D&D 3E/3.5 [Dragon] #307 - 3.5 Changes: Some we know, some we don't...

[andargor]

Would you make it stackable?

If someone casts five Hold Person spells on you, would you have to make five saves each round to be able to act?

-Hyp.

I would use the same method used in other spells. If the target fails her save on a second Hold cast on her, the effects do not stack, so only one save per round. But the duration would now be until either the first or second Hold expires, whichever expires last.

There is the question of DCs. Probably the highest in effect would apply.

Andargor

 

[drnuncheon]

Sorry, but the Rogue can only do Subdual Damage if using a Sap (Blackjack) or his fist. Otherwise, the damage is real. It is not sufficient to use a club, mace, or other blunt weapon.

That'll teach me to try to be cute in my wording.

J

 

[Shard O'Glase]

You're right - you'll have to use teamwork instead. Hold Person + a CdG from the rogue wielding a blunt instrument should do nicely if you want to remove someone from the fight without hurting them. Or Hold Person plus Trip, Grapple, Bull Rush...any number of things.

It just means that you'll have to work together with someone else rather than getting to do it all by yourself.



When you can produce a fighter, rogue, or barbarian that can deal 10d6 damage to everyone within a 20' radius circle, in a single round, at a distance of 800 feet - please, let everyone know. I'll be curious to see how you do it.

J

Teamwork has always been needed by thw wiz/sor characters. They needed a team more than any other class, why make it even harder for them.

As for damage oh geez i'm all scared and all by that 13-35 points of damage at 10th level. Unless your shooting another wizard, or no level orcs and kobolds its crap damage and a crap spell. So if your point is looky area of effect there just so dang good no fighter can do that, well sure no fighter can do it, but they suck, and in no way compare with the damage output of virtually every other class. All they do is clear the room of the annoying fights you didn't want to waste your time cleaving through.

 

[skaven13]

Thought more people....

I thought more people would have been talking about haste and how they took it from a powerful 3rd level spell and turned it into a weak 3rd level spell.

I can understand not wanting to overshadow a metamagic feat by casting two spells in the same round. I saw my dm cringe when my character resorted to hasted magic missile spells. But, they could have removed the partial action and replaced it with the extra attack that was presented in dragon. So:

+4 to ac, extra attack on full attack or +30' to speed.

I think this would have kept Haste as a good spell to take, and fixes the double casting. But they removed the ac bonus and gave a +1 ac, +1 reflex, and +1 to hit ??? If they wanted to reduce the AC bonus, why not something that falls in line like +2 AC and +2 initiative? Or even the +1 initiative and +1 reflex? Or make the +1's level based?

Instead they turn a 3rd level spell into 2, maybe 3, first level spells.

 

[John Crichton]

Haste was WAY too powerful as a 3rd level spell. Considering that it could have easily been a 4th level spell. What it does now it just makes it into a buff for the fighter types as it affects multiple targets. It just splits it up amount targets and get rid of the doublecasting. It also removes the 'must-have' status from it which no spell should have, IMO.

 

[Dimwhit]

The polymorph changes are dissappointing in one more respect. I had hoped that they would end the divergence between wildshaping and polymorphing. I dont mind there being a difference in things like duration or viable target forms, but what I never understood was the difference, after the superceding wildshape rules in MotW came out, between a druid turned into a lion and a wizard turned into a lion. Why the druid would get low light vision and pounce but the wizard would not? Why wildshaping allows Extraordinary abilities and polymorphing does not? If you take a step back from the game, these in-game rules are simulating something going on in the fantasy world. What is going on that makes such a big difference in druid-lions and wizard-lions, explained in the fantasy world's terms? This doesn't seem like weeding out inconsistencies to me.

I wondered this for a while myself, but I've rationalized it quite well, in my mind. For one, Druids can only use animal shapes, while Polymorph has no such restriction. So giving Druids more of the animal's abilities is one way to compensate.

There is one other major reason, however. Druids have spend their lives in the wilderness. They have a closeness and a familiarity with animals in general that Wizards don't. So a Druid wildshaped into a Lion would be intimately familiar with, for example, its attack routines, and would therefore know how to use a pounce. A Wizard, however, isn't. Think of it this way...attack routines like rake and pounce are behaviors that animals learn from birth. A Druid, by nature, can learn these through their lifetime of studying nature. A Wizard, however, would have no experience and knowledge of such routines, so all they would benefit would be to get the strength and basic attacks of the animal (claw and bite for example).

That doesn't entirely explain abilities such as low-light vision, but it does make sense to me.

 

[andargor]

Haste was WAY too powerful as a 3rd level spell. Considering that it could have easily been a 4th level spell. What it does now it just makes it into a buff for the fighter types as it affects multiple targets. It just splits it up amount targets and get rid of the doublecasting. It also removes the 'must-have' status from it which no spell should have, IMO.

Well, it's ok to have "must-have" spells. I can't remember any wizard I've played in the past 26 years who didn't have MM, Fireball and/or Lightning Bolt.

Except that the choice should be on strategic utility, not brokenness (sp?). The way Haste was defined in 3E, it made it a "multiplier". And I've seen others express the need to eliminate any kind of "multipliers", be it for damage, or other effects.

Instead, 3.5e should be an "additive" system. Add X dice to critical hits, add X dice to Empowered spells, etc., to avoid leveraging stacked multipliers. That should reduce the smackdown factor somewhat, and make the game more interesting.

All in all, I welcome the new Haste. They've somewhat "brought it back".

Andargor

 

[Spatzimaus]

Okay, it's a day late, but I wanted to respond to this one about Harm:

Slay living is one level lower and kills you on a failed save. Yeah the I saved damage is worse, but the I didn't save damage is better. This is about on par of slay living not one level higher. Ultimate suckage no, but over nerfed a bit yes.

Slay Living can't target nonliving creatures.
> It says "Target: living creature touched", so this'd rule out nonliving targets like Constructs or Undead.
> It's a death effect, which means Constructs and Undead are immune to it anyway.
> It also requires a Fortitude save and doesn't affect objects, which means that, yet again, Undead and Constructs are immune to it.
Being a death effect, it's also stopped cold by the spell Death Ward.

Harm is not only usable on Constructs, it has the added benefit of acting as a Heal for undead. And, unlike Slay Living, it's on the Druid list as well.

Is this difference worth a spell level? Maybe not, but they're definitely not on the same level IMO, and that's before arguing the merits of a Will save vs. a Fort save.

 

[John Crichton]

Well, it's ok to have "must-have" spells. I can't remember any wizard I've played in the past 26 years who didn't have MM, Fireball and/or Lightning Bolt.

Ok, I should have said something along the lines of "must-have because everyone is using them and they trump almost all other spells of their level."

 

[Merlion]

Doesnt the new polymorph say you DO gain the extraordinary attack forms of a creature?
If you dont gain things like Low Light Vision etc, well I'd just house rule that...its silly.