Casters Nerfed, Melee Ascendant (3.5)

[Marshall]

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.

If you allow WoF to be a 5th level Forcecage there is nothing in the rules that prevents you from placing the hemisphere at 1' above the ground. Allowing the same ranged/spell combo that Forcecage has.

<shrug> WoF is a good enough 5th level spell that it doesnt need to add 7th level magic abilities.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Wall of Force has no effect to force a saving throw.

Wall of Force has no effect that allows a saving throw.

It doesnt say see Wall of Ice or even the "see text" that the other walls have.

Of course not. Wall of Ice allows a save. If Wall of Force said "see Wall of Ice", it would be contradicting itself.

And no Fireball cant be used to melt a lock, Unless that lock is 30' radius.

Unless the lock is within a 20 foot radius.

The lock is an unattended object within the radius of the fireball. As an unattended, immobile, non-magical object it gets no Reflex save. As an object it takes half damage from fire. Then we subtract its hardness. Whatever's left is the damage it takes. If that's more than its remaining hit points, it's melted.

Simple.

-Hyp.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Wow! People commented on Wall of Force.

IMC Wall of Force gives a Reflex save ... unlike Forcecage, it doesn't cost ruby dust to cast. However, I believe that if I weren't using house rules Wall of Force can simply trap an opponent.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I'm looking forward to seeing Wizards toned down a bit. In the campaign so far, we've not needed a rogue to scout, since the polymorphed wizard could do it better. So the upshot of this was - no rogues. This has now been solved, and rogues are the class most likely to be good at scouting again.

The change to haste prevents wizards from throwing three spells a round. Good. That was insane. Particularly when you could throw, say, 2 polymorph others in a round at 4th level.

And besides, the only way anyone will know whether these changes are good or bad is in about 6 months time when it's all settled down again. Until then, I'm going to enjoy hanging out in the rules forum and seeing what happens.

 

[rangerjohn]

Why play a spell caster now? Scouting nope, combat nope, role play can be done with any class. Buff nope unless you want to be killed in melee, spell duration so low you have to use magic items ,so any class is just as good at that ability ,plus has thier own. What are you trading that d4 hd for? The only spells that may not have been nerfed its better to play as a bard; illusions, enchantment. The only thing they seem to be leaving spell casters is item creation. Oh real adventurous were back to the npc who stays in his lab or temple.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Why play a spell caster now? Scouting nope, combat nope, role play can be done with any class. Buff nope unless you want to be killed in melee, spell duration so low you have to use magic items ,so any class is just as good at that ability ,plus has thier own. What are you trading that d4 hd for? The only spells that may not have been nerfed its better to play as a bard; illusions, enchantment. The only thing they seem to be leaving spell casters is item creation. Oh real adventurous were back to the npc who stays in his lab or temple.

Aren't you being a little...overdramatic?
Spellcasters still have thier place in every game, and we've only seen a small amount of spells being "nerfed". Spellcasters have a LOT more spells than just the tiny amount we've been shown changed...

 

[Gothmog]

I agree Tallarn, in many cases (scouting, interrogation, sometimes combat) spellcasters with the right buffs were as or more effective than their non-magical counterparts who were designed for the role! I'm glad spellcasters will be less jack-of-all-trades, and more specialized again (ala 1E and 2E).

Originally posted by rangerjohn:

Why play a spell caster now? Scouting nope, combat nope, role play can be done with any class. Buff nope unless you want to be killed in melee, spell duration so low you have to use magic items ,so any class is just as good at that ability ,plus has thier own. What are you trading that d4 hd for? The only spells that may not have been nerfed its better to play as a bard; illusions, enchantment. The only thing they seem to be leaving spell casters is item creation. Oh real adventurous were back to the npc who stays in his lab or temple.

You'd play a spellcaster for the same reason you played them in every previous edition of D&D- for the spells and abilities that they possess that no other character can even begin to approximate. Mass damage spells- check. Planar travel and teleport spells- check. Utility spells- check. The only things that have been taken away were the changes in 3E that made spellcasters overpowered in some circumstances.

Originally posted by Elder-Basilisk:

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.

The sky is falling!!! This is about the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Like I said before, in places where spellcasters were overpowered, some changes have been made which will allow for the group to function better as a whole, rather than as mega-individuals. I think all of the changes I have seen so far have been warranted, both from a rules standpoint and from experience with those spells. And yes, in one campaign I play a cleric who has the buff spells AND Heal/Harm. I'm glad they are changing it since it will keep my character from being the overly dominant force he has been in many cases.

 

[Tidus4444]

it has been revealed that weapon and ammo enhancements no longer stack

Where does it say this? It's right in the DMG about the magic weapons/ arrows section. Or do you mean in 3.5? If so, where can I find this information?

 

[cable]

You'd play a spellcaster for the same reason you played them in every previous edition of D&D- for the spells and abilities that they possess that no other character can even begin to approximate. Mass damage spells- check. Planar travel and teleport spells- check. Utility spells- check. The only things that have been taken away were the changes in 3E that made spellcasters overpowered in some circumstances.

According to what has been revealed so far for 3.5:

All spells requiring failed DC to be useful - nerfed (spell focus/greater spell focus reduced to +1 DC each).

Mass damage spells - nerfed (all classes and monster have dramatically increased hit points in the transition from 2e - 3e). Horring Wilting - nerfed (only useful in very narrow circumstances ie when dealing with evasion capable characters).

Save or die - nerfed (changed to save or take damage: disintegrate, or changed to dramatically reduced duration: hold spells)

Transport spells - nerfed (Teleport range reduced).

Utility spells - nerfed (duration: buff spells and polymorph or effect: greater magic weapon).

I would say that the above categories of nerfs covers basically all areas where the arcane spellcaster is useful in 3e. If we use the above nerfs as baseline we can easily extrapolate that other similar spells will also be similarly nerfed. (eg finger of death, wail of the banshee, dominate person, sleep, colour spray, invisibility etc etc). Like in 3e where the designers deliberately powered up clerics so as to encourage people to play them, 3.5e sees the nerfing of arcane spell casters to discourage people from playing them.

As a side note, in light of all these nerfs, it is quite easy to see why the designers thought the Mystic Theurge is balanced against all the other non-spellcasting classes.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

The sky is falling!!! This is about the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

You don't get out much do you?

Like I said before, in places where spellcasters were overpowered, some changes have been made which will allow for the group to function better as a whole, rather than as mega-individuals.

Exactly which changes have these been that "will allow the group to function better as a whole?"* It seems like hour/level statbuffs were an ideal situation if you wanted a group to function better as a whole than as mega-individuals. Two characters with gauntlets of ogre power, +5 swords, and bracers of health (the effective 3.5e characters) sound like mega-individuals since their abilities are largely independent of each other. Two characters, one of whom casts endurance and bull's strength on the other in return for Cat's Grace and Greater Magic Weapon sounds much more like a group functioning together as a team to me. In the first case, the individuals' abilities are largely independent of each other and their power comes almost entirely from abilities or items they personally possess. In the second case, neither character is operating at peak effectiveness without the other character's contribution. That sounds like the definition of teamwork to me.

One can argue that the 3.5e changes are good for the game. One can't sensibly argue that they increase teamwork. They nerfed all of the most significant teamwork-contributing spells in 3e.

* I suppose people are likely to say that the changes to haste, harm, and heal, are ones that contributes to teamwork vis a vis mega-individuals. I don't buy that though. First, I don't agree that it was a mega-individual spell before. When I have played spellcasters, I've probably cast haste on other PCs at least as often as I cast it upon my own character. Second, a spell has to be worth casting in order to contribute to teamwork. I don't think that most of the applications of haste justify the standard action it will take to cast it. And, while the movement may have tactical teamwork applications that make it an effective tactic, I don't think "I cast haste, then we all retreat and manyshot our enemy to death since he won't be able to catch up to us or get away from us and we can always keep out of his melee range" is a good change. While it might be effective teamwork, it seems more likely to lead to boredom (on the part of the people using it) and frustration (on the receiving end--player or DM) than increased fun.

Changes to heal, I don't think have any effect on teamwork vis a vis mega-individual. High level characters need powerful curing and curing is usually teamwork oriented by its nature. The changes haven't changed that much (although the decreased effectiveness of Heal means that the relative benefits of other spells have increased).

Changes to Harm I think are the only viable contender to be promoting teamwork by reducing the effect of what was probably the most reliable way for any single character to dominate a single encounter. I think that change is far outweighed by the changes to the buffs however.