New haste on WotC website!

[SimonMoon5]

Re: (giggling)

If your assertion is correct, that wizards are now completely useless in combat,

1) What might that indicate, to you, about the previous version of the 3rd level spell in question?

That it was an absolutely vital part of the balance of 3rd edition characters, and that changing it is a bad idea.

2) Why should one 3rd level spell make that much difference?

Should? It probably shouldn't, but as it happens it does. Giggle all you want, but that's imho a fact (see I can make jokes too). If you give wizards something to make up for losing Haste, then that's fine (for example, iterative spellcasting, like a fighter's iterative attacks, allowing wizards to cast one spell of their highest known level and one spell of that level minus 2 and one spell of that level minus 4, etc, per round).

3) What suggestions do you have to "make wizards combat effective" again besides, well, going back to the same old 3rd level spell.

Well, see above. Or make Haste whatever level you need to in order to feel secure about yourself. Wizards have enough problems to deal with (antimagic, SR, golems, saving throws for half damage, saving throws for no damage, etc, etc).

 

[PeterLind]

The 3.5 Haste, IMO, is close to what I would like to see, but not quite . . . I would like to see a Haste spell that is also useful for actions other than attacking and moving. For example, if a character wants to use the benefit of haste to ready an item, stand up, or open a door, then this should be allowed. The bonuses to Attack, AC and Reflex saves at +1 are fine with me, but not really necessary for the spell.

To elaborate, haste could just simply add "one action" to a character, and slow could simply subtract "one action" from a target. If the action is going to be an attack, then haste would only allow one extra attack at full bonus. The extra attack would apply after a movement action or on a full attack. If the action is going to be a spell, then the casting time is simply improved by one step because only one spell may normally be cast per round. Thus, a spell requiring a full action would be made into a 1 action spell while hasted. A spell normally requiring 1 action to cast would be cast as a free action (i.e. quickened spell). Thus, spellcasters could also benefit from Haste. Slow, again, will simply act as a reverse of Haste.

If the spell needs to be made 4th or higher level, then so be it.

 

[drnuncheon]

More things to ponder...

That it was an absolutely vital part of the balance of 3rd edition characters, and that changing it is a bad idea.

If it was such an absolutely vital part of the balance, then why do so many people see it as a major part of the imbalance?

I'm curious if the split here is mostly non-spellcaster-players (haste is too powerful) vs. spellcaster players (haste is fine), or if it's along some other lines - and where do the GMs tend to stand?

Because if the people saying 'we need haste' are just a bunch of arcanists, well, there may just be a bit of bias.

J

 

[Grog]

Re: Re: (giggling)

If you give wizards something to make up for losing Haste, then that's fine (for example, iterative spellcasting, like a fighter's iterative attacks, allowing wizards to cast one spell of their highest known level and one spell of that level minus 2 and one spell of that level minus 4, etc, per round).

This can already be done with Quicken spell. You can cast one spell at your highest level, and another at your highest level minus 4 (albeit using another one of your highest level slots).

Well, see above. Or make Haste whatever level you need to in order to feel secure about yourself. Wizards have enough problems to deal with (antimagic, SR, golems, saving throws for half damage, saving throws for no damage, etc, etc).

And fighters have plenty of problems of their own (flying enemies, DR (which will be much harder to bypass in 3.5E), incorporeal/concealed enemies, enemies with nasty close-range special attacks, etc, etc).

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Re: Must restate the obvious

If changing a 3rd level spell makes such a difference --

That spell by definition was grossly overpowered.

(and needed an overhaul)

Duh.

Nonsense. What it means is that the spell was an integral part of the balance of the game, classes, and options within those classes. "Integral" does not necessarily mean overpowered.

If you want a comparable spell, consider Animal Friendship. For a first level spell, a character can have a dire tiger or a legendary elephant companion indefinitely. Its more powerful than any summoning spell of any level except possibly Gate or the various Binding and Ally spells. A first level spell that competes with Summon Nature's Ally IX!?!? "Obviously grossly overpowered. (And needed an overhaul). Duh." But then again, most people don't see it that way. They look at the benefits of animal friendship as one of the class features of druids.

You could entirely remove any other 3rd level spell in the game and not have people saying "the class is now combat-enfeebled."

Repeat: the spell was grossly overpowered.

How about removing animal friendship--a first level spell. Wouldn't you then say that "druids are now combat-enfeebled?" We could remove Flame Strike. How would that effect the combat power of clerics and druids? Or we could get rid of Cure Moderate and Cure Serious Wounds. There weren't 2nd or 3rd level healing spells in 1e or 2e. By your logic, if doing that would make dramatic changes in the way 3.5e combat works, CMW and CSW are "grossly overpowered." That's nonsense, of course. And, so, by extension, your test is nonsense.

3e Haste may have been overpowered. (I don't think it was). However, demonstrating that changing it will have far reaching consequences for game balance doesn't prove that it was overpowered. There are lots of non-overpowered spells that would have very far reaching consequences if they were removed from the game. Animal Friendship, Cure Moderate Wounds, and Cure Serious Wounds are only a few of those.

 

[two]

ok ok sheesh

OK ok sheesh.

If haste, old school, is, as some maintain, integral to the balance of the game/class of sorc/wiz. Fine. Great. Super?

Really, it's a terrible way to balance classes/games. ONE 3rd level spell?

Why is this a bad idea, you ask?

Because spells are optional. What about the sorcerer that does not take haste -- ever? Is he doomed to sub-optimal combat forever? Why should this choice even be given, if it's so crucial to balance? Why don't the designers, at lthe very east, tell players in the PH: "TAKE HASTE IT IS THE MOST POWERFUL SPELL FOR ITS LEVEL IN THE GAME IF YOU DON'T TAKE IT YOU MIGHT BE VASTLY SUBOPTIMAL IT'S YOUR CHOICE OF COURSE IF YOU WANT TO SUCK BUT THERE YOU GO"

Yeah, I know a wizard can wear full plate and wield a net in both hands -- it's a player's choice. But really -- they should 'fess up. Player's Handbook should indicate SOMETHING.

The Wizard that specializes and can't take haste at all? Or chooses not to? Suck-central for life?

If they really wanted to use a spell to balance things, a 3rd level one at that, they should have made it mandatory or "free" - you always get HASTE as a 3rd level spell, as soon as you are allowed to cast 3rd level spells, no matter what. Or else: you suffer major combat suckiness.

Not a good plan.

Plus all this is hella boring. Jeez. Battle starts. Cast haste. Battle starts. Cast haste. Battle starts. Did I mention -- cast haste?

I still think Druids can rock without Animal Friendship, or Clerics without a 3rd level cure spell. Just use more 2nd level ones. Druids -- wildshape more, etc.

Basically, the argument that a spell is required by a class to meet up to some standard of "combat readiness" -- just is a cop out on the part of the designers. Or the players. I don't think it's even true. I've seen a lot of effective wizzies that don't require haste; clerics without FlameStrike, etc. They are just not your plain-jane vanilla PC's.

That' s good.

I won't convince anyone, I'm sure.

That's ok too.

 

[Ferret]

I think it is a good spell now but the 3 bonuses should bigger, or even, and that the +30 BM is changes to X1.5 or something.

 

[Marshall]

Piratecat - Did you playtest with the extra MEA/+2 AC version also?
And if so, Which came out better?

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

SPELL DESCRIPTION

When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with any weapon he is holding. The attack is made using the creature's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This effect is not cumulative with similar effects, such as that provided by a weapon of speed, nor does it actually grant an extra action, so you can't use it to cast a second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round.)

Some comments:

This is great for those carrying melee weapons or bows (I would rule a bow is a weapon being held, if someone had a bow out.)
Thus, the wizard or sorcerer can, as in 2nd Edition, once more empower all the fighters, rangers, paladins, barbarians, and even clerics, druids, and rogues in the party.

It is also good for spellswords.

Only archer versions of those characters. And it only empowers all the party's archers. The melee focussed fighters, barbarians, paladins, clerics, and druids, will get very very little out of the spell.

Why is that? Because the bonusses are not significant. And, since the extra attack will only kick in on full attack actions. And without the extra partial from 3.0 haste, melee characters are unlikely to get full attack actions more than every other round (if they're lucky). So, unlike 3e haste which often gave a character two to eight extra attacks (partial charge plus full attack=8 more attacks than a move+attack for a character with Greater TWF; it probably averaged two to four extra attacks per round since some rounds characters didn't need to move) a round, 3.5e Haste is likely to give each individual character one extra attack every two rounds or so.

A quick analysis of Haste as a fighter buff (with some very generous assumptions for 3.5e haste):
-A party of six 6th level characters: fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric, archer bard, Barbarian
-3.5e haste: effects everyone but the cleric
-3.0e haste: on the fighter
-The fighter and fighter/cleric have to move more than five feet in the first, third, and sixth rounds of the six round combat.
-The rogue makes two full attacks (other rounds, he has to tumble in order to reach flanking)
-The archer makes a full attack every round
-The cleric never makes a full attack action (he spends his time healing, casting buffs, or making single attacks

3.0e haste=9 extra attacks for the fighter
3.5e haste=3 extra attacks for the fighter, 3 for the barbarian, two for the rogue, and six for the bard.

Total extra attacks:
3.0 9
3.5 14

However, the number of attacks doesn't tell the whole story.

First of all, the fighter's and the barbarian's attacks are likely to be the most significant of the bunch. (The rogue's attacks may be competitive if they're sneak attacks.) This is especially true in an environment where the amount of available spellcasting is limited. It's much much easier to give an empowered bull's strength, cat's grace, and greater magic weapon to one fighter than it is to buff an entire party. In that case, 3.0e haste was a far more effective force multiplier for other buffs than 3.5e haste will be.

Second, the 3.0 version netted 2 of its extra attacks in round 1. The 3.5e version only netted one extra attack in round 1 (from the archer). Round 1, is usually the most significant round of combat since any foes taken out before their action in round 1 have no effect on combat (other than taking up attacks that would otherwise be allocated elsewhere). If the party takes the enemy wizard out in round 2, odds are good that he already nailed the party with a fireball, ice storm, or slow spell.

At this point, however, the offensive capability of 3.5e haste does seem at least comparable to 3.0 haste. But lets look at a few less biased examples.

Example 1: 6th level, the iconic party: Fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard.

3.0e haste: 9 extra attacks
3.5e haste: 5 extra attacks (assuming that the cleric takes a full attack action.

Example 2: 6th level non iconic party: dual wielding ranger, bard, sorceror, druid (and an animal companion--treated as a fighter for this study).

3.0e haste: 12 extra attacks
3.5e haste: 7-10 extra attacks (the higher number assumes a combat druid who makes a full attack action once every round)

Example 3: 8th level party: Dual wielding fighter (Imp TWF), sorceror, cleric, rogue

3.0e haste: 15 extra attacks
3.5e haste: 4-7 extra attacks (the higher numbers include two full attacks for both the cleric and the rogue).

Example 4: 6th level party: Wizard, cleric, sorceror, fighter, wizard, rogue

3.0e haste: 9 extra attacks
3.5e haste: 4-8 extra attacks (the higher number assumes that the cleric and the rogue make five full attacks between the two fo them--note that the cleric's attacks aren't as effective as the fighter's).

On balance, 3.5e haste only seems competitive with 3.0e haste as an offensive fighter buff in large, fighter heavy parties with at least one archer.

As an offensive buff, 3.5e haste also very very heavily favors archers. It is marginally effective for sword and board or two handed weapon fighters. It is pathetically weak (compared to 3.0e haste) for Two Weapon Fighters.

It will probably also have some utility for conjurers who favor summoning large numbers of weaker creatures with their summoning spells.

SPELL DESCRIPTION

A hasted creature gains a +1 bonus on attack rolls and a +1 dodge bonus to AC and Reflex saves. Any condition that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes you lose dodge bonuses.

Some comments:

Again, this is great for fighters, rangers, paladins, barbarians, and even clerics, druids and rogues.
It is also good for spellswords.

The defensive bonus is pretty much useless to everyone you mentioned. +1 to AC is pretty meaningless unless the character's AC is very high to begin with. A character with AC 15 (not unheard of for 5th level barbarian types--especially when raging) will take an average of 26.5 points of damage per round from a troll. A +1 bonus to AC drops this to 24.1 points of damage. That's unlikely to even buy the barbarian another round of life. If the character has AC 20 against the same troll, going to AC 21 means taking 13.1 instead of 15.1 points of damage per round. That might buy the character an extra round of life. But he's still got a good chance of being rended every round. It's not until AC 26 (+3 fullplate and +3 shield or +1 fullplate, +1 shield, 12 dex, dodge feat, amulet of natural armor +1, and ring of protection +1) that the one point of AC will significantly increase the fighter's life expectancy. (Approx 4.6 points of damage per round to 3.2) And, since, Haste was the primary way that characters got ACs sufficient for one more point to make a difference in 3e and it will no longer fulfill that function in 3.5e, it seems unlikely that there will be anything in 3.5e able to boost PCs ACs high enough for the 1 point from 3.5e Haste to make a difference.

The attack bonus will be nice but probably not worth a 3rd level spell. The same is true for the save bonus. After all, if prayer (probably the spell most directly comparable to the new Haste) were on the Sor/Wiz list, how many would learn it? I'd guess it'd be competing with secret page for spot in a combat wizard's repertoire.

But if this new version will be the only Haste available officially, I must state that I do not care for it.

I have to say that I agree wholeheartedly with this.

I'm also very concerned about the effect that the new revision will have on the balance of the fighting classes. 3.0e haste was one of the things that balanced two weapon fighting and sword and board style (the AC bonus in that case--as Haste usually changed a the decent or good AC of the sword and board fighter into an excellent AC) with two handed weapon fighting. It was also one of the primary balancing factors between all kinds of melee fighting and archery (because it removed the archer's dramatic advantage in the number of full attacks gained). The new version of haste seems likely to exacerbate all of the inequalities the old haste ameriolated. Melee characters will get fewer full attacks than archers--and it will matter more because full attacks are more significant. (Changes to GMW are unlikley to reverse this inequality). Two weapon fighting characters will have fewer opportunities to make full attacks and thus achieve damage parity with two handed weapon warriors. (Changing it to cost one feat instead of two won't make much difference to this). Sword and Board fighters are likely to lose the capability of pumping their AC to a point that their enemies actually have trouble hitting them--thus vitiating the benefit for which they sacrificed damage dealing capacity.

 

[Fenes 2]

Re: More things to ponder...

If it was such an absolutely vital part of the balance, then why do so many people see it as a major part of the imbalance?

I'm curious if the split here is mostly non-spellcaster-players (haste is too powerful) vs. spellcaster players (haste is fine), or if it's along some other lines - and where do the GMs tend to stand?

Because if the people saying 'we need haste' are just a bunch of arcanists, well, there may just be a bit of bias.

J

I am mainly a DM, but I play both a sorcerer and a bard, and I banned 3.0 haste as soon as I thought it through. The new version looks better, imho.

I have no experience with 2E haste, despite playing weekly for 8 years, since none of my PCs were elven, and noone would sacrifice years of their lives for more attacks. Haven't seen it used by any other PC either, save when the wild mage miscast once, and that was followed by death threats from the aged party.