Whither Extend Spell in 3.5?

[Tzarevitch]

As I recall, you still need Extend Spell to get Persistant Spell which IS useful, particularly for Clerics. My Ran1, Pal1, Cleric16 uses it for a persistant Divine Favor Spell every day (+5 hit and damage).

Honestly I never thought Extend Spell was all that useful except for 10 min/lvl spells. Anything with a shorter duration still doesn't last for a useful amount of time, anything longer lasts long enough anyway (or you can get a better result by using a 2nd slot of the same level to cast the spell again rather than a higher level slot to extend it.)

Tzarevitch

 

[Fenes 2]

Both my bard and sorceress took extend spell just to extend mage armor. Never was a fan of the stat boosters.

 

[ForceUser]

Since my DM doesn't allow the Persistent Spell feat, I will have to look carefully at 3.5 to determine if it's worth it for my cleric to keep Extend Spell. If Magic Vestment is still 1 hour/level, it's worth it. Sucks about the stat buff spells, but I'll manage. Just means I'll have to spend money to actually buy the stat buff items. On the plus side, that frees up two third-level spell slots. There's always a bright side

 

[jasamcarl]

Two things:



Where does this information come from? I've seen someone reference Piratecat as a source for it but I've only see him refer to an increased cost for skill bonus items (a dramatically different group of items).



That doesn't account for Bless but at high levels, it would be easy to have both active at once. However, I suspect that the benefits of 3.5e haste or prayer in a single battle would probably outweigh the benefits of bull's strength in 2. And, at least, IME even at 11th level (when multiple +4 stat boosters are easily available to PCs) 3rd level slots are still a very limited commodity. More signficantly, however, the benefit of items (always on and therefore largely not dispellable, active in surprise situations, and potentially granting bonusses of +6) are such that, even in 3e most non-spellcasting characters who can afford one are better off with a +4 item than a spell. In 3.5e, I don't expect that it will be practical to duplicate the always on effect of an item with spells as it is in 3e so I would anticipate that such items are bought sooner rather than later.

As you said, Haste will all but certainly not be available for one or two encounters. If there are 8 encounters, casting one or two extended buffs on front-line fighters becomes far more viable; haste simply doesn't have the same economies of scale.

And again, all the benefits you cite from using items are very much passive, i.e. dependent on dm based story elements and monster choice. For the generic dungeion crawl, the stat buffs will all but certainly 'always be on', usually without requiring and extend. And party use of divinations/scouting, etc, would do much to reduce this new risk. Is there a cost in the choice to use buffs versus items? Yes, but given that spells don't require gp, yet items do, i think its a fair trade; and yes, Piratecat made allusions to increased stat-item costs. But if you are complaining that a 2nd level spell does not hold up as well into mid/high levels, then I don't know what to say, other than they are now in good company with just about every other 2nd level spell on the list. The fact that the choice is tougher is a good thing. Balance aside, it makes the game more interesting when players have to put more prep and thought to achieve the same thing.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Are your characters close to the DMG standard wealth guides? And are they able to find a reasonable selection of magic items or are they limited to what the DM in his wisdom sees fit to dole out to them?

If the answer to both the first question is "yes" and the second question is "A" then I'd say something is wrong (with the judgement of your players if nothing else). If the answer to either is different, then your campaign is not using the standard core rules balance and, while that's fine if you're all having fun, it's irrelevant to any discussion of the assumed balance of the core ruleset. (Which is what we're discussing here). Stat buff spells will be more viable if items aren't available. Then again, scrolls of Magic Weapon will be essential items at twelth level if +1 weapons aren't readily available too. . . .

Well, that's an awfully broad generalization. I certainly won't consider something to be wrong in my campaign when that has happened yet.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

As you said, Haste will all but certainly not be available for one or two encounters. If there are 8 encounters, casting one or two extended buffs on front-line fighters becomes far more viable; haste simply doesn't have the same economies of scale.

I'll give you the stat buffs being useful if there are 8 encounters within the space of 10 minutes on a regular basis. (And party members don't have stat increasing items). However, that's not been true of any campaign I've ever played in--even the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil rarely featured more than three encounters in that space of time--and that was if we were hurrying.

And again, all the benefits you cite from using items are very much passive, i.e. dependent on dm based story elements and monster choice. For the generic dungeion crawl, the stat buffs will all but certainly 'always be on', usually without requiring and extend. And party use of divinations/scouting, etc, would do much to reduce this new risk. Is there a cost in the choice to use buffs versus items? Yes, but given that spells don't require gp, yet items do, i think its a fair trade;

You and I clearly have different ideas about and experiences of the "generic dungeon crawl." IME, a "go, go, go, we've got to get to the next encounter!" type approach in a dungeon with no traps might get through two encounters in six minutes--three if you're lucky. You also seem to expect that the majority of campaigns are generic dungeon crawls which is not my experience or expectation either. For a city adventure involving some investigation, a wilderness adventure, or any campaign that involves the risk of ambush when travelling, min/level spells, extended or not will usually only last one encounter.

and yes, Piratecat made allusions to increased stat-item costs.

Where did he do that if I may ask?

But if you are complaining that a 2nd level spell does not hold up as well into mid/high levels, then I don't know what to say, other than they are now in good company with just about every other 2nd level spell on the list. The fact that the choice is tougher is a good thing.

That's not what this thread is discussing but if you ask me the revised stat buffs were never clearly better than every other 2nd level spell on the list (for clerics, Remove Paralysis, Lesser Restoration, Silence, etc were always competition and for wizards, glitterdust, web, aganzzar's scorcher, see invisibility, invisibility, and rope trick were always competitive as well). The revised stat buffs are clearly competitive only with other loser 2nd level spells like Aid and Blur and good first level spells like Shield of Faith, Protection from Evil, Bless, Shield, etc. The choice isn't tougher now; it's easier. Never prepare a stat buff spell unless you're in a party willing to speed through a dungeon on the and have reason to expect that you'll have lots of encounters within the space of 3-8 minutes and no traps.

Of course, the only time that extended statbuffs are advantageous is when the PCs have the same expectations but expect those encounters within 10-16 minutes instead of 5-8 minutes. If the PCs expect the encounters within 5-8 minutes, then extending the spells is a waste of a slot; if they expect them within 17+ minutes, extending the spells doesn't help.

Balance aside, it makes the game more interesting when players have to put more prep and thought to achieve the same thing.

This is another argument about reduced duration rather than about the usefulness of extend spell in the new edition but I'll bite.

Not necessarily. I could very easily write a game where players have to put lots of prep and thought into every combat or they'll get their hides tanned. I don't think that making monsters so much more deadly that PCs have to put lots of prep and thought into every encounter would make a game more fun though. And, even then, it's not what the change has done. The reduced duration didn't make prep and thought--formerly useless commodities in the 1 min/level duration--suddenly useful. Prep and thought on such short term matters made a huge difference already. The difference between a party going into (IME one) encounter with Bless, Shield of Faith, Shield, Protection From Evil, Protection From Elements, and possibly haste prayer, etc all active and going in with only hour/level buffs up was tremendous. What the reduced durations have done is remove a large category of "prep and thought." Specifically, they have dramatically reduced PCs' ability to be ready for the unexpected. Having buff spells working 24/7 as was possible under 3e was "prep and thought." An 8th level caster spending a 2nd and 3rd level slot to have have Cat's Grace active all day did so because he knew that lots of things happened which he could not anticipate and therefore prepared for unanticipated trouble. In 3.5e so far, such "prep and thought" has been reduced to Endure Elements, Detect Scrying, Mind Blank, Nondetection, and their ilk.

 

[jasamcarl]

I'll give you the stat buffs being useful if there are 8 encounters within the space of 10 minutes on a regular basis. (And party members don't have stat increasing items). However, that's not been true of any campaign I've ever played in--even the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil rarely featured more than three encounters in that space of time--and that was if we were hurrying.



You and I clearly have different ideas about and experiences of the "generic dungeon crawl." IME, a "go, go, go, we've got to get to the next encounter!" type approach in a dungeon with no traps might get through two encounters in six minutes--three if you're lucky. You also seem to expect that the majority of campaigns are generic dungeon crawls which is not my experience or expectation either. For a city adventure involving some investigation, a wilderness adventure, or any campaign that involves the risk of ambush when travelling, min/level spells, extended or not will usually only last one encounter.



Where did he do that if I may ask?



That's not what this thread is discussing but if you ask me the revised stat buffs were never clearly better than every other 2nd level spell on the list (for clerics, Remove Paralysis, Lesser Restoration, Silence, etc were always competition and for wizards, glitterdust, web, aganzzar's scorcher, see invisibility, invisibility, and rope trick were always competitive as well). The revised stat buffs are clearly competitive only with other loser 2nd level spells like Aid and Blur and good first level spells like Shield of Faith, Protection from Evil, Bless, Shield, etc. The choice isn't tougher now; it's easier. Never prepare a stat buff spell unless you're in a party willing to speed through a dungeon on the and have reason to expect that you'll have lots of encounters within the space of 3-8 minutes and no traps.

Of course, the only time that extended statbuffs are advantageous is when the PCs have the same expectations but expect those encounters within 10-16 minutes instead of 5-8 minutes. If the PCs expect the encounters within 5-8 minutes, then extending the spells is a waste of a slot; if they expect them within 17+ minutes, extending the spells doesn't help.



This is another argument about reduced duration rather than about the usefulness of extend spell in the new edition but I'll bite.

Not necessarily. I could very easily write a game where players have to put lots of prep and thought into every combat or they'll get their hides tanned. I don't think that making monsters so much more deadly that PCs have to put lots of prep and thought into every encounter would make a game more fun though. And, even then, it's not what the change has done. The reduced duration didn't make prep and thought--formerly useless commodities in the 1 min/level duration--suddenly useful. Prep and thought on such short term matters made a huge difference already. The difference between a party going into (IME one) encounter with Bless, Shield of Faith, Shield, Protection From Evil, Protection From Elements, and possibly haste prayer, etc all active and going in with only hour/level buffs up was tremendous. What the reduced durations have done is remove a large category of "prep and thought." Specifically, they have dramatically reduced PCs' ability to be ready for the unexpected. Having buff spells working 24/7 as was possible under 3e was "prep and thought." An 8th level caster spending a 2nd and 3rd level slot to have have Cat's Grace active all day did so because he knew that lots of things happened which he could not anticipate and therefore prepared for unanticipated trouble. In 3.5e so far, such "prep and thought" has been reduced to Endure Elements, Detect Scrying, Mind Blank, Nondetection, and their ilk.

Given the ways most site-based modules I have seen map the dungeon in terms of a 5ft scale, yes its very easy to have 8 encounters within 10 ingame minutes, and even include a couple of traps, given that it will take 5 rounds on average to disarm such a device. If one were to include several, then the duration might be a problem, but that is what extend is for. The 3rd level slot aside, in the long run, it is still worth it. This has been my experience with the modules I have been running.

And yes, the game is designed with dungeons in mind, thus the new direction that is being taken with the Druid. It makes sense that site-based scenarios are the balancing point, because weighing the worth of utility versus damage spells on a tactical scale would be impossible if one was to incorporate every type of scenario into the design.

And the assumption you are making, that a buff is useless if it does not take you through the full spectrum of encounters in a day is questionable. A +4 to Str is a significant bonus that holds up well much longer than the 1st level spells that you cited and even the majority of the 2nd level spells, especially at mid-high levels; again, the effects of Bull's Strength stack with the many bonuses that go into a fighter's melee attack, which would still be of use, while no wizard I have ever seen would waste a round casting low-level damage spells that, because of the way DCs ans saves scale at high levels, will rarely even be able to make there dent in the high hp, or passive cleric spells you mentioned.

As to the gameplay question, casting 24/hour buff spells is far from what i would call thoughful, and it certainly doesn't make for very interesting preperation. As a player, having to decide WHEN to prepare multiple times a day makes for much more interesting scenarios then a situation where there is no real choice, because the optimal strategy is obvious. And yes, the passive divination spells do look more tempting, which is good, because I have rarely seen them used. But more importantly, the ACTIVE divination spells are now more useful, because they are the means by which you assess how long a dungeon is going to take, etc. In a situation where the most significant prep was frontloaded during the early part of the day, these were rarely seen, now they have real mechanical benefits.

Piratecat mentioned the cost hike in some thread, might have been one of the Mystic debates. Email him if you need confirmation. I might actually do it myself, because I admit I might be misremembering, though I doubt.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

IIRC Piratecat said something along the lines of I haven't looked at it yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a price increase in stat boost items.

People have leapt upon that and turned a danmmed if I know but I wouldn't be surprised if, into a Piratecat said"stat items will be more expensive"

Maybe I don't run enough dungeons, but exend on minute spells seems a waste to me or at elast a big enough waste that I wouldn't get the feat for things like the stat boosts, and certainly not for the round per levl spels like haste.

Also for dungoens assuming your not going barbarian style and kicking the doors down(which I do if I think time is of the essence) Search for traps 6 or 60 seconds dependng on if you take 20 or not.disarm trap 6 sconds on ave I belive though a DM can say inticate take X time. open locks 6-60 seconds depending on if you take 20 or not. So 18 seocnds to 2+ minutes to get through a door. So if I rush it I can get through the door with my extended haste 14+rounds-5 for the initial fight-3 for the door-1 for movement settling with 5 rounds remaing so if there is a fight waiting fo me it panned out. If the room is empty as it liekly would be in my games it was a waste.

As for why the room would be empty, the people there either opened the door and joined the fight, or ran to sound the alarm/gather some friends. And now they have amother reason, buffs suck with crap duraitons, just delay the party by falling back and blocking doors so there buffs will wear out before they get to you.

 

[Joshua Randall]

I thought we could use some crunch to our argument.

D&D 3e Sor/Wiz spells with 1 hour/level duration:

Blindsight (MoF)
Bull's Strength
Cat's Grace
Charm Person
Darkvision
Darsson's Potion (MoF)
Dhulark's Glasstrike (MoF)
Eagle's Splendor (T&B)
Endurance
Enhance Familiar (T&B)
Ethereal Mount (MotP)
Evard's Black Tentacles
Fortify Familiar (T&B)
Fox's Cunning (T&B)
Greater Magic Weapon
Greater Scrying
Imbue Familiar with Spell Ability (T&B)
Low-Light Vision (MoF)
Magic Jar
Mass Darkvision (T&B)
Mass Suggestion
Minor Creation
Misdirection
Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound
Nondetection
Owl's Wisdom (T&B)
Phantom Steed
Portal Beacon (MotP)
Prying Eyes
Scent (MoF)
Suggestion
Tenser's Floating Disk
Unseen Servant

Notes: even without the stat-boosting spells, there are several transmuation spells worth extending; e.g., Darkvision. Also the familiar enhancing spells. An extended Suggestion can also be quite nasty.

= = =

Clr, Drd spells not on the Sor/Wiz list that last 1 hour/level:

Animal Reduction (MotW)
Animal Shapes
Bloodhound (MotW)
Bottle of Smoke (MotW)
Chain of Eyes (DotF)
Charm Person or Animal
Delay Poison
Greater Magic Fang
Hand of Torm (MoF)
Helping Hand
Living Prints (MoF)
Magic Vestment
Nature's Balance (MoF)
One with the Land (MoF)
Safe Clearing (MoF)
Spikes (DotF)
Status
Strength of Stone (MoF)
Undead Bane Weapon (MoF)
Wood Wose (MotW)

Notes: Magic vestment is the classic example of a clerical spell to extend. Greater Magic Fang and Spikes are also strong.

I think extend is still a worthwhile feat. Maybe less of a no-brainer, but that's a good thing.

Edit: Duh, left off the 1 hr/lvl (D) - that can be dismissed. Bad database query. Here they are:

Absorb Weapon
Changestaff
Cloak of the Sea
Cloudwalkers
Easy Trail
Echo Skull
False Life
Familiar Pocket
Feathers
Feign Death
Glory of the Martyr
Indifference
Mage Armor
Passwall
Polymorph Self
Rope Trick
Sculpt Sound
Shadow Walk
Shield Other
Silent Portal
Spider Form
Spider Shapes
Spike Growth
Spike Stones
Stalking Spell
Statue
Tree Shape
Tree Stride
Whispering Wind
Wind Walk

Notes: I think extended Wind Walk is a rather nice transportation spell, don't you? Extended Shield Other is quite fine, too.

 

[Henry]

Piratecat recently confirmed in a thread in D&D Rules that there will be hikes to SKILL-boosting items, but not necessarily stat-boosting items. His specific statement was that he really didn't get a chance to LOOK at the stat-boosters to confirm this.