Casters Nerfed, Melee Ascendant (3.5)

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Elder

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).

IME if you use your highest level spells, such as Hold Monster, it works more often. Even worse is Wall of Force - no save. Your opponent is in trouble if they don't have some form of astral travel.

PS why would you ever use Hold Person? I've found that spell totally useless. You can't be sure what challenges you will be facing. Hold Monster is much better, since it works on roughly half of the monsters you face. (I assume it never works on clerics )

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I didn't say that it was a good idea. However, someone asked what happens if the caster is tossing three "save or what else" spells per round. For a tenth level caster to be able to do that for more than two rounds requires him to use all his highest level slots for quickened first level spells and then use 3rd or 4th level slots for the other two.

So, I don't think that the 3 spells/round non-evoker can do better than Quickened something (there aren't any obvious first level spells that would be useful in this role--grease is as close as I can come), Polymorph Other, Hold Person (Or alternately, Phantasmal Killer, and Slow, glitterdust, or web).

Elder


IME if you use your highest level spells, such as Hold Monster, it works more often. Even worse is Wall of Force - no save. Your opponent is in trouble if they don't have some form of astral travel.

PS why would you ever use Hold Person? I've found that spell totally useless. You can't be sure what challenges you will be facing. Hold Monster is much better, since it works on roughly half of the monsters you face. (I assume it never works on clerics )

I picked Hold Person because it's a third level spell and I was trying to think of a 3rd level save or else spell that was worth casting twice successively. I should've just gone to second level with glitterdust.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Glitterdust

Yeah, that is a much better use of resources.

 

[Thels]

I think the biggest problem is that there were spells you just had to pick, in order to stay on top... naturally, those spells you had to pick were thus overpowered, because you couldn't go without it and pick another one. Haste probably the biggest example.

When comparing fighters to wizards, how come everyone is only looking at their damage output? I mean, a wizard can do so much more than dmg. Really, in most campaigns I play, if I pick only combat spells for my wizard, I'd be flatout bored. And even then, there's great nondamage combat spells with great effects even on lower levels. Think entangle or web.

And even when looking at the damage, everyone assumes a fighter with bull's strength on him. Now where did that bull's strength come from? The spellcaster. So if the fighter killed an opponent, he did not do so alone. The spellcaster did a part of the job, though indirectly.

I don't see Harm and Disintegrate as unbalanced, more as spoilers. They either do nothing or end the encounter, now where's the fun of that?

I really don't know about hold person yet.

I DO think that Spell Focus +1 kinda sucks... +2 wasn't all that powerfull already (keep in mind that DC's don't go up as you go up in level).

 

[Felon]

I didn't say that it was a good idea. However, someone asked what happens if the caster is tossing three "save or what else" spells per round. For a tenth level caster to be able to do that for more than two rounds requires him to use all his highest level slots for quickened first level spells and then use 3rd or 4th level slots for the other two.

Man o man, this board has developed a thick skin over the years. You don't know how lucky you are to be going off on these ill-supported "got the shaft" rants without getting ridiculed and dismissed summarily.

Case in point: in these mock-up scenarios, you keep talking about the wizard running out of spell slots quickly. Don't you think a 10th-level wizard's going to acquire at least a few of the many magic items designed to ameliorate that problem? Staves, wands, spell-storing items, and probably lots and lots o' scrolls. In your scenarios you haven't had any problem assuming a fighter of a given level has a magic weapon.

Hasted mages in my campaign certainly never had any worries about getting two fireballs out of the hopper every round.

Lord, I love a good rant as much as the next guy, but this such a weak position to try to make a stand on. Particularly since it's based largely on huge presumptions (e.g. only spellcasters will lose insta-kills, not monsters) and puerile reasoning (e.g. tweaking spells shows WotC has a favoritism towards fighters).

 

[hong]

Man o man, this board has developed a thick skin over the years. You don't know how lucky you are to be going off on these ill-supported "got the shaft" rants without getting ridiculed and dismissed summarily.

I'm taking a vacation.

 

[Ruvion]

You know, reading this thread here reminds me of the good ol' WarCraft 3 Beta Forum where there are many people complaining about this nerf, that shaft, and there brokage that assaulted their favored race at that paticular patch. Spellcasters are not shafted IMNSHO...granted I will have to see the final product to be really sure, but I am sure Wizards of the Coast are called Wizards for a reason (and not because they are extreme fan boys of the melee meisters). I think we may be seeing the birth of a more pardonable balance between melee guys and magic guys.

 

[Marshall]

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.

Ditto! Exactly my point. I dont mind that Disintegrate is being changed. What I do mind is that its using the mechanics of a seperate group of spells and doing their job BETTER

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.

This, I dont agree with.
I like the new Ranger, the MT, most of the other class and race changes, the TWF stuff, generally most of what I've seen. I'm ambivalent on the Poly, Hold, and Harm/Heal spells. I hate the new Haste, one min/lvl buffs and thought the save-or-die change was stupid when AC mentioned it for Epic.

 

[rangerjohn]

It may interest you to know that the Wizards are almost if not totally gone. Apparently you missed the many rounds of lay offs in the last 2-3 years.

 

[hong]

It may interest you to know that the Wizards are almost if not totally gone. Apparently you missed the many rounds of lay offs in the last 2-3 years.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum.