Casters Nerfed, Melee Ascendant (3.5)

[hong]

The lich or vampire sucks up the 50-odd points of damage and then smacks you back (although the lich's smacking ability is also hugely reduced).

We are talking about disintegrate, yes?

1) Have a look at undead Fort saves some time.

2) Even with disintegrate doing hit point damage, have a look at their hit points some time.

You throw a weakened dominate or hold (weakened by the drop in Spell Focus and the nerf of Fox's Cunning) and he saves after a couple of rounds.

If you can't use that couple of rounds to dispatch him, you're doing something wrong. There is a 2nd level shaman spell, rebuke, that stuns (not paralyzes) a target for 1d4+1 rounds, and even that is remarkably good. In my experience, anything that gets stopped for even 2 rounds can usually be given up for lost.

I'm not saying that wizards are entirely useless in 3.5e- that would be foolish (seeing as I haven't seen it yet) and false (from what I have seen). It's certainly clear though that they have been hugely weakened.

Weakened? Yes. Hugely? I don't think so.

Granted, but spellcasters are often forced into melee as well.

If the tanks get pumped up enough, hopefully they won't be running away so much, and so the wizards won't have to get into melee themselves.

Sure, for quarter of an hour

Not even that, any more. Good thing, too.

A meleeist can easily deal 70 points in one round at high levels, especially with decent magical equipment, a high Str and some damage-boosting feats (not to mention melee-smack PrCs such as the frenzied berserker, cavalier and weapon master)...if the rumour that Power Attack is now twice as effective (i.e. +2 damage for every -1 to hit) then melee damage is going to launch into the orbit. I wouldn't be surprised to see average high-level melee damage well in excess of 100pts/round for every reasonably standard characters.

Average high-level melee damage is ALREADY well in excess of 100 points per round. However, they are also facing OTHER things that can dish out 100 points per round.

 

[S'mon]

I think we may be seeing the birth of a more pardonable balance between melee guys and magic guys.

I think that's right, but some people obviously _liked_ 3e's approach that magic and magic-users dominate play, and don't like the changes. Personally I think melee-ers got the short end of the stick in 3e and I'm very happy to see this rectified. My only real worry is that clerics will remain too powerful vis a vis the other classes, but the limiting of buff spells, a cleric forte, may obviate this. And it's ok to have clerics _slightly_ better than everyone else IMO as a reward for having to do what their god tells them, just not overwhelmingly better.

 

[Grazzt]

Nope. In my opinion, Dave, you're really jumping the gun, leaping to conclusions, and.. err.. hurdling the flumph. There isn't going to be any mass exodus away from spellcasters. They're still as viable, and fun to play, as ever.

Yep- I agree with PC here. Its not as bad as it looks.

BTW....hurdling the flumph?

 

[hong]

I think that's right, but some people obviously _liked_ 3e's approach that magic and magic-users dominate play, and don't like the changes. Personally I think melee-ers got the short end of the stick in 3e and I'm very happy to see this rectified. My only real worry is that clerics will remain too powerful vis a vis the other classes, but the limiting of buff spells, a cleric forte, may obviate this. And it's ok to have clerics _slightly_ better than everyone else IMO as a reward for having to do what their god tells them, just not overwhelmingly better.

Dammit S'mon, stop saying stuff I agree with already.

 

[S'mon]

Some people think 3e balanced out the classes (and this does seem to have been a goal) more than in 1e-2e. However in 1e-2e wizards had tiny hp totals (circa 25 at 10th level was typical) making them extremely vulnerable. Clerics, while tough, had fairly little offensive power - no buff spells, they only ever got one attack - until they gained the Harm spell, which was very powerful but took a full 1-minute round to cast & had to be delivered in the round(s) after casting. Plus clerics had to devote most of their spell slots to curing spells. Hold person was nice, but was usually saved against at higher levels.
Only the warrior classes ever got multiple attacks, and could easily kill wizards in 1 round of melee, much harder now IME.

3.0e clerics get multiple attacks, Harm was made far more lethal, hold person can easily take down a high level fighter, they don't need to devote slots to cure spells, and with their long-duration buff spells can easily surpass an unbuffed fighter in combat. IMO this was well OTT.

 

[S'mon]

Dammit S'mon, stop saying stuff I agree with already.

I could say the same to you, Hong.

I'm still reading infuriating quotes by you in other people's posts, but when I track down your original posts in their entirety they seem horribly _reasonable_ (**aggh!!**)

 

[S'mon]

One thing I'd like to see in 3.5e (but don't hold out much hope for) is support for different levels of magic in the campaign world. Eg some of 3.0e's high-magic assumptions seemed fine for Toril or Mystara (perhaps with some tweaking on eg magic-item creation), but to me it never seemed quite right for lower-magic Oerth, and it caused some major problems with my own campaign world Ea. I'd like something that was still D&D (rather than d20 system) but that supported a grittier feel than 3.0e.

 

[sithramir]

My 2 cents

It does appear to me that casters are being "nerfed" as you guys call it. People seem to keep saying how mages should be versatile. Well if you are making them lose stat boosters for anything but combat and weakening hold spells/polymorph spells and the like it seems your forcing them to depend more on direct damage spells. I understand polymorph was a bit powerful but now for self its practically useless other than combat and polymorph other is also tweaked.

Yet fighter types are being made more powerful? The ranger is getting evasion so they don' t need to multiclass to rog???? Well now rogues/rangers and monks can take 0 damage from the direct damage spells your forcing my mage to use? Plus the fact that they have enough hps to outlast a spell or two dependant on rolls and con stat.

You guys seem to have combats where your casters are in the "background" casting nonstop blowing things away with little threat to themselves. What world do you guys play on? Where's this background so I can put my caster there? In my battle fields the casters usually still in combat melee range because foes aren't dumb enough to stand still and fight the fighter types full round action attack to full round action attack. If the caster is hurting them they CHARGE them. If theres several monsters the fighters aren't able to keep them all off the mage most likely anyways.

Now comes the trouble. Attacks of opportunity destroy any mage. You've just lowered their hps and ac from dex with making stat boosters only combat spells. Guess what no mage has 5 rounds to boost themselves up if the guy charges them outright or if he's surprised. Even if not the foes know that magic casters are dangerous to them PLUS are easily felled if they get close so they know to go after them.

It just seems to me that the mages are losing some defense and some offense when the whole point was they had a ton of offense with little defense. And all this complaint on damage from high level mages. You gotta realize they do that and then they are canon fodder after their spells are spent. The fighter types can do that damage ALL DAY! plus still take hits even if they were unable to do damage.

The whole point of balance is that the DM can be dumb but everyone can still be on a level playing field. I keep hearing. YOU CAN CHANGE THIS in your world or change that in your world. Well if you've already relied on saying that to defend against people complaining you've already admitted in an unbalance.

I know we've not seen it all in the books yet but I feel they've hit casters a bit too much. HASTE is powerufl and needed a tweak. Good. But who is this saying that quicken spell is useful. I'm going to sacrifice a 5th level spell to cast magic missile quickly with another spell? FAH you still have to wait for your initiative before using it so its not worth it when you can just cast a powerful 5th level spell at that point and the fact that the extra spell won't be super useful if the monster is powerful. Plus the fact that thats 2 attacks of opportunity if he's up close. OUCH.

Just my 2 cents cause i like to complain!

 

[Marshall]

1. Can I cast a Wall of Force as a hemisphere centred on myself, so that nothing outside can get me?

2. Can I cast a Wall of Force as a hemisphere centred on myself, so that nothing outside can get me, if my buddy is standing in the square beside me? (Still three squares from the edge of the Wall)

3. Can I cast a Wall of Force as a hemisphere centred on myself, so that nothing outside can get me, if an opponent is standing in the square beside me? (Still three squares from the edge of the Wall)

-Hyp.

Replace Force with Ice in each of those questions then answer them. Wait I'll do it for you.

Yes, If you willingly fail your save.
Yes, If he willingly fails his save.
No, Unless he fails his save.

Wall of Force has no effect to force a saving throw. It doesnt say see Wall of Ice or even the "see text" that the other walls have.

And no Fireball cant be used to melt a lock, Unless that lock is 30' radius. It could be used to blow down a door, but thats not what I said.

Do you always read 7th level spell effects for your 5th level spells?

 

[Cloudgatherer]

Do you always read 7th level spell effects for your 5th level spells?

While wall of force will completely shut off a section of the battleground, Forcecage can allow a caster to "trap" an opponent *and* pelt him with ranged weapons and spells. An incredible advantage over wall of force, hence the level increase and cost.

I'm not saying Hyper's interpretation is the way the spell "should be", but that is how it is ruled officially.

Later.