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

[Celebrim]

I don't want to get in an arguement over how the game played, how the game will play, and whether this rule or that one is necessary considering this rule or this other rule. I find that terribly tedious and subjective. Suffice to say that some of the changes of 3.5 ed. are probably needed, and some were probably not, and some that were needed will need changing again because the fix leaves something to be desired. I'll leave it to someone else to argue over which change fits in which category. I have my own opinions (of course) but I feel no need to justify them, and since I'll run my campaign how I want to I really don't give a flip about what wizards is going to do. I ran 1st edition with a sampling of 2nd edition rules right up until 3rd edition was realised, and I figure I'll be running 3rd edition with a sampling of the 4th edition rules* right up until the next edition (whatever it will be called) is released.

What I do notice is that with each edition, the power level (and assumed power level) of PC's and NPC's at any given level keeps ratcheting up. This is not a subjective statement. One can directly compare 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th edition printed characters of a given level and notice increases in abilities, and value and diversity of the equipment that were assumed at a given level to have. I noticed and complained about this when 3rd edition was released, and it remains true in general of 4th edition. Sure, a few of the more abusable spells have been weakened for both good and ill, but for the most part any time something needed to be fixed, the apparant solution was to increase its power. 3.5 edition monsters are suddenly much more powerful than 3rd edition monsters. Ranger? Pump it up. Barbarian? Pump it up. Druid? Pump it up.

I just wonder how long you can take this trend before things start to be ridiculous. How much higher do the CR's of monsters need to go? How much more powerful do monsters need to become in order to balance against the increased assumptions of PC personal power and access to items of the most puisant sort? Will we see in 5th edition a gradual movement of 'epic levels' and epic levels of power down into 'standard game'? Already we are seeing monsters with CR of greater than 20 printed in general tomes. Are 'epic' weapons and abilities that far behind? With such major revisions across the board, I cannot help but think that the game will not become less probablimatic in terms of balance but the various changes made to improve balance will but themselves become the source of player and DM frustration in the future.

Finally, lets be blunt. Fourth edition is not being printed in order to improve the quality of the product, even if that may or may not be a side effect. Fourth edition is being printed to meet needed sales figures. The very fact that it is being called 3.5 ed. rather than the 4th edition that it clearly is, is itself a prime example of this. 'Fourth Edition' is explicitly ruled out of any marketing releases, because it raises the specter of obseleting everything you bought just a few years ago. Much like Microsoft, WotC's primary reason for releasing a new operating system is not to improve the stability of its existing product, but to get you to buy a new product. It is unfortunately true that people are more likely to buy a 'new' product than a quality one, and history is littered with the wrecks of technologies where the corporation stupidly decided to invest most of its money into improving its technology rather than investing in getting you to buy its technology. Therefore, from this perspective, the 'buffing' up of Pit Fiends and Rangers is essential. These are the 'features' that will attract the sort of people who will buy the new rules to buying the new rules.

Unfortunately, I'm not part of the target demographic, and can't get excited about this sort of thing (as evidenced by my lack of interest in debating whether or not X change is good for Y character type).

*I refer to 3.5 edition as 4th in edition because if we will be honest about it, that is what it is. Arguably, the changes between 1st and 2nd edition are no greater than those between 3rd and 3.5 ed. '3.5 edition' implies taking the 3rd edition rules and fixing printing errors, applying the accumulated errata, and fixing some of the more glaring ommisions in the balance (the effects of 'Harm') . But that is not what has happened. Like 2nd edition, we are seeing a wholesale change in the statistics of many if not most monsters in the game. Like 2nd edition we are seeing revised rules for character creation in multiple classes. Like 2nd edition we are seeing revisions in major spells (in many cases the same spells, as there will now be a new version of 'Polymorph Self' in every revision of the game).

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Who are you kidding? It's the "Real-Men(tm) use dwarven waraxes edition." Or is that "Real-Dwarves"?

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

 

[Shard O'Glase]

nah yout got to stick with swords war axes get sundered too easy.

 

[woodelf]

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

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.

Well, i was operating on the assumption of a fixed pagecount/spellcount. IFF we only get the same number of spells, the only way to increase the number of non-combat spells is by decreasing the number of combat spells. I agree, however, that you can never have too many spells [in my AD&D2 game, i was operating with ~3000 baseline spells], and simply adding more is the "real" solution--but it may not be practical.

 

[dcollins]

Celebrim, rarely have I ever agreed so much with a post by someone else online. Your observations match everything that I have been able to conclude about the new edition myself. That includes the business rationale, the power inflation, and the qualification of 3.5 as having as many changes as any prior full rules revision. And I too did exactly this:

I ran 1st edition with a sampling of 2nd edition rules right up until 3rd edition was realised, and I figure I'll be running 3rd edition with a sampling of the 4th edition rules* right up until the next edition (whatever it will be called) is released.

It's turning into the inverse of the Star Trek movie franchise.
Only the odd-numbered editions are the really good ones.

 

[Victim]

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.

So very wrong. Look at the XP tables. A wizard needs 250k XP to reach level 10. A fighter needs the same amount to reach level 9. Starting at level 7, wizards are on a faster XP track than normal fighters until they even up at level 14.

In my experience, evocations aren't the most effective spells unless fighting many enemies. In my current game, our archer does the most damage against a single enemy, followed by the 2 hander melee brutes. My wizard's damage ability is such that using hindering spells is much more efficient. Going all out lots of blasts and haste, he could do high end damage for a round or two. Then I'd be out of spells. Or I could toss spells like Slow or Glitterdust to cripple enemies while the consistent damage dealers chop them up.

I plan on downloading the SRD and looting the interesting bits of 4e, myself as well.

 

[Gunslinger]

With damage and save or die spells both toned down (nerfed), I would like to see summoning made more powerful (ala Magic: The Gathering or Final Fantasy).

 

[Olive]

With damage and save or die spells both toned down (nerfed), I would like to see summoning made more powerful (ala Magic: The Gathering or Final Fantasy).

Not being familiar with your examples, I can't say if this will make it more like those games, but augment summoning helps, as does working out a way with your DM to swap templates out to increase flexability. You can be a mean summoner with those sorts of changes.