Do you think Haste is too powerful as is?

Do you think Haste is too powerful as is?

  • Yes, something should be done to curb it's power.

    Votes: 149 47.8%
  • No, we use it as is, and it's just fine.

    Votes: 163 52.2%

I just don't like the extra partial action of haste.

I do not accept the rationale behind it. When I think haste, I think of better initiative, better reflex saves, faster movement. Whomever was responsible for the 3rd ed translation did not do a good enough job with this spell. I simply consider the move+action mechanic of rounds to be a sacred cow and letting someone do more actions via haste to be game breaking. The same is true of slow (and zombies, whose slowness should be incorporated into their speed, AC and dex).

When 3rd ed gets updated, my money is on haste being on the list of things improved.

In regard to the frequency of combat debate, my experience is that it is usually the players who choose how often to fight in a day, especially when they begin teleporting. Resouceful and determined enemies hit the party infrequently and of course they "were"* hasted.:rolleyes:

I do see the distinction between the hasted wizard raining spells unnecessarily during easy fights (and getting caught short later) versus the hasted wizard using just enough force to decisively turn the fight in the first couple of rounds.

IMO the former wizards don't live long enough to get haste and the later is the norm.

The whole running out of spells is bunk, those hasted will use their resources wisely and as needed with an eye for the future. But, not at the expense of getting killed so they could save that cone of cold for later.

*house ruled haste, not so insanely popular now:p
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Whomever was responsible for the 3rd ed translation did not do a good enough job with this spell.

no offense or anything but just an FYI =o)
haste has been doing the same thing since 1st edition =o) except for the aging =o)
 
Last edited:

Happy Monkey said:
I just don't like the extra partial action of haste.


In regard to the frequency of combat debate, my experience is that it is usually the players who choose how often to fight in a day, especially when they begin teleporting. Resouceful and determined enemies hit the party infrequently and of course they "were"* hasted.:rolleyes:

I

It's up to the players when they rest past a certain level, but its up to the DM to give them a reason not to. Time can and should become a factor in later campaigns if not, yes they just teleport in and out, use rope tricks, magnificent manshions etc to get the rest they need and the non-spellcasters look like crap with or without haste. In my games not only is time a factor but so is location. Teleporting to a safe hide away is nice, but the bad guys are doing something while you get 20 hours of rest a day after your one fight.

They might not track down the party, because hey its their safe hideaway, but they will retaliate agaisnt the town the party is protecting, people the party likes, and just generally advcne their goals while the aprty is sleeping. Its up to the DM to make sure the universe doesn't freeze until the party comes back form nap time, and if the DM doesn't he should just expect and accept the fact the spellcasters wil dominate the game.
 

Berk said:
haste has been doing the same thing since 1st edition =o) except for the aging

Except that it did not allow the massive barrage of spells that we now see from spellcasters.

Hmmmm. You know, that seems to be the major point of contention for those that feel haste is overpowered. How convenient of you to forget it... :eek:

-Fletch!
 

mkletch said:
Except that it did not allow the massive barrage of spells that we now see from spellcasters.


Instead it allowed melee oriented characters to become massively more powerful, doubling their number of attacks, whereas now they only get a single extra attack. The emphasis has been altered. It is still a six of one, half dozen of the other situation though.
 

Happy Monkey said:
In regard to the frequency of combat debate, my experience is that it is usually the players who choose how often to fight in a day, especially when they begin teleporting. Resouceful and determined enemies hit the party infrequently and of course they "were"* hasted.:rolleyes:

Whose fault is it that the players don't face resourceful and determined enemies? That's right, your fault as the DM. If you are giving your characters sloppy and faint of heart enemies, it isn't the system's fault that they plough over them, it is your fault.
 

Storm Raven said:
Instead it allowed melee oriented characters to become massively more powerful, doubling their number of attacks, whereas now they only get a single extra attack. The emphasis has been altered. It is still a six of one, half dozen of the other situation though.

I would hardly call melee characters unbalanced when compared to spellcasters, especially the arcane spellcasters that have routine access to haste. On the flip side, perhaps 33-50% of the 3E community feels that spellcasters are overpowered compared to non-spellcasters (and it has always been the case). So what was done was that haste was 'fixed' for 3E to give even more to the spellcasters. It was not necessary, and is absurd in its effect now.

If you disagree with the previous analysis comparing haste to Quicken Spell, then you are not discussing, but rather arguing with a closed mind. I have no desire to debate with a stone.

-Fletch!
 

What if we got rid of the +4 to AC and then stated that the extra partial action couldn't be used to cast a new spell (it could be used to speed up 1 round spells though)?

IceBear
 
Last edited:

Um, Storm Raven, no. Criticising my dming is not on.

There are resourceful enemies aplenty with access to all the crunchy good stuff, scrying, teleport, divination etc... But the majority of encounters are with their servants or just wandering types.

Going by your rationale I should be hurling might after power at this group, regardless to their enemies agendas. I want to keep these types of battles as climaxes, i.e. have variety. Additionally I would like to make clear, I do not want to thwart the pcs, their success is fun for me too. I'm aiming to challenge and threaten.

The rest of the world have other concerns as well as the pcs, indeed the pcs themselves have a host of concerns keeping them busy.

BTW, "I" am the one that has virtually annihilated the party thrice because of haste. Then it dawned on me, 1) this is getting cliche 2) I am encouraging a haste-rush and 3) I am not liking this at all.

Basically IMO the partial action of haste is broken.
 

IceBear said:
What if we got rid of the +4 to AC and then stated that the extra partial action couldn't be used to cast a new spell (it could be used to speed up 1 round spells though)?

Even a +2 bonus to AC would be reasonable. Then it would be a nerfed version of the 1E/2E haste, and it would seem to make both spellcaster-haters and melee-machine-haters happy. :)

And what do we have left? The d20 Modern version.

-Fletch!
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top