What do you think of one min per level spells?

[Joshua Randall]

Let us imagine that the 3.0 buff spells had never existed. Then, in some splat book, WotC introduced the 3.5 version of the spells.

What would your reaction be?

I submit that the only reason people are unhappy with this change is because the 3.0 version of the spells already exist and no one likes having their toys taken away. Obviously, 1 hr/lvl is strictly better than 1 min/lvl. No one is disputing that. But, I think the naysayers are vastly underestimating the continued usefulness of the 3.5 stat buffing spells.

The proof will come when 3.5 is actually released and people actually start using the new rules. Until then, I will cease arguing. But I'll be surprised if I turn out to be wrong.

 

[BryonD]

To allow the fireball spell to also produce the effects of a wall of fire spell would increase options. Not allowing that effect reduces options. And a good thing that is because that option would be to powerful an option for L3.

The thing you can't seem to grasp is that the options that Bull's Strength allowed were distinctly to powerful for a L2 spell.

Other's want the spell to be power appropriate, even if you do not.

 

[BryonD]

I submit that the only reason people are unhappy with this change is because the 3.0 version of the spells already exist and no one likes having their toys taken away.

BINGO!!

That is dead on.

People use these spells all the time BECAUSE they are over powered. Now they are accustomed to that excess power and dislike the loss.

 

[BryonD]

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.

I dismissed after consideration because it did not address the issues.

I'm not shackling Wesley to a cleric, but I am leaving the option.

Your comment was that he better hurry and be done climbing by July. Inferring that come July, Welsley himself will be incapable of climbing the cliff.

Look at you long list of issues and point out anywhere in that arguement that you make the case that a L2 spell should answer ALL these issues.

Seriously, you can stop trying to convince me that they nerfed the spell. I know they nerfed the spell. I am GLAD they nerfed the spell. Example after example of HOW they nerfed the spell does not change the position that a L2 spell SHOULD be nerfed if it can do the things Bull Strength 3E can do.

 

[Fenes 2]

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.

First, if it is such mundane uses you are caring about, then a bard may be the solution. That +2 to a skill check from bardic music is now worth something.

Second, I don't get this obsession with official rules. I doubt that pick-up games or tournaments are the majority of anyone's gaming quota, and no one stops a DM or group from house-ruling the game to suit them better.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Let us imagine that the 3.0 buff spells had never existed. Then, in some splat book, WotC introduced the 3.5 version of the spells.

What would your reaction be?

My reaction would be pretty much what it was to 2/3 of the builder book spells: "Utterly. Useless." Why on earth would anyone want a spell that adds +2 to a couple rolls for one combat as a second level spell? Divine Favor does more at first level. Shield of Faith does more at first level. Mage Armor does more for longer at first level (it doesn't stack but still).

If they were first level, my reaction would have been "interesting." At second level, they're not worth having.

I submit that the only reason people are unhappy with this change is because the 3.0 version of the spells already exist and no one likes having their toys taken away. Obviously, 1 hr/lvl is strictly better than 1 min/lvl. No one is disputing that. But, I think the naysayers are vastly underestimating the continued usefulness of the 3.5 stat buffing spells.

All of this rests upon the idea that the initial statbuffs were overpowered (and the ad-homonim "you whiner" accusation). I don't think they were. They did not have the effectiveness of other second level spells if they were cast in combat and only effected the one combat. Acid Arrow deals more damage in one combat than Bull's Strength. Ice Storm is more effective in one combat than empowered bull's strength.

I think that all of the 3.5e yes men are vastly underestimating the opportunity cost of the 3.5e buffs' casting time. Make them all automatically quickened (like feather fall) and I'd think about using them (although they provide small short term bonusses for a 2nd level spell) but it wouldn't be a slam dunk case. But if I'm given the choice between giving one character +2 to hit and damage or all characters +1 to hit (bless), I'll go for the latter. And if I'm given the choice between blinding a group of enemies with glitterdust and giving one character a very short term con boost, I'll blind his enemies. (Which will save him from far more damage than the con boost would have enabled him to sustain). At one minute per level, they're "cast in combat" spells until 8th level or so (and even then, IME you only have advance notice (at the minute duration level) about combat in maybe 30% of the cases). And they're just not worth casting in combat.

 

[Rel]

If they were first level, my reaction would have been "interesting." At second level, they're not worth having.

As usual, I agree with Elder-Basilisk. As 2nd level spells, the 3.5 version of the Bull's Strength type spells will not (IMO) usually be worth preparing. As first level spells, probably. As 2nd's with 10 min/level, I'd say they were about right. As 2nd's with 1 hour/level, I consider them close to indespensible.

Maybe what they take away from Bull's Strength, they'll give back on Summon Monster. One can always hope.

 

[Sejs]

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.

I disagree. Say the proposed improved stat buff spells are 4th level, give 1d6+1 and last 1 hour / level. Average increase to the affected stat would be +4.5, or just plain +4.

Empower it once, you get +7(on average) to the affected stat, but it's a 6th level spells. Now up there with Antimagic Field, Greater Dispelling, Repulsion, True Seeing, Geas, Contingency, Mislead, Control Weather, Disintegrate, Flesh to Stone, or Tenser's Transformation. Every single 6th level spell on it's own merit is better off than a +5 to +10 to a stat.

Empower it twice, you get +10 (on average) to the affected stat, and it's an 8th level spell. Held up to any 8th level spell, any at all, a +8 to +13 to a stat is a koosh ball by comparison.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I fully agree with this reasoning. The 3e empowered statbuffs were balanced at 4th level. Averaging at 5.5 points, they were comparable to other good 4th level spells (as they should be--if you have to spend a feat to get access to spells, they darn well better be worth preparing). +6 to strength for a long duration is pretty comparable to Improved Invisibility, Divine Power, Summon Monster IV, or Enervation over a short duration, or Stoneskin over a medium duration. It won't make nearly the difference to one combat that the short term spells make. In fact, over a couple of combats, Stoneskin is probably a better choice. (If you doubt this, feel free to run your fighter or cleric with an empowered bull's strength up against my Improved Invisibile Rogue--or your barbarian with empowered bull's strength against my Stoneskinned fighter). But if you had no idea when your combats would occur or thought they would be separated by several hours, it was a solid spell choice.

Even in the worst case of what people seem to suppose the scenario is: a triple empowered spellcasting stat buff, it only averages 9 points and maxes out at 13. And at the levels that such spells are castable, PCs can be expected to have +6 statboost items so this only really amounts to an average increase of +1 or +2 and a maximum increase of +4 to the DC of the character's spells. That's significant, certainly but it could also have been a Mind Blank, Horrid Wilting, Prismatic Wall, Summon Monster VIII, etc. and, even in a worst case scenario (+12), I don't think that's an obvious choice.

Unless you were dealing with Incantatrix Improved Metamagic or a similar ability (and that's a problem of the class ability not the spells or Empower Spell feat--if WotC made coup de grace a standard action usable against any PC without uncanny dodge for assassins, it wouldn't make coup de grace a broken rule, it would make their deathblow ability broken), I don't see that there was anything wrong with even the most highly metamagiced versions of the stat buffs.

I disagree. Say the proposed improved stat buff spells are 4th level, give 1d6+1 and last 1 hour / level. Average increase to the affected stat would be +4.5, or just plain +4.

Empower it once, you get +7(on average) to the affected stat, but it's a 6th level spells. Now up there with Antimagic Field, Greater Dispelling, Repulsion, True Seeing, Geas, Contingency, Mislead, Control Weather, Disintegrate, Flesh to Stone, or Tenser's Transformation. Every single 6th level spell on it's own merit is better off than a +5 to +10 to a stat.

Empower it twice, you get +10 (on average) to the affected stat, and it's an 8th level spell. Held up to any 8th level spell, any at all, a +8 to +13 to a stat is a koosh ball by comparison.

 

[Endur]

I thought the 3e spells were too powerful. In 1e + 2e, there was a strength spell, but it had an 18/00 str max. The current bulls strength has no maximum, other than the no stacking with other enhancements. Its such a powerful spell that every cleric I know memorizes it.

1/minute per level will cause people to start buying items like Gauntlets of Ogre Power again.

Tom