officeronin said:
No, not at all. The wizard has one shot, because he or she can't stand a full round attack from a fighter. If that one shot lands, then it's a win. If not, he probably won't get a second chance. That's balanced.
That's why you use defensive spells in conjunction with offensive spells. Also, a Wizard who is getting Full-Attacked by a fighter often is either using poor tactics or needs to have a serious chat with his fellow party members. I'd rather the Wizard have to use good spell tactics rather than just rely on his Big Nuker. Keep in mind that spells like Finger of Death and Disintegration aren't being changed in 3.5e (that I know of, anyway) so they are still as dangerous as ever. The proposed changes for Epic Level campaigns is nice because they still have the potential to deal massive damage on a failed save (base 20d6). Personally, I don't like one shot wins because it makes the game terribly predictable.
Fighters can do the same thing with disarms and sunders -- the success or failure of a combat hinges on one successful swing. Is there a problem with that, too?
Not if the DM is at all competant. A sucessfull Disarm basically just causes a delay in the NPC's offense, but it certainly doesn't nullify it and it's not certain death either. Sunder is nastier, but a good NPC should always carry at least one backup weapon. If nothing else, retreat is an acceptable option. Disarm & Sunder aren't combat enders unless the DM wants them to be or doesn't plan ahead.
Are you trying to argue that D+D should be "d8+2 back and forth until the bad guys die"? How boring.
No, I'm not. This statement is an obvious over-exagguration used by you to enhance your argument (rather poorly, I might add). If you are going to counter my points, please don't attribute to me motives that aren't there and don't use idiotic hyperbole. You're better than this.
Nerfing the "save or die" spells means that spellcasters, (especially wizards) are dead meat -- they don't have the ability to stand for rounds 2-15 trading their d4 -1 with the enemy's d8+2.
I disagree. I think that Wizards and other spellcasters will be just as viable in 3.5e as they were in 3.0. Now, however, people will have to actually put some consideration into the spells that they cast rather than just firing off as many Save or Die spells as they possibly can to win. Remember, this is a game of party cooperation. Nobody is expecting the Wizard to be able to survive toe-to-toe with a fighter for any length of time. The idea is to cooperate. The meat shields keep the fighting NPC's occupied while the casters back them up w/ spells.
Version 3.0 claimed to be balanced -- and most people thought it was relatively well done. Now, those same people are claiming that 3.5 is well-balanced. That's absurd. They have nerfed spellcasting, and given casters nothing. They can't both be balanced.
Perception changes with time. 3.0 was balanced because of what we had before (1e and 2e). Now that we have had time to develop new tactics and use the new rules to their maximum effect, we recognize that there are some issues with 3.0 that weren't dealt with. This isn't absurd, this is simple iterative design logic. You create a system which you test and find to be balanced, but no system is bug-proof. Even the most well designed systems can have problems surface after years of extensive use. 3e falls into this category.
In 1e and 2e, things had alot fewer hit points so spells that dealt damage ruled the roost and the idea of casting multiple spells per round would give mages tremendous power. With the coming of 3e, HP levels had been boosted so the old standby damage spells weren't quite as potent and the designers thought that allowing Haste to increase your number of cast spells per round was OK. Now we know that this is, in fact, unbalanced because the more effective tactic is to just use a ton of instakill spells and hope that the odds work against the DM. Certainly an oversight on the part of the 3e designers, but one that was not immediately apparent. We have now recognized this issue and WotC is fixing it by toning down the power of Haste.
I will adopt a wait and see attitude -- but I will not purchase them until I read someone elses. If the indications from Dragon hold true, I will not purchase them. I find fighters boring, and it doesn't seem like the casters will be viable characters other than as daily use buff items for the fighters.
OfficeRonin
That's perfectly fine. I think taking the wait & see approach is a good idea and I hope that when you look closer at 3.5 you will come to see that the streamlining was all for the better. Even if you don't, even if you think 3.5e is the biggest piece of crap to hit the game store shelves since World of Synnibar, that's fine too. You don't have to buy it or use it. Choice; it's a beautiful thing, don't you agree?
From my perspective (keep in mind that I don't know all of the 3.5e changes so this is speculation) I think the role of the spellcaster is going to be one of battlefield support, not just in terms of buffing the fighters, but using spells in unique or usefull ways to soften up the enemy or otherwise hinder their ability to fight effectively. Battlefield control is what casters are all about. Sure, the fighters are the core of any fight, but that is how it should be IMO, while the casters give them that extra edge. Perhaps your vision of a spellcaster differs from mine own, and that's cool. I do, however, think that the days of a single wizard wiping out armies or single-handedly taking out a Great Wyrm are behind us and I don't have a problem with it.
