D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Is every Magic Change Downward?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

In my experience the apparent power inherant in spellcasters is only a problem in games where there's usually only 1 (maybe 2) encounters in any given game day

Just to make things worse, everyone's perceptions will be biased one way or another.

An NPC spellcaster does not worry about this kind of thing. He just needs a silent dimension door to get away in the end.

It may also be difficult to get those four encounters per day. I'd rather use two stronger encounter, but then I run into problems with mages - unless I choose creatures deliberately designed to "nerf" the mage.

The primary difference between the fighter and the mage, in your example, that I see is that when the fire giant's mate comes looking 10 minutes later the fighter actually stands a chance.

Not if the wizard prepared multiple fly or improved invisibility spells (and why wouldn't he) or carries a wand of some direct damage spell.

The problem isn't here, anyway, but at higher levels when wizards have much greater access to useful save-or-die spells (eg not phantasmal killer) and aren't running out of spells at the end of the day. (I won't even go on about Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion, other than to just mention it. Fortunately the mage in my campaign doesn't use that spell.)

There's a reason why most of these "ovepowered" mage scenarios deal with high levels, after all.

I think mages should be compensated for being weak at low level by being made stronger - at low level. I don't think it's fair to make them stronger than other classes at high level to compensate for this. That's just creating an illusion of balance.

Nevermind the case where the groups' sleep is being constantly interrupted during the night by whatever natural predators exist in the world.

The hazards of using alarm rather than having a ranger stand guard.

IME low-level characters try to stay in civilization, high level characters tend to use teleport or what not, and furthermore, any DM who does that on a regular basis is being plain mean. Do they have a good reason why animals must always be disturbing their camps? Hang your party's garbage in a tree and then go to sleep. There's a reason why one does not have to sleep in a fortified tent in the wilderness - probably because animals won't simply attack sleeping humans. Or keep a fire running (and face the tent the other way), which will keep most animals away.

Just to add a little fuel to the fire, a wizard needs one more hour of sleep per interruption, so if they're interrupted twice, they just start out two hours later. It isn't like they're adventuring 16 hours per day, or always on a tight schedule. This is one reason why mage players get so angry, since they feel the DM is always "nerfing" them by interrupting their sleep, using high-save opponents like dragons or advanced creatures, always targeting the mage first, or all the clerics they face use death ward and all the wizards use spell turning etc - DMs being unfair to them for being more powerful than the rest of the party.

I'm a bit surprised to see you saying that DMs should "nerf" wizards this way or try to kill their characters in their sleep*.

* Yeah, I'm using a bit of hyperbole.

 

[woodelf]

Re: Magic NEEDED to be reduced.

One thing I've noticed in 3e is that an average mage will deal 2 or 3 times more damage out than an average meleer can, especially once you've gone above level 10 or so.

Ask your DM (or yourself if you DM) how many times the monster dies to the mages and clerics before the fighters can get in more than a few hits, given they usually have to get in position first. Not to mention that those magic types have a whole host of utility spells, and protection spells. I don't really have a problem with many of the changes proposed.

Not been my experiences at all. First, you assumed a combat-optimized wizard. 2nd, you gave the wizard haste, and not the fighter. While, obviously, a pure fighter can't haste herself, i still don't think that's a "fair" comparison. Maybe your campaigns are different, but, even when going into combat, i've never had a spellcaster's player be that single-minded about combat. They might prepare (for the time they were going to assault a combat-happy dragon, and knew it) 2/3rds damage spells, tops.

3E fighters and barbarians dish out more damage, IME, than 2e combat wizards. Not more than they *could* maybe, but more than they actually did, generally speaking. And 3E wizards do less damage than 2e wizards, IME, because of the change from 20d to 10d for spell damage caps.

Anyway, in my D&D3E game (the one i played in), the single fighter usually took out about as much opponent as the druid, monk, combat-oriented cleric, and wizard combined. And when we lost the cleric, he was about twice as effective as the bard, sorcerer, druid, and monk combined.

 

[woodelf]

Re: Re: Magic NEEDED to be reduced.

3E fighters and barbarians dish out more damage, IME, than 2e combat wizards. Not more than they *could* maybe, but more than they actually did, generally speaking. And 3E wizards do less damage than 2e wizards, IME, because of the change from 20d to 10d for spell damage caps.

Not to mention the generally-higher HPs in 3E (forgot to mention). And a fighter doesn't run out of attacks for the day.

BTW, i realized that didn't come across the way i wanted it to. I'm actually ambivalent about reducing the damage-dealing potential of wizards (or casters in general). I don't think they're overpowered currently, but i *do* agree that their flexibility is at least as useful as raw damage-dealing potential. In fact, my primary complaint with the 3E spell lists, as compared to 2e, is the more-combat-focused nature of them. The plethory of buffs, frex, most of which didn't exist in [core] 2e. And we're seeing even more of this with 3.5E, IMHO: polymorph self going from a cool multi-purpose spell to one that is combat-optimized, frex. I'd actually love to see about half the "hurtin' people" spells (and things like Summon Monster, as written, seem to qualify) disappear, or get broadened, but the ones that are there get a bit tougher (raise the dice cap to 20, frex). and, of course, all of those removed spells be replaced with non-combat spells. Things like idea, speak with astral traveller, know customs, log of everburning, impeding permission, music of the spheres, or body clock (to grab a few 2e spells, mostly from Tome of Magic). There'd be less incentive to take gobs of combat spells, and more cool stuff to do when you weren't fighting people. More magical support for games that involve problems, rather than opponents, would be nice too.

 

[AuraSeer]

Re: Re: Re: Magic NEEDED to be reduced.

I'd actually love to see about half the "hurtin' people" spells (and things like Summon Monster, as written, seem to qualify) disappear, or get broadened, but the ones that are there get a bit tougher (raise the dice cap to 20, frex). and, of course, all of those removed spells be replaced with non-combat spells.

Removing spells is a silly idea. You won't prevent people from playing the "blaster wizard" type if that's what they like, and you won't reduce their combat effectiveness. You'll just make the game less fun for them, as they're reduced to casting the same few spells in every combat. (If they wanted to do that, they'd play sorcerers.)

Adding spells is great; put in all the new ones you want. Casters who want them will take advantage of them. But you can't ever force someone to be a utility mage. Even if you reduce the selection of damaging spells, some wizards will still cast fireball every single round.

 

[Darklone]

I don't mind the number of damage spells in the PHB, it just had too few nice utility spells.

 

[Metalsmith]

I agree.
3.5 will be the "Real-Men(tm) use Swords Edition"

 

[AuraSeer]

I agree.
3.5 will be the "Real-Men(tm) use Swords Edition"

Heh. Judging by some of the comments, I'd expect a lot of people to say the opposite.

"Swords in 3.5E are broken! Fighter is a totally munchkin class. Real men play wizards!"

 

[Pax]

Alright, there's alot of good discussion, so I'll go at it a piece at at time.

Elder-Basilisk:
"Really, if a wizard can blow that many of his spells in a single encounter, they darn well ought to make a significant difference."

Well, I did leave out all the other possibilites that a mage could take. They can make all manner of scrolls and whatnot to keep themselves viable throughout the day. In fact, the example wizard I used (with a different feat selection) could probably keep up that volume of output for many encounters, depending on his willingness to spend XP and gold.

Wll, any wizard that does this on a regular basis is definitely spending either a sackfull of gold, or, a half-sackfull of gold and some XP. Which means iether the Wizard has significantly less permanent magic items to his name, and/or, is a level or even two behind the Fighter.

 

[rushlight]

Well, having the mage a level or two behind the fighter is just fine with me, as I still believe that there is still some disparity between the two.

Not to mention that in 2e, the mage was ALWAYS behind the fighter. And everyone else.

 

[Henry]

Goodness, what different interpretations people get out of this game.

I have NEVER seen evocation mages (sorcerer or wizard) as outclassed in the dozen or so game's I've played; they've held their own quite well, and more than that, used to exceed the rest of the party when the splatbooks came into the picture. I myself am of the opinion that haste and the various spell DC increasing feats were a little too good, when our party mages were possessing DC's of 26 to 35 at 12th level thanks to magics, feats, and Heightenings.

In fact, in two real senses, the Evokers are gaining tremendously with the new specialization rules:
Before, Evokers who had to give up conjuration or transmutation, or at least three other fields, are not able to "wimp out" with picking Nercomancy and illusion, or necro. and enchantment, and still gaining significant benefits.

Further, they seem to be gaining useful spells for 2nd level (traditionally used in our group for more magic missiles and the backup invisibility spell), and the fact that spells are cheaper means that evokers will have somewhat more variety in the damaging spells they can write into their books, now.

What I do know is that from what I've seen thus far from Roy the Odd and Shadowstar, Evokers are not going to be any more or less common in the D&D games I see.