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

[Shalewind]

Apparently it's not about balance to you. You claim that you have problems with D+D being about Mr. Wizard and friends. With all the nerfs to their damage and "fighting" capability, the only things wizards and clerics can do are buffing their fighter friends. Suddenly, the game is now Mr. Fighter and friends.

Now now, just cause they "nerf" (I use the term sparingly) a few power-spells doesn't mean the wizard and cleric have lost all their power. I'm all for the non-arena comparisons. The system hasn't been so skewed with the loss of haste, harm, and hold that these spell casters become less than cool. Sure, haste is a loss of that extra spell: But I submit this: If the caster need ONE or even three specific spells to be cool, something was out of whack to begin with.

No, factor it all in. He can miss, they can save, the cleric gets mauled when he tries to cast (with appropriate failure of the concentration check), etc. Even then, it will never kill. It's fine that it requires an attack roll, fine if it allows a save, ok that it requires melee range -- but all three? Not for that effect.

Seems we don't agree much today at all. I agree with drnuncheon. Touch spells are highly effective (especially if the cleric is build for face to face encounters) and even if he isn't, they are still effective and just require a little bit of planning. Harm is now no different, it just does a cap on damage with means that clerics can't autokill anything without SR at levels 15+ and quicken. That isn't so big a loss. I also agree with Heal being "nerfed" (there is that word again) down to 150 hp cap (even though it is a rumor, I agree wholeheartedly).

 

[drnuncheon]

Apparently it's not about balance to you. You claim that you have problems with D+D being about Mr. Wizard and friends. With all the nerfs to their damage and "fighting" capability, the only things wizards and clerics can do are buffing their fighter friends. Suddenly, the game is now Mr. Fighter and friends.

I must have missed where they removed magic missile, blindness, fireball, the various wall spells, and horrid wilting (to name the first five examples that come to mind.)

Those poor, poor wizards. No offensive capability whatsoever.

J

 

[Plane Sailing]

Tell me what a low level cleric or wizard (up to 4th level) can do against a fighter. Nothing.

I beg to differ.

Colour Spray against a 4th level fighter - will save or blind 1d4r and stunned 1r.

Sleep against a 4th fighter - will save or asleep and can be CDG.

Grease his weapon (or the floor) - Ref save or can't use that weapon.

or if we glance at 2nd level spells

Glitterdust - Will save or blinded 1r/level
Pyrotechnics (fireworks) - Will save or blinded 2-5r
Tashas hideous laughter - will save or fall prone and no actions 1-3r
Hypnotic pattern - will save or do nothing other than stare at the lights (concentration +2r)

The sensible 4th level arcane caster has a wide range of spells he can use very effectively against equal level caster types.

Heck, at the low levels you are talking about here even Daze is useful, especially if extended!

 

[John Crichton]

Wow, I was going to make my continuing arguement that the changes are for the good of the game and that it's too early to scream "nerf!" because we don't even have the 3.5e versions of the new spells yet but folks have already done it for me. Oh yay.

 

[Caliban]

I think this was over nerfed. This also has the cap of not dropping a foe below 1hp. 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.

I think the reasoning is that Slay Living has a Fort save, and Harm has a Will save.

Things that have huge amounts of hit points tend to have worse Will saves than Fort saves. They are more vulnerable to the spell that does massive hit point damage.

Things with high Will saves tend to have relatively low hit points, and may end up taking the full effect (or near full effect) of Harm even if they save.

Dragons and Clerics being the two most noticible exceptions to the above.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Nonsense. If you nerf the "must have spells" you don't necessarily get any more variety in spell choice or creativity in spell usage (note that most DMs call this abuse if it is actually useful when it comes up in game). What you see is less variety in spell choice and less variety in tactics.

The reason for this is simple--the spells that are being nerfed (other than harm--but especially Haste and to a large degree Hold Person) were enabling spells. The thing people complained about with Haste was that it enabled characters to pull off things that would otherwise be impossible--like Acid Fog or Wall of Fire+Wall of Force (Hemisphere) in one round. Eliminating the current version of Haste removes the that tactic and removes a lot of possibilities for creativity in spell combinations. The change to the Hold Spells is also one that dramatically reduces the possibility for their creative usage. If one can't count on a creature staying out of combat, it's no longer a spell that can be used to stop people without hurting them, remove foes from a fight, or set up for a coup de grace. It's a spell that will be far more suited to the set up for coup de grace manuever than for anything else.

As to increasing the variety in spell choice, you won't necessarily see that either. You will only see that if there are more clearly effective tactics than there were before. However, that is not likely to be the case. Instead, there will be fewer. If fireball and magic missile are effective, you'll wizards forgoing haste and prepping another fireball. More variety? I think not. (And would you consider it variety if the wizard went for Icy Burst instead?--if so it's not the kind of variety that makes much of a difference). If fireball and other direct damage spells aren't effective when limited to one per round (and I'm of the opinion that wizards and sorcerors need 2 spells per round if they want to compete with the damage output of fighters, rogues, and barbarians) then, not just one tactic (the buffing mage who hastes all his friends) but two will have dissappeared (the blaster mage will be gone too). So, you'll be seeing a whole lot more wizards with Slow instead. I don't see that as increasing the amount of variety in spell selection.

And, of course if nerfing the "must have" spells means that a class has very few effective tactical options (somewhat like the old school fighter/wizard who is very difficult to construct effectively in 3e), you won't see more variety in spell selection--you'll see fewer PCs of that class.

I'll be happy to see the nerfing of 'must-have' spells. If they're no longer 'must-have' then the following desirable effects occur:

a) more variety in spell choice (since that 'must-have' slot is open)
b) more creativity in spell usage (since the 'easy win' is gone)

J

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

There's a flaw right there in the thinking. All this assuming that a DM won't go for a killing blow with the new Hold vs. the old Hold. If my goal was to kill a group of characters (as the villain or monsters) I'm not looking to just immobilize the big guy for a bit; I want to take him down and kill him. If someone is held and not attacked at all that is putting on the kid gloves. If the system is to be played to its fullest, that held PC should go down first reguardless of if the spell will end soon or not. I know that when I run things, that if I'm going to toss off a hold spell that PC is in deep trouble as he will be dead soon.

Well, it sucks to be that player but unless they had Remove Paralysis handy, the combat is likely to go better for his party members. You see, the 3.0e held and coup de graced character wasn't going to be helping them kill the bad guys so bad guy X wasted one round--maybe two if he moved to set himself up for it--to get the coup de grace. He might as well have cast Daze on himself.

Besides, where's the heroics in just knowing that the foe will be held for X amount of time. It'll be fun to have that big, armoured, evil cleric walk up for a coup de grace, only to meet a very pissed off and very mobile fighter at the last second. Just sounds right to me.

But it's not likely to happen that way. The way I would do it as a PC or a DM would be to have the cleric's warrior henchman delay. The cleric casts hold. The henchman enters initiative and coup de graces the fighter. Save or Die. No heroics, no meeting an angry fighter at the last second--just a coup de grace with a heavy pick. (Soon to be the favored weapon of evil clerics' lackies everywhere). PCs may still be wielding swords or battle axes but they can power attack to make the save impossible too.

 

[Tempuswolf]

Re: Polymorphing

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.

Since we are looking at 3.5 through smokey glass at best, perhaps my fears are virtual.

 

[drnuncheon]

The reason for this is simple--the spells that are being nerfed (other than harm--but especially Haste and to a large degree Hold Person) were enabling spells. The thing people complained about with Haste was that it enabled characters to pull off things that would otherwise be impossible--like Acid Fog or Wall of Fire+Wall of Force (Hemisphere) in one round. Eliminating the current version of Haste removes the that tactic and removes a lot of possibilities for creativity in spell combinations.

To quote you, sir, "Nonsense." Just because you cannot pull off a "kill 'em all" combo in a single round does not mean that you never can or never should use that combo. It means that such a combo is going to have a higher cost, and you are going to have to consider more carefully whether it is the best for the situation or not. Or, you're going to have to work with another spellcaster to pull off a one-round Combo of Death.

The change to the Hold Spells is also one that dramatically reduces the possibility for their creative usage. If one can't count on a creature staying out of combat, it's no longer a spell that can be used to stop people without hurting them, remove foes from a fight, or set up for a coup de grace. It's a spell that will be far more suited to the set up for coup de grace manuever than for anything else.

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.

I'm of the opinion that wizards and sorcerors need 2 spells per round if they want to compete with the damage output of fighters, rogues, and barbarians

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

 

[John Crichton]

But it's not likely to happen that way. The way I would do it as a PC or a DM would be to have the cleric's warrior henchman delay. The cleric casts hold. The henchman enters initiative and coup de graces the fighter. Save or Die. No heroics, no meeting an angry fighter at the last second--just a coup de grace with a heavy pick. (Soon to be the favored weapon of evil clerics' lackies everywhere). PCs may still be wielding swords or battle axes but they can power attack to make the save impossible too.

Unless those henchmen are standing really close (within 5ft) that tactic won't work. And since you can't ready a full-round action, there is a chance for that character to break free. And if the fighter-type has initiative and the henchmen are that close there is a good chance they'll be dead before they get the opportunity to CdG.

Anyway, we can go back and forth on these types of tactics and situations all day long and still be at odds. I like the changes simply because they sound like they will make the game more fun. We haven't even seen the changes they will be making to wildshape, the level of hold, or changes to any of the other spells as a result of the changes in this article to really even know how things will work out. Thus, it is WAY too early to be complaining about the nerf aspect or any of the possible changes in tactics.