D&D 3.x 3.5 Spells - Far Weaker?

[Deset Gled]

Many of these spells have remained vertually unchanged for decades! They were the staples of a good spellcasters diet. Why change them?

Does anyone Agree/disagree?

I think part of what you are noticing is also a shift in gaming mentality. In early editions of D+D, it was my understanding that a wizard was supposed to be more powerful than anyone else. After all, in a classical fantasy setting, magic users are often the most power people. The fighters were there for support and to do a heroic deed every once in a while, but they weren't expected to match up to a caster by any stretch of the imagination.

In 3.x, on the other hand, balance between players is now key. All players are supposed to be able to contribute equally to the party. And "stand in front of the enemy" isn't considered to be an equal contribution, either. In order to acheive this, casters had to be toned down a lot. I personally think this is a good thing.

 

[Scion]

I feel that many of the spells in 3.5 need to be redone, some in major ways.

With the way things are now whoever gets a round or two to prep is insanely good vs the other.

Now, of course those who have time should be better, but not to the point of literally shifting the whole CR system several points one way or the other.

I am all about much longer durations with weaker effects. This would mean that buffs are the norm, but most people have them to one degree or another, but their effects are more subtle.

The system already has in place safeguards about too much going on at once with named bonuses and stacking rules. So that safety net is there to help catch people.

Wizards and similar types are incredibly frail in a large number of ways, and so their effects should be stronger overall.

I feel that, if this is done correctly, it would help solve a lot of the more cumbersome balance problems that crop up now and then. Getting the jump on someone wouldnt be so incredibly one sided and there would be a lot more strategy involved with the sorts of buffs to put up and why.

Make it so that the maximum duration of a buff is 24 hours, even extend would not be able to break this, and there goes a good portion of the abuses.


As for other such spells, as much as I like the new haste I would have prefered they had both hastes in the new edition, but with the old haste simply clarified and reduced in armor bonus. After all, if they made sure everyone knew that the extra action only happened on your 'next' turn that helps get rid of a lot of the abuse, especially if that was its only benefit or the other benefits were very minor.

But again, this sort of spell places an emphasis on getting the jump on people, both versions do, but having a few spells here and there that do that is ok.

I have actually been seeing that the new version of haste is stronger than the old.. with the old there was a large amount of resource management problems, but the new gives everyone something that is basically free all at once. (of course, I also used the old haste as not granting the extra action right away as I feel that is more appropriate given the wording).


Longer durations with lesser effects. I am all about a buffer placing buffs on the party which last most/all of the day. Or at least a few hours at a time.

 

[Imperialus]

one big downside that I've seen as a lower level mage (5th) with the short duration spells is it forces one of two things, either I spend the first couple rounds running around from tank to tank like a chicken with my head cut off casting bulls strength, mage armour and everything else, or everyone fights defencively and refuses to take inititive for a few rounds and clusters around me letting me buff them up. I definatly don't like the changes to invisibility. One other problem with the spell durations being measured in minutes rather than hours is I have yet to see a method of accurately measuring the passage of time outside of combat. This leads to all sorts of problems like if a rouge were scouting an enemy position only to have the DM say his invisibilty just dropped because one or both of them are confused in regards to exactly how much time has passed... unless of course you are willing to do an entire session in inititive order but that would get kinda silly.

 

[Storyteller01]

I liked the origional polymorphs. They were far more applicable to other uses besides combat before.

Ditto. Seems most of the changes were good from the combat standpoint, but other situations may not have been considered. Seems almost video-gamish (not rehashing, just an observation).

 

[Storyteller01]

I think part of what you are noticing is also a shift in gaming mentality. In early editions of D+D, it was my understanding that a wizard was supposed to be more powerful than anyone else. After all, in a classical fantasy setting, magic users are often the most power people. The fighters were there for support and to do a heroic deed every once in a while, but they weren't expected to match up to a caster by any stretch of the imagination.

Not sure if the idea was for spellcasters to be more powerful, or simply to do what others cannot (there is a difference). A wizard with fly could be at a location faster than those without the spell, and it fit with the popular genre of the time (wizards inspiring awe, and all that).

Now things are focused more on the game board or the action, and less on the story. Case in point; more comic books are being converted to movies as opposed to novels. Even those movies based on novels are seriously revamped to fit the new focus. Anyone here read I, Robot? The movie is completely different from any of the stories in the book...

My observation anyway...

 

[Saeviomagy]

Invisiblity needs an longer duration for its purpose in scouting/spying.

Yup. That rogue with lots of ranks in hide and move silent can go stuff himself.

Invisibility at 10min/level replaced the rogues ability to hide. At 1 min/level, you can use it when you need it, but you still need the rogue.

 

[Scion]

Yup. That rogue with lots of ranks in hide and move silent can go stuff himself.

Invisibility at 10min/level replaced the rogues ability to hide. At 1 min/level, you can use it when you need it, but you still need the rogue.

note that hide and invisibility are useful in different situations.

You normally cant hide when you dont have something to hide behind anyway but invis works wherever.

Spotting an invisible character is generally a flat check whereas hide works off of the skill for the dc.

Move silently helps a lot while being invis as having up that silence spell would negate your own listen checks.

They work in similar ways sometimes but otherwise have very different functions

personally, when playing a rogue, I'd rather have high hide and move silently 'and' be invisible plus other buffs (such as something to make me look like the people who are supposed to be there anyway, just in case of a see invis or something) if I am scouting out by myself.

 

[Len]

personally, when playing a rogue, I'd rather have high hide and move silently 'and' be invisible plus other buffs (such as something to make me look like the people who are supposed to be there anyway, just in case of a see invis or something) if I am scouting out by myself.

Why would you be out scouting by yourself, when a flying invisible wizard can do it better?

Wizards are still plenty powerful in 3.5. If they've been "nerfed" from 3.0, well, they must have needed it!

 

[Scion]

Why would you be out scouting by yourself, when a flying invisible wizard can do it better?

How is he going to do it better? Does he have ranks in hide or move silently? Both are still useful/necissary even when flying and being invisible.

one does not negate the other, generally it just makes the other better.

 

[JoeBlank]

Hmm.

This is the guy's first or second post, and he posts on something that keeps getting people riled up. It's a pretty weak effort though, but it does get some takers, so...

Seems a little early to make accusations. The question was well-reasoned, and seemed genuine to me. Not everyone visits ENW regularly, and it is certainly possible he has been playing 3.0 and only just fully explored the 3.5 changes.