Poll: The Seven Minute Hour

[Audark]

We don't need another poll, this one did its job: there is a desire for change.

Not necessarily, especially with all those who wanted it changed a small amount they may prefer it to remain the same than change a large amount. A vote for one kind of change does not at all mean a preference for any kind of change.

As far as I am concerned there needs to be clarification on which implementation, if any, is acceptable to the admin, and then a simple vote of in favour or against. Anything less is ambiguous.

[I-KP]

We don't need another poll, this one did its job: there is a desire for change.

Not necessarily, especially with all those who wanted it changed a small amount they may prefer it to remain the same than change a large amount. A vote for one kind of change does not at all mean a preference for any kind of change.

The object of the exercise was to see if people want it to change; the majority do. Job done. Big tick. Have a banana. What we don't need is another 'do you want it to change?' Poll because we already have that result: most don't like the seven minute hour (for whatever reason). What we need now is a simple 'change it to what?' poll, overseen by the admins who know what can and cannot be done, as per this...

As far as I am concerned there needs to be clarification on which implementation, if any, is acceptable to the admin, and then a simple vote of in favour or against. Anything less is ambiguous.

[Audark]

Carry on then, I simply do not believe a four answer poll proves anything definitively.

I would like to see a majority in favour of whatever implementation is chosen. As far as I am concerned anything less than a two choice, for or against poll, for whatever implementation is chosen, does not fairly illustrate the will of those voting without allowing for interpretation.

I don't care if we decide to change, I care about people interpreting a poll this way or that way and calling it truth.

[I-KP]

Agreed, and no-one was looking to this poll to prove anything definitively - no-one said that it should - but it was a necessary first step in my view. A simple For or Against poll has the power to prove something but this has been called for several times throughout the life of this thread thus far to no avail.

[kid]

I think we have two issues.

one is the Buff issue and the other is the RP issue.

RPly I have no problem with the current situation but would not mind a change.

Spell wise I do have a problem.
a. it cannot be argued that spellcaster are not allready OP in ALFA
b.I cannot see how making longer spell lenght
(even with rest every 24 hours)
would not make them even stronger.

thus changing spell length seems like a bad idea imho

[Blindhamsterman]

it cannot be argued that spellcaster are not allready OP in ALFA

clear evidence of this? Whats the exact reasoning? Hour/level buffs tend to be the less good buffs in wizard lists at least. I wont speak of clerics as i've little experience actually playing one.

But, if your worry is over AC buffs, The only AC buff for arcane casters this'd affect are mage armour and improved mage armour. and even if say, my character used those and ICE, he'd still have less AC than yours (by rather a lot). He could use 10min/level spell to get a bit closer, but then, he gets one of those a day and with days longer, suddenly thats less useful! He could also use a minute/level spell to equal say.... slates AC. But again, that lasts for essentially no time.

Which buffs thatd actually be affected are you worried about exactly? All other spells actually get worse as their durations are no different from current but they'll not get renewed so often. I can totally understand if there are specific spells that you feel really tip the balance. But hour/level spells are generally designed to last an entire adventure, or close to it. Again I note, all spells except hour/level spells actually become less powerful as casters will get to cast them less often.

one minor note on clerics, itd make them less awesome too because suddenly their healing would need to be used a bit more sparingly

[Ronan]

Spell wise I do have a problem.
a. it cannot be argued that spellcaster are not allready OP in ALFA
b.I cannot see how making longer spell lenght
(even with rest every 24 hours)
would not make them even stronger.

In the long-term it makes spellcasters weaker.

At 7:1 time compression, a wiz7 can have buffs up the following % of the day:
min/cl: 3.4%
10 min/cl: 34%
hour/cl: 29.2%

At 3:1:
min/cl: 1.46%
10 min/cl: 14.6%
hour/cl: 29.2%

etc.

In a situation where resting is restricted by RL and not game time, the lesser time compression helps. However I'm almost always restricted by game time, because you can't just have a character rest in comic book time unless a DM is on.

Though I'd agree with BHM, I don't see casters as being more powerful. They're stronger in single encounters but grow weaker as the number of encounters increases. Honestly when I made my current PC I didn't realize we were on 24-hour resting cycles vs. 8 in NWN1. Had I known that I definitely wouldn't have made a primary caster.

[rorax]

it cannot be argued that spellcaster are not allready OP in ALFA

But, if your worry is over AC buffs, The only AC buff for arcane casters this'd affect are mage armour and improved mage armour. and even if say, my character used those and ICE, he'd still have less AC than yours (by rather a lot). He could use 10min/level spell to get a bit closer, but then, he gets one of those a day and with days longer, suddenly thats less useful! He could also use a minute/level spell to equal say.... slates AC. But again, that lasts for essentially no time.

You just wrote perfectly well why i am against the change.

You want a wizard character to be equivalent(in terms of AC) to a defensive fighter character who has almost nothing besides his defensive(and passive) abilities, only the wizard would have his full array of powerful spells as well?

I do not.


What kind of spells i am worried about...

Mage armor, Improved mage armor, stone skin. greater stone skin, protection from alignment, protection from missiles, resistance spells to their kinds and there are more...(those only of wizards, and out of the sleeve...)

I don't want 11th levels wizards to walk around constantly buffed with 20DR, missiles and energy immunities, bonuses to saving throws and AC from protection and armor spells.

That would be WAY unbalanced in general, and in CvC specifically.

Even if you make the 1:1 scale, and casters could memorize spells less often, casters could still log every second day(assume the actually wasted their entire spells before) and be unstoppable when they choose to.


Casters, specially as they go up on levels become more powerful, it's pretty much common knowledge that wizards, clerics and druids are on the top of the list.

The gap is even bigger in low magic campaigns like ALFA.

If someone has hard time accepting that casters are the strongest classes in D&D settings , he is welcome to google "strongest class in D&D" and see what the rest of the world think about this subject.


Now , if someone want a change for RP sake , i think it's debatable and legitimate claim.

If someone want a change just so buffs would last longer then...

[Blindhamsterman]

yeah we need to fix stoneskins... they're meant to be 10min/level

[Brokenbone]

yeah we need to fix stoneskins... they're meant to be 10min/level

On the surface it sounds like a nerf, but in bizarro world 10 mins/lvl is significantly longer than 1hr/lvl in RL time. LOL.

[Blindhamsterman]

True enough! if time stays as is, keep stoneskin as is, if time switches to longer time per IC hour, then switch stoneskin. *nod nod*

[kid]

FIne.

Lets make Rests last 8 hours then?
if we do that I agree that spells casters would be weaker
as they would only have one set of spells per log.
I would have no problem with ever lasting buffs

[Ronan]

You want a wizard character to be equivalent(in terms of AC) to a defensive fighter character who has almost nothing besides his defensive(and passive) abilities, only the wizard would have his full array of powerful spells as well?

Meh, hand-waving.

A ftr7 with +1 gear has an AC of 26, or 29/32 with CE/ICE. Add two more for tower shields.

A wiz7 with 14 dex, +1 AC gear, 10 min/level and hour/level buffs active has an AC of 21 (10 base + 2 dex + 3 spiderskin + 6 improved mage armor).

The ftr has twice the hitpoints. With stoneskin the mage has more melee hitpoints, true, to which I say: fix stoneskin. Its overpowered. 3.5 gives it a component cost for a reason.

So if a ftr7 (+12 AB) is fighting the above two characters, the wiz would get hit 71% more often, and (without stoneskin) die 143% more quickly. If the ftr used ICE those numbers would change to getting hit 12x as much and dying 24x as fast. Of course the mage could cast shield and drop these figures to 8x and 16x.

Also, Spiderskin is not a core spell. Its one of the only things my PC's build has going for it so I'd rather not see it removed, but whatever.

Protection from Energy should also be 10 min/level.

That said I don't want the time compression changed. Doing so would make me sit around a lot more waiting to rest and regain spells. Characters who inflict most of their damage from spells would be murdered if they could only regain spells once per RL day. What if you only get to play once a week? A wizzy would be able to go adventuring once. A low-level wizzie could easily be limited to a single encounter.

I personally have no problem with PCs resting up in comic book time, provided they don't do so in the wilds Rest triggers could allow more frequent resting, for example.

Realistically in ALFA, TPKs are rare or non-existent. That means the PC(s) very unlikely to die first are probably never going to. Its generally the lowbies who fall first, and I've yet to see a tank fall.

[Blindhamsterman]

Minor note on Spiderskin.. its a canon Forgotten realms spell, for druids sorcerers and wizards. found in Underdark, which is a 3.0/3.5 book. So no fear of removing that spell due to not being canon.

[Heero]

Nerf Spirit Shamans.