|
Monte Cook talks about his thoughts on buffs (especially at higher levels) in his blog here. I love these ideas, and think they make a lot of sense. In short, his suggestions:
*Buff spells always add +2, but the duration is 24 hours. Once during the duration, you can perform an incredible deed using that ability score, adding +8 to one related roll.
*With a longer duration at higher levels you could just assume you were buffed for the whole day's adventure. So you do it only once, basically giving up a spell slot for a better stat.
He also discusses adding in low-level spells that can't be cast until PCs are high level, and that are designed so that they are permanent (i.e. in effect all day) but require the permanent sacrifice of a spell slot, as well. These would include buffs but also other minor at-will abilities or constant enhancements.
It would be great if these, or similar, ideas could be included in Pathfinder. I think that these ideas offer pretty elegant solutions to some of the complaints people have about buffs and high-level casting- what do others think?
It just reinforces my opinion that Monte is a very creative guy with no head for numbers.
I like the 24 hour buff idea (and in fact have already implemented it in my Spell Book here). I don't like the "incredible deed" idea though; I hate having a bunch of various 1/day abilities to keep track of. When I use a buff, it's because I want a consistent bonus that I don't have to keep track of.
TS
|
Because at high level it stops mattering all that much if you can cast Melf's Acid Arrow when you've got maximized lightning bolts and whatnot. (With that in mind, metamagic probably should have involved combining spell slots of the same level rather than utilizing higher level slots, to cut down on the number of lower level spells to keep track of.)
Wizards spend a feat to empower, maximise, etc their spells. This is cool. But I've never liked the fact meta-magic'ed spells are required to take up a higher level spell slot. You've already burned a damned feat - a precious resource in game terms that you could have spent on something else. Other classes don't pay so heavily for the use of a feat, so why Wizards?
And why not just cast a higher level spell with a similar effect, and save the feat for something else? It's not as if there aren't higher level alternatives to acid arrow or fireball.
Now, I'm not a wizard player, so maybe the expense IS worth the benefit? I'd be interested to hear from wizard players whether this is so?
Wizards spend a feat to empower, maximise, etc their spells. This is cool. But I've never liked the fact meta-magic'ed spells are required to take up a higher level spell slot. You've already burned a damned feat - a precious resource in game terms that you could have spent on something else. Other classes don't pay so heavily for the use of a feat, so why Wizards?
And why not just cast a higher level spell with a similar effect, and save the feat for something else? It's not as if there aren't higher level alternatives to acid arrow or fireball.
Now, I'm not a wizard player, so maybe the expense IS worth the benefit? I'd be interested to hear from wizard players whether this is so?
Personally, I'm a fan of the Spontaneous Metamagic rule in Unearthed Arcana giving you three uses of your metamagic feats.
|
|
It just reinforces my opinion that Monte is a very creative guy with no head for numbers.
What makes you say that? Is it because the concept is based on the desire to eliminate recalculation of stats when buffs go up or down? If so- I'd be in that category, as well. I've got a "head for numbers," but it's a pain to refigure stats based on the dynamic buffs as they are in 3.5.
I don't like the "incredible deed" idea though; I hate having a bunch of various 1/day abilities to keep track of.
Monte has several spells that I like a lot, his various Mark of XXX, that have a persistent (and long lasting) buff effect. However, you can "burn" the spell to create an instantaneous effect that ends the spell regardless of remaining duration.
For example, the Mark of Fire gives you +2 DEX for 1 hour/level, but you can "burn" the spell for a 3d6 ranged fire blast.
It sounds like he is describing something along those lines-- and if not, it would be easy enough to revise. The book-keeping is thus very easy-- if the buff is active, you haven't used the special effect; if you use the special effect, the buff goes away.
For example, the Mark of Fire gives you +2 DEX for 1 hour/level, but you can "burn" the spell for a 3d6 ranged fire blast.
What level is Mark of Fire? If it's a 1st level spell, then I'd use it. But something tells me that it's a 2nd level spell, in which case I'd rather use Cat's Grace for the bigger consistent bonus. Maybe this is a bad assumption to make but when Monte says he intends to house rule a set of buff/incredible deed spells, I assume that they'll either be lower level than RAW spells or their consistent bonus will be lower, which is why I say I don't like the "incredible deed" idea.
TS
|
|
I like the 24 hour buff idea (and in fact have already implemented it in my Spell Book here). I don't like the "incredible deed" idea though; I hate having a bunch of various 1/day abilities to keep track of. When I use a buff, it's because I want a consistent bonus that I don't have to keep track of.
TS
24 hour buffs simplify things tremendously.
|
I'm not sure how I feel about 24 hour buffs, it would require reworking a bunch of spells, and I don't know if you can re-work that many spells and claim backwards compatability, still the idea of less book keeping does have its merits and not having to waste several spellslots at low level on a spell like shield to keep it through several battles.
|
I like including "shield" in this discussion, b/c there does seem to be a big difference between shield and mage armour; I mean, I realize that shield prevents magic missiles, but does that really impact enough to have such a difference in duration?
For backward compatability, considering the 'enhancements' to the classes and races themselves, why couldn't there be simply a duration readjustment to "buff" spells? Make all spells that would fall into that category a 1h/level duration (making it most of the day by mid-level, especially if using the Extend Spell feat).
Spells that I think would fall in this category:
Shield
Comprehend Languages
Disguise Self
Expeditious Retreat
Alter Self
Bull's Strength / Cat's Grace / Bear's Endurance / etc
Tongues
Heroism
Fly
Stoneskin
Greater Heroism
Protection from Spells
Bless
Magic Weapon
Prot From (Alignment)
Shield of Faith
Align Weapon
Air Walk
Spell Immunity (and Greater)
Disrupting Weapon
Cloak of Chaos / Shield of Law / etc
I know the first knee-jerk reaction would be for people to shout "that'd be too powerful" for some of the ones on my list. Don't forget villains with Dispel Magic available to them as well.
Any serious feedback on these suggestions?
honestly if the duration to the bulls/cat/etc. spells were hours per level I'd probably ban them from my games.
In 3.0 they were, and we did. Every caster was using every 2nd level slot for stat-boost spells. The 3.5e change to min/lvl meant that casters had to take Extend Spell and Persistent Spell, and then use up higher-level spell slots to get all-day stat boosts; it was much more reasonable (and at high levels, the stat boost spells matter less anyway, because everyone has stat-boosting items).
|
I would love it if Monte would work with Jason and company on the Pathfinder RPG. I know Monte and Erik are good friends ... I wonder how much communication they are having about the new Paizo RPG effort? It would be interesting actually, since Mike Mearls worked with/for Monte before joining WOTC ...
|
|
I would love it if Monte would work with Jason and company on the Pathfinder RPG. I know Monte and Erik are good friends ... I wonder how much communication they are having about the new Paizo RPG effort? It would be interesting actually, since Mike Mearls worked with/for Monte before joining WOTC ...
Same here- that would be fantastic. He (Monte Cook) is working on a follow-up to the first Book of Experimental Might, this one with non-spellcasters. It would be fantastic to get some of his latest concepts included in Pathfinder.
|
|
24 hours buffs make life much much simpler. I liked the 3ed version of buff spells much more than the 3.5 ones because they lasted all day, so you wouldn't have to track the very annoying 10 minute/level spell durations.
I actually like how 4ed is doing things, and would like to see 10 minute/level and 1 hour/level spells eliminated, and replaced with a flat 24 hour duration instead. 1 round/level spells could be left as-is, or set to a duration of "encounter".
I used to play a high level wizard who'd have 20 or 30 buffs up on him, and can attest how bookkeeping can just suck all the life out of the game.
Doing weaker -- but all day -- buffs is an awesome design decision. I dunno about burning it for a +8 once per day. I'd just prefer having something like a greater bulls strength (+4 strength all day long) as a 5th level spell and a superior bulls strength (+6 strength all day long) as an 8th level spell.
To me, any spell with a possible 24 hour or even just 12 hour duration should be 5th level or higher. Sustained magic should be an amazing feat or casting. I much prefer durations of 1 minute/level or 1 hour/level at most. Most combats I have played in dont last past a minute (10 rounds) anyway, even at high level. And a 10-15 minute combat is a lungwrecker.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
You can do it now with a single level dip into Binder and Anima Mage for Vestige Metamagic for fueling the Persistent Spell feat meta cost.
|
|
To me, any spell with a possible 24 hour or even just 12 hour duration should be 5th level or higher. Sustained magic should be an amazing feat or casting. I much prefer durations of 1 minute/level or 1 hour/level at most. Most combats I have played in dont last past a minute (10 rounds) anyway, even at high level. And a 10-15 minute combat is a lungwrecker.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
10 minute per level spells have a weird place in D&D. Long enough they can't be too crazy powerful (so usually aren't worth casting in combat), but short enough that you don't know if it'll still be up (when you're walking through the underdark) when you get to the final combat.
I see nothing particularly epic about allowing a mage armor spell to be up all day. At 1st level, the spell is just weak, since it won't last more than one combat anyway, and by the time you get high enough level to extend it and make it last all day, you probably have your set of twilight mithral armor on.
Bookkeeping = bad.
In my Spell Book document, I gave all spells one of three durations: instantaneous, 5 minutes (one encounter) or 24 hours. Honestly, I don't know how durations/level have survived this long; they're just so pointless. The only spells that I know of where duration/level is actually a balancing factor are the Summon Monster and Summon Nature's Ally spells. And that's just because a 1st level summon gives you a monster that takes the place of the party fighter, while a 9th level summon gives you a monster that can't survive a stray caltrop. Even for summoning spells, duration/level is just a needless excersize in abstract minutae because they can easily be balanced by making the summoned monsters consistently useful.
The idea that longer durations belong in the realm of high level spells I think is just silly. It's just a product of that "casters should suck at level 1 and pwn at level 20!" mentality, which I have no use for. Spells (and all class abilities for that matter) should increase in potency as levels are gained, not uses per day or duration.
My opinions on spell ranges are similar.
TS
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Hello, all. Thank you, SageSTL, for bringing our attention to Mr. Cook's suggestion.
Some people (lastnightleft, Kirth) have put forth that long-duration buff spells are annoying. I'd suggest they're subtle, and I like the optional burst effect, which makes them dramatic.
I wonder if you folks would like the idea of a spell cast on a potion that affects the potion in this way. Call it something like "suspend potion". It would give a reduced effect for several hours, with an optional "burst" that exhausts the potion entirely.
This creates a cost to the continued buff, so a party wouldn't want to have several long buff spells running on each character, every day, but it might be useful in the morning before opening up Thoth's Great Brass Doors.
In my Spell Book document, I gave all spells one of three durations: instantaneous, 5 minutes (one encounter) or 24 hours. Honestly, I don't know how durations/level have survived this long; they're just so pointless. The only spells that I know of where duration/level is actually a balancing factor are the Summon Monster and Summon Nature's Ally spells. And that's just because a 1st level summon gives you a monster that takes the place of the party fighter, while a 9th level summon gives you a monster that can't survive a stray caltrop. Even for summoning spells, duration/level is just a needless excersize in abstract minutae because they can easily be balanced by making the summoned monsters consistently useful.
The idea that longer durations belong in the realm of high level spells I think is just silly. It's just a product of that "casters should suck at level 1 and pwn at level 20!" mentality, which I have no use for. Spells (and all class abilities for that matter) should increase in potency as levels are gained, not uses per day or duration.
My opinions on spell ranges are similar.
TS
I would say durations/level have survived because there is no skill system in magic whereby how well one cast a spell would factor into the duration. And casting success affecting duration makes a great deal of sense. Lacking that we default to caster level showing basically how well the spell was cast.
Regarding your second point, of course a 1st level caster should be vastly inferior to a 20th level caster (who begins to skirt the edge of mythic power..or in some cases near deific). Increases in duration are increases in potency. Potency is not purely degree of effect but also how long said effect lasts. Increases in targets, area, range, damage, save dc and duration are all included aspects of that potency you want. Longer duration effects being found in the second 'tier' of spells (5th+) also makes sense on this, with class level comes higher level spells and thus that ability to cast spells a weaker caster can only dream of being able to use (if nothing eats them first).
-Weylin Stormcrowe
|
|
I would say durations/level have survived because there is no skill system in magic whereby how well one cast a spell would factor into the duration. And casting success affecting duration makes a great deal of sense. Lacking that we default to caster level showing basically how well the spell was cast.
Regarding your second point, of course a 1st level caster should be vastly inferior to a 20th level caster (who begins to skirt the edge of mythic power..or in some cases near deific). Increases in duration are increases in potency.
I once wrote a Living City mod in which an NPC, challenged to prove how powerful a wizard he was, would cast a Tensor's Floating Disk and show them just how amazingly much weight it would carry. One group I ran it for did actually ask this question, and laughed him out of the room because it was, well, Tenser's Floating Disk.
Higher level spells can (and should) provide more power and more utility. Lower level spells cast at higher levels maybe should gain more power (such as with magic missile) but the way that durations work makes it so that many spells are very underpowered at the very levels they should be being cast at.
For example, a 1st level wizard casting a summon monster I spends one full round casting (opening him up for interruption) in order to get a celestial badger or something equally useless for one round. He essentially replaces his actions with that of a creature that will deal around 2 to 4 damage, if it hits, and then vanish. Magic missile is thus totally superior, and magic missile (to be honest) is underpowered at 1st level. Summon Monster I just doesn't make sense to cast *at the level it was designed for* because of the way spell durations work. Likewise, Mage Armor is a pretty terrible choice for a level 1 sorcerer. He could burn all of his daily resources, and still get a +4 armor bonus only up for 4 hours a day -- no point really, he could just wear a chain shirt and come out four spells ahead and still have spells to do useful stuff with (even if they have spell failure).
On the other end, when you get past 12th level, then all those 1 hour/level spells start lasting all day long, and by the time you hit 20th, you can extend a spell to last across *two days*, meaning you can effectively double your spell slots for buffs, by casting only half each day.
And for the mid-duration spells, like 1 minute/level and 10 minute/level spells, can you honestly say there's a difference between a 10th level caster and a 15th level caster in terms of the durations? 99% of the time, the 11th through 15th minutes (or the 110th vs the 150th minutes) of a spell will not make the slightest difference. Combat's over, or combat hasn't started yet.
Only when you get into high level spellcasting do the 10 minute/level spells make a difference, because suddenly you have the duration and spell slots to make spells which really weren't supposed to be persistent last all day. My high level spellcasters like to cast three extended shapechanges per day: 20 hours of uber. On a spell which is so powerful, its duration really should be "encounter".
I would say durations/level have survived because there is no skill system in magic whereby how well one cast a spell would factor into the duration. And casting success affecting duration makes a great deal of sense. Lacking that we default to caster level showing basically how well the spell was cast.In my Spell Book document, I gave all spells one of three durations: instantaneous, 5 minutes (one encounter) or 24 hours. Honestly, I don't know how durations/level have survived this long; they're just so pointless. The only spells that I know of where duration/level is actually a balancing factor are the Summon Monster and Summon Nature's Ally spells. And that's just because a 1st level summon gives you a monster that takes the place of the party fighter, while a 9th level summon gives you a monster that can't survive a stray caltrop. Even for summoning spells, duration/level is just a needless excersize in abstract minutae because they can easily be balanced by making the summoned monsters consistently useful.
The idea that longer durations belong in the realm of high level spells I think is just silly. It's just a product of that "casters should suck at level 1 and pwn at level 20!" mentality, which I have no use for. Spells (and all class abilities for that matter) should increase in potency as levels are gained, not uses per day or duration.
My opinions on spell ranges are similar.
TS
Yes, that's the flavor text that goes along with durations/level but I'm looking at this from a rules-balance point of view.
Regarding your second point, of course a 1st level caster should be vastly inferior to a 20th level caster (who begins to skirt the edge of mythic power..or in some cases near deific). Increases in duration are increases in potency. Potency is not purely degree of effect but also how long said effect lasts. Increases in targets, area, range, damage, save dc and duration are all included aspects of that potency you want. Longer duration effects being found in the second 'tier' of spells (5th+) also makes sense on this, with class level comes higher level spells and...
Alright, so "potency" is a somewhat vague word to describe what I'm speaking of. To put it differently, some types of potency work with 3e's level-based, 4 encounters/day paradigm while others do not. Increasing bonuses/DCs/damage work, because all those things increase with levels. But increasing duration does not work because the game is based on the assumption of 4 fairly consistent encounters per day regardless of level. So if Shield only lasts for 1 round at first level but Greater Shield (greater bonus plus greater duration) lasts for a whole encounter or a whole day at twentieth level, that's not balanced. Either Shield is woefully inadequate or Greater Shield just does too much. This is the kind of spell design that creates complaints about high level casters being overpowered/gamebreaking/whatever; with spells becoming exponentially more powerful with each level rather than linearly more powerful, they will at some point make the 4 encounter/day paradigm pointless.
And as ShakaUVM said, what's the real difference between a duration of 10 minutes v. 100 minutes? I know as a DM I don't track individual minutes, heck I hardly ever even track hours and when I do it's never to make sure that a PC isn't getting more juice out of his buff that he should. But maybe you do track hours and minutes, I don't know. I know the only difference between a 1 round/level spell and a 1 minute/level spell for me is that one might run out in the middle of a fight, giving me more paperwork to do and bringing the fight's excitement to a screeching halt--but only until about 5th level. After that there's no difference between the two and they might as well both have durations of "5 minutes" or "1 encounter."
TS
I solidly agree that many spells need a major reworking...in terms of effect, duration or range (sometimes all three). Durations of many of the summoning should be more like 10 minutes/level. I am still however against any concept of granting low level casters any spell that lasts 12 or 24 hours. That sort of duration is part of what seperates the high level casters from their less learned brethren. I would like to see the concept of rolling the effect for the buff spells changed. But I do not like the concept of receiving just a +2 regardless of level. I would rather see it based on caster level. Something like +2/4 levels perhaps.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
Weylin, Endure Elements already lasts for 24 hours, and Nystul's Magic Aura is a first level spell that lasts for a day a level.
I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree with you that 24 hour duration is too much for low level spells. As long as the bonus is level-appropriate, I don't mind it being all day.
A 24-hour mage armor will make low-level mages more survivable without affecting higher level mages at all.
I agree,especially considering the limited number and efficacy of a first level wizards spells.
At high level with so many different buffs available,longer durations would help eliminate a mountain of tracking different boosts.More buffs with similar durations so you don't have a handful winking out here and there.Just sounds like a headache.
I've been toying with the idea of trying to work out a "type" system for buffs analogous with other type bonuses to limit the number of buffs that can be active on a a character at once. Ex. one ability buff, one ac buff, one combat state buff (such that can't be invisible, hasted, and flying at the same time), etc. I've never tried to develop the idea because I knew my players would lynch me. But if in return, some of those buffs were 24 hrs... They might go for that, especially since both together could simplify bookkeeping. I may have to think about this again.
|
|
Some people (lastnightleft, Kirth) have put forth that long-duration buff spells are annoying. I'd suggest they're subtle
They are subtle, they do absolutely nothing but make characters slightly better for a combat, or in the instance of 24 hours, all day. But really, why bother, it's so lame they could have thought up interesting uses for spells of those names and instead it give you a +2 to your modifier whoo look out, that makes the game so lively and exciting. When someone casts a spell, even a transmutation the effects should be interesting and exciting. Bulls strength could have given a character who makes a charge gain deal extra damage like a charging bull instead its a lame ooh I'm slightly better at hitting and doing damage. the same philosophy applies to all the ability buff spells what do they add to the game other than different math?
I solidly agree that many spells need a major reworking...in terms of effect, duration or range (sometimes all three). Durations of many of the summoning should be more like 10 minutes/level. I am still however against any concept of granting low level casters any spell that lasts 12 or 24 hours. That sort of duration is part of what seperates the high level casters from their less learned brethren. I would like to see the concept of rolling the effect for the buff spells changed. But I do not like the concept of receiving just a +2 regardless of level. I would rather see it based on caster level. Something like +2/4 levels perhaps.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
I respect the immersive/thematic place that you're coming from, but I can't help but point out that durations/level and +X/level spells are huge contributors to the caster balance problem. A low level spell is not a significant loss of resources for a high level caster, so the more you let spells scale with CL the less high level casters have to actually conserve their resources as the 4 encounter/day paradigm expects them to. If my high level cleric can buff himself with seventeen low level spells that not only last all the-live-long-adventuring-day but also make the other PCs' magical items look like baubles, suddenly the party fighter is thinking "why am I here?" Not only that, I still have my high level spells which are supposed to be my primary resource and the balancing factor to keep the fighter unique.
What I'm saying is that yeah, the prowess of a caster can be measured in the number of holes he can punch in the dungeon wall after the fight is over but it's just not worth the balance problems and the needless bookkeeping minutiae which it creates because there are other ways to measure a caster's prowess like spell levels themselves, DCs, potency, SR, dispel magic, etc.
TS
Tequila, perhaps keeping durations the same consistent degree all the way through regardless of the level of spell. Say for instance all non-instantaneous spells have a duration of either 10 minutes per level or 1 hour per level. No more and no less. This allows for a useful duration at lower levels and a substantial duration at higher levels. A 1st level caster and a 20th level caster use the same spell. The difference between 10 minutes and 200 minutes (a little over 3 hours) is impressive.
To address the poster who mentioned that Resist Elements is a duration of 24 hours. I have never agreed with that myself and would rather have seen it as 1 hour per level.
To large degree, my view is if you want a 24 hour spell effect at lower levels then buy or make an item that grants such. Why bother burning a spell slot at all if you dont have to? Also, I think enduring magic that is not a magical item should be the domain of lengthy and costly ritual....in the process making the fact that one could and chose to do so even more impressive. My view on metamagic feats is much the same...instead of burning a higher level slot allow the option of ritual (say 30 minutes or an hour for each degree higher slot you would burn...a feat that burns a slot 3 levels higher would become either a 90 minute or 3 hour ritual).
-Weylin Stormcrowe
Some people (lastnightleft, Kirth) have put forth that long-duration buff spells are annoying.
Bull's strength, et al. in 3e were annoying only because they were more or less required: "Let me get this straight... I have all the benefits of a 16,000-gp item, and it costs me one 2nd level spell slot? I'll take two!" Making them be persistent (6th level) for the all-day duration made people actually think about taking them, and that worked quite well for us. Of course, after nerfing Persistent Spell to a +6 spell level adjustment, NO ONE spends an 8th level slot on a persistent bull's strength anymore, so we've swung too far the other direction. I houseruled that the adjustment for Persistent Spell scales with original duration: rds/lvl = +6, min/lvl = +4, 10 min/lvl = +2, hr./lvl = +1. Now everyone is happy again.
Tequila, perhaps keeping durations the same consistent degree all the way through regardless of the level of spell. Say for instance all non-instantaneous spells have a duration of either 10 minutes per level or 1 hour per level. No more and no less. This allows for a useful duration at lower levels and a substantial duration at higher levels. A 1st level caster and a 20th level caster use the same spell. The difference between 10 minutes and 200 minutes (a little over 3 hours) is impressive.
That's a step in the right direction, but only a baby's step. Whatever, there's no real point in this debate anyway; I don't see Pathfinder RPG editing spell durations. (If they did that they might as well rewrite Chapter 11 of the PHB entirely.)
TS
|
|
Whatever, there's no real point in this debate anyway; I don't see Pathfinder RPG editing spell durations. (If they did that they might as well rewrite Chapter 11 of the PHB entirely.)
TS
I don't know- it looks like some changes are already being made, or at least discussed. I think it's at least worth considering (or discussing as an option)... :)