Casters Nerfed, Melee Ascendant (3.5)

[Jalkain]

Right. I can see how these would be useful for NPCs. No problem there. But I don't think that giving NPCs spells that can screw the PCs for hours after the NPCs in question are dead and gone but don't do much to save the NPCs' lives are good things. Sunder and Mordenkeinen's disjunction were already fodder for DM cheesiness; why add more similar mechanics.

My big question is this:

If you don't like this kind of thing going on, why do you want the spells made 2 levels lower? So that more NPCs can cast them?

In any case, this spell does about as much to save NPC lives as any of the others. Opponents that use intelligent tactics to harass the PCs and provide themselves with escape routes if they get into trouble is generally thought to be a good way of challenging players. Reducing the PCs to half movement, screwing up their ability to use missile weapons, these things make your NPC escape more likely, yes?

 

[Fenes 2]

Huh? By that logic, no character under 20th level is viable, because the DM might throw the tarrasque at the party.

The players are never forced into particular option by what the DM might throw at them. There is no "must" in PC design. The DM is supposed to design appropriate encounters for the PCs, whatever the PCs are.

If the PCs aren't up to the challenge of an archmage, the DM shouldn't be throwing archmages at them. The challenges are designed for the PCs, not the other way around.

You'd be surprised how many people consider tailoring your enemis to the PCs as "babysitting the PCs", and go on how their PCs and players have to be smart and cunning and effective to survive.

The idea that it is possible or even (gasp) better to check what your PCs can hit with weapons and spells and adjusting the monster a bit, even if that means lowering the DR or AC or SR from the (sacred) values in the MM seems to be unknown in many groups.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

You'd be surprised how many people consider tailoring your enemis to the PCs as "babysitting the PCs", and go on how their PCs and players have to be smart and cunning and effective to survive.

The idea that it is possible or even (gasp) better to check what your PCs can hit with weapons and spells and adjusting the monster a bit, even if that means lowering the DR or AC or SR from the (sacred) values in the MM seems to be unknown in many groups.

Also CR may be based around the red wizard/archmage characters. And while I'm sure most DMs here are slick enough to alter the CRs or effectively eyeball the encounters, many DMs either aren't talented enough(there new to the game) or don't have the time to finesse things and so throwing out the CR system and just eyeballing it because the party built non red wizard mages is not a good option for them.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't WOTC R&D do their playtesting with the Iconics (25-pt buy iconics, at that)?

Why would game balance be based on prestige classes that are purely optional for use in the game?

My impression from Ed Strak's comments and the Dragon article was the Red Wizard and (hopefully revised) Archmage went into the DMG as examples of how PrCs could be adapted to a specific campaign setting -- not to set the gold standard for prestige classes.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

My big question is this:

If you don't like this kind of thing going on, why do you want the spells made 2 levels lower? So that more NPCs can cast them?

Because at those levels, the spells would be worthwhile for PCs as well. Of course, being generally worthwhile would make them more attractive and therefore more likely to be cast against PCs too. So it might be a losing bargain. (Then again, if there's a way to heal fatigue and exhaustion other than rest in 3.5e, it's all fine again).

In any case, this spell does about as much to save NPC lives as any of the others. Opponents that use intelligent tactics to harass the PCs and provide themselves with escape routes if they get into trouble is generally thought to be a good way of challenging players. Reducing the PCs to half movement, screwing up their ability to use missile weapons, these things make your NPC escape more likely, yes?

And NPCs screwing the players using hit and run tactics is generally not fun. If the NPCs are using hit and run tactics on the PCs, these spells are great. But so would sunder and Mordenkeinen's disjunction. Try the following tactics in your game and see how the PCs react:

Round 1: Mass haste by enemy wizard.
Round 2: Teleports next to PCs with fighter
Combat round 1: Enemy wizard: targetted dispel on the PC's most obviously magical items; ready action to teleport away when the fighter finishes his round. Enemy fighter: Full attack--all sunder attempts against the dispelled item and other vulnerable items; then partial attack to finish off an item.
Readied action goes off; wizard and fighter teleport away.

Or try the above but use mordenkeinen's disjunction and don't bother readying at higher levels.

At lower levels, give an NPC ride by attack, a magic weapon, and Improved Sunder. Have him ride by the party once and sunder a weapon (even easier if he has Spirited Charge too). Or make a group of goblins who can do that. Place the situation in the dark to make it hard to target them with spells to prevent their escape.

Then tell me how much fun your players have when NPCs constantly use these tactics. And tell me how much fun you have if players decide to use such tactics.

And as for the exhaustion/fatigue helping an enemy wizard escape from angry PCs, he would be much more likely to do so if he simply used Teleport or Greater Teleport (at the same spell levels). Given his probable AC, he's unlikely to escape from even exhausted PCs by fleeing on foot--not when the PCs have missile weapons and (most likely) fly, etc.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Related to this, when asked if there would be a "remove fatigue" spell:

Not specifically, but many of the omnibus "fix-me-up" spells have been expanded in scope to cover more of the conditions that characters can find themselves suffering, while staying true to their thematic roots.

Heal, for instance, fixes exhaustion and fatigue (among a laundry-list of other conditions).

Lesser restoration now eliminates fatigue, and restoration/greater restoration eliminate fatigue and exhaustion.

In general, we took the approach that it's preferable to avoid adding a whole bunch of specific fixes (since characters would rarely know in advance which ones to prep).

Imagine if 3.5 added these spells to the game:
remove daze
remove dazzle
remove entanglement
remove exhaustion
remove fascination
remove fatigue
remove nausea
remove sickness
remove stun

That's pretty ugly for the cleric, I'd say.
Andy Collins
Senior Designer
Wizards of the Coast Roleplaying R&D

 

[Bendris Noulg]

My impression from Ed Strak's comments and the Dragon article was the Red Wizard and (hopefully revised) Archmage went into the DMG as examples of how PrCs could be adapted to a specific campaign setting -- not to set the gold standard for prestige classes.

Except that isn't what these Prestige Classes are doing. Indeed, they are doing the opposite: Going from a specific setting and getting generic-tized for default. That these would serve as examples of something that isn't an all-around truth (meaning that not every Prestige Class will naturally fit into any campaign setting) is kinda a problem. If anything, it lends undeserved validity to the "I should be able to play what ever I want regardless of the setting" crowd.

On a side note, I certainly hope that the description in the 3.5 DMG keeps Prestige Classes as an optional rule, for the same reason as above.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Where do people get the idea that WotC isn't changing the archmage and Red Wizard?

These classes have been complained about so much they're going to change them.

 

[Arnwyn]

You'd be surprised how many people consider tailoring your enemis to the PCs as "babysitting the PCs", and go on how their PCs and players have to be smart and cunning and effective to survive.

The idea that it is possible or even (gasp) better to check what your PCs can hit with weapons and spells and adjusting the monster a bit, even if that means lowering the DR or AC or SR from the (sacred) values in the MM seems to be unknown in many groups.

Yep, and I'm in one of 'em. Works great for us, too.

 

[Jalkain]

Then tell me how much fun your players have when NPCs constantly use these tactics. And tell me how much fun you have if players decide to use such tactics.

Then don't use them constantly. It's not as if every group of opponents the PCs face will have access to these kind of spells - such a campaign would lack credibility unless a good reason was given. That's why it's reasonable to have Wave of Exhaustion at 7th level. What's Mord's Disjunction, 9th I think? If I was always facing 17th-20th level arcane casters, I'd get pretty bored regardless of what tactics got used.


And as for the exhaustion/fatigue helping an enemy wizard escape from angry PCs, he would be much more likely to do so if he simply used Teleport or Greater Teleport (at the same spell levels). Given his probable AC, he's unlikely to escape from even exhausted PCs by fleeing on foot--not when the PCs have missile weapons and (most likely) fly, etc.

True, but they only want to escape if things go against them. Casting this spell at the start of combat gives them a better chance of winning the battle, whilst hampering the movement of PCs. And remember that -6 DEX will affect missile weapon use. Flying is an option, but not everyone in the party will necessarily be capable of that.

I'm not just talking about the wizard either. His friends might want to beat a hasty retreat if things go badly. They might well need to escape on foot, regardless of the wizard's abilities.