3.0 spells broken? BAH!

[MerakSpielman]

I hope that includes me

Have we met?



Currently I DM 2 campaigns (1 RL and 1 PbP) and play in 3 (2 RL and 1 PbP) so any time I speak of "my group" it's bound to be a bit vague. You're doing good with the role-playing, ss. PbP lends itself to that, since there's so much time to think of good in-character things to say. In RL, it's more like improv acting, and is very difficult to get right, but really the funny attempts at in-character dialogue are half the fun.

 

[jmucchiello]

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.

Who says they all have to get full attacks each round? If 2 out of 5 of them get a Full Attack, that extra attack at full BAB is more than likely going to do more damage than magic missiles. And a few rounds into combat fireball is not happening. Also, at 1 min/level, it can be cast before the 1st round of combat.

You are forgetting that enemies faced by parties of size 7 usually have many combatants. It's not 7 adventurers against 1 BBEG. There are lots of minions needed to keep those 7 adventurers busy. Thus once combat is in full swing, it is not hard for 2 or 3 of the fighters to be toe-to-toe with multiple enemies. 3-5 rounds times 2-3 extra attacks (+cleave+sneak attack) is far more damage than any other spell the mage is going to cast. And it improves attack bonus, AC and grants 30 more feet of mobility!

Disagree all you like, but I doubt you've seen it in action.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

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.

I wouldn't call scorching ray anything unbalancing. It barely breaks the damage caps and it requires a touch attack, seems good to me. The rest though are unbalancing, and god the new evards black tentacles is just sick, its like a vastly improved solid fog, and I felt solid fog was on the strong side for 4th level.

Though my biggest complaint is the weakening of multipurpose spells by splitting them into separate parts. Its like they saw there samples of flesh to stone and rock to mud and said wow lets make a really dumb idea even dumber by copying it and doing it on all multipurpose spells.

Haste fix good, harm fix good, shapechange fix bad, summon monster fix with the new lamer lists bad cause yeah those really needed to be weaker.(other than a few exceptions with celestials and the like where you'd gain the powers of a 14th level cleric+more these guys were weak on average, now with the 8th level dire bear and other lameness there even weaker)

 

[The Little Raven]

[
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.

Haste only gives an extra attack when you take the full attack action. So, you cannot cast harm and then attack in the same round, unless the spell is quickened.

 

[Thanee]

You know we are actually talking about the 3.0 versions, don't you?

Bye
Thanee

 

[Henry]

The 3.5 spell changes did two things that were all IMO good things:

1) It slowed the combat down. D&D 3e suffers now from something which Magic the Gathering suffered from in 1997 or so: Combat is too darned fast. At levels 8 and higher, a combat that lasts over 2 rounds is an anomaly. With Haste, harm, hold person, etc. All your enemies are either decimated by round 3, or YOU are. If it were any faster, we'd be using coin flips to resolve it instead of dice rolls, and a 2-round combat is not what D&D is about, to me. If you are going to fight something, it needs to be exciting, not anti-climactic.

2) It balanced out school specialization, and rectified some of its imbalances. Now, Conjurers are a very preferable school, because they ignore (for the most part) spell resistance. Enchanters are now more likely to be seen. It is truthfully a slightly clunky mechanism to use the schools in 3E, weighing the schools as they do. Now, the mechanic is simple - eliminate two schools, keep the rest.

I love 3E greatly, and still like playing Haste as is, but it does make combats too fast to be enjoyed. A combat should at LEAST last 3 rounds, if not closer to 6 to 8 rounds, before the outcome is not in doubt.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Who says they all have to get full attacks each round? If 2 out of 5 of them get a Full Attack, that extra attack at full BAB is more than likely going to do more damage than magic missiles. And a few rounds into combat fireball is not happening. Also, at 1 min/level, it can be cast before the 1st round of combat.

You are forgetting that enemies faced by parties of size 7 usually have many combatants. It's not 7 adventurers against 1 BBEG. There are lots of minions needed to keep those 7 adventurers busy. Thus once combat is in full swing, it is not hard for 2 or 3 of the fighters to be toe-to-toe with multiple enemies. 3-5 rounds times 2-3 extra attacks (+cleave+sneak attack) is far more damage than any other spell the mage is going to cast. And it improves attack bonus, AC and grants 30 more feet of mobility!

Disagree all you like, but I doubt you've seen it in action.

Actually, I have seen it in action; I implemented precisely this change to haste six months before the revisions hit the shelves. I'm not saying that haste is a wimpy spell, but I AM saying that yes, an extra attack at full BAB by two party members is not as good as an extra spell. In fact, you point to one of the reasons: Frequent full attacks tend to be most common against hordes of mooks. Against hordes of mooks, a single lightning bolt or fireball is going to do much, much more damage on the whole, and without the risk of taking hits in return.

Also, the comparison is NOT between one spell and 3-5 rounds of 2-3 extra attacks. It's between 3-5 rounds of dual spellcasting and 3-5 rounds of 2-3 extra attacks. I'll take twice the spells for one over an extra attack, usable only in particular situations, for 2-3 any day of the week, thank you.

Also, the fact that 3.5 haste improves both attacks and AC actually doesn't make it an improvement over 3.0 haste. A +4 to AC vs. +2 to attacks and +2 to AC is pretty much a wash.

 

[Thanee]

We also used the new version of haste for quite some time (and long before the revision) with 3.0 already, however, we used it as a single target spell not the multiple target it is now, and it's still a useful spell!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

A +4 to AC vs. +2 to attacks and +2 to AC is pretty much a wash.

Actually it only grants +1 AC, +1 attack bonus and in addition +1 Reflex save now (plus the extra attack and movement, of course).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Renfield]

Allright, in one of the few games I played I was playing a warpriest of Clangeddin Silverbeard. This dwarf, dubbed Sven Ironstar, did indeed get higher attack and damage bonuses than the groups fighter. Normally he wouldn't know exactly how soon he'd expect combat so he'd wait until they were in combat to cast his first choice spell Bull's Strength. Beind a dwarf he didn't feel the need to worry about Endurance as his Con was already high enough as was. Cat's Grace was relatively useless as he had full-plate and a 12 dex giving him the only bonus to AC from dex he could have. He would then follow this up by casting Magic Vestment first chance he had. Being ninth level this enhanced his AC by +3 bringing his +2 suit to +5 not to mention his large steel shield which was a +2 and brought his AC to 26. Now that may seem high to most but the vast majority of the creatures being thrown at us didn't seem to have a problem with it and when they did the DM brought in monsters and enemies that made touch attacks at which point my AC was 16 (+5 magic bonus and +1 dex bonus). Add Divine Favor and for that combat I have an aditional +3 to attack and damage roles coupled with the +2 (average for bull's str) bonus from bull's strength.

Now, by this time three rounds have passed and the other players are thrashing the enemy, so my character rushes in to join the fight. Byt the time combat is over he has to sacrifice quite a few 2nd and 3rd level spell slots for healing (where many of the so-called problem spells dwell) His divine favor is gone. He decides to play it safe and shortly before they enter the next room in this dungeon he cast's Greater Magic Weapon. So now his bonuses are as follows for essentially the rest of the day:

26 AC compared to the fighters 25 (+2 Full Plate +2 Shield)

+15/+10 to attack with his Shocking Dwarven Waraxe (Damage: 1d10+1d6+9 12-25) vs. +16/+11 of a fighter with 20 Str and weapon proficiency as well as a +1 flaming bastard sword. (Damage: 1d10+1d6+7 9-23) A little less damage a slightly better chance to hit than the cleric. Catch? Cleric had to spend spells to get these bonuses. With these bonuses he feels he's resonably set for the rest of the day and decides it's probably best to save the rest for healing and emergencies. The fighter still has the advantage of feats that give him other goodies for combat wheras the Cleric pretty much focuses on getting his two whacks in at the enemy and that's about it.

Then, continuing on through said stereotypical dungeon (granted I didn't originally refer to any such thing >.<) We encounter a wizard and his henchman or his back up grunts. He notices there's a spell caster and a battle hungry dwarf with a great big holy symbol on his shield making the wizard assume the worst and cast Dispell Magic. Roles are made and ouch. I fail. There go all my bonuses whereas mr. Fighter keeps his. All those hard cast spells gone. Now let's look at the scenario:

Cleric: +3 bonus from 17 str, +10 bonus from enchanted full plate, +1 from dex, and +1 from shocking waraxe, and a +2 from his Large Steel Shield. This gives him an AC of 23 an attack bonus of +10/+4 and a damage of 1d10+1d6+4 6-20 Whereas the Fighter keeps all his lovely bonuses from before easily outclassing the Cleric now.

Of course many variables go into this argument but my general point is that the stat bonus spells aren't too likely to be combined often. Those that are risk losing healing spells and casting spells takes time. Not to mention a lovely Dispell Magic can end any beefed up clerics parade while the fighter remaines at his best. One of the reasons I liked 3.0 is that it was possible to keep clerics from being straight up band-aids. My dwarf had a policy. If you lacked the strength and skill to get through the battle then you didn't deserve his gods healing AKA: no healing during combat. That got a few people pissed and started to curb the cleric in their eyes as a combat force to reckon with who could heal as opposed to a bandaid that could hold his own reasonably well from 2nd edition.


As for Ressurection, that can get into the whole "D&D is a Generic Fantasy RPG" thing. At which point apparently generic fantasy means people can be ressurected easily, there is a pantheon of numerous gods, there are apparently numerous planes of existance, and wizards always memorise spells. So if your campaign differs from this 'generic' fantasy style that is why there are house rules. Which I implement many. I never considered Ressurection an unreasonable spell if players were playing in say Forgotten Realms, or Greyhawk, but in my home brewed campaigns I simply inform them that death is more or less permanent and they tend to take it well.

As for haste... well that can be debated over and over though I've never had a problem with it. It was rather effective when used against the PC's and rather effective when used by them. D&D has definitely become more of a crunchy bits game and the few imbalances I seen have always been viewed as a touch of twisted realism in that sometimes things aren't always on even ground. Sometimes things aren't fair. Once upon a time in my not too long ago early DMing days: I didn't know the rules too well as third edition had only come out and a player had convinced me that he could cast a spell for every attack he had, I shrugged and managed to deal with it reasonably well in the high level game we were playing and things never got too out of hand, though the PC's did tend to win more with this spellcasters aid... Until I discovered that the spell per attack thing wasn't the case damn I was gullible still can be from time to time Either way I guess that sort of imbedded the 'multiple spells aren't that bad' thing in my mind.