3.0 spells broken? BAH!

[jmucchiello]

Actually, the "fix" for haste is very broken in large parties. We went from a single spellcasting that allowed one spellcaster to cast two spells per round to a single spellcasting that allowed the 5 fighter/rogue/warcleric types an extra attack per round. Our Sorcerer had one 3rd level spell in 3.0 and it was haste. In 3.5, it still would have been haste. In a group with 5 combatants, haste still rules over all 3rd level spells. It's unfortunate that they slant the spells for 4 person parties.

 

[maddman75]

I never had much of a problem with many of the so-called 'problem' spells. Our group never really got into the daily buff routine. We'd cast them at low levels when they only last like half the day. By the time they last all day, most of the PCs would have a stat boost item for their primary attribute, and the cleric would just as well take something else. That way you don't have to rely on the cleric, you still have it if you're ambushed in the night, and the cleric has more spells at his disposal.

I believe I'm going to ban disintigrate. It's simply too good, and too hard to recover from. My last high level group I found myself metagaming for reasons not to open every big fight by disintegrating the sorceress. Haste I believe I'll drop the AC bonus - it should be okay then. And I'll used the revised verison of Shield, just because it's easier not having to worry about what way it's facing.

 

[silentspace]

What's wrong with repetitive spell casting? Why is it different for wizards then for all other classes? (Bard: I'll start this combat with Inspire Courage. Fighter: This round I'll swing my sword.) Plus, spell casting is repetitive at low levels as well.

I always thought it was the players, not the DM's who had a problem with the spells being too powerful, since smacks work both ways. What's fun about level 1 play is you can kill or be killed in one round (even with max hp at first level, although less so). There's a sense of urgency you don't get if you know that you have plenty of time to make a safe escape. I think what makes this game fun is the chance, and the risk, not the certainty that you will survive almost every encounter. I guess that all depends on the player's personality though. Some like the risk, some don't. Some players charge into battle, while others' first instinct is to hang way back, even as their companions are being taken out. For those who like the risk, 3.0 or earlier is more fun. For those who don't, 3.5 is better.

Besides, what happens if the players use up all their spells to smack down one baddie, and there's another one right behind the corner? What happens if the DM starts making checks to see if all those wands and scrolls survive? What happens if the players become the hunted, instead of the hunters?

All that being said, I have no problem with 3.5. It's sort of like Microsoft, you just have to accept it.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Actually, the "fix" for haste is very broken in large parties. We went from a single spellcasting that allowed one spellcaster to cast two spells per round to a single spellcasting that allowed the 5 fighter/rogue/warcleric types an extra attack per round. Our Sorcerer had one 3rd level spell in 3.0 and it was haste. In 3.5, it still would have been haste. In a group with 5 combatants, haste still rules over all 3rd level spells. It's unfortunate that they slant the spells for 4 person parties.

I do have to disagree with this. Haste now requires wasting a prep round, since it doesn't give an extra spellcasting action. A prep round for a 5th+ level wizard is something that could be used to drop 3 magic missiles or a nice 5d6 fireball or lightning bolt. Also, that extra attack is only usable on a full attack. You're telling me that you have 5 PCs in your party who all get full attacks each round of combat? If so, you've got a DM with serious tactical problems.

Repetitive spell casting is a problem when the reason that the spell is repeated constantly is that it's a vastly superior tactic. 3.0 haste is much, much better than any other 3rd-level spell once you hit 7th+ level. Likewise, 3.0 harm is the single best offensive option available to an 11th-level cleric, or even a 35th-level cleric, as it is one of those annoying spells that has superior effects against superior opponents. Polymorph? Ick.

 

[silentspace]

OK, its just that I've heard this 'repetitive spellcasting' thing so much. It's the spells themselves that bother you, not the fact that people use some spells a lot more than others. People use Fireball an awful lot, but no one seems to be bothered by that. (That's an insanely powerful spell at lower levels, by the way) That's all.

Edit Depending on what your enemies are, that is

 

[MerakSpielman]

I never really had a problem with any of the big "problem" spells. If I did have an insta-kill spell problem, I would have simply started adding monsters to the encounters. That way the players still get to use their cool spells but they don't really catch on that the monster they zapped wouldn't have been there at all if they didn't have the spell.

You just have to modify the encounters to suit the powers of the characters. This can be done crudely with the ecounter CR. If your party is having an easy time, just bump up the average CR they're facing by 2 or 3.

 

[MerakSpielman]

OK, its just that I've heard this 'repetitive spellcasting' thing so much. It's the spells themselves that bother you, not the fact that people use some spells a lot more than others. People use Fireball an awful lot, but no one seems to be bothered by that.

I expect casters to use the same loadouts of spells game after game. They usually make a "typically memorized" list and end up casting the same spells, over and over again. Roughly, they use higher-level spells first and move down to lower level spells as they run out. Sometimes there's a bit of variation for strategic purposes.

My players tend to be good little boys and girls, though. The only time the cleric used harm was when I accidentally sent a WAY too powerful creature at the party. Sometimes the wizard cast Haste on the barbarian, and it was greatly appreciated when she did, but she was an Evoker and didn't like spending her time buffing other party members when she'd rather be blasting enemies to tiny bits. I guess what I'm trying to say is that my group is rather hardcore about Role-playing. They cast spells based not on what would be most effective strategically, but based on what they think that character would prefer to cast, based on their personality (I swear if that little old gnome schoolteacher "accidentally" casts Grease so that it catches my paladin one more time....).

 

[silentspace]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that my group is rather hardcore about Role-playing.

I hope that includes me

 

[Jeremy]

I'd like to say that with spells like ray of enfeeblement, scorching ray, touch of idiocy, and the new level-based holy word spells... There's plenty of unbalancing spells in both revisions.

Orange Ioun Stone + Bead of Karma + Word of Chaos = TPK or total victory for the PC's depending on what side uses it. Go look.

Have you seen the new beholder with it's balanced harm ray? 150' ranged touch attack for 130 damage. 65 on a successful save.

"Woo hoo! I saved."
"Take 65 points of damage."
"Half of 65?"
"Nope, half of 130."
"You mean it does 130 damage every round with only 1 of it's attacks?"
"Better than killing you."
"But it wouldn't have killed me on a made save..."

Fun stuff.

 

[Thanee]

The Polymorph spells I can almost agree with.

almost...

However the ability enhancing spells I never considered too powerful.

They are, when seen for themselves, not too much of a problem, but with all those long-lasting spells combined, the casters could outshine the fighter-types in combat, which was the main problem. And yes, you can cast them on the fighter instead, but judging from forums like this, the other way was much more common.

A 7th level party buffed up by Polymorph Other (i.e. change everyone into a Troll) and the other buffs was WAY ahead of its actual CR in combat power. And this, I at least, consider broken!

Even with the ability enhancing spells the fighter will likely top the cleric, and should the cleric top the fighter in raw combat bonuses it's usually at the cost of numerous such spells.

Of course, the cleric will have to spend quite a few spells, but with all those running all day long, the cleric will top the fighter all day long!

Harm was never a problem either, at about 11th level you have enemies that can kill you, or petrify you or what not with but a mere gaze...

...and a failed saving throw!

...so a touch attack to bring and enemy to 1d4 hp seems an allright trade off to me. They'd only be able to use it on one creature per spell cast so while it might make the climactic battle with the boss a little anticlamactic oh well.

With haste, the follow-up attack will likely drop that creature. And yes, the anticlimatic part is the worst thing, not if just one more creature is defeated that way.

True Ressurection is a 9th level spell, the most powerful level the clerics can obtain before getting into epic casting, so why should it be penalised?

Well, I just think, it's a bit cheap. True Resurrection should be something special (Resurrection at all should be). Sure you can just say, that it won't happen often, or that a cleric won't overuse such a power, but seriously, if he has it, why shouldn't he use it? It can be restricted by roleplaying, that's not the question here, but from the way the rules are supposed to work, it is that easy.

Bye
Thanee