D&D 3E/3.5 3.5E magic item compendium

[delericho]

The fighter, imo, does not get the HP or AC to just fight on for more than two combat encounters per day without extra healing from spells or potions. In which case, I ask you again, does the wizard get access to extra spells or scrolls?

Four encounters a day. The Wizard all but ends one with sleep, and contributes somewhat to another with his other 1st level spell. The Fighter does the lion's share of the fighting in the remaining three encounters, getting healed by the Cleric when appropriate. The Cleric, in addition to healing, helps with the fighting, as does the Rogue. The Rogue, in addition, contributes in non-combat situations through the use of his skills.

And so all characters contribute, to different extents at different times. That sounds about balanced. (It's also an ideal, of course; reality is unlikely to match up exactly... but there's no telling how reality will adjust the exact balance.)

You know, causing multiple people to lose a round's worth of actions seems like a great use of one standard action. Also, I would be interested in hearing your opinion: does standing up (which uses a move action) require a DC 10 balance check for movement within grease? How about moving out of a greased square?

No to both. Grease affects walking - merely standing doesn't require a check (though you need to save again on your next turn). Likewise, the crawl action isn't affected.

Most creatures should therefore crawl 5 feet (move action) to get out of the area, then stand up. Done.

(Justification for this ruling: because without it the spell would be unbalanced. )

Except it lasts for rounds/level, even on a successful initial save. The fighter, on the other hand, has to spend an action each round to disarm someone.

This is incorrect. If the first save is passed, the spell is negated: "Material objects in use are always affected by this spell, while an object wielded or employed by a creature receives a Reflex save to avoid the effect. If the initial saving throw is failed..."

It's also worth noting that 3e has increasingly made the mistake of encouraging PCs (and building monsters) that make use of only one weapon. This of course neglects the possibility that it might be lost/disarmed/sundered. Frankly, almost all creatures should carry multiple weapons, a simple and sensible measure that would go a long way to fixing this spell.

But my issue with a lot of these examples is this: if the Wizard has exactly the right spell available, and makes use of it in an optimal manner, then the Wizard will indeed seem over-powerful. But that's not a problem with the system; in fact, it's not a problem at all - that's just good play.

And it's also true that the core does include some elements that are more or less powerful than others. That's inevitable - perfect balance in so complex a system is impossible, even if they'd spent 8 years obsessively errata-ing the system as they tried with 4e.

The only real guide to whether options are broken or not is the old design question: "Is this so good that it will always be taken? Is this so poor that it will never be taken." And despite whatever analysis the CharOp boards think they have done, the answer is simply "no".

I've played 3e extensively over 8 years, almost exclusively core-rules-only, and I still see no shortage of Fighters, Rogues, and other non-spellcasters. And despite the dread warnings of spellcaster supremacy, somehow those Rogues and Fighters continue to hold their own, throughout the duration of campaigns. The balance isn't perfect, but to me it looks to be pretty damn good.

But the later books don't reflect that. PHB2's Knight simply supersedes the Fighter, while Bo9S renders every martial class prior to that obselete (and isn't even balanced internally).

 

[Dandu]

First of all, I would like to say that you are indeed correct on the Grease vs Disarm issue.

Four encounters a day. The Wizard all but ends one with sleep, and contributes somewhat to another with his other 1st level spell. The Fighter does the lion's share of the fighting in the remaining three encounters, getting healed by the Cleric when appropriate. The Cleric, in addition to healing, helps with the fighting, as does the Rogue. The Rogue, in addition, contributes in non-combat situations through the use of his skills.

You never answered the original question though: Does the wizard get extra spells or scrolls if the fighter gets healing or potions?

And so all characters contribute, to different extents at different times. That sounds about balanced. (It's also an ideal, of course; reality is unlikely to match up exactly... but there's no telling how reality will adjust the exact balance.)

May I return to the original issue, which was me pointing out that SpC spells are not massively overpowered compared to core spells, and not about class balance? I'd be interested if you could draw up a list of SpC spells that you consider overpowered, and if any of those are low level spells as we seem to be in agreement that in core, there are many broken mid to high level spells.

The only real guide to whether options are broken or not is the old design question: "Is this so good that it will always be taken? Is this so poor that it will never be taken." And despite whatever analysis the CharOp boards think they have done, the answer is simply "no".

Because your eight years of real experience is contrary to that? Well, a lot of people on the CharOp boards do say that their experiences match up with their calculations, so I would say that there is room for disagreement here.

In my actual gaming experience, spells like Grease and Sleep (and Color Spray, Obscuring Mist, Mage Armor, Enlarge Person, Protection from Evil, and Ray of Enfeeblement if we want to be more extensive) are taken much more frequently than spells like Burning Hands and Shocking Grasp (and Chill Touch and Cause Fear) for combat purposes.

I've played 3e extensively over 8 years, almost exclusively core-rules-only, and I still see no shortage of Fighters, Rogues, and other non-spellcasters.

Since when was this ever an issue being disputed?

And despite the dread warnings of spellcaster supremacy, somehow those Rogues and Fighters continue to hold their own, throughout the duration of campaigns. The balance isn't perfect, but to me it looks to be pretty damn good.

To be honest, spellcaster imbalance generally shows up in mid to later levels, and even then if people know certain strategies. Have you ever had someone exploit Shrink Item or Magic Jar, for example? Just because it does not happen in your game does not mean that it does not happen at all, or cannot happen.

For example, I do not have skin cancer and do not know anyone who does. That being said, I'm pretty sure that it's a problem as not everyone has the same melanin count as I do.

A more relevant example would be using Planar Binding to call in one of the wish granting genies, obtain a hair, and then using Simulacrum to make a illusory duplicate of said genie which can grant wishes. A tamer example of Planar Binding abuse is to use Lesser Planar Binding in order to get a Nightmare, which has two 9th level spells as at-will spell-like abilities, astral projection and etherealness. Keep in mind that Lesser Planar Binding is available at level 9 for a wizard.

 

[Wyvernhand]

No to both. Grease affects walking - merely standing doesn't require a check (though you need to save again on your next turn). Likewise, the crawl action isn't affected.

Most creatures should therefore crawl 5 feet (move action) to get out of the area, then stand up. Done.

Crawling is a full round action that provokes an AoO, or at least that's what my PHB tells me. That still requires a move action for the foe to stand up from prone on their next turn, assuming they survive the AoOs generated. That's trading a standard action from the wizard for 1.5 actions from the target. A pretty good effect for a 1st level spell, I'd say.

But the later books don't reflect that. PHB2's Knight simply supersedes the Fighter, while Bo9S renders every martial class prior to that obselete (and isn't even balanced internally).

Maybe they were superseded for a reason. Bo9S, barring 2 poorly worded maneuvers, is possibly the MOST internally balanced book ever printed for 3.5.

Honestly, I could run a game with nothing but ToB and the MIC, barring extremely basic things like PHB feats and skills, and it would probably be the most balanced game ever. Departing from basic core 3.5 and all of the previous edition baggage it tried to hold onto is refreshing, IMO.

 

[Dandu]

What about books like MoC, ToM, XPH, OMGWTFBBQ?

 

[mach1.9pants]

I tell you if the covers are the same style as the core 3 re-releases I will be getting it. I really didn't like the fake gem style of the older books. These new ones are gorgeous, amongst my favourite book covers I have.

 

[Empirate]

I tell you if the covers are the same style as the core 3 re-releases I will be getting it. I really didn't like the fake gem style of the older books. These new ones are gorgeous, amongst my favourite book covers I have.

So... you ARE judging the book by its cover then?

 

[jeffh]

Regarding whether, if the fighter gets access to healing, the mage also gets bonus spells from somewhere, normally no, because only one of those things is a normal, expected function of being part of a tolerably well-balanced party of adventurers, i.e. the way the game is actually played most of the time.

I concede that a mage who starts every encounter at the outer reaches of his spell range, always wins initiative, never encounters anything that's immune or highly resistant to the spells he currently has prepared, and whose opponents never succeed on their saving throws will outperform a fighter of the same level who has only statistically normal luck in all relevant respects. What I don't see is what that comparison is supposed to show. And not just for the obvious reason (i.e. that you seem to be assuming the best-case scenario for the mage in every case), but also because these "arena battle" scenarios aren't very relevant to actual, cooperative play in the first place.

As for Sleep outperforming spells like Burning Hands, why assume that (a) shows a problem at all, and (b) if it does, that it's a case of Sleep being too good and not Burning Hands being too weak?

 

[delericho]

First of all, I would like to say that you are indeed correct on the Grease vs Disarm issue.

Thank you. Unfortunately, I can't XP you again so soon.

You never answered the original question though: Does the wizard get extra spells or scrolls if the fighter gets healing or potions?

The Fighter doesn't get healing - the Cleric gets healing, which he uses on the Fighter. That's part of his contribution, and has the net effect of allowing the Fighter to carry on. There's no corresponding mechanism by which the Cleric can grant the Wizard more spells to cast. (Of course, there's nothing stopping the Wizard spending some of his starting gold on scrolls, but that's a distinctly limited resource - he gets one or maybe two spells out of it, each of which can be used once. Whereas the Cleric's healing is part of his base abilities, usable every day.)

May I return to the original issue, which was me pointing out that SpC spells are not massively overpowered compared to core spells, and not about class balance? I'd be interested if you could draw up a list of SpC spells that you consider overpowered, and if any of those are low level spells as we seem to be in agreement that in core, there are many broken mid to high level spells.

Unfortunately, I can't. My knowledge of the core is sufficient to argue against specific spells being unbalanced, but my knowledge of the SC isn't detailed enough to argue to contrary. All I know is that the moment the player of the Druid IMC got his hands on the SC, his PC gained a sudden and immediate boost in power.

Because your eight years of real experience is contrary to that? Well, a lot of people on the CharOp boards do say that their experiences match up with their calculations, so I would say that there is room for disagreement here.

The CharOp boards have famously declared that only about a dozen of the PHB feats are "worth taking". In which case, they're operating on an entirely different definition of 'balance' from the one I recognise.

In my actual gaming experience, spells like Grease and Sleep (and Color Spray, Obscuring Mist, Mage Armor, Enlarge Person, Protection from Evil, and Ray of Enfeeblement if we want to be more extensive) are taken much more frequently than spells like Burning Hands and Shocking Grasp (and Chill Touch and Cause Fear) for combat purposes.

I don't see that as a problem. A wide range of equivalently-powerful spells are being used. That seems about right. And, as I've already noted, spells like Burning Hands, Shocking Grasp and Chill Touch tend not to get a huge amount of use because the spellcasters try desperately to stay out of melee combat. But those spells absolutely have their place - in those cases where the Wizard does find himself suddenly trapped in melee combat, they can be an absolute lifesaver.

BTW, what's wrong with Cause Fear? I would have bet that would be on your "overpowered" list - the ability to take an opponent out of action for several rounds, opposed by a Will save (typically the lowest save of melee types)?

Just because it does not happen in your game does not mean that it does not happen at all, or cannot happen. For example, I do not have skin cancer and do not know anyone who does. That being said, I'm pretty sure that it's a problem as not everyone has the same melanin count as I do.

Okay, fair enough. I'll readily concede that my experience is far from universal.

However, I will equally note that my games have almost exclusively been "core rules only", using 25- or 28-point buy, and sticking close to the WBL guidelines. The combination of these appears to be quite unusual.

In particular, it's very common to see much more generous stat-gen methods being used. Which is fair enough if people want to do that, but it vastly favours spellcasters - they get to max out their prime spellcasting attribute without massively sacrificing everything else.

Likewise, it's very common for groups to run low-magic games. This again, and rather perversely, favours the spellcasters, because they then have access to powers other classes simply can never match without magic items, and they have the ability to craft their own items.

(Given everything we've been saying about core vs supplements, I'll say no more on that. )

I may well be being unfair, but in the face of a lot of complaints, I do find myself wondering if the groups involved aren't bringing the problems on themselves.

Crawling is a full round action that provokes an AoO, or at least that's what my PHB tells me.

Odd. I looked last night, and I was sure that mine said that crawling five feet was a move action (that, yes, provoked AoOs - but given the range of the spell involved, and the need of any PCs to avoid entering the area themselves, I'd assumed they probably weren't within reach). It is, of course, possible that I misread - and if so, that changes the balance of things.

Maybe they were superseded for a reason.

Yes. Significant power-creep in the other supplements, mostly in the form of hundreds of new spells for the Wizard, Cleric, and Druid. Which brings us back to my objection to the "Spell Compendium"...

(Oh, and while I'm at it - there are large numbers of Prestige Classes that give "+1 spellcasting class" at every level, in addition to other abilities. Virtually every such PrC is unbalanced.)

 

[Empirate]

Regarding whether, if the fighter gets access to healing, the mage also gets bonus spells from somewhere, normally no, because only one of those things is a normal, expected function of being part of a tolerably well-balanced party of adventurers, i.e. the way the game is actually played most of the time.

The Fighter doesn't get healing - the Cleric gets healing, which he uses on the Fighter. That's part of his contribution, and has the net effect of allowing the Fighter to carry on. There's no corresponding mechanism by which the Cleric can grant the Wizard more spells to cast. (Of course, there's nothing stopping the Wizard spending some of his starting gold on scrolls, but that's a distinctly limited resource - he gets one or maybe two spells out of it, each of which can be used once. Whereas the Cleric's healing is part of his base abilities, usable every day.)

The upshot of this can be interpreted two ways:

1) A low-level Fighter is as dysfunctional as a Wizard after an encounter or two. The Fighter, however, can quickly be made functional again by the right buddy, while the Wizard can't as easily.
This seems true enough at low levels, however it assumes a heal-capable buddy who doesn't take any damage himself (which would consume part of his healing resources). Also, starting at 5th level or around there, the Wizard, especially a Wizard Specialist, probably won't run out of steam before daily encounter number four or so. Just about when the Fighter-Cleric buddy team would start to run out of steam, too. So even where this argument applies, it only applies to very low-level play.

2) We shouldn't compare a low-level Fighter and low-level Wizard, but two tag teams, one of Fighter plus Cleric, one of Wizard plus Wizard. I hold that two low-level Wizards together will be about as competent at handling four level appropriate encounters in a day as a Fighter and a Cleric together.



I also want to say that low point buy massively favors Wizards quite a bit. Wizards' area of expertise (spellcasting and, secondarily, knowledge skills) are governed solely by Int. Having average to good Con helps them out, of course. But they don't depend on any other ability score very much. Granted, Fighters can easily make do with great Str and good Con, dumping everything else. But they're more dependent on good Dex for AC, might want high Dex or at least Int 13 for a wide range of combat feats, don't get skillpoints from their primary ability scores, can't dump Wis as readily as Wizards without risk of repeated Will-save-negates rape... it just doesn't work out quite as well as a low point buy Wizard. And don't get me started on Rangers, Paladins, Monks, Rogues...

 

[Holy Bovine]

I'm sure there are groups who never had a problem with the SpC, or who were forced to ban monks because they were too broken. The spectrum of individual D&D experiences can very widely... but that won't change the fact that some spells are more powerful, versatile, open ended, or badly written than others.

So you're saying it was a good thing they continued this trend into the MiC and Spell Compendium?

If I were to ever run 3E again (ha!) MiC and SC would be DM only books from the get-go. As PCs encountered stuff from them they could certainly duplicate it but they would never be able to buy crap like the belt of battle (or even have it made).