I do believe james's brought it up as an ideal. Not sure how I think it was along the lines of so many buffs per level like 2 +1 per 5 or something. I could be wrong
I think the buff limit was in regards to addressing high-level combat breaking down/taking hours to run.
One suggestion that I'd saved to my personal cache of potential house rules was as follows...
There is a limit to the number of buffing spells that can be concurrently applied to a creature. While characters no longer have the benefit of having every spell in the book active, neither do their enemies. Limits are as follows:
- 2 Short duration spells (minutes or rounds per level)
- 1 Medium duration spell (10 minutes or hours per level)
- 1 Long duration spell (daily or hours per level)
Special
- Creatures may have 1 additional buff active in addition to the above limits. This buff may belong to any one category, chosen at the time a new effect is cast.
- When a new buffing spell is cast, each creature who would be affected may opt to end an existing buff in favor of accepting the new one.
- Persistent effects, such as from a Paladin's aura or the consecrate effect on a permanent shrine, do not count against these limits.
- Magical effects that must be actively maintained, such as Bardic Music, do not count against this limit.
- A summoned creature counts as the creature's one additional buff and is not grouped with other categories. A spell that summons multiple creatures still counts as only a single buff.
- Short duration spells now last for an entire encounter.
- Dispel magic affects all spells of a single duration category (or a summoning spell) selected by the caster. If it succeeds, all spells of that category are dispelled.
I hope to see the death of x/rd and 1/min a level buffs
I've tried for a while to have my group test out a "buffing slot" idea. That is, create slots such as AC, ability score, saving throw, movement, etc. and only one bonus can be added from spell, magic item, or psionics, etc. No agreement on how to implement it so hasn't been done.
If Pathfinder introduces a max of 3 buffs, or some such, it'd be interesting to see how it affects tactics and play.
Creative Director
|
I think a buff limit is essential to the game, especially at high level. Limiting buffs makes it easier to handle dispel magic, for one, and it limits the amount of time each high-level game is spent wading through giant lists of prep spells, and it makes it FAR easier to track effects on your character. No more hunting for +1s when the GM says "Your attack misses." With 3 or 4 buff effects max, you look at your list of 3 or 4 lines and pow. Easy mode.
I kind of liked the three long term buff limits, we typically let you have as many short term (i.e. 1 rd/level) buffs you wanted, as they were usually cast in combat at our table.
We used the three-buff limit in several games a year or so ago and since then I've not gone a week without creeping up behind Jason and chanting, "BUFF LIMITS BUFF LIMITS BUFF LIMITS."
It really is creepy. I, like James said, I too believe it necessary for high levels.
buff limits are fine but please kill the 1/rd buffs they slow the game and shorting the time ya hve to use em more then help. hour/10 min a level works much better
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I agree with the general idea here. Makes a lot of sense, and simplifies the "type juggling" to a great extend. Also, gets rid of the nasty "Ah, its only a level 1 spell, but unlike most other buffs, it gives you bonus type X, so you always should carry a few wands of that".
All in all, i LIKE. Keep the 1 rd / level buffs around, though - they usually translate pretty well into "1 encounter" buffs anyway.
I really like the idea of a buff limit. I have gotten some mixed feelings about it from around the table, but I think it is an essential part of helping to expedite high level play. We are currently playing with this variant but it has yet to be an issue for the party at ninth level.
|
I think a buff limit is essential to the game, especially at high level. Limiting buffs makes it easier to handle dispel magic, for one, and it limits the amount of time each high-level game is spent wading through giant lists of prep spells, and it makes it FAR easier to track effects on your character. No more hunting for +1s when the GM says "Your attack misses." With 3 or 4 buff effects max, you look at your list of 3 or 4 lines and pow. Easy mode.
I can't agree with this more, and on a side note:
I would take the same approach with the way weapons are created/ and or have stacked abilities (all wilily nilly). No more +1 sword with flaming, shock, cold, wounding, etc, etc on and on. I have always had a problem with the unlimited stacking which is 3.5. Don't get me wrong I love the modular aspect, but c'mon there should be limits to work with. Limited buffs, no more damage multipliers (take only the highest one). Fixing some of these concepts will eliminate any number of headaches and idiotic broken character builds and make higher level play a little more feasible.
(side note off)
Easy mode.
A little too easy and simplified, if you ask me. I dearly hope such a concept does not become the rule.
-If Matt wanted Easy Mode, he wouldn't be here. He'd be playing 4E.
I do want the 1/rd buffs changed back or to 10 min or 1/ level. Shorted buffs was the worse 3.5 thing ever
|
Contributor
|
Personally, I think a better fix would be to make more buffs "end of the chain" buffs. What I mean is things like Cat's Grace should give a bonus to Dex checks and Dex skill checks, not to Dex. Same with all of the ability enhancers. That way, you don't have to recalculate so many things when the buffs change. This would also get rid of the problem of Int buffs and extra skill points and bonus spells, Con buffs and extra hp. Let alone when you have characters whose permanent buffs are all that lets them qualify for feat or PrC requirements. There are still lots of extra buffs out there that give bonus hp, bonus to AC etc.
Likewise I think ability damage and similar effects should be reworked as end of the chain penalties.
|
|
One thing that might make for less buffs, while still retaining the concept of buffs would be to;
1) Make less buffs that stack with each other (none of this 'this adds a morale bonus,' 'this adds a luck bonus,' 'this adds a sacred/profane bonus,' 'this adds an enhancement bonus,' etc. nonsense, allowing for a half-dozen different spells to modify the same trait)
and
2) Make better higher level buffs that completely replace lower level buffs (instead of casting divine favor, righteous might, bull's strength and protection from energy (fire), just cast 'Divine Infusion' or whatever as a 6th level spell that includes all that stuff (and doesn't stack with the lower level versions, which *don't* scale, and quickly become redundant at higher levels, discouraging the use of spells like Divine Favor or Barkskin or Bull's Strength at high level).
On another note, either buffs should take a decent amount of time to cast (like, minutes) and last all day long *or* they should cast as swift actions and last only for a single round (fervent surge!) *or* they should cast as a standard action and last for a minute or so (one combat). Those are the three options I prefer.
a) All day, long casting means that the buffed character only needs to adjust his stats once.
b) Swift cast, 1 round duration means that he only needs to remember those buffed stats for a single round / attack sequence, and not keep track of it in other rounds.
c) One combat, standard action cast means that the buffed character won't be saying, 'one more fight, quick open that door, before my Bull's Strength wears off!'
I don't care what 4E does or doesn't do. A good playable idea is a good playable idea, whether it comes from WotC, Jason Buhlman, Monte Cook, White Wolf or the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
|
Personally, I think a better fix would be to make more buffs "end of the chain" buffs. What I mean is things like Cat's Grace should give a bonus to Dex checks and Dex skill checks, not to Dex. Same with all of the ability enhancers. That way, you don't have to recalculate so many things when the buffs change. This would also get rid of the problem of Int buffs and extra skill points and bonus spells, Con buffs and extra hp. Let alone when you have characters whose permanent buffs are all that lets them qualify for feat or PrC requirements. There are still lots of extra buffs out there that give bonus hp, bonus to AC etc.
Likewise I think ability damage and similar effects should be reworked as end of the chain penalties.
Great idea.
|
|
I'm a bit uneasy about a hard 3-buff limit, to be honest. I wouldn't mind it as an option except for that the game will presumably get balanced on these assumptions.
What if it could be tiered by game level, similar to beginning character stats? Low-level games limit to 3 buffs, mid-level 5, high level 7 or higher (etc). Or just set a default level and add a sidebar to explain how changing the level will impact your game, especially at higher levels.
Buff miscibility tables.
Chris, I like the way you think.
|
|
What if it could be tiered by game level, similar to beginning character stats? Low-level games limit to 3 buffs, mid-level 5, high level 7 or higher (etc). Or just set a default level and add a sidebar to explain how changing the level will impact your game, especially at higher levels.
It seems to me that the purpose of this limit is that it will have most bite at higher levels and that three is the number for those levels. At lower levels, it's going to be a lot harder to assemble the buffs to test the limit.
It seems to me that the purpose of this limit is that it will have most bite at higher levels and that three is the number for those levels. At lower levels, it's going to be a lot harder to assemble the buffs to test the limit.
Pretty much. The purpose is two-fold basically:
1)- It keeps high-level combat from taking forever and a day to resolve a single fight.
2)- It somewhat straightens the exponential power curve so that high-level play isn't as "swingy".
Note that the Fractional and Like-Stacking BAB/Save progressions [for multiclass characters] also factors into goal #2.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
If any sort of rules along these lines do make it in to the final version of PRPG I would want to make sure that they address buffs on items (so that GMW and Magic Vestment, keen edge, etc. don't count against the buff limit on the character.)
Also, it would be neat to have a feat that would allow an increase to the number of buffs allowed on that character. (Though I admit that this would reduce the game speeding aspects of the rule in the first place.)
|
|
Pretty much. The purpose is two-fold basically:1)- It keeps high-level combat from taking forever and a day to resolve a single fight.
2)- It somewhat straightens the exponential power curve so that high-level play isn't as "swingy".
Note that the Fractional and Like-Stacking BAB/Save progressions [for multiclass characters] also factors into goal #2.
It seems to me that it will achieve the goal of reducing swingyness by ensuring that the party get mashed (as not all the enemies are reliant on buffs and, as has been pointed out, they start with better ability scores in the first place so arguably need them less). Of course, we can always adjust CRs, etc, but that means that a lot of previous modules could become TPKs...
|
|
As for the game-speeding-up issue, that was a big part, if I recall, of the reasoning behind the Power Attack nerf (which I hate, and I can't believe people are going to stick with it). On reflection, this 3-buff limit is probably the other change that has Paizo-staff support that I really don't like.
|
|
I agree with the general idea here. Makes a lot of sense, and simplifies the "type juggling" to a great extend. Also, gets rid of the nasty "Ah, its only a level 1 spell, but unlike most other buffs, it gives you bonus type X, so you always should carry a few wands of that".
All in all, i LIKE. Keep the 1 rd / level buffs around, though - they usually translate pretty well into "1 encounter" buffs anyway.
Agreed 110%.
|
|
It seems to me that the purpose of this limit is that it will have most bite at higher levels and that three is the number for those levels. At lower levels, it's going to be a lot harder to assemble the buffs to test the limit.
What if it could be tiered by game level, similar to beginning character stats? Low-level games limit to 3 buffs, mid-level 5, high level 7 or higher (etc). Or just set a default level and add a sidebar to explain how changing the level will impact your game, especially at higher levels.
Sorry, what I meant by "low-level" was for games where you'd use the "Low Fantasy" point value for building characters, the total number of buffs would be 3 regardless of character level; for the "Standard Fantasy" point limit, the buff limit would be slightly higher, and so on for "High Fantasy" and "Epic Fantasy" levels of play. Assuming you'd be using that or something similar, of course ;)
Another major problem with buff limits is that the buffs themselves aren't balanced with a buff limit in mind.
The real solution here is to tweak the buffs themselves so that it's easier to resolve them all. If not, you'll be locked into rebalancing the buffs to make them function under a buff limit anyways, so why not just go all the way and fix the buffs themselves?
-Matt
Easy mode.A little too easy and simplified, if you ask me. I dearly hope such a concept does not become the rule.
-If Matt wanted Easy Mode, he wouldn't be here. He'd be playing 4E.
This is my perspective as well.
Also - Buff limits would make the Bard class either as vital as a Cleric, or completely useless. If you have a Bard, that's all you need for Buffs from three songs and/or area spells. But if anyone else has their own buffs, pretty much destroys their usefulness.
I also foresee a large number of "gray areas" that would need to be spelled out in excrutiating detail, and which might never be resolved. If I wear a +1 chain shirt, is that a "buff" because of the enhancement bonus? OK, what about a chain shirt with a magic vestment spell on it? Mage armor is an obvious buff. What about bracers of armor? A cloak of resistance vs. a superior resistance spell? If magic items don't count, then doesn't that simply have the net effect of massively promoting "Christmas tree syndrome," as everyone makes sure their buffs are due to items instead of spells?
Do buffs that affect items in my possession count as buffs on me? Which ones? Does a spell increasing the hardness of my sword count as a buff for the sword, but not me -- but a magic vestment on my armor counts as a buff on me, but not the armor? What about spells that buff my familiar -- do they count against me, or against the familiar? If the latter, can I cast something on the familiar, tally it against the familiar's buffs, and then claim the benefit due to the share spells ability? If not, do the familiar's shared spells count against the familiar's total buffs? Do the familiar's increases to HD, Int, etc. due to its association with me count as buffs? Why not, if they're magical in nature?
I could go on for six more paragraphs. All of these issues could easily be resolved, but they'd all need to be spelled out as well, or the game will grind to a halt as people debate them.
|
|
I think the *idea* of a buff limit is great. Our game has watched a cleric cast enlarge person, divine power, magic weapon, magic vestment, and more on himself.
I think, in application, the easiest way to limit these buffs is make them all bonuses of the same type, organized by class. That way, people can't have as many buffs on them.
Make all clerical buffs a holy bonus
Make all sorcerer/wizard buffs an enhancement bonus
Make all bard buffs a morale bonus
Or, more radically, change the buffs to all be one type of bonus. Problem solved?
Make all clerical buffs a holy bonus
Make all sorcerer/wizard buffs an enhancement bonus
The problem there is that I can buff my Str by +8 at low levels by simply stacking the enhancement bonus from the wizard's bull's strength with the sacred/holy bonus from the cleric's bull's strength. I can see situations in which this gets out of hand, especially if bards get the same spell on their list. "My 5th level barbarian has a 32 Str: 18, +4 each from 3 spells, and +4 for raging!"
Making them all the same type would work, but it might work too well, by ruining things like shield of faith (which implies in turn that a ring of protection should not work in conjunction with magic armor, nor with a mage armor spell). That's good for a lower-fantasy campaign, but doesn't really fit the D&D tradition.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
One thing that might make for less buffs, while still retaining the concept of buffs would be to;
1) Make less buffs that stack with each other (none of this 'this adds a morale bonus,' 'this adds a luck bonus,' 'this adds a sacred/profane bonus,' 'this adds an enhancement bonus,' etc. nonsense, allowing for a half-dozen different spells to modify the same trait)
and
I could get behind this. Things just give a BONUS, and whatever bonuses are available to you, you just use the highest one. Nothing stacks with anything.
2) Make better higher level buffs that completely replace lower level buffs (instead of casting divine favor, righteous might, bull's strength and protection from energy (fire), just cast 'Divine Infusion' or whatever as a 6th level spell that includes all that stuff (and doesn't stack with the lower level versions, which *don't* scale, and quickly become redundant at higher levels, discouraging the use of spells like Divine Favor or Barkskin or Bull's Strength at high level).
Now here I disagree, because otherwise at high levels there rapidly comes a point where you NEVER use your lower level spell slots if buff-type magics are disallowed. If that's the case, why bother even having the lower-level slots at all. Just have a certain number of slots per day, and they all use whatever your highest-level powers are.
This actually is something of the reasoning behind the psion's PP system - you are usually using all of your PP to cast the highest-level version of your scaling powers. The same power you took at first level you are using at 15th level, but spending 15 PP on an upcharged version of it, not 1 PP on a basic version. You COULD cast it as a basic for 1 PP if you wanted, but most often you wouldn't be.
On another note, either buffs should take a decent amount of time to cast (like, minutes) and last all day long *or* they should cast as swift actions and last only for a single round (fervent surge!) *or* they should cast as a standard action and last for a minute or so (one combat). Those are the three options I prefer.
This idea I kinda like. Everything is either: "all day" or "one minute (effectively, one encounter)" or "one round." I actually could very much get with this concept.
1) Make less buffs that stack with each other (none of this 'this adds a morale bonus,' 'this adds a luck bonus,' 'this adds a sacred/profane bonus,' 'this adds an enhancement bonus,' etc. nonsense, allowing for a half-dozen different spells to modify the same trait)
Maybe it could all be solved if buff spells had a logical level construction. For example, as a baseline, a +1 bonus/4 levels to 1 thing for 1 round/level = 1st level spell.
So a spell giving you a standard morale bonus to saves for 1 hr./lvl might be a 9th level spell.
The numbers could obviously be tweaked, but it least the limitations would be "built-in."
A system like this would address both the bonus types concern and the "per day" vs. "per encounter" suggestions.
wrote some stuff...It should be noted that my desire for buff limits is in large part due to the formidable powers of Jason Nelson at my game table.
That, and my growing hatred of the solid fog + blade barrier combo, of course... :-)
Maybe there should be a limit on how many AoE spells can be in effect in a given location. Last I heard solid fog and blade barrier were not buffs :)
I have little to add about the max buffs suggestion because I don't play high level much.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I also foresee a large number of "gray areas" that would need to be spelled out in excrutiating detail, and which might never be resolved. If I wear a +1 chain shirt, is that a "buff" because of the enhancement bonus? OK, what about a chain shirt with a magic vestment spell on it? Mage armor is an obvious buff. What about bracers of armor? A cloak of resistance vs. a superior resistance spell? If magic items don't count, then doesn't that simply have the net effect of massively promoting "Christmas tree syndrome," as everyone makes sure their buffs are due to items instead of spells?
Do buffs that affect items in my possession count as buffs on me? Which ones? Does a spell increasing the hardness of my sword count as a buff for the sword, but not me -- but a magic vestment on my armor counts as a buff on me, but not the armor? What about spells that buff my familiar -- do they count against me, or against the familiar? If the latter, can I cast something on the familiar, tally it against the familiar's buffs, and then claim the benefit due to the share spells ability? If not, do the familiar's shared spells count against the familiar's total buffs? Do the familiar's increases to HD, Int, etc. due to its association with me count as buffs? Why not, if they're magical in nature?
I could go on for six more paragraphs. All of these issues could easily be resolved, but they'd all need to be spelled out as well, or the game will grind to a halt as people debate them.
The issue that I was thinking about is the simplest of all questions:
What is a buff spell?
Does it have to be person-affecting, like bull's strength? That's the most obvious kind of buff spell and easy enough. You could safely include multi-target spells like heroes' feast or a bard's inspire greatness ability in there. Something like fire shield doesn't feel exactly like a buff, but I guess we could put it in there, especially if we are counting resist energy/protection from energy as buff spells.
But is an area-effect spell like bless, prayer, magic circle vs. evil, or a bard's inspire courage or a paladin's aura of courage a buff? Would a paladin's aura count against his buff limit or those of allies nearby?
What about a spell that grants an ability that is not specifically a combat bonus but may be very relevant to combat or gameplay. F'rex, is darkvision a buff? How about see invisibility? What about status or telepathic bond? Water breathing? Foresight? Moment of prescience? Endure elements?
Also, what about movement spells? Are jump, spider climb, levitate, fly, expeditious retreat, longstrider, water walk, air walk buffs? What about movement spells that also have combat-specific effects, like haste and freedom of movement?
To get really nutty, what about contingency and permanency? Those would seem logical to exclude from any buff limit.
The basic concept I don't have a big problem with - a limit on buffification. I think, though, that it is a super-big can of worms and requires a very clear rule (and perhaps even a specific descriptor added to the spells), with a very clear guideline as to what spells count as "buffs" from non-PF/SRD sources.
I'd propose the following rule: THE RULE OF THREE
I intentionally did not include the following categories as buffs:
1. Spells which grant bonuses to skills, in part cuz I'm all about enabling skill use.
2. Spells which grant unusual senses, perceptions, or detections.
3. Spells which enable movement (although haste and freedom of movement do count as buffs because they grants one or more of the above-listed benefits) or environmental survival (e.g., endure elements, water breathing).
I intentionally DID include spells you cast on your items, because I think the whole GMW/GMF/MVest on your magic weapon is kind of a chump move. Yes, it's perfectly legal and logical, but it's too good and simple of an answer in my book. I'd like to get back to a day in D&D when a +5 sword was actually something COOL, not a hunk of inefficient dreck. Of course, with the hit point explosion from 1st Ed to 3rd that might require a little rejiggering of what magic items do, but that's a point for the magic item playtest discussion.
Thoughts?
Personally, I think a better fix would be to make more buffs "end of the chain" buffs. What I mean is things like Cat's Grace should give a bonus to Dex checks and Dex skill checks, not to Dex. Same with all of the ability enhancers. That way, you don't have to recalculate so many things when the buffs change. This would also get rid of the problem of Int buffs and extra skill points and bonus spells, Con buffs and extra hp. Let alone when you have characters whose permanent buffs are all that lets them qualify for feat or PrC requirements. There are still lots of extra buffs out there that give bonus hp, bonus to AC etc.
Likewise I think ability damage and similar effects should be reworked as end of the chain penalties.
Purely as a gut reaction, I like this idea.
One of the suggestions bandied about at my table was to exclude "all day long" buffs from this limit. Spells like Hero's Feast, Magic Vestment, etc., for instance, would be excluded. I am sure there's an equally effective argument against this but it sort of works in my mind as these longer duration buffs tend to be a horse of a different color.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
wrote some stuff...It should be noted that my desire for buff limits is in large part due to the formidable powers of Jason Nelson at my game table.
Aw, you're just sore cuz my ring of counterspells blocked your nalfeshnee's attempt to dispel my 15 different spells I had going. Not all of which I even cast, mind you. I had help from other party members... :)
That, and my growing hatred of the solid fog + blade barrier combo, of course... :-)
You say that like it's a bad thing!
Besides, you only have one session left to enjoy it before the Savage Tide is ended! (assuming we live, that is)
P.S. You forgot time stop + solid fog + multiple interlocking blade barriers... (ducks)
The Rule of Three
Ehhh... what we're establishing here is that capping the number of buffs on a creature isn't the answer, because even any rules regarding the cap would be long and drawn-out, and subject to tons of arguments later. It also nerfs lots of low-level spells because they get overshadowed by the buffs straight spellcasters provide.
Either you've gotta rewrite and rebalance the buffs assuming a buff limit, or you can just solve the problem; go ahead and rewrite the buffs to make multiples easier to resolve and not impose artificial 4E-style limits ("what do you mean I can't use more than one magic item a day?") on the game.
-Matt
Jason, your rule also means that Arcane Strike, for example, just became a lot less valuable, because using it would dispel one of your buffs. And, like I said, permanent "always on" items will inevitably proliferate to fill the gaps anyway, until everyone is a walking holiday display. Simply shifting buffs from spells to items doesn't really do it for me.
Matt, I agree with you that fixing the "offending" buffs avoids a lot of the weird arguments, corner-cases, and general headache that an artifical limit imposes. See my post above, regarding consistent buffing spell level determination, and you'll see we're on the same track.
|
|
The Rule of ThreeEhhh... what we're establishing here is that capping the number of buffs on a creature isn't the answer, because even any rules regarding the cap would be long and drawn-out, and subject to tons of arguments later. It also nerfs lots of low-level spells because they get overshadowed by the buffs straight spellcasters provide.
Either you've gotta rewrite and rebalance the buffs assuming a buff limit, or you can just solve the problem; go ahead and rewrite the buffs to make multiples easier to resolve and not impose artificial 4E-style limits ("what do you mean I can't use more than one magic item a day?") on the game.
-Matt
What he said. A 'rule of three' smacks of contrivance. I don't mind arbitrary balance stuff with a rationale (no more than one trap spell on an item, trying to shove Sepia Snake Sigil, Flame Trap and Glyph of Warding on one item causes spells to go wonky and fail!), but a 'only three buffs' rule starts running into all sorts of strange corner cases when some casts Bless or something. (Do other spells start failing? Does the Bless just not affect certain people? Does the Cleric get a refund if his Bless bounces off because the Bard started singing that round and negated his spell?)
Dump stat enhancers for end-effect spells (+4 to Str checks, +2 to attack and damage rolls instead of +4 Str), and radically reduce the number of different stackable types of bonus, so that one has no reason at all to have more than the *best* buffs on, instead of a half-dozen lower level spells that have scaled up.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
The Rule of ThreeEhhh... what we're establishing here is that capping the number of buffs on a creature isn't the answer, because even any rules regarding the cap would be long and drawn-out,
Long and drawn out? Oh come on, the above would take up about 2/3 of one column on one page. Rewriting every spell to include the qualifiers for every spell would take vastly longer.
and subject to tons of arguments later.
Well, you can't legislate against argument, but the list is quite specific. Look at the ability (spell, Sp, or Su) and answer the question: Does it give a benefit on the list? If it does, and the effect is not a permanent (Su)/magic item effect, then Ro3 applies.
If not, then it doesn't. No argument.
It also nerfs lots of low-level spells because they get overshadowed by the buffs straight spellcasters provide.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, since it's usually the straight spellcasters who are casting the low-level spells. Do you mean the buffs that "higher level spells" provide? If so, I don't see that as a bad thing, although you have to think about specific applications of effect. Heroes' feast is a great buffing effect that does lots of good things, but there are situations where other lower-level effects will be more useful for what you are doing.
Either you've gotta rewrite and rebalance the buffs assuming a buff limit, or you can just solve the problem; go ahead and rewrite the buffs to make multiples easier to resolve and not impose artificial 4E-style limits ("what do you mean I can't use more than one magic item a day?") on the game.
-Matt
Oh, I don't object to this solution either - fix the spells.
It just seems that having one simple rule that applies to ALL spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities would help a great deal more for two reasons:
1. It takes up a lot less space than detailing the stackability of every effect in the game; and,
2. Perhaps more importantly, since PF has this backwards compatibility goal, the hope is that people will be able to use their bookshelf full of 3.5 books. Paizo can't rewrite all of those buffs, so they have to have some way to suggest how to arbitrate effects from outside of the PF core.
Number 2 above is the biggest reason I would strongly push for a central rule addressing buffs IN ADDITION TO fixes of the SRD/OGL buffs within PF, because fixing the "inside PF" buffs does nothing when one of your players wants to whip out the Spell Compendium, Player's Guide to Faerun, Magic of Eberron, Sandstorm, Frostburn, Libris Mortis, Fiendish Codex, or whatever other book you like and the DM has to then make a spot decision on how to deal with it.
To live up to its ideals, PF has the burden of not only rejiggering the core rules of SRD/OGL but also establishing gatekeeper rules about how DMs should deal with the rest of their 3.5 library.
Please do not add into PRPG any "core rule" that mandates a limit on the buffs PC's have cast upon them. If DM feels it's necessary they can make such a rule, or have it an option in the DMG or something.. But PLEASE not a base rule.
Not everyone believes such a rule is necessary.
-S
Not everyone believes such a rule is necessary.
And some feel it's actually couterproductive. I was glad, when superior resistance became available, that people could start spending their gp from all those cloaks of resistance on something fun instead. I don't want to go back to everyone being bedecked in stat-bonus items, which is exactly what happens when a limit is placed solely on buff spells. Do you have any idea how many sets of bracers of armor the introduction of greater mage armor allowed us to get rid of? People finally have Quall's feather tokens and horns of the tritons and things.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Not everyone believes such a rule is necessary.And some feel it's actually couterproductive. I was glad, when superior resistance became available, that people could start spending their gp from all those cloaks of resistance on something fun instead. I don't want to go back to everyone being bedecked in stat-bonus items, which is exactly what happens when a limit is placed solely on buff spells.
I'd beg to differ, in that in my experience of 3rd Ed everyone is pretty much ALWAYS bedecked in stat-bonus items, with or without a limit on buff spells. I actually liked the change from 3.0 to 3.5 stat-boost spells from hours per level to minutes per level. Why bother with a magic item when you can do the same thing with a 2nd level spell?
I also don't quite see the aesthetic superiority of "everyone being bedecked in stat-bonus spells" over "everyone being bedecked in stat-bonus items."
Do you have any idea how many sets of bracers of armor the introduction of greater mage armor allowed us to get rid of? People finally have Quall's feather tokens and horns of the tritons and things.
But now they don't have access to their spell slots and things. Do you have any idea how many spell slots were freed up by the introduction of all-day-long stat-boosting items? Spellcasters were no longer enslaved to be the party's economical buffbot. They could actually cast fun and interesting spells of their own choice. PCs who wanted long-term buffs could buy them and the casters were free to use their class abilities as they saw fit (just like other characters being able to heal themselves or clerics having healing outside of spells frees up clerics to be more than just a healbot).
This isn't just a theoretical concern, either. My beguiler PC in STAP could use up most or all of his 8th level spell slots casting mind blank on everyone in the party and 4th level casting freedom of movement (and more buff spells, but we'll just talk about those two for the moment). That would be a very efficient and effective use of party resources, preventing people from having to buy 40K rings of FoM and 90K amulets of MB. But, he's a spellcaster, and every spell he spends on buffing other people in the party is one less spell he can use for other things he might want to do.
The "freedom" concept cuts both ways.
Also, as a side note I don't think the problem is with the concept of spells replacing identical items and people using the resources to do other stuff. The problem is with spells that replace identical items AND can then stack with other spells that do more or less the same thing, so you have spells AND items. Or you stack superior resistance (resist) with [/i]mass conviction[/i] (morale) and prayer (luck) plus whatever item it is that I can't remember the name of right now that gives you (competence) bonus to saves.
Here's the thing:
I'm not 100% sold on the buff-limit rule, though I can see the point of it. What I wrote above was what I figured was a pretty representative example of how a rule could look if we did want to institute it, and it seems that a number of the Paizo folks are strongly inclined that way.
BTW, with ref to your "Arcane Strike" question, I suppose you could make a specific exclusion for the effects of feats if you like, but I wonder, can you think of any other feats that give you a spell, spell-like, or supernatural buffing effect? I'm just wondering whether the solution there, if it turns out to be a lone outlier, would be a simple change to Arcane Strike rather than a revision of the hard rule.