New haste on WotC website!

[Rel]

I think this version of the spell is still a good pick for a 3rd level spell. The only (minor) problem I've got with it is that the classes that learn it are the ones who benefit the least from it.

Then again, by that logic, you probably wouldn't have Bulls Strength on the Wizard/Sorcerer spell list either.

 

[Piratecat]

Should this be interpreted so that fighter with two weapons would gain two extra attacks out of the new haste?

No. you may make one additional attack at your highest BAB. If you are holding two weapons, you may choose which one to use.

At least, that's how I interpret it.

 

[the Jester]

Nah. It affects your whole party. I think it's quite good.

No mass haste - I think it has disappeared.

I heard that they'll still have mass haste, but it affects a ton of targets.

 

[SimonMoon5]

Bah, a pox on New Haste.

3e Haste wasn't unbalanced. But we don't need to go through that again. I think 3.5 wizards will become the utility characters that every group needs but nobody wants to play since they will now suck in combat. (I'm thinking of something similar to 1e clerics... every group needed them, but nobody wanted to be them. Now, every group needs a teleporting identify machine who can't do squat in combat-- but who on earth would want to be one?)

That aside, I also think a spell that gives everyone a puny +1 bonus to several things is a horrible bookkeeping nightmare for something that's relatively insignificant (being only a +1 bonus).

 

[Iku Rex]

At least, that's how I interpret it.

Me too. But this kind of sloppy writing does not bode well for 3.5.

 

[Piratecat]

I heard that they'll still have mass haste, but it affects a ton of targets.

PC: "I cast mass haste on our army."

DM: "How many people does it affect?"

PC: "225."

Nah, I just can't see it.

 

[Piratecat]

Me too. But this kind of sloppy writing does not bode well for 3.5.

Actually, the writing is generally much, much clearer. I have copies of the 3.5 rules, and the PHB's combat section is exquisitely clear. Same thing with the DMG's XP section. I think it'll generally be just fine.

 

[Knight Otu]

When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with any weapon he is holding.

I think we're supposed to read it as "with any, as opposed to each, weapon". As a non-native speaker, I may be wrong, but I found, when someone says "any", they mean "one out of a certain group".

 

[Iku Rex]

Actually, the writing is generally much, much clearer. I have copies of the 3.5 rules, and the PHB's combat section is exquisitely clear. Same thing with the DMG's XP section. I think it'll generally be just fine.

I care little about the combat section. It may be important, but by now most DnD gamers will know how things are supposed to work.

What I want from 3.5 is a clear and well-written magic section. In my experience badly written spells cause far more discussion (and disruption) than RTFM problems regarding combat mechanics.

 

[Quinn]

One reason for not making haste affect the Attack action as opposed to the Full Attack action is simply one of clarity.

If you make haste be the one exception to the "only one attack with a standard Attack action", then it confuses people, who want to know the other exceptions.

I think keeping "Full Attack" being the only action that allows you to make multiple attacks is extremely desirable.

Cheers!

I don't see how making Haste's extra attack only work on Full Attack actions make the spell any clearer. In fact, I think it does the exact opposite. It's far easier to say while under the spell's effect, you always receive an extra attack whenever you make an another attack (be it a standard attack action or a full attack action). Making a distinction is what causes the confusion.