3.5 Spell changes in Dragon

[Apok]

Apok said:


Does the hitpoint bloat effect the spell Hold person? In the old days it held more than one person, now only one. Most people I play with think it's weak. What about Feeblemind? Is that an overpowered spell? It seems insta-kill(tm.) to me.

No, HP bloat doesn't affect Hold Person, which is why it is so powerful for a 2nd level spell. If the guy fails his save, he's toast because you are going to lay the smackdown on him while he's helpless. The revised Hold Person can still get you at least one round worth of damage on a helpless opponent, which is still a great advantage.

Feeblemind is not an 'instakill' spell because the target is still capable of defending himself and his allies or at the very least able to run. It will put a spellcaster out of the fight, which for a 5th level spell is fine. It does not, however, mean instant death because running is still an option and lets not forget about contingencies and the like.

I just wonder where all the revisions will leed. If I get enough people to complain about Feeblemind will it be "fixed" in edition 3.75? I thought this is what House-rules were for.

Unlikely, because Feeblemind is fine. It's a 5th level spell that negates a single spellcaster who fails his save, but still leaves him with certain options (usually escape, but hey). WotC isn't just listening to complaints and changing things to please the whiners, they are actually looking at years worth of actual play and fixing certain imbalances.

Do keep in mind that you aren't going to be forced to convert to 3.5e, you can still play the original 3e like some people choose to keep playing 1e. It's all about taste.

 

[Apok]

Gosh, I'm really sorry that I so unfairly assigned a motive to your statements, and your winking smiley face really shows me the error of my ways. Oh, wait -- no I'm not. I was correct all along!

Um, nope. I meant only what I said, and I don't recall saying that I wanted D&D to be turned into a game where you only deal d8+2 damage back and forth. You conjured that information up yourself to help your argument.

Now, you're just being a dick.

Golly, so it's all about the fighters doing their d8+2 (or d8+4 with the boosts the wizards give them) after all! You do want it to be all about the fighters -- which is why wizards having potent offense (or anyone having a potent offense against the glaring weakness of a fighter, the will save) is so distasteful to you.

Once again, you are putting words into my mouth (or post, whatever). Yes, fighters are the core of any fight and only a complete idiot would think otherwise. How often do you see a group of wizards in the thick of a huge melee without their sword-swinging meat shields? Wizards were never meant to stand toe-to-toe with an enemy in melee and survive. That's why the fighter is there, to soak up that damage while the Wizard casts his spells safely. They work together in concert.

Wizards do have potent offenses in the form of damage spells. They aren't as nasty as they were in previous editions, but they are far from useless. A well placed AoE damage spell can clear out a battlefield of minor combatants, or soften up the enemy so they don't last as long. This, btw, is part of that whole "battlefield control" thing I mentioned before. Pepper the area w/ well placed fireballs and other AoE spells, use illusions to confound the enemy, transmutations to buff your allies and screw your enemies, summons to call up some monsters to help, and so on. Not to mention spells like Charm Person or Monster, which can turn that high-HP, high-Damage, Low-Will save Gaint over to your side. Trust me, Wizards have no shortage of offensive power even without instakills. Nerfing save or die spells will not suddenly make the Wizard a useless class.

You also seem to think I'm all for nerfing spellcasters into oblivion, which isn't true. I love playing casters, Wizards especially, but even I admit that casting Haste+Timestop+Disintegrate+Disintegrate+Disintegrate+Finger of Death+Finger of Death+Finger of Death, etc, on the BBEG is just a tad broken. Not to mention using Haste + Harm as a Cleric to wipe the floor with just about anything.

Funny thing is, I don't think Disintegrate or FoD or any of the other Save or Die spells are even being changed! All they have mentioned are Haste, Harm, Hold Person, and Polymorph. So, fear not, the Wizards capacity to kill with a single failed save will likely be alive & well come July.

Go play Warhammer if that's what your after.

OfficeRonin

Nah, I never could get into painting minis.

 

[Henry]

Apok, unless officeronin's name is Richard, that was uncalled for.

 

[Henry]

First of all, Arty, Hi! Glad to see you on these boards! Think you ever stand a chance of luring Gnarley over here?

Second, I don't necessarily like the changes to the spells, but I can guarantee one thing: If it turns out to be a bad change, and enough people dislike it publically, it probably won't be very long before they are changed again. Otherwise, the majority of players want it, and it stays.

In the meantime, I have my homebrew campaigns I can change this in, and they aren't such severe changes that they are unrecognizable. Now, in the case of Hold Person, if they made the change to one save per round, But took away the 1 round per level duration, I could get behind it. That would add some serious flair to the spell. It's "permanent until resisted," and the spellcaster has no idea how long it will last? That would add to the spell's character for me.

 

[Apok]

Apok, unless officeronin's name is Richard, that was uncalled for.

Perhaps, but it is the truth.

 

[Artimoff]

Unlikely, because Feeblemind is fine.

That's what you believe. I do too. I also believe that Hold Person is fine as writen too.


Henry, Gnarley Bones is looking into adapting City of the Spider Queen to the end of Q1, so maybe you will see him.

 

[heirodule]

Funny thing is, I don't think Disintegrate or FoD or any of the other Save or Die spells are even being changed! All they have mentioned are Haste, Harm, Hold Person, and Polymorph. So, fear not, the Wizards capacity to kill with a single failed save will likely be alive & well come July.

Well, they did say the Hold change would have effects beyond just Hold.

So we can probably expect that you will get a save each round or so to reconstitute yourself after a failed distintegrate save too.

People hate sitting out a session as a pile of dust. It will make for a better game.

 

[Piratecat]

Perhaps, but it is the truth.

Wrong.

This isn't rocket science, Apok. If a moderator tells you that you're being rude - and believe me, personally insulting someone here is being rude - then the best thing to do is generally to bite your tongue and apologize. At the very least, you're expected to please stop the offensive behavior. We don't care how you feel about people personally or if you put half the board on "ignore," but if you're going to post here, you're going to abide by EN World's rules.

Officeronin, this goes for you as well. Your last post was exceedingly condescending and rude. Uncalled for, and not appropriate.

One of our rules involves being polite to fellow members, even when you don't agree with them, even when you think they're being jerks. Another one of those rules involves getting the hint when a moderator gently suggests that you're out of line. Next time you're angry, both of you, please leave the post and walk away for a few minutes before you click "submit."

If these guidelines are somehow a problem, please feel free to email Henry or myself.

Artimoff, sorry for the interruption, and it's good to see you. I now return your thread back to On Topic.

 

[coyote6]

Second, I don't necessarily like the changes to the spells, but I can guarantee one thing: If it turns out to be a bad change, and enough people dislike it publically, it probably won't be very long before they are changed again.

The cynical will add, "In 4th Edition", of course.

(The really cynical will add to that, "And then what 4e breaks will be fixed in 4.5e, which will be adjusted in 5e, . . ." )

Now, in the case of Hold Person, if they made the change to one save per round, But took away the 1 round per level duration, I could get behind it. That would add some serious flair to the spell. It's "permanent until resisted," and the spellcaster has no idea how long it will last? That would add to the spell's character for me.

That would be pretty danged sweet, yes. Though a permanent duration might be a bit much, an increased duration would be interesting.

Another possible variant, instead of a save every round, a save every other round. This makes it less likely you'll get a "Whew, he failed his save! Oh, crap, now he made it. What a waste" effect.

Or borrow a trick from breath weapons -- roll a d4, that's how many rounds 'til your next save (e.g., a 1 is a save next round, etc.). Then you really don't know how long it will last -- with a save every round, should you somehow get lucky and hold a high-Will save type, you can pretty much count on them breaking free the next round. As someone said, not much better than daze. But with this variant, you'd have the possibility of rolling a 4, and having the cleric/wizard/monk/outsider/dragon/whatever out of action for at least a few actions. This has the downside of adding die rolls, though.

I'm wondering if the monsters that paralyze creatures (like ghouls) will also feature this revision. I note that most of their paralytic attacks have durations that are measured in minutes -- IME (albeit mostly at lower levels), 1/round per level holds are a bit frustrating, but those "you are now out of the fight" paralysis attacks are the really frustrating effects. With hold, you might have a hope of the spell running out while the fight's still on; with a ghoul's paralysis, forget about it.

 

[MerricB]

In the meantime, I have my homebrew campaigns I can change this in, and they aren't such severe changes that they are unrecognizable. Now, in the case of Hold Person, if they made the change to one save per round, But took away the 1 round per level duration, I could get behind it. That would add some serious flair to the spell. It's "permanent until resisted," and the spellcaster has no idea how long it will last? That would add to the spell's character for me.

I sense a House Rule coming on... that's a very nice idea, Henry.

Cheers!