear to be supported by a vast majority, or indeed a majority at all (since so many are neutral) and a change of this magnitude, IMO, requires a large, if not vast majority for me to feel comfortable.

Anyway, too powerful? Perhaps, but only in some uses. The problem is that the change sweeps away many of the uses that are not too powerful (Buff to climb, Wesley?, Wanna help in the quarry?, Spend the day helping move the palace furniture?). To accomplish a reduction in how long the spell is effective in combat, the change has completely wiped out any of the usefulness beyond immediate, short-term feats of strength. Not good, IMO. Some will not bemoan the loss of roleplaying opportunities, others (like me) will, and if there is a way to avoid anyone needing to bemoan the change, why not seek it out and implement it?

I suggested an alternative somewhere in one of these threads, to whit, add a caveat to the spell that is similar to Shocking Grasp that allows the spell to be thrown at any time, and be used in mundane tasks for the long duration, but not kick in with the short duration expiration until combat is joined. This achieves the desired affect as suggested by what we've been privy as the goal, without tossing the baby strongly out with the Bull's water.

Leave it at an hour per level for the mundane, non-combat oreinted stuff, and who really cares but the roleplayers? For the "combat-joined" expiration I would be one who would say that 10 minutes per level seems to pare it back far enough, and others say one minute per level, and even others say one round per level. I'm not so Bullheaded to not be able to compromise at one minute per level if that previous caveat were included in the spells design.

At one minute per level (once combat is entered) it is short enough to expire fairly quickly...without committing additional resource by way of an Extend Spell Feat application, which (as is my goal in anything) leaves as many options as can reasonably be expected after the change.

That, IMO, would have been judicious design and compromise that I think addresses the perceived problems without rashly removing the components that did not require fixing.

Perhaps I am wrong?

 

[Arnwyn]

Just for snicks, does anyone have a handful of links to threads over the last year where this idea was called for as part of a general outcry? I've seen a lot of new rules and adjustments, (and most of them make some sense to have at least tinkered with) but this one seems to have been born from from a much less popular/populous faction. I do not recall the vast majority of people having any problem with the way things were. Are there some house rules threads where someone said "I do it like this" and the majority of reply posts were "Brilliant!" "Me, too!" "Kudos!" "Color me compiant!" "ETC!"

I'm not sure what you're talking about here... are you trying to suggest that an ENWorld poll is even close to a reasonable statistical sample? It seems (from your rather prolific post-count) that you've been here long enough to know that that isn't even remotely the case...

(Let me guess - "Creative Mountain Games" is a pdf-only publisher, right?)

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'm glad you can't Empower them any more.

A higher level version that gave a 1d6+1 stat boost would still be broken as a direct result of Empower abuse and a ruling that Empower stacks with itself. If it gave +6 or something and was a really high level spell it would be much better.

 

[Mark]

I'm not sure what you're talking about here... are you trying to suggest that an ENWorld poll is even close to a reasonable statistical sample? It seems (from your rather prolific post-count) that you've been here long enough to know that that isn't even remotely the case...

I am suggesting that if there is a problem with a rule, then it inevitibly comes out here on EN World. It may not get solved to anyone's satisfaction but it definitely gets discussed. I'd further suggest that the collective knowledge of the game that exists on this site is immense. Do you know of another single place where as many people with the same interest gather (virtually or actually) with as much access to the resources that are available here?

(Let me guess - "Creative Mountain Games" is a pdf-only publisher, right?)

Let me guess, you live in Chicago and would like to play in one of my scenarios at the next Chicago Gameday? If "yes", please do sign up, if "no" then please don't tell me...I'm keen to guess...

 

[BryonD]

Allow be to digress first to point out that I was saying not that my side was supported by the vast majority but rather that (and I cannot make this clear enough) your side doesn't appear to be supported by a vast majority, or indeed a majority at all (since so many are neutral) and a change of this magnitude, IMO, requires a large, if not vast majority for me to feel comfortable.

OK, then I misunderstood you. You said, "obviously doesn't satisfy the vast majority of people." I took that to mean, as taken literally it states, that the vast majority of people were not satisified. That is notably different then what you are saying now. If you meant to say what you are now saying, then great. No arguement on that point as far as this ENWorld poll is concerned.

But I do hope you will give me the understanding that I was responding to what you said. It can be tricky to get across what you really mean on a board sometimes. So I'm glad you cleared it up.

Anyway, too powerful? Perhaps, but only in some uses. The problem is that the change sweeps away many of the uses that are not too powerful (Buff to climb, Wesley?, Wanna help in the quarry?, Spend the day helping move the palace furniture?). To accomplish a reduction in how long the spell is effective in combat, the change has completely wiped out any of the usefulness beyond immediate, short-term feats of strength. Not good, IMO. Some will not bemoan the loss of roleplaying opportunities, others (like me) will, and if there is a way to avoid anyone needing to bemoan the change, why not seek it out and implement it?

Your "some uses" seem to completely revolve around extended duration tasks. I think that is exactly the fix this spell needed. Who cast Bull's Strenght on Wesley in the movie? You have now referenced that twice. But I fail to remember the buffing scene. To me, your examples make MY point. The way I see it, Wesley can climb the cliff because he is so cool (and True Love). You seem to be shackling Wesley to a cleric.

You assume that Sarge, the fighter, is not capable of carrying a friend away unless a cleric buffs him. You assume that Tarzan the ranger can't endure the elements unless a cleric buffs him.

BLEEH

I want Wesley, Sarge and Tarzan to look to THEMSELVES for doing cool things.

Making them dependent on A) a cleric and B) a small specific set of spells is not good, imo.

I suggested an alternative somewhere in one of these threads, to whit, add a caveat to the spell that is similar to Shocking Grasp that allows the spell to be thrown at any time, and be used in mundane tasks for the long duration, but not kick in with the short duration expiration until combat is joined. This achieves the desired affect as suggested by what we've been privy as the goal, without tossing the baby strongly out with the Bull's water.

There is no way to discuss ever variation that may have been implemented.

As I just indicated, expecting tough characters to rely on buff to do the things they are supposed to do is part of the dirty water that needs tossing.

Also, the idea of spells that suddenly end because a fight started 6 rounds ago seems odd to me. But that is beside the point.

Leave it at an hour per level for the mundane, non-combat oreinted stuff, and who really cares but the roleplayers? For the "combat-joined" expiration I would be one who would say that 10 minutes per level seems to pare it back far enough, and others say one minute per level, and even others say one round per level. I'm not so Bullheaded to not be able to compromise at one minute per level if that previous caveat were included in the spells design.

Like I said, why are fighter wimps that can't do mundane stuff without spells?

At one minute per level (once combat is entered) it is short enough to expire fairly quickly...without committing additional resource by way of an Extend Spell Feat application, which (as is my goal in anything) leaves as many options as can reasonably be expected after the change.

That, IMO, would have been judicious design and compromise that I think addresses the perceived problems without rashly removing the components that did not require fixing.

Perhaps I am wrong?

Do you see how I perceive significantly different problems not addressed by your proposal?

 

[Umbran]

I want Wesley, Sarge and Tarzan to look to THEMSELVES for doing cool things.

Tarzan, Sarge, and Wesley can do cool things by themselves. However, a team ismore than the sum of it's parts. If they have friends, they can do cooler things. Ever note how the coolest stuff Wesley does is only after he's teamed up with Inigo and Fezzig?

 

[BryonD]

Tarzan, Sarge, and Wesley can do cool things by themselves. However, a team ismore than the sum of it's parts. If they have friends, they can do cooler things. Ever note how the coolest stuff Wesley does is only after he's teamed up with Inigo and Fezzig?

Certainly, but that misses the point. The tone of the anti-change arguement has been that they need these buffs to reliably do the fundamentals.

And anyway, Wesley climbed the wall all by himself.
Or would have, I don't count Inigo's dedication to his father's memory as comparable to Bull Strength.

 

[Mark]

We're on the same page with the majority thing. Let's leave it at that, eh?

In a movie or book, the characters often serve the plot. In an RPG the plot serves the characters, or is created by them.

Wesley was never buffed. He climbed the rope (and the cliff) because it is part of the story that he do so. Those examples (Wesley, Sarge, Tarzan) are just a few of the types of characters that do things (because they are written to do them) that players try to emulate with their chaarcters, and in D&D when such a phenominal feat is out of reach of a character simply by the stats, they rely on magic (either as items or as spells).

I'm not shackling Wesley to a cleric, but I am leaving the option. You, on the other hand, do not even want to allow others an option simply because you do not want it for yourself. What else do you not like? Should everyone remove those things from their games as well? I think not. Leave the options and allow the players and DMs to make the choices...don't inflict a rule change on people just because you wish to dispense with options in your game.

As such, if a great lake was spread before the players, only one of the characters could swim (and none yet could fly), there was no boat and the other side held a key, it is reasonable to assume it is a good time to buff the strength of the swimmer to increase the chances that a safe retrieval of the key is nigh.

What of the party that is nearly wiped out by a creature as they flee down a mountain. All items and spellbooks gone (destroyed) but Wiz has Spell Mastery with Bull's Strength. Climbing down is now much less treacherous.

If we brainstormed we can think of inumerable options that have nothing to do with combat that will go missing because someone apparently thinks one aspect of a certain spell (its use in combat) is too strong or too long (even though many do not agree).

As to what a character can or should do as part of their nature... In a game where magic is available, why restrict all games to one limited view of how that magic should manifest itself when it is just as possible to leave the many ways open to individual tastes? Yes, yes, rules can be changed by any DM, but when it is possible to build it into the game, why be so restrictive?

I've proffered a way to deal with the problem without losing the additional options. You've dismissed it out of hand because it doesn't suit your tastes. If I was only interested in your tastes we would not be having this discussion. Design requires that you at least attempt to suit a myriad of tastes, right? There's really no way for two minds to reach a compromise when one will not help close the gap between them. You're comfortable on your side of the gap, and that is fine. If you have any interest in toying with a compromise that might suit more than just your tastes, and more than just the tastes of those who already agree with your tastes, then we'll have something to discuss further. Until then, I know where you stand.

Certainly, but that misses the point. The tone of the anti-change arguement has been that they need these buffs to reliably do the fundamentals.

The thing you can't seem to grasp is that there are ways to allow for options whether they suit you or not. Other want the options available, even if you do not. The change simply removes options.