|
Edit: Hour/level spells like Bull's Strength were made Minute/level instead because they made stat boosting items utterly pointless. That's also not the reason why you get short adventuring days. The reason you get short adventuring days is because you let a stupid player be the caster, and as a result they cannot effectively manage their spell supply.
Don't see how this makes a stat boosting item pointless at all. Let's see, I am a Fighter with STR 20, I get Bull's Strength for 12 hours, and I already have a Belt so, for the next 12 hours I get a STR of 28... I can live with that.
And sorry but the stupid player comment is rude, uncalled for and just down right wrong.
|
|
2) Spell durations in minutes.
Another option to consider for buff durations: 2 rounds per caster level, used when the target of the spell wishes, within 24 hours. So 10th level caster Bull's Strengths the fighter on breaking camp that morning. They get into a fight that turns out nastier than expected. Fighter decides to burn some buff on the last 4 rounds of the combat. He has 16 rounds worth left for the day.
It does require some book-keeping, but not much. It gets rid of the 15min adventuring day by allowing the recipients to manage the use of the spell. Repeat applications top it back up to the max rather than stacking.
Using the idea of an 'Enhanced Strength' condition, it also prevents the use of anything else that does the same until all the buff is burnt and helps stop the stacking from getting too complex.
Thoughts?
It does add some more book keeping but not much. Definitely worth considering and playing with.
Don't see how this makes a stat boosting item pointless at all. Let's see, I am a Fighter with STR 20, I get Bull's Strength for 12 hours, and I already have a Belt so, for the next 12 hours I get a STR of 28... I can live with that.
Except that enhancement bonuses do not stack with enhancement bonuses. You still have a Strength of 24, not 28.
Edit: Hour/level spells like Bull's Strength were made Minute/level instead because they made stat boosting items utterly pointless. That's also not the reason why you get short adventuring days. The reason you get short adventuring days is because you let a stupid player be the caster, and as a result they cannot effectively manage their spell supply.Don't see how this makes a stat boosting item pointless at all. Let's see, I am a Fighter with STR 20, I get Bull's Strength for 12 hours, and I already have a Belt so, for the next 12 hours I get a STR of 28... I can live with that.
Both the spell and the magic item grant an Enhancement bonus, thus they don't stack. If the ability-boosting spells are a long duration (i.e. hours), they do indeed make ability boost items far less desirable. The same applies for rings of protection vs. spells that grant a Deflection bonus to AC, cloaks of resistance vs. spells that grant a Resistance bonus to saves, etc.
EDIT: Kirth is a yamabushi...
And sorry but the stupid player comment is rude, uncalled for and just down right wrong.
Agreed...
the stupid player comment was rude and uncalled for. also how is making boosting magic items less a must have item a bad thing?
also how is making boosting magic items less a must have item a bad thing?
And with this I agree. Boost items to me are boring. I want magic items to be exceptional. Having boost items as an option when you don't have casters to cover such needs is okay, but they shouldn't factor in as required.
Why not just cut most of the buff spells out of the game? Go back to 2nd eds spell list.
So are you saying a player that cannot manage their spells and manages to cast everything in the first fight, then whines for a rest is not stupid? Because that is extremely poor resource management, extremely poor tactics, and not something likely to go over well at the table (just look at all the people that rally against the 15 minute workday).
That's not an insult. That's fact. Most of you even agree with it, while claiming to disagree. Even if it were an insult it's still irrelevant as unless you do that yourself it's not directed at you.
Edit: Ordinarily I'd agree regarding plain stat boost items. But since last I checked PF only based its available items on the DMG stuff, and the DMG stuff is neatly divided into 'plain +x to y stat' and 'stuff that is overpriced for what it does, utter crap, or both' it has the side effect of there being less worth buying. Deflection AC boosts only last 1 minute a level though so those spells aren't replacing the rings. Superior Resistance can certainly replace your Cloak at level 11, provided the Spell Compendium is in since that is 24 hours.
Edit again: Currently buffs are required for the non top tier stuff to function. This isn't getting fixed without a system revamp, which is beyond the scope of this project. Remove the buffs, or cut them down, you're just putting another boot between the legs of the non casters.
Don't see how this makes a stat boosting item pointless at all. Let's see, I am a Fighter with STR 20, I get Bull's Strength for 12 hours, and I already have a Belt so, for the next 12 hours I get a STR of 28... I can live with that.
My big problem with hours/ level spells is that they can be extended to ridiculous levels. 15th level you can bump your spell level by 3 and you are looking at 45 hour durations. Why stop there though, it's a second level spell, bump the spell level by 7 levels and get 120 hours or 5 days out of a single buff spell. Now granted it's going down as soon as you get hit by dispel magic but it's still out there.
Maybe I'm reading the metamagic feat wrong but 5 days seems like a long time for a spell to last.
And sorry but the stupid player comment is rude, uncalled for and just down right wrong.
I'm trying to figure out, are you defending the idea of a player blowing all his spells in a single combat or are you just saying that it's wrong to call it stupid?
My group has never experienced the so-called 15 minute adventure day. Mainly because I'm usually the wizard and I would rather do nothing than cast a spell that won't significantly impact combat.
I know other groups where the person who is playing the wizard burns spells to kill off enemies when the fighters in the group are clearly in the clean up phase of combat or the enemies are little threat to the martial characters.
Is that stupid? Maybe that's a harsh way of saying it but it certainly isn't very smart to burn a consumable resource (spells/day) when abundant non-consumable resources can take care of the problem.
I ran into a group where someone was talking about spamming quickened magic missile and quickened furball was a great tactic... I wouldn't come out and call it stupid but it's certainly not a good strategy if you are planning a long adventuring day.
|
|
So are you saying a player that cannot manage their spells and manages to cast everything in the first fight, then whines for a rest is not stupid? Because that is extremely poor resource management, extremely poor tactics, and not something likely to go over well at the table (just look at all the people that rally against the 15 minute workday).
That's not an insult. That's fact. Most of you even agree with it, while claiming to disagree. Even if it were an insult it's still irrelevant as unless you do that yourself it's not directed at you.
Edit: Ordinarily I'd agree regarding plain stat boost items. But since last I checked PF only based its available items on the DMG stuff, and the DMG stuff is neatly divided into 'plain +x to y stat' and 'stuff that is overpriced for what it does, utter crap, or both' it has the side effect of there being less worth buying. Deflection AC boosts only last 1 minute a level though so those spells aren't replacing the rings. Superior Resistance can certainly replace your Cloak at level 11, provided the Spell Compendium is in since that is 24 hours.
Edit again: Currently buffs are required for the non top tier stuff to function. This isn't getting fixed without a system revamp, which is beyond the scope of this project. Remove the buffs, or cut them down, you're just putting another boot between the legs of the non casters.
Sorry, but until you can grow up and engage in a conversation without being rude, I will ignore anything with your name by it. It doesn't matter if the comments were directed at me personally. They are still rude.
You guys are right, the buffs are enhancement buffs. However, in another post I suggested the buffs be reassigned to different categories. Though I probably did not make that clear what I meant. That is where I suggested that buffs go back to hour/level. Also, to be honest I would love to see items revamped. I mean some of them have not changed one iota in thirty years! Been there seen that, give me something new.
|
Don't see how this makes a stat boosting item pointless at all. Let's see, I am a Fighter with STR 20, I get Bull's Strength for 12 hours, and I already have a Belt so, for the next 12 hours I get a STR of 28... I can live with that.Except that enhancement bonuses do not stack with enhancement bonuses. You still have a Strength of 24, not 28.
Kirth is right, but to side with Krome for a bit, remember the old buffing spells were 1d4+1. But it also meant you could do cool things like Maximize or Empowered. So not a total replacement (except for the +2 items).
|
|
What I object to is being called stupid when he has no idea what so ever how I or anyone else plays. And yes on occasion we have run into a 15 minute adventure day.
Last game we fought our adventure day was one single battle. We fought a demon and I used every single last spell I had in my arsenal. Almost lost a fighter. Banish is the only thing that saved us.
I take that back I had a couple of orisons left.
Had we had buffs left on the fighters we probably could have made it through the next fight. It would have hurt sure, but we could have made it. As it was we had to stop after one lone fight and rest until spells were back. If we had had buffs I know we would have carried on because we debated about going on anyway. We have healing wands and potions so we weren't worried about that at all.
I suppose I could have let the fighters just die and held on to my spells, but that didn't seem like a good option at the time. Maybe next time I should hang on to my spells instead...
There is a lot more to the 15 minute day than poor resource management. If that was all there was to it, no one would consider it a problem.
15th level you can bump your spell level by 3 and you are looking at 45 hour durations.
You can't apply Extend Spell multiple times to the same spell.
-Matt
|
|
Extend spell plus Empower spell would net you a 45 hour duration.15th level you can bump your spell level by 3 and you are looking at 45 hour durations.You can't apply Extend Spell multiple times to the same spell.
-Matt
How? Empower Spell only works on the variable numeric effects - so not on duration. Am I missing something?
|
How? Empower Spell only works on the variable numeric effects - so not on duration. Am I missing something?Extend spell plus Empower spell would net you a 45 hour duration.15th level you can bump your spell level by 3 and you are looking at 45 hour durations.You can't apply Extend Spell multiple times to the same spell.
-Matt
I'd think that duration would be variable as it changes with levels. 'Least that's my interpretation of it. I could be wrong of course.
EDIT: After having looked at my PHB I see that I am indeed incorrect. I hadn't noticed the 'random variable' requirement.
In this case I have no idea how 45 hours was attained.
Sorry, but until you can grow up and engage in a conversation without being rude, I will ignore anything with your name by it. It doesn't matter if the comments were directed at me personally. They are still rude.
Because as we all know, passive aggressive insults while jumping on the bandwagon the moment someone says anything that deviates from Super Happy Fun Time and contributing absolutely nothing useful to the discussion while sniping at another poster are the epitome of non rudeness, lack of hypocrisy, and productive posting. Except that they don't. Rude + hypocritical + non productive > rudeness alone.
It only takes one person to point out such things. Anything more than that is socially accepted trolling.
This thread has become worthless.
The problem is obviously much larger than the current discussion is addressing.
I suggest we move on.
So are you saying a player that cannot manage their spells and manages to cast everything in the first fight, then whines for a rest is not stupid?
It's careless, not stupid. There's a difference.
|
|
3) Summoned monsters. Conjurers and necromancers who call up huge armies of monsters to fight for them slow things down too. Is limiting summoning effects to one per caster at a...
Darn tootin' it is! A caster can only cast a few summon spells before they start to get targeted (NPC and PC alike from my experience). After the first round or two, they have to switch gears from summoning to defence and direct attacks or risk getting stomped by flankers and mage hunters.
Instead of imposing an arbitrary limit on the number of summoning spells in place, I suggest that you limit the number of creatures they can control instead. Limit it to equal the their spellcasting attribute bonus and you'll find that casters will limit their summoning to more credible threat monsters than just speedbumps.
[edit] BTW I just picked up a hardcopy of BETA and I love it! It's a lot different to hold the printed artefact in my hands. I like the look a lot.
|
|
So are you saying a player that cannot manage their spells and manages to cast everything in the first fight, then whines for a rest is not stupid?It's careless, not stupid. There's a difference.
A few other adjectives come to mind: "uninformed", "inexperienced", or maybe even "enjoyable". There are dozens of reasons a person might play a spellcaster in such fashion, stupidity may indeed be one, but it isn't the only one.
Are you honestly arguing that playing a spellcaster in a way that disrupts the game for everyone else, and possibly themselves as well can be tagged with a positive adjective? Or playing anyone in a blatantly disruptive manner, for that matter. Players that deliberately make the game revolve solely around them tend to get the boot. Now just the simple fact you picked 'Cleric' and not 'Fighter' on your character sheet is not a deliberate disruption as that is circumstantial. If said Cleric somehow casts everything in Fight 1, then demands a rest and repeat... that is deliberate. Personally I'm not even sure how you could do that, even if you sucked because you just won't have enough actions for it beyond about level 3 or so. And even that early, you still won't provided you keep a few scrolls around. In other words, I don't think it's even possible to do the 5 minute workday, but if you did it would make you a horrible player whose character was stupidly played. In this case, careless = stupid. Inexperienced = stupid, when it gets you killed (which it will). Enjoyable (only for you) means the other guys get fed up with your nonsense, and even if they don't kill you in character dead game = dead your character = stupid, because you killed an otherwise workable game.
Oh and Dispel is much easier to manage with Arcane Mastery, which anyone serious about dispelling has. Take 10 on Dispel checks = My CL with Greater Dispel is 17. Taking 10, that's 27. Anything with a caster level of 16 or lower is removed. Anything with a caster level of 17 or higher is not removed. That's just an example, put whatever numbers you want there and the result is the same.
Creative Director
|
I'm still pretty torn on this one. I haven't done a ton of high-level play, but I never ran into a buffing issue with my groups. If everybody keeps track of what effects they have going on it seems to work pretty well. A useful tool I use are notecards with common buffs listing what changes the character has to make to his sheet.
e.g.
CAT'S GRACE
+4 Dex, +2 AC, +2 touch AC, +2 ranged attack, +2 initThen the player can quick reference the card instead of flipping through a book and the DM just asks for the duration of the spell from the caster.
Thing is... it's pretty rare to get an entire group that's good with managing all these spell effects.
Maybe all that needs to happen is for us to put in limits on buff spells, but then put in a sidebar that says, "If your group wants to face the challenge of managing limitless buff spells, feel free to toss out the limit on how many you can have active at once. Just keep in mind that if not everyone in the group is on top of things... unlimited spell effects can slow a game to a crawl."
That said... I'd still like to test out high level play with buff spell limits to see if it really DOES speed up play, and to find out if limiting the spells really DOES make spellcasters less powerful. After all... less buff spells means that spell casters can spread out their spellcasting over a longer period, or will be able to devote more spell slots to utility and offense spells...
|
|
On a side note relating to the AP's...
many of the bad guy / npc write-ups have the buff spells already figured in... When they get hit with a Dispell, or Greater, then the GM has to pause and refigure everything...
Not that I mind doing that. But it slows down the game too.
(I am trying to set up the bad guys and their buffs on sheets to keep track of all this stuff, in case I need it. But it is time consuming to 'back out' bonuses...)
|
|
Are you honestly arguing that playing a spellcaster in a way that disrupts the game for everyone else, and possibly themselves as well can be tagged with a positive adjective? Or playing anyone in a blatantly disruptive manner, for that matter. Players that deliberately make the game revolve solely around them tend to get the boot. Now just the simple fact you picked 'Cleric' and not 'Fighter' on your character sheet is not a deliberate disruption as that is circumstantial. If said Cleric somehow casts everything in Fight 1, then demands a rest and repeat... that is deliberate. Personally I'm not even sure how you could do that, even if you sucked because you just won't have enough actions for it beyond about level 3 or so. And even that early, you still won't provided you keep a few scrolls around. In other words, I don't think it's even possible to do the 5 minute workday, but if you did it would make you a horrible player whose character was stupidly played. In this case, careless = stupid. Inexperienced = stupid, when it gets you killed (which it will). Enjoyable (only for you) means the other guys get fed up with your nonsense, and even if they don't kill you in character dead game = dead your character = stupid, because you killed an otherwise workable game.
Since this seems to be in response to the points I made, yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting. I deal with children all the time as a teacher - a child's (or anybody's) exhibition of a pattern or instance of behaviour is very rarely related to intelligence. Learned operations, personality, daily routine, social interactions, topics, method of communication, etcetera, all relate to why a person would seem to evidence traits that you seem bent on dismissing as stupid behaviour. I don't know why you feel that way, but I suggest that such an attitude is dismissive at best, and more likely hostile towards people with a perceived difference from you.
Now, I haven't even touched on the game table. People play D&D for many reasons - if the group is fine with nova strategies, then have at it. If it is disrupting the group, it isn't stupid, it's inconsiderate, maybe even selfish, but more likely is just a misconception of how the game works due to some sort of learned behaviour or unguided development. Again, rather than just dismiss people as "stupid", I suggest you work with such players - don't kick them from your table, but try to figure out why the person behaves that way. Nova techniques might not be deliberate - they could evolve out of a lack of understanding of the time system or adventure design or CR expectations. Not "stupid", just lack of knowledge. As to getting killed, or the 5-minute potential workday - that can be part of the game. Death is almost inevitable in D&D, some people actually enjoy it when deaths occur, for various reasons. Let's say the first encounter of the day is 4+ levels over the APL, would it be wrong to nova in that situation? Faced with life or death, it is not "stupid", it's actually very considered.
Seriously, communication solves so many problems. Sometimes it is like pulling teeth, especially in gaming circles, but once your group opens up it can be very rewarding. :)
|
Are you honestly arguing that playing a spellcaster in a way that disrupts the game for everyone else, and possibly themselves as well can be tagged with a positive adjective? Or playing anyone in a blatantly disruptive manner, for that matter. Players that deliberately make the game revolve solely around them tend to get the boot. Now just the simple fact you picked 'Cleric' and not 'Fighter' on your character sheet is not a deliberate disruption as that is circumstantial. If said Cleric somehow casts everything in Fight 1, then demands a rest and repeat... that is deliberate. Personally I'm not even sure how you could do that, even if you sucked because you just won't have enough actions for it beyond about level 3 or so. And even that early, you still won't provided you keep a few scrolls around. In other words, I don't think it's even possible to do the 5 minute workday, but if you did it would make you a horrible player whose character was stupidly played. In this case, careless = stupid. Inexperienced = stupid, when it gets you killed (which it will). Enjoyable (only for you) means the other guys get fed up with your nonsense, and even if they don't kill you in character dead game = dead your character = stupid, because you killed an otherwise workable game.
Understood, if that's actually the intention of the spellcaster's player. But that isn't always the case, either.
Try the shoe on the other foot, too. Are you honestly trying to suggest that anyone who decides that they'd like to try out playing a spellcaster is stupid simply if they don't play one with the adeptness of a ten-year veteran-- or at least one who has had the time, experience and lack of other things to do to pore over the books and formulate exactly which spells are worth memorizing (because asking to rest and replenish isn't always a matter of you having burned off all your spells, it's often a matter of you burning off your most effective spells), which combination of them is going to work best in what conjunction, and at what point in any given fight they should just kick back and not cast anything in order to stretch those spells out over the course of the day?
Personally, I usually play warrior sorts, but I like trying out a different character once in a while, because I like creating something off the beaten path. And because of that, I don't always select the spells, skills or feats designed to get the maximized number crunch... so, no, I'm not always running the most effective caster in the world. And if someone in my game suggested that I was a horrible player or that my character was stupidly played because I didn't properly allocate my spells to extend them throughout a full day's usage... I'd probably ask them to unclench a little bit. I'd be joking about it, of course. But I'd be peeved that someone would demand I play my character to their liking, no matter what.
Maybe all that needs to happen is for us to put in limits on buff spells...
Since my explanation of the issue with high level buffs seems to have gotten lost...
Instead of limiting the number of buffs available, dig deeper and find the real issue: large numbers of buff spells are difficult to sort out, simply because of figuring out what stacks with what. If we instead streamline the spells themselves by rewriting them to make them interact with each other more simply, the problem would go away.
For example, let's take the Bard spell Good Hope and the Cleric spell Heroes' Feast. Both grant a bonus to hit. Sounds simple, right? Until someone points out that they're both morale bonuses, and so everybody's got to scratch off that +1 from Heroes' Feast and replace it with the +2 from Good Hope, when it'd be much easier to just add them both.
As another example, let's take the Bardic Music effect Inspire Courage, the Cleric spell Heroes' Feast, and the Wizard spell Heroism. All three provide morale bonuses to various values. It would be nice and simple if they all added up, but not only do we have to figure out that they don't stack with each other, but we have to figure out which pieces of each buff does stack! No wonder resolving buffs at high level takes so long!
The confusion begins as early as level 1, when Inspire Courage doesn't stack with Bless. That one gets a lot of players, and the issue is the same at high levels; it's just a whole lot more pronounced at higher levels.
We can fix it by spreading out the named bonuses among the classes, so that their typical buffs don't conflict with each other. Make the Morale bonus exclusive to the Bard, and make Sacred exclusive to the Cleric, for example. Then, take buff spells within a class that overlap each other and rename them as one spell chain. For example, look at Pathfinder Divine Favor and Pathfinder Divine Power. All Divine Power is is an improved version of Divine Favor, so why not keep things simple and rename it to Improved Divine Favor?
If these changes are made, it would be much easier to adjudicate all the various combinations of buffs. Instead of limiting the amount of buffs a being can have in place, instead rewrite the buffs themselves, so that they don't require so much brainwork to resolve.
All limiting the amount of buffs does is avoid the problem, not fix it. The problem is not the number of buffs; it's the difficulty involved with combining them.
-Matt
Instead of limiting the number of buffs available, dig deeper and find the real issue: large numbers of buff spells are difficult to sort out, simply because of figuring out what stacks with what. If we instead streamline the spells themselves by rewriting them to make them interact with each other more simply, the problem would go away.
I think there's some merit in this approach, but you have to admit that limiting buffs is less work and would be easier for people who don't like the rule to ignore.
Some spells could be simplified - for instance, what if Cat's Grace and Bull's Strength only applied to secondary and not primary characteristics? Cat's Grace would be +2 initiative, +2 Reflex, +2 AC. Bull's Strength is +2 melee to hit and damage. The spells do become weaker but easier to track without the secondary effects of two handed weapons, max dex bonus to AC, etc.
I'm agnostic as to explicitly chaining similar, non-stackable spells. You win some internal consistency at the cost of some increase to 3.x to Pathfinder conversion.
I don't think that trying to unify the bonuses for a class would work. For one thing, the sacred bonus is really poorly integrated into 3.x, and should really have a much larger trickle-down effect into magic items that just isn't there.
For another, there are spells shared between the same groups. Should you be able to get +8 strength if both the cleric and wizard cast bull's strength on you? Do the bonuses between a sorcerous cat's grace and haste stack?
Making a change like that would also affect all the splatbooks out there. It's easy to say "All cleric spells provide Sacred bonuses and none stack with each other but all stack with every arcane spell", but you're making a big change to whatever balance those spells have.
I am also more in favor of limiting buffs then reworking how each and every one works.
I think there's some merit in this approach, but you have to admit that limiting buffs is less work and would be easier for people who don't like the rule to ignore.
I do have to admit that it's less work, but by the same coin you have to admit that it's a cop-out solution. It covers up the problem by artificially returning everything to low-level-land rather than actually putting the work into fixing it.
As for classes sharing buffs... well, if it's the exact same buff, they definitely don't stack.
The thought behind delegating bonus types to certain classes stems from how weak the Bard is. Who needs Inspire Courage +2/+2 when a Sorcerer can cast Heroism on everyone? The morale bonuses provided by the other classes makes a Bard unnecessary.
-Matt
Cast Heroism multiple times out of multiple available times, or cast Inspire Courage once out of many available times? The Sorcerer is less efficient.
Edit to Jal and Argo: I regularly work with those who have poor social development and problem solving skills as well as those who have one or more mental deficiencies. You are preaching to the choir. I say 'stupid' because it is simplified layman's speak anyone can look at and get the idea without a long explanation. No, it's not exact. It's a compromise for conciseness and ease of reading. If I start throwing out technical terms, I'm going to confuse my audience. So I take my observations from analyzing people and things and put them in simple talk to relay my findings to others.
Dominating game play leads to other players not enjoying it which leads to said players losing interest and leaving. As the game requires a group, this means no game. Clearly we can see that this is self destructive behavior, and since you should always put yourself highest doing things that harm yourself can feasibly be referred to as stupid.
Managing spells does not require a superior level of expertise. At least not for basic competence. You need only realize when the enemies are clearly out of the fight, and hold back from this point on.
Example: You Color Spray 2 of 3 orcs. Is there really a reason to cast a spell on the third? Or better yet, cast on one of the two downed orcs? Why no, because the other guys can easily take it out, then anyone can finish off the other two. Even a Commoner with a Scythe. Hell, keep the Scythe yourself to save on hireling fees. This isn't rocket science.