3.5 Spell changes in Dragon

[Artimoff]

This is only my second post on this board and already I'm complaining.


The changes I have read about in Dragon #307 have kinda ticked me off with the 3.5 designers. Why change any of the "3H's and the big P". Facing those spells are the price of adventuring with the big boys. It's why fighting highlevel evil clerics suck, doing all you can so they don't hit you. It's not suposed to be a walk in the park. It also makes your cleric have to fight to combat their harm

The changes to Hold spells stinks too. A save every round makes the spell mostly useless IMO. Hold Person is one of the main reasons to always have a Dispel Magic spell on hand.

Polymorph changes are ok, but I wonder why they didn't turn alter self into alter so it could alter other party members.

Haste? Well I always thought you should be able to cast an extra spell. It's logic over game balance. It's like when DC comics said that the Flash doesn't just run superfast, he moves superfast. Hands, fingers and tounge, not just feet.


Every version of D&D has been better than the last. I think 3.5 will reverse that trend when it comes to revising the spells. Thank goodness my DM is only going to be using D&D 3.25.

 

[Apok]

I disagree, I think the changes are for the overall good of the game. Consider this; when the sucess or failure of a combat encounter can hinge on the use of a single spell, then there's probably a problem with the spell.

This is what made spells like Harm so powerful because it could drastically change the tide of combat in one action. Personally, I don't care for this. I would rather have combat be full of little ebbs and flows that subtly change the outlook. One round, the PC's may be on top of things. The next round, they might be having a little bit of trouble and maybe things get worse on round three but swing back a bit in their favor on the fourth round. Changes of small degree.

A well-placed application of 3e Harm, Heal or Hold Person could turn a battle from a no-win situation to a guaranteed victory, and that's not the kind of combat I like to run. I think WotC has done the right thing by changing these spells so that they are still very effective but no longer the determining factor any given fight.

As far as Haste is concerned, I don't really mind the changes. You can still cast multiple spells in a round, it's just not as easy. My only complaint is that I think they should reduce the effective level modifier of Quicken spell by at least one to make it more attractive to mid-level casters. As it stands now, the only compelling reason to get Quicken Spell is to qualify for the Automatic Quicken Spell epic feat, and you can't even touch that one until 27th level.

 

[A'koss]

Originally posted by Apok:

This is what made spells like Harm so powerful because it could drastically change the tide of combat in one action. Personally, I don't care for this. I would rather have combat be full of little ebbs and flows that subtly change the outlook. One round, the PC's may be on top of things. The next round, they might be having a little bit of trouble and maybe things get worse on round three but swing back a bit in their favor on the fourth round. Changes of small degree.

Precisely.

Monte Cook's AU looks to tackle this as well and I quite look forward to see how he handles it. To be honest, the whole game could use some compression between the classes. High level disparities in HP, Stats, Saves and Combat Abililty contribute their own share of balance problems that 3.5e won't touch.


A'koss.

 

[hong]

I disagree, I think the changes are for the overall good of the game. Consider this; when the sucess or failure of a combat encounter can hinge on the use of a single spell, then there's probably a problem with the spell.

That's pretty much my problem with _all_ the save-or-die spells, in fact. The suggested epic-level mod (20d6 + 1d6/level damage, instead of instant death) is one solution I've seen that could also be applied at lower levels.

 

[Apok]

Monte Cook's AU looks to tackle this as well and I quite look forward to see how he handles it.

I can't wait to get my hands on that book. I've been reading his Design Diaries ever since they began and I'm chomping at the bit. AU looks to be a definite shift in the D&D paradigm. Go Monte.

To be honest, the whole game could use some compression between the classes. High level disparities in HP, Stats, Saves and Combat Abililty contribute their own share of balance problems that 3.5e won't touch.

No comment.

 

[Apok]

That's pretty much my problem with _all_ the save-or-die spells, in fact. The suggested epic-level mod (20d6 + 1d6/level damage, instead of instant death) is one solution I've seen that could also be applied at lower levels.

Very true, and I will likely be implementing said rules the next time I run a D&D campaign. In the meantime, back to Exalted...

 

[hong]

Precisely.

Monte Cook's AU looks to tackle this as well and I quite look forward to see how he handles it. To be honest, the whole game could use some compression between the classes. High level disparities in HP, Stats, Saves and Combat Abililty contribute their own share of balance problems that 3.5e won't touch.

Something that might work for 4E is, instead of separate linear scales, have one linear scale and fixed bonuses by class. Eg instead of saves being either 2 + 1/2 level (good) or 1/3 level (bad), have all saves as 1/2 level. A fighter gets +2 on Fort saves, a cleric gets +1 on Fort and Will, and a wizard gets +2 on Will. You could even make these typed bonuses, to cut down on multiclassing cheese.

 

[A'koss]

Originally posted by Apok:

No comment.

Oh you can't just leave that hangin'...

SPILL!

Originally posted by Hong:

That's pretty much my problem with _all_ the save-or-die spells, in fact. The suggested epic-level mod (20d6 + 1d6/level damage, instead of instant death) is one solution I've seen that could also be applied at lower levels.

I've been using this variant as well. I think it could use a little tweaking, but all-in-all a very good step in the right direction.

Something that might work for 4E is, instead of separate linear scales, have one linear scale and fixed bonuses by class. Eg instead of saves being either 2 + 1/2 level (good) or 1/3 level (bad), have all saves as 1/2 level. A fighter gets +2 on Fort saves, a cleric gets +1 on Fort and Will, and a wizard gets +2 on Will. You could even make these typed bonuses, to cut down on multiclassing cheese.

Keep those ideas around for when 4e does roll along. I had a good brainstorming chat with Andy Collins on this topic on his Epic Level Messageboard. Good stuff...


A'koss.

 

[hong]

I've been using this variant as well. I think it could use a little tweaking, but all-in-all a very good step in the right direction.

Preach it, bro! All I have to do now is persuade one recalcitrant player of mine, who seems to like instakill stuff far more than is healthy. As evidenced by how he tends to die or kill off his characters with great regularity, to the point where we joke about "Kusterville", the village populated by all his dead and retired characters....

 

[Apok]

Oh you can't just leave that hangin'...

SPILL!

Hehe.

Well, the main reason I don't like to get into discussions about those things is because you start leaving the realm of minor tweaks and changes and begin journeying into the vast ocean of total system redesign. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I'd like to get my mileage out of the current system before I worry about what's on the horizon.

Give Third Edition a chance to mature and grow and in about ten or so years we can look around and see where we are, where we've been and where we are going. Then we can start seriously discussing major issue overhauls like the d20 combat paradigm, stat ranges, class/level v. point spending, magic item dependancies, hit points, and how multiclassing really affects the balance of power.

When that time comes, you bet I'll throw my hat into the ring and my opinion into the formless void that is the Internet, to be swallowed up like everything else.