D&D 3E/3.5 Ramifications of disallowing Haste in 3E?

[sepulchrave]

Aging

In 1E, if you were affected by a haste spell, or drank a potion of speed, it aged you by one year. I always thought that this was an elegant solution: no big deal for elves, but humans quickly suffer if the spell is overused.

 

[Crothian]

Aging was to harsh. Plus, haste was more effective in 1st ed. I think it's well balanced as it is. Some people obviously disagree. So, make it a fourth or fifth level spell or get rid of entirely. Just make sure you inform your Pcs about this.

Or, just allow the enemy to use Haste. If Haste is so good that the PCs use it all the time, allow the NPcs to do the same thing.

 

[WolverineJon]

Quoth Crothian:
And as a side note I'd like to offer this to the Power of RPGs for bringing people together. I, life long Ohio State Buckeye, have answered the call of help from a guy from "that School Up North". For those of you not familiar with the term, I'm refering to the Michigian Wolverines. There is a rather heated rivalry between the two. I'm not trying to turn this thread into a Buckeye Verse Wolverine thing. I just noticed his Avatar last night and found it amusing.

Heh, Crothian, I saw that you are from Columbus, and wondered. Despite the fact that you are indeed a fan of the "other" team, I sincerely appreciate your advice.

 

[reapersaurus]

I asked the same question a month ago about Improved Invisibility, and there was a BIG discussion.

Many people mentioned that haste could be bumped up a level or two, or tweaked so as not to allow speeding up of spells, while i don't remember too many agreeing it should be removed.

You should be careful what you ask on here, though, or people will brand you as trying to power down mages too much.
Wouldn't want THAT.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I asked the same question a month ago about Improved Invisibility, and there was a BIG discussion.

Many people mentioned that haste could be bumped up a level or two, or tweaked so as not to allow speeding up of spells, while i don't remember too many agreeing it should be removed.

You should be careful what you ask on here, though, or people will brand you as trying to power down mages too much.
Wouldn't want THAT.

The real problem isn't wizards vs. fighters, it's wizards vs. clerics. Clerics are already more powerful, and any loss of power unbalances it further. Part of the problem is stat inflatiion: the game was designed for 28 or 32 points, and when people have 40+ point-valued charactrs, the system starts to break down.

 

[Crothian]

Heh, Crothian, I saw that you are from Columbus, and wondered. Despite the fact that you are indeed a fan of the "other" team, I sincerely appreciate your advice.

It's the power of Role Palying, brings being together. Even people like us, on the oppoisites of one of the best college rivalries of all time. Your welcome, and I'm happy to help.

 

[Crothian]

The real problem isn't wizards vs. fighters, it's wizards vs. clerics. Clerics are already more powerful, and any loss of power unbalances it further. Part of the problem is stat inflatiion: the game was designed for 28 or 32 points, and when people have 40+ point-valued charactrs, the system starts to break down.

Clerics are more powerful then wizards. I'm really not sure what WotC were thinking there. But I'm not sure about the stat comment. The first game I DMed Stats got rather high, rather fast. While this did help out the PCs, I didn't notice that big of a problem. I think the system handles high stats well.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Clerics are more powerful then wizards. I'm really not sure what WotC were thinking there. But I'm not sure about the stat comment. The first game I DMed Stats got rather high, rather fast. While this did help out the PCs, I didn't notice that big of a problem. I think the system handles high stats well.

Run a paladin in a 28-point game, then again in a 42 point group.

If, after that, you can say it's just as balanced with ultra-high stats as "strandard" stats, fine.

Some classes benefit from high stats more than others, notably the monk and paladin (and psion and psionic warrior, I gather?). Some can survive lower stats better than others: fighter, for example.

 

[Crothian]

Run a paladin in a 28-point game, then again in a 42 point group.

If, after that, you can say it's just as balanced with ultra-high stats as "strandard" stats, fine.

Some classes benefit from high stats more than others, notably the monk and paladin (and psion and psionic warrior, I gather?). Some can survive lower stats better than others: fighter, for example.

I conceede there will be a difference. I'm not that stubborn to say otherwise (almost that stubborn though). And certain classes do benefit from having more stats that are higher then others. I think the game handles this well. I don't think the 42 point Paladin will overly dominate the game and through off the challenges. Sure, a DM might have to up the CRs a by one, but I've had to do the same thing when they got some very nice magical items. I was happy the way the system handle higher stats. In other editions and other games, high stats really through the game balance to the point it was unplayible. Not here, I'm happy to say.

 

[Starfox]

The real problem isn't wizards vs. fighters, it's wizards vs. clerics. Clerics are already more powerful, and any loss of power unbalances it further. Part of the problem is stat inflatiion: the game was designed for 28 or 32 points, and when people have 40+ point-valued charactrs, the system starts to break down.

OK, now we're going off-topic, but isn't the roblem with clerics that they are very powerful in low powered campaigns (low attributes, low in magic items) and lose power as attributes and general power level increases? Nobody ever played a cleric around here until we started a point-buy attribute campaign.