Thanks, guys, you've ruined Haste for the rest of us.

[Petrosian]

[/B][/QUOTE]

Petrosian: I did not say that YOU were a combat monster and I'm sorry if I implied it. I said many of the people on the Haste/DR threads seem to be.

I personally think that conclusion, based on the logic you used to support it, is seriously flawed. If i chimed in on a thread entitled "which is better oriental food or italian" and saw a whole bunch of people talking about oriental and italian foods, i would not draw from this that they hated mexican food or did not partake of it.

Yes, my comments were maybe a little out of thread. But to defend that let me say that for me, the rules and the roleplaying are actualy pretty closely intertwined...the rules are tools for roleplaying, and I feel ment to best represent things from fantasy. We all have our opnions of how thats best achieved.

i concur that rules influence roleplaying and in specific the greatest aspect of that is the concept of what "reasonable" means in the world you play in. Matter of fact, this is directly impacted with my comments about favoring DND characters over FASTASY characters, which unfortunately both the designer-dr and haste-attack do, in that they reward characters who choose decidedly non-fantasy characters (the awesome mystic might of the dagger-mage and the golfer-warrior) over more traditional fantasy ones.

You had said in a post somewhere that you were not going to use 3.5 in your campaign...given the overall severity of your comments I took that to mean you would not ever be using it...sorry for the overstatement/misunderstanding.

"Gather Info" is a skill i find much more useful and reliable than "Conclusion Jumping." Matter of fact, if you stop and consider "why" before making the conclusion leaping skill check, it often saves time. Heck, even tight reading like noticing the "current" in "my current campaign" can help.

As to the rest well, yes I feel you have what I think of as an overly negative/cynical view of what players will and wont do.

Then you miss the point.

I do not consider the golf-bag of weapons or the awesome dagger mage to be BAD PLAYER BEHAVIOR at all. i consider both of them "common sense for an uncommon world." I have stated this MANY TIMES.

I consider the flaw to be the system or rule which makes these "reasonable choices" in the first place. If i tell my players in black and white that the mage while hasted gets an extra attack action, i should not gripe about them then finding a use for that action and thus gving birth to the awesome dagger-mage. if i tell the players that designer-dr is in then i should not gripe or fret when they begin looking for golf baggies of weapons to deal reasonably with the issue.

Instead i should be criticizing ME for handing them that rule in the first place GIVEN it provokes such an obvious, reasoned response.

In other words, if i don't want to see them do X, i should not tell them i will pay them (reward them) if they do X.

The fault would be mine were i to implement the rule, not theirs.

See, to me this isn't about POWERGAMERS and BAD PLAYERS or BAD ATTITUDES... its about rules which show clear and distinct repercussions and the value of those repercussions.

Yes I know your going to say the same of me for what i said about the posters on this thread...however I was talking specficaly about they who had evindenced powergamey behaviour not the DnD playing community as a whole.

posts focusing on combat stats and comparisons on threads specifically topiced about changes to combat rules does not to me served as any evidence of POWERGAMING tendencies. it shows staying on topic.

Besides, propaganda to the contrary... powergaming and crunching combat stats is NEITHER bad gaming NOR exclusive of roleplaying. Some of the best roleplayers i know crunch combat stats like a pro, and vice-versa.

The game works much better when you don't view a significantly block of gamers or a significant design element of gaming as a bad thing.

I also feel you respond a bit to harshly to people on some things some times. I'm not even going to mention the ones regarding me, but I remember posts where poster whom tend towards the liking 3.5 end of the spectrum mentioned that we should reserve judgement on the new rules till they actualy apear and you made rather scathing remarks about why they dont think that applies to the "for it" side as well as the "against it" side of the arguement. Those are the things I am commenting on

Put simply, i have seen numerous posts by people who basically try and dismiss the nay-sayers by commenting that the nay-sayers should not be complaining because we dont have the whole picture. At the same time, these posters tend to voice positive conclusions of 3.5e on their own AND are not telling the yay-sayers to pipe down because we dont have the whole picture.

To me, any conclusion is only as valid as the facts it is built on and the logic that follows. it is disengenuous to use "you dont have the facts cuz more may come out" to attack only one side of the argument. It is dismissive and wrongfully so.

So, yes, i do respond to those. I also do not hem and haw and try and act like i respect that agument either. its poppycock, at least insofar as it is being used one-sidedly.

 

[Merlion]

I understand a lot of what your saying and I am sorry for misinterpreations but still...see my last post

 

[Merlion]

Although I must say you are right that theres a lot of combination numbers crunchers/heavy RPers like that out there. heck I can be that way myself. I guess I just didnt reallize how strict the topic rules were, and it freaked me out that no one talked about any of the non damage ratio related aspects of thease things. and I didnt...or if I did I didnt mean to..say yes thease people are powergamers...I said it really seemed that way

 

[WizarDru]

Some part of me is pulling its hair out while another part of me is laughing out loud at this point. in one sentence you agree i wasn't doing what i was accused of but also say that it comes across that i was.

Angry, much?
I'm just pointing something out. I'm sorry if you interpert that as some overt criticism. I'm not sure I follow what your all worked up about, other than that you're sure you know how other people view you, and you don't like the fact that someone is telling you otherwise. If you interpert a single line in one post over the course of a thread as pandering to others, then I'm suprised that you find posting several long posts asserting what the single line would have said.

[shrugs]

or is this yet another case where those who detract, even if it is specifc and detailed detraction, are held to different standards?

Have you posted or emailed to every poster who said positive things about 3.5e without also providing the necessary required negativisms about their posting?

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, or holding an opinion that's negative. That's your perorgative. If I encountered someone who said that the new mechanics were irrefutably unflawed, I'd call them on it. Have, in fact. We don't know either way, because we've only seen previews. If you see "In terms of mechanics, the designer-dr simply seems to fail to produce results" and "In terms of mechanics the haste thing is silly." as facts, and not opinions, that's your perorgative, as well. Not all of us feel that way.

I'm not sure what I think of the changes to Haste, yet. I do know that you obviously are upset over this, which wasn't my intent, so I'll depart the conversation, allowing you to have the last word.

 

[Petrosian]

Angry, much?

Actually, quite amused.

meanwhile, i have taken the initiative and started the great defusing agenda with a whole thread devoted to my formally stating that i do not find that everything in 3.5e sucks, and even giving an example.

I hope this helps.

 

[Sinjin the Rogue]

Hasty decision

I am in the camp that does not believe that haste needs to be changed. Interestingly, I read the first few pages of the post, where a number of people chided those who don't like the change coming in 3.5, by telling them that the DM does not have to accept the change and could house rule it to keep haste the way it was. Could the same argument no also be made for those who don't like the current version? Can't your DM house rule it if he does not like haste in its current form? I would say the answer to that question is yes, and therefore, no need exists to change the spell in the first place.

Granted, haste is powerful. Most spell casters will take it as soon as it becomes available, but they don't always use it on themselves. Haste is certainly a lower level spell that remains useful to a caster throughout his career, while many other lower level spells lose their usefullness. However, IMHO, haste provides a wizard with some crucial protections that are needed at mid to higher levels. Let me explain:

I currently play a 14th level wizard. The campaign in which I play is not a Monty Haul campaign. The treasure that our group has collected from our adventures (the core WoTC modules) is adequate, but it does not offer the chance for any of us to load up on magic items, protective gear etc. At this point, my wizard has an AC of 21. (Bracers of armor +3, Gauntlets of dexterity +4 (AC bonus of +2 when not flat footed), Amulet of Natural armor +2, and a ring of protection +2. The shield spell grants a +7 AC to 50% of the battlefield, but the opportunities to perpare for combat in advance are usually rare. However, my AC with shield becomes 28. I could cast mage armor to gain a 29. Haste adds +4 to the AC for a total of 33. That is a very nice AC! However, take away the +4 haste bonus, and my AC is back to 29. The opponents we face typically have attack modifiers in the mid to upper 20's. So, even with a 29 AC, my wizard faces the very real possibility of suffering life threatening wounds on the battlefield, and because wizards get so few hit points, he certainly can't last long when creatures are capable of doling out 40 to 50 hp's worth of damage in a round. You may argue that the wizard should not be engaging in combat, and that is certainly true, but at mid to higher levels, almost every NPC of some intelligence that we face always goes after the wizard first. It's very difficult to cast spells when you are stunned, grappled and pummeled to within an inch of your life. You may argue that the wizard should take the "Still-Spell" feat to counter the effect of grappling, but that would force a wizard to take a feat that he might not normally want to have to take. It would also require the wizard to apply the feat to a significant number of the spells on his daily allotment, thus increasing the spell level by one for each of them. That is a high price to pay. And, it does nothing to stave off the effects of a monk's stun. True, these are the hazards of the game, but as I said, when the wizard is the primary target of every enemy, the odds favor death for the wizard more than anyone else.

Then of course, there is spell resistance. Most creatures don't have it, but those who do have such a high resistance that even with greater spell penetration, it is difficult to effect a creature with SR. Most creatures with SR usually have immunity of resistances to certain types of energies. In addition, they are usually higher level creatures with similarly high saving throws. Once a wizard gets into the higher levels, he can be sure that he is going to be facing creatures with SR in the 30's. a 15th level wizard with greater spell penetration has a 50/50 chance of even affecting a creature with that kind of SR. On top of that, the spell may not work because the creature may be immune to the type of energy the spell uses. If that does not happen, the creature usually gets a saving throw, so more often than not, the spell will fail or its effects will be significantly reduced.

Haste gives the wizard more chances to make a spell stick, but the ability itself is not free. A hasted wizard goes through many more spells, and can soon find himself out of spells or at least out of spells that might have any use in a particular encounter. Haste also lasts for only 1 round per level, so it's usually gone after a single encounter. So, I don't think it is broken at all. It gives a wizard a much needed boost for a single combat encounter per day (per memorized haste) A wizard has to be judicious in choosing the right encounter in which to use it.

Of course, DM's may still not want the current version in their campaigns. No worries. As D&D players, the first rule of thumb should be that the DM has the final say in his campaign. I am both a player and a DM, and so I fully support my DM, (who has decided that when the new version is posted, any new campaigns we start will use the new version) and the decisions he makes for his campaign.

I will say that I would be much more accepting of the change from WoTC, if they decided to change the feat "Quicken Spell" to a +1 spell level penalty rather than a +4 penalty. I think they should also grant wizards and sorcerers 2 extra metamagic feats for free at first level, or give bonus feats every 2 levels like they do for fighters. This would allow arcane casters a lot more flexibility in their feat selection, or compensate them for having to be forced to take specific feats in order to survive.

 

[Quinn]

Re: Hasty decision

Haste adds +4 to the AC for a total of 33. That is a very nice AC! However, take away the +4 haste bonus, and my AC is back to 29. The opponents we face typically have attack modifiers in the mid to upper 20's. So, even with a 29 AC, my wizard faces the very real possibility of suffering life threatening wounds on the battlefield, and because wizards get so few hit points, he certainly can't last long when creatures are capable of doling out 40 to 50 hp's worth of damage in a round.

.....

I will say that I would be much more accepting of the change from WoTC, if they decided to change the feat "Quicken Spell" to a +1 spell level penalty rather than a +4 penalty. I think they should also grant wizards and sorcerers 2 extra metamagic feats for free at first level, or give bonus feats every 2 levels like they do for fighters. This would allow arcane casters a lot more flexibility in their feat selection, or compensate them for having to be forced
to take specific feats in order to survive.

Well, spellcasters will still get the +4 haste bonus to AC, but lose the ability to cast extra spells. I definitely agree that Quicken needs to be lightened quite a bit to make it useful. I think a +2 spell level increase is good. That way it's not totally prohibitive (+4 spell level increase is pretty rough), but there's still a cost for wanting to cast two spells a round. Part of the issue I have is that while running out of spells may be an issue for a wizard, it's not nearly an issue for a sorcerer unless the DM is throwing tons of opponents at the party.