Disintegrate vs. Slay Living

[Lord Pendragon]

Setting aside the collateral damage, is the old 3.0 Disintegrate any different from a Heightened Slay Living?

I've never played a high-level cleric, so I missed this spell until recently browsing the SRD. If the old Disintegrate was so unbalancing, why didn't they nerf Slay Living along with it?


Another thing that annoys me about the Disintegrate change. It's still a save-or-die spell if used against a wizard (2d6 per level damage vs. 1d4+con hp means nearly 100% chance of death), but now it's not save-or-die if used against a fighter, or even more, a barbarian or high-CR critter.

I'd like to hear some opinions about this. Based on my (erroneous?) perceptions, I'm considering asking my DM if I can research the 3.0 Disintegrate as a new spell in our current 3.5 game.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Setting aside the collateral damage, is the old 3.0 Disintegrate any different from a Heightened Slay Living?

I've never played a high-level cleric, so I missed this spell until recently browsing the SRD. If the old Disintegrate was so unbalancing, why didn't they nerf Slay Living along with it?


Another thing that annoys me about the Disintegrate change. It's still a save-or-die spell if used against a wizard (2d6 per level damage vs. 1d4+con hp means nearly 100% chance of death), but now it's not save-or-die if used against a fighter, or even more, a barbarian or high-CR critter.

I'd like to hear some opinions about this. Based on my (erroneous?) perceptions, I'm considering asking my DM if I can research the 3.0 Disintegrate as a new spell in our current 3.5 game.

the big difference people bring up is the death effect nature of slay living which limits its targets and creates a good defense in death ward. unlike finger of death and or destruciton(which i've compared disinigrate against) slay living also requires a touch attack which puts another limitation on it that disinigrate shares. also disnigrate gets a dual purpose in its matter destruction role. I hate save or dies as a general rule so I like a trend towards what disinigrate did, but as is its save or die vs not just wiz/sor but most pc classes its only a potent damager not save or die vs big monsters.

 

[Norfleet]

Setting aside the collateral damage, is the old 3.0 Disintegrate any different from a Heightened Slay Living?

You knew that I'd have something to say about collateral damage, didn't you? From the disintegrate I knew in second edition, I'd have stared at you kind of funny for even proposing its use against people. I'm sure that a violation of the Geneva Convention or something.

But yes, the obvious difference is that slay living is used to slay living things, whereas disintegrate is used against non-living things.

 

[hong]

Slay living also requires a melee touch attack, as opposed to a ranged touch attack. It tends to be more dangerous to use.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Hmm. There are definitely several points brought up that I hadn't considered.

1. Disintegrate cannot be blocked by Death Ward.

2. Disintegrate requires a ranged touch attack, not a standard touch attack, and hence is more dangerous to use.

One point brought up that I tend to disagree with: 3.5 Disintegrate is not a save-or-die spell vs. most PC classes. Only Sor/Wiz. Other classes have more hit points (at full) on average than Disintegrate can deal on average. Sor/Wizzies, however, have less average hp than Disintegrate deals on a failed save, meaning that a failed save vs. Disintegrate will almost always result in death.

Considering points 1 and 2, I'm still of a mind to write up my 3.0 Disintegrate and see if my DM will allow it. It just doesn't seem unbalancing. Then again, perhaps he will see it otherwise.

Edit: Missed an italics tag.

 

[Darklone]

Slay Living does not work against undeads, constructs, cave ceilings (ever checked the cave-in rules? Buried enemies are as good as dead), castle gates...

 

[Norfleet]

Slay Living does not work against undeads, constructs, cave ceilings (ever checked the cave-in rules? Buried enemies are as good as dead), castle gates...

Hell, yes. Why do you think the ability to cause collateral damage is one of the primary considerations I use when picking a spell? Any halfwit can lob damage directly at opponents, but it takes true tactical finesse to skillfully orchestrate a spell so that not only does it directly damage opponents, but it damages them AGAIN as a result of the fallout from collateral damage...or never damaged them directly to begin with, but the fallout was far more devastating than the spell ever could have been directly.

 

[nameless]

I agree with those who say Disintegrate is a little bit underpowered now. It is the kind of spell that should bring down a powerful opponent, there are spells better suited to bringing down multiple weak opponents. Spells in general are less deadly in 3.5E, so I won't nitpick that point.

I'm bummed that it's so ineffective against objects now. When it first becomes available, it'll do 22d6, averaging 77 damage. That takes care of most small objects, but big pieces of construction like walls, doors, and pillars (not to mention boats or wagons) tend to have hundreds of hp and a disintegrate ends up just doing cosmetic damage.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Well, disintegrate is now a spell which requires an attack roll and which deals damage. This has a couple of side-effects

1. You can crit with it
2. You can sneak attack with it (Arcane Trickster)
3. You can empower, maximize (and intensify) it

Also, it works against almost everything, including enemies with death ward, constructs, undead, objects.

What I want to say: Fear that epic arcane trickster sneak attacking with an intensified disintegrate and scoring a crit!

 

[Grog]

Another thing that annoys me about the Disintegrate change. It's still a save-or-die spell if used against a wizard (2d6 per level damage vs. 1d4+con hp means nearly 100% chance of death), but now it's not save-or-die if used against a fighter, or even more, a barbarian or high-CR critter.

This is my biggest problem with the new Disintegrate too, although a barbarian or high-CR critter would probably have made the Fort save in the past anyway.

But still, a spell that's pretty much guaranteed to kill a PC should have the same utility when used by a PC. That's my opinion, anyway.