[3.5E] New Revision Spotlight - Mummy and Mummy Lord

[jasamcarl]

Here are my concerns about the revised mummy.

1. The hit dice have gone up. That means that any existing adventures that say "The evil high priest has two bodyguard mummies (42 hp)" are suddenly dealing with a much more powerful encounter. This means the revision isn't as compatible with 3.5 as we're told.

2. If the hit dice go up, the CR should probably go up. If the CR goes up, it means all mummy-based ELs go up as well, which throws existing material out of whack (and could easily kill parties appropriate for the old challenges but not the new ones).

3. If the CR _doesn't_ go up, it makes the cleric's turning even less effective than it is now. For example, a 3.0 mummy has 6 HD and is CR 3, which means the 3rd-level cleric in the party has to roll--assuming no bonuses--a 19 to turn the mummy (which gives a result of "cleric's level +3"). With this revised mummy, if the CR doesn't change, the clr3 has _no_ chance to turn the mummy because the best result he can get is "cleric's level +4" ... which is less than the mummy's 8 HD. Already turning is a non-option at higher levels (since the undead's HD increase faster than the CR of the undead), this just makes it happen sooner.

4. (Not so much a concern as a mild complaint.) While I can see the merits of showing what a with-class-levels version of a monster looks like, the game rules already show you how to do this so it's not like this is anything innovative ... nothing a DM couldn't already do. IMO it would have been better to present additional abilities for advancing it as a monster, or perhaps a template.

5. These changes to monsters require playtesting to check their power level and determine if the CRs change (we already know that monsters are going to have their skill & feat progression changed from 3.0, which means that even monsters that aren't changed as much as the mummy will require playtesting). Yet we were told that the proposed revised metamagic rules were dropped and the current rules left in because there wasn't enough time to playtest them adequately (the concern was that the new system was too powerful). So that means there _is_ time to playtest 300+ monsters, but not time to playtest 9 metamagic feats, which doesn't make sense ... and concerns me.

Why does that not make sense to you? They had a finite amount of time and labor and chose to focus on something (monsters) that were considered a higher priority than metamagic feats, which only operate for some characters. And saying its like testing only 9 feats is pretty disengenuous; metamagic feats have a wide number of repurcussions on the use of dozens of spells which have much wider variability in their effects than weapon focus. You dissappointed me with your analysis of the Mystic and you are doing so again with me here...

 

[Knight Otu]

So that means there _is_ time to playtest 300+ monsters, but not time to playtest 9 metamagic feats, which doesn't make sense ... and concerns me.

It does make sense to me. Looking at the changes to monsters, we can generally say that monsters get more powerful in R3E. Thus, the need for playtest is only to check how much powerful the monster has become, and more often than not, the changes are comparably minor. Really needed to playtest were only those (likely few) monsters that were overhauled very much, as the pit fiend and the mummy.
As for the metamagic feats, we are talking about a completely new system, which might have worked far worse, or far too good than the one we currently have. There was absolutely no telling which direction it would have taken.

 

[jasamcarl]

When considering undead hit die and templates, keep in mind that the practical effect of not having a con score is pretty much an automatic 10. To compensate for melee oriented monsters, d12 hit die were given, but that does not neccessarily hold for a monster character, which any undead with levels more or less becomes, because, one, those levels might not gear the monster towards melee and two, if you distribute stats, con can be seen as an instant dumping place, with greater emphasis placed on int, cha, or whatever.

Templates are different, because they can take into account the effects on a broad range of monsters and npcs who may be reliant on con versus class levels, which follows an incredibly generalized one level = +1 CR method. By changing the hit die of class levels, you are changing the benefits of those levels. An undead creature shouldn't have to be designed to take into account whatever combination of class levels might be slapped on.

 

[seankreynolds]

Let me restate in a different way:

1) 3.0 metamagic is a waste; you have to "pay" for it twice (once by taking the feat, once by using a higher-level spell slot), and it's much less effective for 2 spellcasting classes (bard and rogue). The revised metamagic was well-received among the staff at the time (IIRC), and was something that I'd consider taking (in fact, my sorcerer in the game I'm playing now has the revised Extend Spell). But the revised metamagic feats were dropped from the 3.5 rules because there wasn't enough time to playtest them. So something that many (rightly) complain about in the core rules isn't being fixed, even though the revised PH was done first and so they've had from at least Feb of last year to about Feb of this year to playtest it.

2) Revisions are being made to the MM monsters and new monsters added. WotC claims the two versions are compatible (with "minor changes") even though some creatures have obviously experience significant revisions (such as the mummy's +2 HD) and there have been significant changes to the skills, feats, and some special abilities (such as DR). WotC admits some of its original CRs were off and needed to be fixed. And apparently these updated monsters have all been playtested and new CRs assigned.

So we have the MM 3.5, which has been in development for less time than the PH, and has more revised material than the PH. And apparently there has been enough time to playtest all of those monsters, but not enough time to playtest the revised metamagic system.

And I admit, I'm miffed that the revised metamagic isn't going to be in the PH 3.5. I liked it a lot, and I think Andy Collins did a great job creating it and making it work.

 

[Hypersmurf]

1) 3.0 metamagic is a waste; you have to "pay" for it twice (once by taking the feat, once by using a higher-level spell slot), and it's much less effective for 2 spellcasting classes (bard and rogue).

!?

Is the Revised Rogue a spellcasting class?

-Hyp.

 

[Technik4]

He probably meant bard and sorceror. Any chance the revised metamagic could appear in a dragon article, future book, or Andy's website?

(I realize there's no way you could put it on your site sean after the recent news).

Technik

 

[Hypersmurf]

Metamagic is much less effective for sorcerers?

-Hyp.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Sorcerers have to take a full round to cast metamagic spells.

 

[Technik4]

He's probably referring to the fact that while most spell-casters pay twice to use a metamagic feat, sorcerors and bards pay 3 times.

1. Taking the feat
2. Adjusting your spell by the requisite level
3. (Bard and Sorceror) lengthen casting time

Additionally, bards and sorcerors can't use quicken spell, and with haste no longer giving an additional spell per round, this is a hard blow.

Technik

 

[Hypersmurf]

Sorcerers have to take a full round to cast metamagic spells.

Full round action...

I don't see giving up an MEA to be able to Silent Spell your Dispel Magic or Heighten your Glitterdust on the fly to be an extreme sacrifice.

The Quicken/3.5 Haste comment has merit. But I feel that for the most part, a sorcerer makes better use of Metamagic feats than a Wizard.

Sure, he doesn't have as many of them, but he has supreme tactical flexibility with those he does have.

-Hyp.