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

[Darkness]

There's a reason why Wizards are so powerful at higher levels: they suck at lower levels.

That's not a reason; that's a bug disguised as a feature, just like demihuman level limits pre-3e.
Fortunately, I don't think it's true in D&D 3e.

If you're gonna nerf higher level spells, gimme a 2d4+1 per missile magic missile,

Magic missile is overpowered already, though.

or an extra 2d4 a round Melf's Acid Arrow.

Hm.

Then the classes will be balanced at ALL levels,

I'm not sure about that; I haven't seen enough of all 11 base classes in 3.5 yet.

which is the way it should be.

Darn straight.

 

[Scion of Vyshaan]

I think what is lost in the entire "nerfing" argument is not the effect that changing spells has on wizards, game play or balance, but rather what effect it has on the players.

I will agree that most of the changes to the spells will balance the game. I also believe that 3.5 will be more fun for the players of fighters and other warriors, and that in a few months, most of the players of Wizards and Sorcerers will be comfortable with these changes. However, I think what is currently causing some discontent and conflict on the boards are not the changes to the game, but the reaction of some of the posters. Let me elaborate...

If you nerf the caster's spells, you lessen the character to a certain degree. I know when I convert my favorite character, who happens to be a wizard, to 3.5, it will result in lower spell DCs, less spells that I can cast in combat, and less damage I can do with a single spell. While this doesn't ruin my character, or change my desire to play, it does take something away from my character. I understand that it is for the enjoyment of others I may play with, but still, my wizard is losing something.

Now, in order to keep abreast of these changes, I check internet bulletin boards and see people saying things how the changes were put in because my character was broken, or need to taken down a notch, or that I'm an abusive player because I use spells like Haste or Harm, that is going to upset me. I'm going to feel as if some who just won a some kind of debate is taunting me.

I'm not saying posters are being abusive, I'm just asking everyone to look at the other guys perspective. When a spell is changed to make it less powerful, the player whose character uses that spell loses something. I may have missed it, but I have never heard anyone say to someone who was upset about spell-nerfing "hey, I'm sorry your upset, and I understand and appreciate that you're going to be losing some cool abilities, but these changes will make the game more fun for more people in the long run."

In the end, everything goes a lot more smoothly if we try to be nice to each other, and appreciate that even when people do disagree with us, that they still have valid concerns and feelings

 

[Darkness]

Scion of Vyshaan raises a good point there...

Heh. The change from AD&D 2e to D&D 3e probably was less painful, seeing that it mostly resulted in a power increase or at least no loss.

 

[Codragon]

I think what is lost in the entire "nerfing" argument is not the effect that changing spells has on wizards, game play or balance, but rather what effect it has on the players.
....
[eliminated for brevity]

I definitely agree with your post, although I'm getting sick of the word "nerf" . I mostly DM, and the few characters I have played are rarely casters. But you make a great point; and it is often lost among these discussions.

It is most definitely a letdown to have an oft-used spell (or whatever) of your character get a reduction in power, whether it is balanced or not.

However, I do think the changes are warranted, and will make the game better in the long run. There is always a period of dissatifaction with any rule change.

 

[Eldragon]

I would like to boost Scion of Vyshaan's ego a bit more by saying I agree wholeheartedly. I get more than a little annoyed with posters on this board who view dissenting opinion as the "wrong" opinion.

 

[Michael Dean]

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.

I think the point is that making grandiose "This is my LAST POST" statements, and then posting 10 more really undermines your credibility. You've been playing 20 years? So have I, plus a couple more to boot. We've seen many changes to the game, I think you'll agree, and none of them have destroyed the game. I think as a whole the game has vastly improved over that time even if I haven't liked every single change.

In the end it really is a game, after all, and it's very naive to think that more changes will not be coming, even after 3.5. At least with 3.5, the designers had the benefit of literally thousands of playtesting hours among the general public to help look at what needed to be fixed. That was not the case with 3e where they took a huge gamble to completely revise the core rules.

So lighten up, Ranger; I think it's exciting that we get to see yet another iteration of a game that I literally grew up with since I was 12 years old. I know that in all probability it won't be the last or that I will like every single thing about it, but it won't make me leave the hobby in a huff. It's all about perspective, I think. Try some, it will make you feel better

 

[DreamChaser]

Reactionary
Premature
Spoiled
Underinformed
Unnecessary


The negativism and talk of quitting is all of the above things and more. We still have a month, people. And if you don't like it you can always stick to the past. I have all of my 2e books. I wasn't willing to get rid of them until I decided I liked 3e, then I kept them for my collection. I won't get rid of my 3e books either. I could play any edition I wanted to at any time. And since I rarely, if ever, play published modules, it works for me.

It can work for you too.

DC

ps. IF YOU CAN'T BACK IT UP, DON'T SAY IT!!!! All you do is feed the fire of irrational flailing. Please note that everything in the above post is my opinion or facts about me.

 

[DreamChaser]

Scion of Vyshaan raises a good point there...

Heh. The change from AD&D 2e to D&D 3e probably was less painful, seeing that it mostly resulted in a power increase or at least no loss.

But does anyone else remember the shock, horror, fear, and anger about the changes to multiclassing?

I remember thread after thread about how multiclassing had been made worthless and that the game was ruined and the endless

"I guess I can't play my favorite game any more because I can't play my 9/9 half-elf fighter/mage in a party of 10th level characters. The designers obviously hate multiclassing and are trying to make it useless (perhaps they even hate ME). I guess I'm sticking with 2e or finding another game system."

quotes I remember have to read through.

It is a game. We can adapt (even though some people are having trouble with the whole "mage" thing). Many of the changes may well prove to be ones that really will make the whole game more fun. We don't know yet because we only have little snippets of the rules.

I'll wait and see. I'm a heavy duty house ruler anyway so I'll probably end up with some in this next game too. But I'll wait and see.

DC

 

[Norfleet]

"I guess I can't play my favorite game any more because I can't play my 9/9 half-elf fighter/mage in a party of 10th level characters. The designers obviously hate multiclassing and are trying to make it useless (perhaps they even hate ME). I guess I'm sticking with 2e or finding another game system."

Damn straight. Half-elves were more or less annihilated as of the 2E->3E conversion, as were all */caster multiclasses. As of 3E, any attempt to create a balanced-level caster multiclass without heavy use of PrCs will create a useless cripple incapable of effectively performing either function.

 

[Scion of Vyshaan]

I would like to boost Scion of Vyshaan's ego a bit more by saying I agree wholeheartedly. I get more than a little annoyed with posters on this board who view dissenting opinion as the "wrong" opinion.

Thanks, I appreciate it.