Casters Nerfed, Melee Ascendant (3.5)

[Hypersmurf]

It's just a slightly tweaked kensai/weapon master. Y'know, the one in S&F and OA.

[shrug] I don't have WoT, so I assumed people knew what they were talking about

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

1e and 2e had the 10d6 damage caps because HD maxed out at 10. When 3e came along, the damage caps stayed but everyone got a full HD for every level and a full CON bonus for every level. That 10d6, doesnt amount to very dangerous, if you have 20d10 + 20x6 HP.

Well, no. A 3rd level spell _shouldn't_ be that dangerous to a 20th level character. That's the basic philosophy behind 3E's magic system: if you want to take on a high-level enemy, you should be using high-level spells.

If you want to make a 20th level character hurt, try a doubly-empowered fireball (20d6 effectively). Or a heightened one, if your DM allows Heighten to change the usual dice caps.

 

[Belen]

Considering that his 12th level fighter has around 78K gp in equipment, which is under the 12th level cap by 10k, then I fail to see your argument. If you think that the +3 weapon the guy has at 12th level is overpowered, then I would never want to play in one of your games.

As for people coplaining about the blademaster PrC, it is a slightly modified version of the WeaponMaster PrC in Sword and Fist. Considering the PC wanted to play a character that could ONLY use a sword and he can ONLY use his father's heirloom Katana (or suffer massive penalties), then I fail to see your point...again.

No other WOTC PrC can be a true sword specialist. As that is his only weapon, then I do not think you have much of a leg to stand on.

 

[Al]

Haste, Harm and Heal I was fully in favour of.

Things have now gone too far...

The point was this: in 3e, the reasons that wizards did so well was Haste. That was about the only reason. With Haste nerfed, aside from a few loopholes (Polymorph) which needed closing, I think that wizards were balanced.

Now they're being scaled back too far. With save-or-dies gone, and disablers being hugely scaled back (especially Hold) and with lower DCs (due to Spell Focus nerfs), the wizards are more-or-less restricted to straight blasting spells. Assuming that the new save-or-dies do 20d6+(level)d6, disintegrate does 31d6 or a failed save and 5d6 on a pass. Assuming a 50/50 save rate against most opponents (remember the save nerfs) and only a 60% chance to hit with the RTA (an 11th level wizard only has +6 to hit with a Dex 13) average damage is a meagre 40 points. The raging barbarian can *easily* outstrip that, as can a vanilla fighter.

Now add to that the meleeist's better AC, better HPs and unlimited usage of his abilities (as opposed to the wizard's restricted number of spells/day) and the 3.5e meleeists tend to overshadow the wizards.

 

[hong]

Now they're being scaled back too far. With save-or-dies gone, and disablers being hugely scaled back (especially Hold) and with lower DCs (due to Spell Focus nerfs), the wizards are more-or-less restricted to straight blasting spells. Assuming that the new save-or-dies do 20d6+(level)d6, disintegrate does 31d6 or a failed save and 5d6 on a pass. Assuming a 50/50 save rate against most opponents (remember the save nerfs)

Pish tosh. You don't use a disintegrate against a pumped melee brute. You use disintegrate against a lich or vampire. Against the pumped melee brute, you use dominate or hold, and laugh as he tries to roll a natural 20 each round.

Now add to that the meleeist's better AC, better HPs and unlimited usage of his abilities (as opposed to the wizard's restricted number of spells/day) and the 3.5e meleeists tend to overshadow the wizards.

Given that melee is undoubtedly the most dangerous place on the 3E battlefield, and is likely to remain so in 3.5E, I don't think that's a problem at all.

 

[drnuncheon]

That's probably not a valid comparison. Cone of Cold is a 5th level area effect spell, while Disintegrate is a 6th level single target ranged touch attack.

If you want to see the stupidity of the Disintegrate change WRT old spells, compare it to Otiluke's Freezing Sphere (ray version). 40d6 or 15d6. Your choice.

Again: as opposed to 3e, where it is effectively infinited6 vs 15d6?

That argument just doesn't stand up. I don't know why people keep making it.

If the change is "stupid" because the spell is overpowered compared to Cone of Cold or Freezing Sphere, then it was even stupider in 3e, because the spell was more powerful.

Does putting numbers in the spell description somehow cause people to stop thinking?

J

 

[Vaxalon]

http://www.rpgworldcomic.com/d/20030528.html

 

[hong]

Hey there, Vax. Where the heck have you been?

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Again: as opposed to 3e, where it is effectively infinited6 vs 15d6?

That argument just doesn't stand up. I don't know why people keep making it.

If the change is "stupid" because the spell is overpowered compared to Cone of Cold or Freezing Sphere, then it was even stupider in 3e, because the spell was more powerful.

In 3e, the spell had a different effect. It was a save or die. Converting it to just another way to deal damage makes it and the game less interesting. It also leads to redundancies (2 touch attack spells at 6th level, one with effectively save negates (disintegrate) and one with no save but half the damage or less).

The point is this: The original spell was different from Freezing Sphere in every way. The new spell is much more similar. There is now much less variety and interest in the Sor/Wiz spell list.

Does putting numbers in the spell description somehow cause people to stop thinking?

No, but from what I've seen, I think 3.5e could change barbarians to d4 hit points and say that anything that hits a wizard kills him, and change the spell lists so that clerics have one spell at each level (a cure) and wizards have a fireball at every level and nothing else and half the people on the boards would mindlessly cheer on for it. If you want ad homonim argumentation, right back at you.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

someone will always complain about something

so what if the mage can't do 120 points of damage? can the fighter magically go invisible? open doors with a wave of his hand? teleport across the world? solve any problem by thinkingh up a new spell?

If wizards in your campaign can "solve any problem by thinking up a new spell" then your campaign has serious problems. In most campaigns, they're restricted to spells comparable to the ones in the PH and "thinking up a new spell" is a long, time consuming, and unsure process that DMs tend to discourage (most of them fear that any new spell is likely to be broken--and would think that its "solving any problem" would confirm that analysis).

the mages strength is versatility. sure you can buy magic items to do neat things, but the mage(wizard i know) can buy magic items AND cast spells. and i don't know how things go in your games, but in mine the casters still seem to be the most effective on the combat field. if your damage spells don't work, be creative, their are hundres of spells that do more useful things besides xdy damage

Not anymore. Disintegrate did more useful things than xdy damage. Not anymore. Bull's Strength did more useful things than xdy damage. Not anymore.

and don't even complain because you can't keep up with a twinky made with broken classes, totally irrelevant

OK, how about my example. If you want to whine about the player's "twinkiness" I'd like to point out that his average damage/round will actually GO UP not down if we switch him over to a straight up fighter 6/barbarian 4. He loses nothing that I included in the damage analysis, and gains Improved Critical and 2 points of BAB.