D&D 3.x City of the Spider Queen/3.5 Haste

[Jeremy]

Alright, so even the very first encounter of the module, the suggested tactics are, haste yourself, then cast two lightning bolts per round.

There are a lot of spellcasters in this module and I imagine many will be attempting to use this strategy.

What would be a comparable spell level for 3.5 for 3.0 haste?

What would be a good spell level for 3.0 haste without the AC bonus?

What would be a good spell level for a spell that only quicked one spell per round? (Thus allowing for the same 3.0 haste 2 spells per round, but not the occasional 3 spells from standard, extra partial, and free quickened.)

I figure I can have them research a spell like this and then keep their tactics if they are high enough level to cast it.

Or maybe anyone have any other suggestions for running City of the Spider Queen / Spiral of the Manzessine in 3.5?

 

[Nifft]

Make use of the Quicken Spell metamagic feat.

Use other tactics, such as trying to stay alive for more than 2 rounds, or NOT being a direct-damage blaster guy. E.g.: Wizard casts Improved Invisibility on the Rogue, who then snipes using Rapid Shot. Wizard does hides, and runs away if directly attacked.

Give every NPC a Greater Rod of Metamagic (Quicken) that only they can use. Seriously, that's how you'll be breaking the power level by allowing them 3.0e Haste. Just Say No.

-- N

 

[Jeremy]

Quicken Spell: Already accounted for in the module.
Non-Blaster Tactics and Running: Already accounted for by the DM.

The module was designed with the challenges already balanced for two spells per round casting, there are many people who have successfully run it using 3.0 rules. But because the PC's will not have access to the same double-fisted casting, I don't want to add it in whole hog. So I was thinking a 6th, 7th, or maybe even 9th level spell equivalent that had one of the effects listed in the first post. Mechanically, is 3.0 haste for 20 rounds as a 9th level spell drastically better than 3.5 shapechange at 9th level for 3 and a half hours of turning into chokers and cloakers and pit fiends and solars and blink dogs and whatever else you can think of as a free action each round?

What about with the limitations imposed in the original post?

 

[Jeremy]

Or something like this:

Duneth's Perfected Astral Juxtaposition
Conjuration
Level: Sor/Wiz 8
Components: V, S, F
Casting Time: 1 round
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1 round/two-levels

The caster of this spell transposes the Astral Plane around himself, making him subject to the plane's planar traits without leaving the plane he is on. This spell can only be cast on planes that are coterminous with the Astral Plane. Any pre-existing planar traits of the plane the caster is on are unaffected. This spell has no effect if cast while on the Astral Plane.

Unlike previous incarnations of this spell, Duneth's Perfected Astral Juxtaposition grants a +6 competence bonus to Wisdom checks to control the Astral Plane's subjective directional gravity.

A dimensional anchor, dimensional lock or similar effect counters this spell and the spell cannot be cast if the caster is under such an effect.

Focus: A full-body suit of Astral Thread mesh worth no less than 5,000 gp, which you must be wearing when casting the spell and for its duration.

 

[monboesen]

Any effect that will let enemy casters use two spells a round without players being able to respond in kind will skew CR completely, easily leading to a TPK. Especially in a surprise situation.

IMO the old style haste is broken even as a 9th level spell. It will still be the first spell any caster with access to it will cast in combat. And I'm willing to bet that it will be every sorcerers first 9th level spell.

The game is simply not geared for spellcasters freely casting two spells a round, not even if both sides are able to do it. It dimnishes the rest of the characters as well.

You will just have to think out appropiate tactics yourself. If the wizards in the module have allies haste might still be an excellent choise in order to make them more potent in melee and getting them into it faster.

 

[Kalanyr]

Why are people so up in arms against 3e Haste anyway with regard to spells ? The largest problem I had with it was meleers using it to get Full Round Attacks and to dodge Large and In Charge. Quicken Spell is a suckful metamagic feat (then again most metamagic feats suck), nerfing everything else to make a poor feat good is not always the key to balance (Imagine if they reduced a fighter to a d8 for hp so Toughness was useful ). Something that allowed you to cast spells up to 1 spell level lower than the slot expended would work for me.

eg

Acran's Arcane Alacrity
Level 4
Casting Time: 1 Swift Action
Target: Personal
Duration: 1 round/level

You can cast 1 spell per round of level 3 or below as a swift action in addition to a normal spell from your standard action.

If you really think thats horrendously unbalanced tweak the spell level penalty to 2 levels below or whatever or the swift action to a move action, Or 2 spells per round as a Full Round Action, or whatever.

 

[monboesen]

The problem is not that its powerful as both sides of a combat will use and it tends to cancel itself out. The problem is that its not really a choise. If it exists you have to cast it first thing in combat because it makes you almost twice as good. In fights where one side does not have the ability to use it, that spell alone will usually decide the outcome.

And as pointed out it can be almost as good for meleers as for spellcasters, though in my games it has been more advantegeous for casters. Especially sorcerers who don't often run out of spells gain enormeously from the spell.

Any spell that is such a no-brainer has to be looked carefully at. WOTC did and found it to good. They didn't replace it or make a higher level spell that duplicated its effects for a reason.

 

[Li Shenron]

The problem is not that its powerful as both sides of a combat will use and it tends to cancel itself out. The problem is that its not really a choise. If it exists you have to cast it first thing in combat because it makes you almost twice as good. In fights where one side does not have the ability to use it, that spell alone will usually decide the outcome.

I agree, IMHO 3.0 Haste was boring rather than broken.

Jeremy, I don't know how the adventure was designed around this tactic, but if it really is, perhaps it's best to use 3.0 Haste at its old level, even if the new 3.5 Haste is available as well.

If you want an opinion about which level the old Haste should be in 3.5, I think one or two levels higher would be enough. Since NPC are going to be higher level than PC in general, you may want to keep the spell at lower level so that your PCs don't have to face hastened villains while they cannot learn it yet.

 

[Nifft]

There is an imbalance, though: NPCs aren't necessarily intended to attack the PCs once each, while PCs are supposed to last all day. Allowing 3.0 Haste to either side will heavily favor the expendible NPCs over the PCs.

3.5e removed it for a reason. Deal with it -- modify the NPCs tactics, perhaps substituting something defensive (displacement) or something offensive (slow).

-- N

 

[Li Shenron]

There is an imbalance, though: NPCs aren't necessarily intended to attack the PCs once each, while PCs are supposed to last all day. Allowing 3.0 Haste to either side will heavily favor the expendible NPCs over the PCs.

However the poster says that the whole adventure uses the tactic a lot, and everything is balanced around this fact. I have no idea how this could be, but if the adventure specifically says so... is it possible that removing 3.0 Haste from the villain's tactics makes them too weak?

What sounds strange to me is the authors giving the spell a large focus. If that is true, it may be more problematic to use the revised version of it rather than keeping it as it was before. Picture a 3.0 adventure against fiends which revolves around the fact that they have powerful abilities but few hit points... if you use the 3.5 versions of them, the result may be very different