Casters Nerfed, Melee Ascendant (3.5)

[Elder-Basilisk]

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.

That might be an accurate analysis if 20 HD creatures WERE CR 20. However, they start showing up around CR 8 and 9. The bigger elementals, elder arrowhawks, dire bears, legendary animals, anything advanced by HD, etc. have those kind of hit points around level 10--when 10d6 is the most damage a wizard can do with a single spell.

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.

The double empowered fireball--or even a double empowered cone of cold (30d6 effectively) won't do much to a 20th level fighter with 20d10+100 hp. He can take at least two of those (assuming failed saves and no resistance or evasion) and still have hit points left. (Of course, the wizard would probably be better off spending those slots on Meteor swarms--24d6 with no save is better than 30d6 with a save) but the fighter can still take two of those before he starts to get worried. And, at that level, trading two rounds of 9th level direct damage to force the cleric to cast an 8th level Mass Heal (even with the cap on heal, it would work out to about the same as the TWO meteor swarms) is not a good trade.

 

[hong]

That might be an accurate analysis if 20 HD creatures WERE CR 20. However, they start showing up around CR 8 and 9. The bigger elementals, elder arrowhawks, dire bears, legendary animals, anything advanced by HD, etc. have those kind of hit points around level 10--when 10d6 is the most damage a wizard can do with a single spell.

I didn't say anything about CRs. I was talking about taking on a high-level character.

And besides, have you seen what a dire bear or a big elemental is going to do to someone who gets in melee with it? These melee brutes have low CR not because they're easy to bash up, whether you're talking about wizards, barbarians or whoever. They have low CR because they don't have any special abilities except being able to dish out damage. So your wizard can fly around while invisible, and zap them to death at his leisure. The barb generally can't.

The double empowered fireball--or even a double empowered cone of cold (30d6 effectively) won't do much to a 20th level fighter with 20d10+100 hp. He can take at least two of those (assuming failed saves and no resistance or evasion) and still have hit points left.

I've yet to meet a 200hp character who won't blink at losing 70 of those hit points at one go. Alternatively, if you're talking about how the wizard can no longer instakill someone with one spell, tell me again why that's a bad thing.

 

[BryonD]

Ditto!

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.

A) This is a good thing. If a L3 spell could take out a L20 character then the balance would be WAYYYYY off. The caps actually make wizards tend to use their higher levels spells. Unlike 2E when walking between 2 tables, one a L6 game and the other a L19 game meant you could hear "I cast Fireball" in stereo.

B) The 3E HD/CON bonus system helps Wizards AT LEAST as much as anyone else. A magic-user used to get 1 HP per level after 11. Oh for the long lost days of power!!

 

[hong]

B) The 3E HD/CON bonus system helps Wizards AT LEAST as much as anyone else. A magic-user used to get 1 HP per level after 11. Oh for the long lost days of power!!

Heck, in our group, on a good day the wizards could have more hit points than the fighters. N-times empowered endurance will do that for you.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

If you don't consider what the spells actually did or were or the opportunity cost of such prodigal spellslinging, 3 spells/round sounds impressive. However, assuming a 10th level wizard casting two fireballs and a quickened magic missile per round (which he can do for two rounds before he runs out of fireballs), he's still only doing an average of 88 points of damage on two failed reflex saves, 71 points of damage on one failed reflex save, 53 points of damage on two successful reflex saves (one if the target has evasion, and two failed reflex saves if the target has improved evasion), and 18 points of damage on two successful reflex saves against an evading target.

Elder, I disagree. What if he were dishing out save-or-consequences spells instead?

Hong

No, ninny, you put GMW on the _bow_, and hey presto, you get +4 to attacks and damage with _all_ arrows.

Sometimes I share the arrows.

Al'Kelhar

WTF is with a 7th level evoker with 21 intelligence and a +2 stat boost item?

I feel the same way. The game system was designed for point-buying, so characters like this tend to bias the results.

Storminator

Meanwhile, the still unscathed wizard merely ratchets down to the next level of spells.

Doesn't your DM used ranged attacks? Spells? Summons? Burrowed xorn?

 

[Carnifex]

Belen, you are absolutely right. What to do? Vote with your wallet. DON'T BUY IT!! It is your right not to accept a product you're not happy with. $$$ is the only language WoTC (or any company for that matter) understands.

You don't need to buy it. It'll all be in the SRD.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

OK, so he casts three save or consequences spells per round. At level 10, that's a quickened Grease (probably effective 35% of the time), and maybe a pair of Hold Persons or a Slow and Wall of Ice (hemisphere version).

I don't see that as being out of line either. If the wizard is down to a single slow spell (or a save every round hold person) and a quickened Grease, he's completely laughable.

Now, we could up the level a bit (17) in which case, he's probably casting Wail of the Banshee, chained Polymorph Other, and a Quickened Hold Monster. That's scary but by that time, I would expect the fighter to be dealing 150 points of damage/round (possibly with a vorpal effect tossed in). Now, if you nerf the caster down to a quickened Hold Monster and Wail of the Banshee, he's not nearly as scary as the fighter's five attacks with his keen vorpal falchion.

Elder, I disagree. What if he were dishing out save-or-consequences spells instead?

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I didn't say anything about CRs. I was talking about taking on a high-level character.

And the point is that 20 HD creatures aren't necessarily high-level characters or even appropriate challenges for high-level characters.

And besides, have you seen what a dire bear or a big elemental is going to do to someone who gets in melee with it? These melee brutes have low CR not because they're easy to bash up, whether you're talking about wizards, barbarians or whoever. They have low CR because they don't have any special abilities except being able to dish out damage. So your wizard can fly around while invisible, and zap them to death at his leisure. The barb generally can't.

The wizard can only fly around and zap such creatures to death "at leisure" if their party members aren't getting munched on. If their party members are getting munched on (as they usually are) then the ability to deal out a significant contribution in damage quickly is essential. (Anyway, your hypothetical (7th level) flying invisible wizard--must be improved invisibility--just spent over half of his spell resources to kill a creature of a lower CR than himself zapping it to death. That's hardly an insignificant expenditure like you make it sound).

I've yet to meet a 200hp character who won't blink at losing 70 of those hit points at one go. Alternatively, if you're talking about how the wizard can no longer instakill someone with one spell, tell me again why that's a bad thing.

That's a bad thing because the fighter or the barbarian is a potential "one round and you're dead" threat. If the wizard can't be, then he's the 5th wheel not from 1st-4th level as before but from 1st-20th level. (Especially since direct damage seems to be the only aspect of the wizard that isn't getting directly nerfed in 3.5).

 

[drnuncheon]

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

Unless you're a playtester, you don't have the test of the 3.5 disintegrate - all you know is the rumors from Dungeon. So, what did disintegrate do in 3.0?

* Save-or-die.
* Get rid of wall of force.
* Destroy large objects.

Of these things, the only one we know about for certain is that save-or-die is changed to 'large amounts of damage'. I would be very surprised if it's anti-force effects are gone, or if it didn't affect objects. For all we know, it may affect objects in the same way as it does in 3.0, with the hit point damage being reserved for creatures.

So, until you're sure that it doesn't do "more useful things than xdy damage", maybe you should wait on those specific complaints.

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.

If you only see disintegrate and freezing sphere as ways to deal damage, no wonder this change upsets you so much. They are still different spells. They have different uses. freezing sphere has a variety of effects you can choose from, and will still be useful against tough foes (because of its lack of save). Disintegrate is still going to be better at toppling walls or dealing hideous damage to low-Fortitude targets.

See, 'save or die' is not a separate effect from causing damage. If you really think so, you're fooling yourself, because that's all it is: damage. In 3.0 it's just shorthand for 'enough damage to kill the target'. Before you disagree, think: what is the actual difference between someone killed with 3.0 disintegrate and someone killed with 3.5 disintegrate? Nothing. They're still dead either way.

Once you realize that, then you realize, "wow, here we have a spell that can potentially do what amounts to a million d6 of damage, if we can find a big enough living target". And then you start thinking about balance, and is it really a good idea to have a spell without a damage cap, that scales with the target rather than the caster? Hmmm...

J

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

If you only see disintegrate and freezing sphere as ways to deal damage, no wonder this change upsets you so much. They are still different spells. They have different uses. freezing sphere has a variety of effects you can choose from, and will still be useful against tough foes (because of its lack of save). Disintegrate is still going to be better at toppling walls or dealing hideous damage to low-Fortitude targets.

No argument that they still have different uses. But they're a lot more similar now than they were before.

See, 'save or die' is not a separate effect from causing damage. If you really think so, you're fooling yourself, because that's all it is: damage. In 3.0 it's just shorthand for 'enough damage to kill the target'. Before you disagree, think: what is the actual difference between someone killed with 3.0 disintegrate and someone killed with 3.5 disintegrate? Nothing. They're still dead either way.

The big difference is that in 3e and all previous editions of D&D, save or die spells and damage spells functioned differently. A spell that dealt damage could be resisted two ways: through a saving throw if it had one or through simply having enough hit points to deal with it. A save or die spell could only resisted through saving throws. Thus in 3e, an opponent with tons of hit points but weak saving throws (especially fort saves) had a very significant weakness. In 3.5, that is no longer true (except maybe in the case of will saves). Fort saves would appear to be far less significant if you have the hit points to take the damage.

So the difference wasn't in the mechanics of how dead a character was but in the mechanics of how a character could avoid becoming dead. Saving throws and hit points were both important but saving throws became increasingly important at higher levels. If all of the save or dies are changed to match disintegrate, this will no longer be the case in 3.5. A character with enough hit points will be able to fail all his saves against "save or die spells" and it won't matter if he has sufficient hit points. There may no longer be the option of targetting fort saves OR targetting hit points. There will only be targetting saves AND hit points or just targetting hit points. (No save spells).

Once you realize that, then you realize, "wow, here we have a spell that can potentially do what amounts to a million d6 of damage, if we can find a big enough living target". And then you start thinking about balance, and is it really a good idea to have a spell without a damage cap, that scales with the target rather than the caster? Hmmm...
J

I don't see a problem with that. 3e had multiple defenses that could be targetted in different ways. You could get at a character through straight up hit point damage. You could get at a character through any individual save. Or you could get at a character's hit points through a save. If you elminate the direct attack on the character through fort saves option, I think it makes combats less interesting.