D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5e] Will they fix the other H spell?

[CRGreathouse]

It's the "top of the heap" syndrom.

At the same spell level, A is a bit better than B which is better than C which is better than D, etc.

"A is broken ! Look at Z ! There's no reason to prepare Z when everyone just take A !"

A proceeds to get nerf... errated to be on par with Z. Even a bit below, actually. Or simply house-ruled out.

"B is broken ! Look at Z ! etc."

B is removed and cease to exist.

Eh. The real way to determine if spells are aty a good level is to compare the spell to the Z of the next higher level and the A of the next lower level. [For example, if a 4th-level spell is weaker than haste or stronger than mirage arcana...] Of course, this assumes the 'benchmark' spells are balanced themselves...

 

[Gez]

Eh. The real way to determine if spells are aty a good level is to compare the spell to the Z of the next higher level and the A of the next lower level. [For example, if a 4th-level spell is weaker than haste or stronger than mirage arcana...] Of course, this assumes the 'benchmark' spells are balanced themselves...

Heh. Magic missile is a benchmark 1st level spell, and is overpowered. Even wish, which is supposed to be the benchmark for the most potent wizard spell possible, is considered overpowered by some -- which only means that wizards should not have this level of power from their point of view.

 

[LostSoul]

I think Hold Person should be a 4th level spell, since it is only slightly weaker than Slay Living.

I'd much rather see a system that has these "save-or-die" spells do Hit Point damage on failed saves - and if you drop below zero because of that spell, a certain effect replaces death and dying.

Such as: Hold Person does 2d6 + 1d6 per 2 levels. Will Save to negate. If you are dropped below 0 HP, you're not Dead and/or Dying, you're held Helpless.

Based on the way Hit Points works and is described, I think this is the logical way the spells should work.

 

[hong]

I think Hold Person should be a 4th level spell, since it is only slightly weaker than Slay Living.

I'd much rather see a system that has these "save-or-die" spells do Hit Point damage on failed saves - and if you drop below zero because of that spell, a certain effect replaces death and dying.

Heh. You've been reading my website, haven't you?

 

[Gez]

I think Hold Person should be a 4th level spell, since it is only slightly weaker than Slay Living.

I'd much rather see a system that has these "save-or-die" spells do Hit Point damage on failed saves - and if you drop below zero because of that spell, a certain effect replaces death and dying.

Such as: Hold Person does 2d6 + 1d6 per 2 levels. Will Save to negate. If you are dropped below 0 HP, you're not Dead and/or Dying, you're held Helpless.

Based on the way Hit Points works and is described, I think this is the logical way the spells should work.

No. That wouldn't be logical at all.

Hold person immobilize you, it don't deal you damage. Even if hit points are also supposed to abstract dodging and so, it isn't movement, it's capacity to soak or avoid PHYSICAL DAMAGE.

Hold person is NOT physical damage, it is magical immobilization.

You avoid being magically immobilized with a Will save, not a For or Reflex one.

Furthermore, if you had hold person and other similar spells deal damage, you would nerf spellcasters even more. They have few hit points, but good will save. By making these spells damage hit points, rather than have any other effect, you penalize wizards.

You also totally ruin the flavor of the spell, since it's no longer a spell that immobilize someone, but a damage-dealing spell. A fireball variant, in other words.

With that logic, charm person could become a damage dealing spell also. You just have to say hit points are merely more abstract than before, and represent also your capacity at avoiding being charmed. Sigh. And then, you remove saving throws altogether, soaking with hit point cushion is all you need. And you remove combat and spellcasting alltogether, just have one class, with three stats: level, hit points, and ability. To battle someone else, you make an ability check, and that give you the number of damage you deal. When your level raise, you may increase hit points or ability. It's totally abstracted out and the system ignore whether you deal damage with a spell, a bow, a claymore, or just attempted to teleport to safety (abstracted to killing the bigbaddy in order to create safety in your zone).

If you're just allergic to spellcaster, just remove the classes, that would be less hypocritical than nerfing them constantly. What do you want ? Wizards with d1 HD every 3 levels, that could deal 1 point of damage per day and nothing else ?

I'm rambling, I know. But hold is not damaging, it is, plainly, holding. And although considered a save-or-die because it allow to make a CDG on the victim, it don't kill itself. It could be utilized in situation where you don't want to kill a target, like to prevent someone from doing something without harming him.

Turning hold person into spell that is called hold but that actually don't hold, just deal damage, although it kept its name of holding for reason of flavor, even if now it's a bland spell is not a smart move. IMHO, YMMV, and all that.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

While were at it, Sleep is certainly overpowered as a spell. It is a first level save or die by CDG spell, how broken is that. It is even better than Hold person since it effects more than one target. What first level party hasn't relied on this to save themselves from a bunch of orcs. Maybe it should be moved to 2nd level so spellcasters will take other things like color spray. Oh wait, that is a save or die by CDG spell too, better move that up a level as well.

 

[Uller]

Back in the olden days, (1e) a cleric could choose:
One opponent at a -2 penalty to their save
two opponents at a -1 penalty to their saves
three opponents at even save vs. spell.

Against fighters and general humanoids, it was NASTY!!!!

And now it has the added bonus that affected targets can be instantly killed with a CdG. IIRC, you still had to beat the target down the normal way.

There are lots of house rules that could be made to correct this:

1) The target is only stunned (can't take any actions but can still defend himself)...or dazed or whatever

2) Once the target takes damage, the spell is broken...thus only one CdG attempt is possible.

3) Limit the HD of effected creature to be equal or less than the caster. So it is only a insta-kill spell on lesser targets, not ubervillians.

I could probably think of more...

 

[hong]

With that logic, charm person could become a damage dealing spell also. You just have to say hit points are merely more abstract than before, and represent also your capacity at avoiding being charmed.

So?

http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/cha_feats.htm#unyielding_soul

 

[dcollins]

A cleric I run would prepare hold person all the time after the conversion to 3rd Edition, and I don't think anyone ever missed their save against the spell. I actually stopped preparing it, because I never found any use for it. At least sound burst does damage in an area with no save...

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I think Hold Person should be a 4th level spell, since it is only slightly weaker than Slay Living.

I'd much rather see a system that has these "save-or-die" spells do Hit Point damage on failed saves - and if you drop below zero because of that spell, a certain effect replaces death and dying.

Such as: Hold Person does 2d6 + 1d6 per 2 levels. Will Save to negate. If you are dropped below 0 HP, you're not Dead and/or Dying, you're held Helpless.

Based on the way Hit Points works and is described, I think this is the logical way the spells should work.

I want the same thing but I'd make it save for 1/2 damage.