D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Spells - Far Weaker?

[Testament]

What the hell have you been playing? Finger of death is far superior to disintegrate unless you perpetually fight the 7% of monsters in the MM that are A-Undead or B-Constructs. Against the 93% of monsters that aren't guess what?

Two words: Death Ward. And Undead and Constructs are common high level enemies. I'd rather the versatility of a Disintegrate spell, than a spell which has a common, and damn near vital spell as a surefire countermeasure against it.

Or doing 3? The list of monsters with 500+ hitpoints in the MM is what? a handful of CR>20 dragons?
Harm 3rd edition never killed a thing - not so in 3.5.
I take doing 300 flat damage on the critical hit from harm 3.5 is "game breaking".

You misread the example's purpose. A spell doing that much damage, guaranteed, no save, has severe mechanical flaws. Now it ranges, at the top end, from 75 to 300, cracking 150 only on a critical hit. Still scary as all hell, but now a more appropriate effect for its level. My main question is what was changed first, Harm or Heal, since its a safe bet that the other would have been changed to maintain the symmetry.

Yeah I bet you're in the same category of people who think it's appropriate for druids to have the "jump" spell because you have to eat a cricket because that's "nature-like".

No, I think its such a simple spell that it should be on every damn list. Especially a list concerned with the natural world and life magic, I see no reason that a Druid shouldn't have a spell the allows them to better emulate their charges, like a Jump spell. Heck, when I started D&D in 2000, my first response on the spell list was "why doesn't the Druid have Wind Wall?"

That's hilarious. Tell me then why does an incindiary cloud have a duration? Is it substance too? How about an orb of fire from complete arcane?

White phosphorus doesn't burn forever, neither do the cinders that spell creates. And as for Orb of Fire...I'm one of the many people who refers to that book as "The Complete Conjurer", and considers all but the Orb of Acid to be in the wrong damn school.

Indirect non-elemental damage, Evard's black tentacles<SNIP>

Evard's Black Tentacles? As in one of the most frequently complained about spells I've ever encountered? That's an example of balance?

FTR, I have no issue myself with Evard's Tentacles.

Ah, I see. So you don't agree with his opinion, therefore you have the right to throw around insults, if he does not bow to yours, right?

No, wrong.

Hmmm. I'll grant that what I posted was about 200 shades more venemous than was necessary, but I stand by my claim, especially considering DungeonMaster's history with any thread relating to 3.5 changes, especially to spells.

 

[FireLance]

The point was simple as stated on the previous page: all d8 wizard spells got turned into d6's.
Shocking grasp, horrid wilting for example. But there was no similar reduction of the damage dice of clerical spells. All those spells to "fit the progression" should be d6s. But they weren't changed to d6s. Hence bias.

I see. I suppose there might seem to be a "bias" if you compared the 3.0e spells with their 3.5e counterparts. I don't see a bias because I'm comparing the 3.5e spells with other spells from 3.5e, and searing light and holy smite don't look overpowered compared with fireball and horrid wilting. I will admit that flame strike looks to be on the strong side as a 4th-level druid spell, but still not overpowered in my book. Up to 10th level, it deals the same damage and affects a smaller area than a fireball, and the "half divine damage" bit is really just a consolation prize if you are forced to use it against a fire resistant or immune opponent (I think you'd be better off converting it to a summon nature's ally IV instead).

Well I don't think so and neither do the previous editions of D&D. I don't think it's balanced, at all, to have direct elemental damage not have SR. Indirect non-elemental damage, Evard's black tentacles, reverse gravity and similar is perfectly fine. The bluring of concepts where people start claiming "I evoke a ball of flame and it hurts you" vs. "I conjure a burning mist and it hurts you, but this is special burning mist that hurts you differently than that ball of flame" really doesn't fly for me. Just because it's a conjuration doesn't mean it's not, in the end, direct elemental damage.

On the other hand, I find it a bit silly that a creature could be damaged by "normal" fire or "supernatural" fire (e.g. red dragon breath), and have a chance to be unaffected by "magic" fire. I'm thinking it might be a better idea for spells that deal direct elemental damage to ignore SR, or have something like "SR half" if magic somehow enhances or adds to the element's potency.

 

[DungeonMaster]

Two words: Death Ward.

The fact that 95% of monsters don't have access to a handy Death ward spell makes this counterspell largely irrelevant. There is a huge list of spells that cuts disintegrate's effectivness, everything from spell immunity to plain blur and cat's grace.

And Undead and Constructs are common high level enemies. I'd rather the versatility of a Disintegrate spell, than a spell which has a common, and damn near vital spell as a surefire countermeasure against it.

That's your own opinion and your game. Most high level ennemies by the MM are dragons and outsiders, not undead or constructs. The highest CR construct is the iron golem at 13 and the highest CR undead are nightshades at CR 16 off the top of my head.

You misread the example's purpose. A spell doing that much damage, guaranteed, no save, has severe mechanical flaws.

First of all it isn't damage. It merely sets the hp of the creature, doesn't kill it like in 3.5. Many spells outright kill, regardless of hp. Few monsters have higher than 200 hp in 3rd edition. Even then there's no guarantee you're going to get the harm spell off before the creature is damaged by other means - harm can do as little as nothing in terms of hp loss.
It isn't mechanically broken within the confines of the core rules and all but one noted non-core ruleset: epic.
When it really "breaks" is in non-core epic levels where monsters have absurd hitpoints - that much I'll agree to readily, but at the same time the writers of the epic levels should have forseen this coming a mile away. Even "save or die" magic breaks epic because there's literally no point to damaging the thing if your best damage is 5% of it's hp all resistances and yadda yadda included.

No, I think its such a simple spell that it should be on every damn list.

Do you feel the same about cure light wounds?

White phosphorus doesn't burn forever, neither do the cinders that spell creates. And as for Orb of Fire...I'm one of the many people who refers to that book as "The Complete Conjurer", and considers all but the Orb of Acid to be in the wrong damn school.

I'm confused now. You don't like the fact that the orb spells are conjurations? Don't they fit your description of conjure the *whatever* then propel it? Were it WP that was being propeled and all other things similar you would be content with "orb of fire"?

 

[DungeonMaster]

I see. I suppose there might seem to be a "bias" if you compared the 3.0e spells with their 3.5e counterparts.

That was exactly my point, I'm not arguing "overpowered" or "underpowered". I don't think the arcane spells, even horrid wilting, at a d8 were "overpowered". It's simply bias to change everything arcane to a d6 and not do the same to divine.

It is I agree a silly mechanic that dragon breath isn't considered "magical" fire in 3rd edition, at least not with respect to SR. I'm not sure the categorization Ex, Sp and Su are the ideal way to go.
I don't think that making elemental direct damage conjurations effectively Su is the right way to go though.

 

[vince33]

i think harm needed a change cause u only have to touch him to get him down to 1-4 hp with no save to 10 pts per level with a save for half