Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Scion" data-source="post: 1474518" data-attributes="member: 5777">What was the problem with this? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> sounds like characters making good use of their abilities.But the shorter duration buffs tend to mean that you are more reliant on what your base class gives you. Which for the mages is pretty much zip. So that, in turn, forces them to use more save or die type of spells just to try to keep up.Personally <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> I hate both save or die spells and the shorter duration buffs. There was no reason to change them from d4+1 and 1 hour/level. If it was a problem in a couple of groups out there because they were low magic then they should modifiy it for their game. For normal magic games the spells were an interesting option, but generally not the best for lots of reasons.Spellcasters get a pretty limited number of slots, and at higher levels low level spell slots are good for almost nothing generally. Combat wise that is. So you have utility type of spells that have decent durations or good effects when cast.While many of the spell changes are fine, nerfing the ability to use these for the utility that they deserve is just becomeing a recurring theme. In properly made campaigns casters and noncasters are fine. When people start giving one side or the other too many advantages then people start to say things are unbalanced one way or another. At some point it will apparently wind up being where no spell can do anything at all, 9th level spells will be equivalent to 1st level spells now. Spell dc's will start at -10. Whatever. It is just a bad trend.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Scion, post: 1474518, member: 5777"] What was the problem with this? ;) sounds like characters making good use of their abilities. But the shorter duration buffs tend to mean that you are more reliant on what your base class gives you. Which for the mages is pretty much zip. So that, in turn, forces them to use more save or die type of spells just to try to keep up. Personally ;) I hate both save or die spells and the shorter duration buffs. There was no reason to change them from d4+1 and 1 hour/level. If it was a problem in a couple of groups out there because they were low magic then they should modifiy it for their game. For normal magic games the spells were an interesting option, but generally not the best for lots of reasons. Spellcasters get a pretty limited number of slots, and at higher levels low level spell slots are good for almost nothing generally. Combat wise that is. So you have utility type of spells that have decent durations or good effects when cast. While many of the spell changes are fine, nerfing the ability to use these for the utility that they deserve is just becomeing a recurring theme. In properly made campaigns casters and noncasters are fine. When people start giving one side or the other too many advantages then people start to say things are unbalanced one way or another. At some point it will apparently wind up being where no spell can do anything at all, 9th level spells will be equivalent to 1st level spells now. Spell dc's will start at -10. Whatever. It is just a bad trend. [/QUOTE]

Verification