JoelF said:Does anyone have any idea why they changed enlarge and reduce to only affect humanoids?
This is actually 2 questions: a) why only humanoids, it seems pretty silly to have a different spell to enlarge a horse, treant or dragon. b) What about enlarging or reducing objects? It was always a great strategy to enlarge a closed door to make it harder for pursuers to open, or reduce a brick to weaken a wall.
I think this is a perfect example of changes that came in 3e and have continued in 3.5e. Whenever you see a change to the game, or wonder "why was it handled this way?" ask yourself: "How does this make it easier to program in a video game?"
Actually, I'm serious. I'm seeing a very strong trend toward making D&D compatible with computer programmers' needs. It's pretty hard for a computer programmer to envision every use a player might have for a spell, so if you restrict it, you make it easier to handle in a computer role-playing game.
Take identify as another example. Try programming "identify 1 item per level, and casting time is 8 hours." In most online games, one hour goes by in 75 - 90 seconds. Imagine a player having to take 12 minutes of real time to cast a spell. You, as a programmer, also have to allow 1 item per caster level. It's a lot easier to say, "it takes only 1 hour (i.e. 90 seconds) and you only identify 1 item."
I know there are folks who would disagree with my assessment, but as a computer programmer, I'm seeing the changes as a path to easier development of CRPGs. I think we'll see even more as we approach 4e D&D.
Wildly inaccurate predictions are hardly cause for excitement.I know, pretty amazing necro, I have to agree... However, I still find it amazing how often someone, somewhere, makes really prescient comments about the future.
While I feel saying "D&D 4E is just like a MMO computer game" may go to far, there are some similarities... and it does seem more "programming" friendly.

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.