If the mage spells are being weakened, what compensation is being given to the mage?

[cable]

Re: If the mage spells are being weakened, what compensation is being given to the ma

Simple enough, this.
From what I'm hearing and reading, some mage spells are being reduced in duration, and others are being altered in their effects (such as Haste.)
There seems to be a consensus that - for the purpose of these spells only - the mage is being weakened as a class.

So, what is the mage (and the sorcerer) getting in return?
I assume the mage is getting something in return. Unless WOTC has decided to weaken the class.

Is it a longer spell list? (diversity)
Is it stronger spells in other areas? (specific strengthening)
Is it new skills?
Is it new feats?
Is it new abilities?

What gives, here?

What makes you think they will get anything in compensation? The designers want to discourage people from playing arcane spellcasters. It's as plain and simple as that. Whilst many people consider this a bad thing, the nature of the posters of this board discourages them from voicing their opinions. I am not going to bother to post anymore as this ... community has turned hostile against ... my opinion.

I'm sorry that you feel that way, but name-calling is a no-no. So please refrain from that in the future. Thank you.
- Darkness

 

[Staffan]

Damn, all those fireballs blowing up my foes must've blinded me to their nerfedness

Relatively speaking, evocations (or rather, damage spells) were nerfed in 3e. Sure, a fireball did 1d6/level to a max of 10d6 in both 2e and 3e, so where's the nerf you ask? The nerfing is that 10d6 is nowhere near as much in 3e as it was in 2e, because weapon damage has slightly increased and opponent hit points have vastly increased (on account of monsters getting Con bonus to hp and often bigger HD, as well as Con bonuses being easier to get for NPCs).

A 6th level fighter in 2e might have had 40 hp or so (6.5 hp per level including the bonus from Con 15), and if he gets hit with a 6d6 fireball he'll take ~20 points of damage - that's half his hit points. In 3e, he'll still take ~20 points of damage, but now he has 50 hp instead (1 point more per level on account of Con 15 now providing +2 hp/level instead of +1, plus some for getting max at first level).

 

[rangerjohn]

No I won't, unless thier are some amazing things yet to be revealedm that make up for what has. It is not just the spells, though that is a big part of it. The only thing I have been so-so about is the change to rangers, possibly bards. Other than that, I do not like what I have heard. It it were one or two things I was unhappy about, You would probably be right. However this is not the case, I do not like most of what I have heard and am so-so on one or two. There is nothing I have seen, that I can honestly say this needed to be done and is a good change.

I realize this puts me in the minority, at least at enworld, the only group I game with live agrees with me. But since we are only able to get together every 3-4 months.... I have been playing mostly here and one other pbem. Since the majority of the online community likes the changes, I'm stuck with the live group, which has its own frustrations, from the lack of schedules meshing to the DM loving dues ex machina. So I have come to the conclusion it is time to hang up my spurs as it were.

 

[Bismark]

Re: Re: If the mage spells are being weakened, what compensation is being given to the ma

What makes you think they will get anything in compensation? The designers want to discourage people from playing arcane spellcasters. It's as plain and simple as that. Whilst many people consider this a bad thing, the nature of the posters of this board discourages them from voicing their opinions. I am not going to bother to post anymore as this facist community has turned hostile against any reasonable dissenting opinion.

This is assigning false motives to the game designers, based on your personal dislike of the changes. I don't think you really believe they are attempting to discourage people from playing arcane casters, and it is just hyperbole.

However, calling this community fascist because they don't agree with you is just extreme. It is insulting, and meant to be. What seems fascist to you may just be a majority of people disagreeing with you. This doesn't mean you're the oppressed minority. It just means that they disagree. It still seems to me that over 90% of what mages use isn't affected/weakened, and that this argument tends to be neglected.

Yes, I can see how some people would be upset. If you play mages in a certain way then they may be weakened a great deal. However, that is just one way to play them, there are many other spells to select from, and focuses to apply to your character. Judging by many of the responses here, some people play that way, but even more don't. I, like many others who have posted, do not use the spells that have been weakened (or balanced, depending on your point of view) to a large extent, and thus will hardly know the difference. You and others like you seem to use them a great deal, and thus your styles will be affected (I use 'you' in the general sense, not you specifically, as I have no idea how you play and can only guess by your protest).

Also, judging from most of the reactions here, not to mention the presumed intention of the people who are actually /designing the game/, these spells are too powerful as they currently stand. The fact that some people are complaining the mage is ruined and not worth playing, might be taken as a point in favor that those spells were overused and not balanced. Some people are so upset they aren't going to play anymore, nor post on this subject ever again (at least for the next five minutes).

But the fact is, me and people who play like me will hardly notice, except that if some new player comes in, they won't be able to use those spells in the way they were before. My party has never bothered with the all day buffs, and rarely are high enough level to use disintegrate. Almost no one has used haste. Sure, it gives a great bonus mechanics wise, but it just never fitted the theme of any of our mages.

So, it might be correct to say 'my character will be weakened because he uses these spells a whole darn lot', but it isn't correct to say 'mages are ruined' or 'they're trying to discourage people from playing arcane spellcasters', because a lot of us won't even know the difference.

 

[Al]

This is my thesis that I've cross-posted all over the place. Please feel free to shoot it down.

WotC reacted to an increasing number of threads complaining that wizards were broken, that at higher levels wizards would dominate the scene and threads about smackdowns seemingly predominated by wizards.

In response, they decided to tone down the spells most likely to be abused.

Now some of the spells were patently out-of-line. Heal, Harm and Haste were good and sensible changes. Polymorph Other was justifiable, as was Hold Person (just).

They didn't stop there. The 'animal' buffs are now nearly worthless, Horrid Wilting is severely hampered, Disintegrate is barely worthwhile and *all* spells suffered from the degrading of Spell Focus.

The problem was that WotC *were* responding to a legitimate concern, but the concern itself was misplaced. Most of the complaints about wizards being too powerful were based on supplements. Many of the 'smackdown-wizards' used official WotC supplements at best, and third-party supplements at worst. It was the supplements, not the core rules (with some exceptions, such as Haste) which made wizards too powerful. FRCS could add +10 to the DCs of wizards alone (Archmage, Red Wizard, Spellcasting Prodigy, Greater Spell Focus, Shadow Weave etc.). It was through supplements that characters achieved DCs in the 40s.

However, given that the most vocal lobby was the most 'active' gaming group, and given that they tended to have supplements (by dint of being more 'active') and more vocal (the average gamer doesn't talk about spell balance on messageboards) WotC decided to tone down the core rules. This was their mistake- they attacked the core rules, which were balanced (with exceptions, as noted above) rather than the supplements (which were too powerful). The net result (based on the evidence I've seen) is ironic. Those who continue to use supplements are *still* too powerful, because they use supplementary spells which are too powerful, supplementary feats which are too powerful and supplementary PrCs which are too powerful. The average, casual, core-rules-only gamer will find his wizard too weak. They have creamed off many of the wizard's best offensive spells. They have reduced his ability to help his team mates (buffs). They have reduced his overall offensive capabilities (Spell Focus).

In other words, WotC nerfed core rules to fix the 'supplement power inflation' which was becoming increasingly apparent. With the exceptions of some good and sensible fixes, they went too far. The core wizard is now too weak, the supplement-enhanced wizard is still too strong. A lot of problems created; only a few solved.

 

[Felon]

What makes you think they will get anything in compensation? The designers want to discourage people from playing arcane spellcasters. It's as plain and simple as that. Whilst many people consider this a bad thing, the nature of the posters of this board discourages them from voicing their opinions. I am not going to bother to post anymore as this facist community has turned hostile against any reasonable dissenting opinion.

Reasonable dissent? Maybe I should just make this my sig:

Don't blame "the community" for its lack of sympathy. All the disgruntled folks out there desperately need to get their act together if they want to muster support for their position.

Disgruntled magic-users, heed this advice:

1) Grandiose, unsupported generalizations get you no sympathy. They get you written-off as a troll. Don't just say "the wizard seems weaker now". Make an arguement and support it in detail. Provide examples. It is not enough to simply say "this spell's been nerfed". Strictly speaking, "nerfed" is just a vague term meaning something's bee made less potent than it previously was; it does not equate to "impotent". It's a troll's word. Demonstrate how the spell is no longer worth having.

2) Make consistent arguements. Don't complain about how the reduced duration of buffing spells makes the spellcaster less useful as a team player, and then complain about the revised Haste because you don't wanna play a support role.

3) Can the melodrama. Don't act like a victim. Don't talk about Wizards like it's your parents playing favorites with your brothers and sisters. That's all just irrational and childish spew and encourages people to be dismissive of your opinions. And by all means, don't go on about how you're going to quit: to most folks' thinking, if you were really disheartened enough to quit, you'd probably just quit. You wouldn't complain ad nauseum for weeks unto months, knowing how futile it all was since the revised PHB is already in the hopper.

4) Stick to commenting on things you're reasonably *informed* about. Don't overreact to every little rumor with "now I know 3.5e is nerfing wizards and I'm refusing to play one--in fact, I might just quit".

In short, cut the theatrics and the bull, calm down, and think like a person who's trying to get his point-of-view across rather than someone who's just fishing for flames.

...I know it's a little long, but it sums the issue up nicely if I do say so myself:

Relatively speaking, evocations (or rather, damage spells) were nerfed in 3e. Sure, a fireball did 1d6/level to a max of 10d6 in both 2e and 3e, so where's the nerf you ask? The nerfing is that 10d6 is nowhere near as much in 3e as it was in 2e, because weapon damage has slightly increased and opponent hit points have vastly increased (on account of monsters getting Con bonus to hp and often bigger HD, as well as Con bonuses being easier to get for NPCs).

Ah, OK, I see where that POV's coming from now. It's that oldest of adages from the MMORPG community: "anything that's a buff for someone else can be called a nerf for me". Weapons become a little better than before, so that makes fireballs a little worse than they were before, without anything actually being done to them.

As I said before, "nerf" is a vague term that tries to make a decrease in potency sound like complete impotence. The bottom line is, are fireballs still effective? Are they worth tossing around? Yes, very much so, I'd say. They save the lives of my players all the time.

No I won't, unless thier are some amazing things yet to be revealedm that make up for what has.

Well, you also said you wouldn't be posting any more on the subject lol...see how hard it is to say what your feelings will be at some point in the future? I am genuinely sysmpathetic to your gaming difficulties though. I can't exactly say my gaming styles meshes well with my current group. I often seem to get more pleasure out of reading the books and discussing the game on the board than actually playing it with my friends. I'm sticking with it though. It's the only way things improve.

 

[rangerjohn]

About the continued posting, its not that my feeling have changed. I still feel I don't like the changes, but there is nothing I can do about. The only reason I am continuing to post is not to be rude and not ansewer questions posted to me.

 

[Bismark]

In other words, WotC nerfed core rules to fix the 'supplement power inflation' which was becoming increasingly apparent. With the exceptions of some good and sensible fixes, they went too far. The core wizard is now too weak, the supplement-enhanced wizard is still too strong. A lot of problems created; only a few solved.

My group doesn't use any supplements, except the occasional feat or prestige class from the class supplements (Masters of the Wild, Song and Silence, Sword and Fist, and whatever the other one was). We haven't used any of the spells in these books either. Regardless, the changes proposed to spells will not affect our gameplay very much. Those are just spells we don't rely on, and don't tend to focus or a school or specialize very often.

So while what you said may be a factor, it's not the /only/ factor.

 

[Al]

My group doesn't use any supplements, except the occasional feat or prestige class from the class supplements (Masters of the Wild, Song and Silence, Sword and Fist, and whatever the other one was). We haven't used any of the spells in these books either. Regardless, the changes proposed to spells will not affect our gameplay very much. Those are just spells we don't rely on, and don't tend to focus or a school or specialize very often.

So while what you said may be a factor, it's not the /only/ factor.

Did you find that wizards were too powerful in your game?

Incidentally, if your characters aren't use Harm, Heal, Holds, Polymorphs, Disintegrate, Horrid Wilting and Spell Focus, I'm very impressed at your characters' restraint!

 

[Bismark]

We rarely end up high level, anyway. 5th level spells are a rarity.