I read the thread title as 'Time in ALFA-Spells', and the poll says 'Should we increase the duration of hour/level spells?'
Balance is a factor to consider, yes, but discussing cleric domains was not the main topic; my fault really.
Time in ALFA - Spells
Moderator: ALFA Administrators
-
Ithildur
- Dungeon Master
- Posts: 3548
- Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 7:46 am
- Location: Best pizza town in the universe
- Contact:
Re: Time in ALFA - Spells
Formerly: Aglaril Shaelara, Faerun's unlikeliest Bladesinger
Current main: Ky - something
It’s not the critic who counts...The credit belongs to the man who actually is in the arena, who strives violently, who errs and comes up short again and again...who if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement, but who if he fails, fails while daring greatly.-T. Roosevelt
Current main: Ky - something
It’s not the critic who counts...The credit belongs to the man who actually is in the arena, who strives violently, who errs and comes up short again and again...who if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement, but who if he fails, fails while daring greatly.-T. Roosevelt
Re: Time in ALFA - Spells
It was also mentioned as an afterthought/example... why pick on that?
(and really ... go to sleep! I shall have the last word!)
(and really ... go to sleep! I shall have the last word!)
<paazin>: internet relationships are really a great idea
-
Ithildur
- Dungeon Master
- Posts: 3548
- Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 7:46 am
- Location: Best pizza town in the universe
- Contact:
Re: Time in ALFA - Spells
I'm reading OOTS. I shall be up for a while it looks like.
And
And
Nice try though.I read the thread title as 'Time in ALFA-Spells', and the poll says 'Should we increase the duration of hour/level spells?'
Balance is a factor to consider, yes, but discussing cleric domains was not the main topic; my fault really.
Formerly: Aglaril Shaelara, Faerun's unlikeliest Bladesinger
Current main: Ky - something
It’s not the critic who counts...The credit belongs to the man who actually is in the arena, who strives violently, who errs and comes up short again and again...who if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement, but who if he fails, fails while daring greatly.-T. Roosevelt
Current main: Ky - something
It’s not the critic who counts...The credit belongs to the man who actually is in the arena, who strives violently, who errs and comes up short again and again...who if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement, but who if he fails, fails while daring greatly.-T. Roosevelt
Re: Time in ALFA - Spells
I'll catch you when i'll get back from school then... *Waves fist*
<paazin>: internet relationships are really a great idea
Re: Time in ALFA - Spells
Ten pages of a couple of people saying the same thing, over and over. Impressive.
-
Ithildur
- Dungeon Master
- Posts: 3548
- Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 7:46 am
- Location: Best pizza town in the universe
- Contact:
Re: Time in ALFA - Spells
I know... got totally baited. 
Understandable if someone called for a thread lock, I think it's served it's purpose by now anyway.
Understandable if someone called for a thread lock, I think it's served it's purpose by now anyway.Formerly: Aglaril Shaelara, Faerun's unlikeliest Bladesinger
Current main: Ky - something
It’s not the critic who counts...The credit belongs to the man who actually is in the arena, who strives violently, who errs and comes up short again and again...who if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement, but who if he fails, fails while daring greatly.-T. Roosevelt
Current main: Ky - something
It’s not the critic who counts...The credit belongs to the man who actually is in the arena, who strives violently, who errs and comes up short again and again...who if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement, but who if he fails, fails while daring greatly.-T. Roosevelt
Re: Time in ALFA - Spells
Well, let me try to take a step back and look at what is (supposedly) the core issue:
There is a conflict between buff durations and taking time to RP while in a dangerous area.
Proposed fix:
Increase the duration of hour/level spells, so that there's more time to rp.
Observation:
Majority of buffs, especially those that are actually useful/powerful are 10mins/level. Very few spells are hour/level. Many widely-useful buff spells apparently have been or are going to be moved to 10min/lvl category (energy resist/protect, (bark,spider,stone)skin)
Conclusion:
As long as the buffs that count are "medium-length" buffs, changing the hour/levels to last longer won't help much with RP. If we want to give time to RP we need to split spell durations: Short buffs that last an encounter, and long buffs that within an event essentially last until dispelled. The only way to make for RP is to make the necessary rebalances to split spells according to time in our PW reality, so that players don't have spells that might last another encounter if they rush it.
Secondary issue:
There is a problem of balance, with 10min/level buffs lasting longer or about as long as hour/level. 10min buffs are strategic when they are not intended to be.
Proposed fix:
Increase the duration of hour/level spells, so that hour/lvl spells last 1.4 times as long as 10min/lvl.
Conclusion:
If the lenghtened hour/lvl spells (14 RT minutes) are long enough to be considered strategic, and that players don't need to rush to encounters due to them running off, then 10 minutes/lvl pretty much also are.
With the latter it seems there's a discrepancy in styles/ideas of how the game "should be". For what it's worth, my idea of a "should be" dungeon crawl is that one takes the better part of a day. So if there's time to RP in between encounters (the party isn't rushed by enemies from all sides, but moves at its own pace from encounter to encounter), about an hour per encounter is "realistic" or "how it should be". That much time is taken in aftermath of a battle and searching for the next one in a hostile and unusual area. That means a 10mins/level buff "should" last maybe two such encounters at our high (~10) levels. If a cave, one area in our module, contains about 5 encounters and can be cleared, including quite some RP, in 30-60mins RT mins, then yeah...
All in all the "medium time" of 10 RL minutes appears something we just can't do in our PW. It falls square between the cracks of how we must do time abstraction. So remove it. Even OE in making NWN2 understood this and didn't have the essential spells as 10min/lvls to begin with. Turning our core buffs spells into that category in a slavish "adherence to pnp" is simply counterproductive and false. It's not hard to rebalance the 10min buffs between the min/lvl and hour/lvl slots well enough. We know which are the strong ones that would be useful even min/level (skins) and which are far more strategic (the energy protection line, which should be per one energy type and otherwise follow pnp). Tweak a little here and there to balace, and done. Time for RP.
There is a conflict between buff durations and taking time to RP while in a dangerous area.
Proposed fix:
Increase the duration of hour/level spells, so that there's more time to rp.
Observation:
Majority of buffs, especially those that are actually useful/powerful are 10mins/level. Very few spells are hour/level. Many widely-useful buff spells apparently have been or are going to be moved to 10min/lvl category (energy resist/protect, (bark,spider,stone)skin)
Conclusion:
As long as the buffs that count are "medium-length" buffs, changing the hour/levels to last longer won't help much with RP. If we want to give time to RP we need to split spell durations: Short buffs that last an encounter, and long buffs that within an event essentially last until dispelled. The only way to make for RP is to make the necessary rebalances to split spells according to time in our PW reality, so that players don't have spells that might last another encounter if they rush it.
Secondary issue:
There is a problem of balance, with 10min/level buffs lasting longer or about as long as hour/level. 10min buffs are strategic when they are not intended to be.
Proposed fix:
Increase the duration of hour/level spells, so that hour/lvl spells last 1.4 times as long as 10min/lvl.
Conclusion:
If the lenghtened hour/lvl spells (14 RT minutes) are long enough to be considered strategic, and that players don't need to rush to encounters due to them running off, then 10 minutes/lvl pretty much also are.
With the latter it seems there's a discrepancy in styles/ideas of how the game "should be". For what it's worth, my idea of a "should be" dungeon crawl is that one takes the better part of a day. So if there's time to RP in between encounters (the party isn't rushed by enemies from all sides, but moves at its own pace from encounter to encounter), about an hour per encounter is "realistic" or "how it should be". That much time is taken in aftermath of a battle and searching for the next one in a hostile and unusual area. That means a 10mins/level buff "should" last maybe two such encounters at our high (~10) levels. If a cave, one area in our module, contains about 5 encounters and can be cleared, including quite some RP, in 30-60mins RT mins, then yeah...
All in all the "medium time" of 10 RL minutes appears something we just can't do in our PW. It falls square between the cracks of how we must do time abstraction. So remove it. Even OE in making NWN2 understood this and didn't have the essential spells as 10min/lvls to begin with. Turning our core buffs spells into that category in a slavish "adherence to pnp" is simply counterproductive and false. It's not hard to rebalance the 10min buffs between the min/lvl and hour/lvl slots well enough. We know which are the strong ones that would be useful even min/level (skins) and which are far more strategic (the energy protection line, which should be per one energy type and otherwise follow pnp). Tweak a little here and there to balace, and done. Time for RP.