Casters Nerfed, Melee Ascendant (3.5)

[Belen]

I am saying that the mage is not overpowered according to the rest of the party. The blademaster is not an overpowered class either as it is basically the weaponmaster from Sword and Fist.

I am saying that under 3.5 rules, the mage would be underpowered and the blademaster would become even better.

Dave

 

[Storminator]

I am saying that the mage is not overpowered according to the rest of the party. The blademaster is not an overpowered class either as it is basically the weaponmaster from Sword and Fist.

I am saying that under 3.5 rules, the mage would be underpowered and the blademaster would become even better.

Dave

My impression of the weaponmaster in our group is something like He's pretty scary at high levels.

Don't forget that in 3.5 that FR cheese is coming your way! Archmage baby, everybody's getting it!

But you may be right about your group. If they can't get it together to play a mage well now, it's only going to get harder for them.

PS

 

[Jalkain]

As for my players ... They also tend to kill first regardless if any questions could be answered.

The one time they had a chance to prep, the fighter, a very rash individual, decided to just go attack and thus ruined any chance to prep.[/B]

Wizards work best when they have advance warning of what they are up against, and have time to prepare. This has always been the case, for every edition of DnD.

Let's face it, your group doesn't sound very wizard-friendly, does it? I've played a wizard in groups like this, and while you can sometimes bring the others round to your way of thinking, or else circumvent the problems that your own party are creating, you aren't exactly working under optimal conditions.

What if the party worked in an intelligent fashion, using the wizard's various intelligence gathering spells so that they could decide an effective strategy, including appropriate spell selections? Wouldn't the wizard then start to become a more effective member of the group, both in and out of combat?

Even if you're caught unawares, a few contingency plans of a general nature can work wonders. For instance, you can assign one character to act as a bodyguard to the wizard in such situations.

I put it to you that if the party plays like this, the wizard will often become a key figure in any party, because they will often dictate the tempo of a battle, the outcome of a battle, and often whether or not the battle takes place at all. This is something I've seen playing lot of wizards of different levels.

Given all of this, I think that the 3.5 Ed. changes are fairly minor, and fairly well-thought out for the most part. Some, like the reduction of Spell Focus, I shall reserve judgement upon until I see the whole package.

So yes, with a little planning, mages are hardly so uber.

Not sure I follow this bit. To stop a wizard being uber, you surprise him. If you let him dictate the battle, you're toast.

Your wizard will become more effective if your party stop and use their heads a bit more often. Until high-levels, the wizard is often only powerful when the rest of the party allows him to be. He needs their protection and their cooperation.

The mage in my group is among equals and overshadows no other class.

Your group is not a textbook example of party cooperation, and I hope your arguments regarding wizard power levels are based on something other than this one group.

 

[Jalkain]

Just a thought. With some popular spells being made less powerful, and the monsters supposedly becoming more powerful...

What about Summon Monster? I've heard a lot about how Monster Summoning I-IX aren't that powerful (although personally I love them). Could this be the start of a new dawn for conjurers everywhere?

Any set of rules that has more summoned demons and celestials, and fewer routinely cast Bull's Strengths, is fine with me!

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I haven't heard anything about it, but I have to say that, at the moment, the only summoning spells I have complaints about are I, II, and IX. The rest are pretty effective spells--even when cast off the restricted list for lawful good clerics. (Celestial Brown Bears and Celestial Dire Bears are very effective )

That said, I think you're right about summoning possibly becoming more effective.

Just a thought. With some popular spells being made less powerful, and the monsters supposedly becoming more powerful...

What about Summon Monster? I've heard a lot about how Monster Summoning I-IX aren't that powerful (although personally I love them). Could this be the start of a new dawn for conjurers everywhere?

Any set of rules that has more summoned demons and celestials, and fewer routinely cast Bull's Strengths, is fine with me!

 

[Al]

Of course he's not core rules only, but I would say he's pretty normal. FRCS is hardly obscure.

I think this is the crux of the problem. The most vocal DnD lobby are those who are the most 'serious' gamers (since they're the ones discussing spells for hours on message boards ). WotC therefore react to this vocal lobby, who by virtue of being 'serious' gamers, tend to possess supplements. WotC therefore modify DnD based on a disproportionate and unrepresentative feedback. Core rules should not be 'backwardly-compatible' to assume people use supplements. They should be stand-alone, and the *supplements* should be toned down, not the core rules. That's utterly wrong-headed.

Seriously, FRCS is not obscure (I don't allow it in my game, but that's irrelevant) but it's going about it the wrong way. Core rules should be self-contained in and of themselves, not make some classes weak in the expectation that the player will buy supplements to shore them up.

 

[Al]

Double post...

 

[cable]

I think this is the crux of the problem. The most vocal DnD lobby are those who are the most 'serious' gamers (since they're the ones discussing spells for hours on message boards ). WotC therefore react to this vocal lobby, who by virtue of being 'serious' gamers, tend to possess supplements. WotC therefore modify DnD based on a disproportionate and unrepresentative feedback. Core rules should not be 'backwardly-compatible' to assume people use supplements. They should be stand-alone, and the *supplements* should be toned down, not the core rules. That's utterly wrong-headed.

This so absolutely true. I have not experience any of the problems associated with high powered wizards. In fact most of my players shun wizards because they are on the weak side. Why is this? I don't play in FR and I don't use supplements dealing with FR. I only allow abilities in other supplements on a case by case basis. The only absolutes my players can count on is the core rules. Anything else is at my sufferance. This has produced a challenging and enjoyable playing environment for both myself and my players.

So when people panic and scream OMG our wizards has a DC 100000+ Disintegrate, all I can say is re-examine the supplements you are using. A core rules (3e) 20th lvl wizard can really only get around DC 30 for their 9th lvl spells for which they have invested a huge portion of their feat expenditure and wealth to get. Compare this with the appropriate CR monster and you will note that it is not that great. However a wiz5/red wiz10/acm 5 can have upwards to up to around 50 DC for their 9th lvl spell. Now you tell me, is the core wizard the problem or the PrCs?

Of course I have had to house rule certain spells that are broken (ie cannot work) as written eg Simulacrum, Polymorph etc etc. However I have allowed Timestop and Haste to work as written (ie give wizard lots of extra actions) and it hasn't unbalance anything in the slightest.

 

[cable]

Double post

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Check out the new spells at the WOTC site.

They won't be particularly effective against casters, but will be brutal against melee types (especially as the barbarian enters Greater Rage). I say the balance between the two is well in hand.