Do you think Haste is too powerful as is?

[Shard O'Glase]

Re: My opinion

Since this particular thread has gone on for several pages and shows no sign of slowing down, this opinion will most likely be buried. And since it is past the 6th page, it is not too likely to be read by many. So be it.

My definition of an over powered ANYTHING is as follows:

Lets say you are going into a fight that is at least EQUAL in power to your party.

As an Attacker:
Would you always (95% of the time or more) choose to cast Haste at the expense of other viable options?

As a Defender:
Do you find it worth while to use time and / or resources to prepare a defense specifically against Haste at the expense of other strategic and tactical considerations?

If a typical party finds its self about to fight a Large Dragon, an identical hostile party, or other difficult foe, they will probably feel compelled to cast or use Haste. If they want to cast a single target buff spell, there are many choices. Blink, StoneSkin, Fire Shield, Improved Invisibility, or Mirror Image. All are likely to be useful in a variety of circumstances. They could also choose instead ot attack. Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Ice Storm, and Enervation are all powerful attacks. But Haste is simply more useful then all of those.

As a Defender, someone could choose to either use spells or items to gain elemental resistance, protection against summoned creatures, protection from melee attacks, protection from ranged attacks, or a form of escape. Dispel Magic is truly a great spell, but are you taking to cancel a StoneSkin? Are you trying to remove Mirror Image and Blink? Or are you most afraid of an opponent using Haste?

For me, the answer to the first question at least is yes. I cannot think of any circumstances where using Haste is a bad idea. As a chosen action, its potential benefits out do all other actions I can think of. I can think of no other 3rd level spell that is as helpful to cast. I can think of no other magical effect that is as useful for a similar cost.

As for the second question, the answer is almost a Yes. If you know your opponent is going to use Haste, you will want to counter it before most other considerations. But most tactics that work against Haste are also effective for other considerations as well. Slow is a great spell to cast anyway. Against melee attackers, it is crippling. Dispel Magic will take down more then just Haste. Haste also has a reasonably short duration, and if you can keep the party from attacking you for the duration. Throwing a few Wall spells between you and the hasted opponents can keep you safe long enough. Turning Invisible and waiting the spell out will work as well. You can also just enter a Rope Trick and consume some healing items / spells. Parties of Humanoids can just take Run actions and scatter to minimize casualties.

The spell is not broken to the point of being game breaking, but it is way too useful for a 3rd level spell with an easily found component. StoneSkin is arguably more useful, but it costs 250 gp per casting, and is 4th level. I dont mind it being a 3rd leve spell, but I think it should at least have a costly component requirement.

END COMMUNICATION

I'm not going to massively disagree with your conclusion that haste is too good for 3rd level without a costly component.(I'd rather it be bumped up a level, I never cast spells with costly material components it IMO suckifies every spell) But I masively disagree with your assesment that haste is virtually always the goto spell. Anyone who plays their wiz/sors like that is playing their character extremely poorly.

Many encoutners are much more effected by a single slow spell(to the point that casting haste would be a waste), a fireball can suffieciently end a large range of encounters, again making haste a waste, heck web frequently is much more useful to cast than a haste. People who always goto haste are wasting spells and not being even remotely cost effective with their spellcasters. This matters little in the one encounter per day style of gaming, but in games where you have multiple encounters per day like a dungeon crawl, or games with a time limit you need to end encoutners in the fewest spells and resources spent possible. Sometimes that means haste, and lots of other spells to reduce HP loss on your side, other times other spells do a much bette job without needing a haste.

In any big encoutner yes your likely to see haste cast. It is one of the few buffs out there that helps out every class, and one of the very few that actually helps out the wiz/sor in ways other than simple protection. Also other than its slot it has no cost, sicne you gai the extra partial aciton the round you cast the spell. which the more i think about it the more I think that itself might be enough of a nerf, if you don't have a round to set up, casting this spell would be a round your not doing anything to stop your foes, and many times you just don't have a round to spend on a virtual non-acitonso you'll be better in future rounds. I'd probably still place it at 4th level, it would just be a slightly weak 4th level then.

 

[Simulacrum]

I came across this idea (from a very intelligent and experienced gamer whom I trust). First I thought it to be funny, but after some thought I see that it has some potential without changing the spell too much:
Give haste a *onset* time. --> meaning that the spell needs a few rounds to speed you up! 2 rounds would be cool - 3 maybe too much.
(duration starts running after the warmup!)
It would still be an awesome spell and yet it wouldn't be that overused and overpowered in most situations, it would also create the need for some tactics to employ it properly, that is a good option I think and removes the need to bump it up a level or change the effects.
-
check my poll and throw your vote!

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Re: Re: My opinion

Many encoutners are much more effected by a single slow spell(to the point that casting haste would be a waste), a fireball can suffieciently end a large range of encounters, again making haste a waste, heck web frequently is much more useful to cast than a haste.

<and>

In any big encoutner yes your likely to see haste cast. It is one of the few buffs out there that helps out every class, and one of the very few that actually helps out the wiz/sor in ways other than simple protection.

I am aware of those two points. Thats why I worded my question the way I did. It does not really help to judge a spell or abilities power by seeing if it is used in every little encounter. Often enough, the weaker encounters are easy enough that a player will have about 6 different ways to end it quickly with a minimal risk.

I find it more instructive to take a look at the tougher fights, were there is, lets say, a 60% or greater chance of a character reaching zero hp. If in every difficult encounter the players seem to resort to a single given tactic or spell, then you should take a closer look at it.

By their nature, spells which affect someones ability to act are more powerful then most people realize. Reducing or removing the actions that can be taken is nearly lethal. Against single creatures, Hold person is pretty much a Save or Die spell. But spells that grant more actions are frighteningly powerful.

Another thing that may bear consideration is that a partial attack action is not as effective as a full attack action, where as a partial spell casting action is typically just as good as one cast normally (Casting times aside). One possible "Fix" for those who feel compelled to modify the spell may be to limit the spells that can be cast with the partial action to being 3rd level or less.

Anyway, that about covers everything on this topic for me.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Ravellion]

Serious. I saw this in an early design article from one of the primary 3E designers, and have spent much of my free time today trying to track it down. IMO, it is a core philosophy behind any good game design.

I think this might come from Dragon #275's "how to design a feat" article. I am not 100% sure though.

rav

 

[WizarDru]

but after some thought I see that it has some potential without changing the spell too much:
Give haste a *onset* time. --> meaning that the spell needs a few rounds to speed you up! 2 rounds would be cool - 3 maybe too much.
(duration starts running after the warmup!)
It would still be an awesome spell and yet it wouldn't be that overused and overpowered in most situations, it would also create the need for some tactics to employ it properly, that is a good option I think and removes the need to bump it up a level or change the effects.

That would make the spell virtually useless, without appropriate planning. A spell that takes 3 rounds before it has an effect is just leading to delayed starts to the same combat, or cutting the legs of the spell so badly that it's not going to be used at all. The only combats I know of that last longer than four rounds are mega-boss fights, particuarly when the PCs are depeleted of resources.

 

[Simulacrum]

That would make the spell virtually useless, without appropriate planning. A spell that takes 3 rounds before it has an effect is just leading to delayed starts to the same combat, or cutting the legs of the spell so badly that it's not going to be used at all. The only combats I know of that last longer than four rounds are mega-boss fights, particuarly when the PCs are depeleted of resources.

bla, 4 rounds? What the hell are you talkig about, certainly not a balanced D&D game combat. I have never played any fight that went on under 12 rounds. (Your group seems to play d&d like it was Diablo 2 or something like that.)
Also the warmup time is 2 rounds not 3...I stated that 3 is too much. Also it would be possibly to allow Haste to be casted as a free action like the spell enhancer so you could at least cast another spell the same round you cast Haste, thus losing the initial round, so the wait is actually only one round after the casting.
1 round warmup would be enough in non powergaming campaigns.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Re: Re: Re: My opinion

I am aware of those two points. Thats why I worded my question the way I did. It does not really help to judge a spell or abilities power by seeing if it is used in every little encounter. Often enough, the weaker encounters are easy enough that a player will have about 6 different ways to end it quickly with a minimal risk.

I find it more instructive to take a look at the tougher fights, were there is, lets say, a 60% or greater chance of a character reaching zero hp. If in every difficult encounter the players seem to resort to a single given tactic or spell, then you should take a closer look at it.

By their nature, spells which affect someones ability to act are more powerful then most people realize. Reducing or removing the actions that can be taken is nearly lethal. Against single creatures, Hold person is pretty much a Save or Die spell. But spells that grant more actions are frighteningly powerful.

Another thing that may bear consideration is that a partial attack action is not as effective as a full attack action, where as a partial spell casting action is typically just as good as one cast normally (Casting times aside). One possible "Fix" for those who feel compelled to modify the spell may be to limit the spells that can be cast with the partial action to being 3rd level or less.

Anyway, that about covers everything on this topic for me.

END COMMUNICATION

The problem is when you limit it to the big fights, your reasoning would knock out virtually every buff in the game. What big fight is entered without stat buffs, any fighting cleric who gets the chance will cast divne power, or divine might, the very nature of buffs make you more effective, so they will always be cast for a big fight. The short duraiton ones(rounds or minutes)are usually a bit more powerful and therefore are almost always cast at the begining of any big fight. Basically my point is if you don't look at all fight encoutners,and instead just look at the big ones as your point of refernce to see if certain spells are overcast and therefore too good virtually every buff spell in the game that isn't superceeded by a beter version will be too good, and the ones that are superceeded will be too good until they are superceeded.

And personally I think people underate what a partial action means to a fighter. Yeah it can always mean an extra spell for a spellcaster which is a big boost. But being able to partial charge and then full attack in the 1st round is easilt as big of a boost for the fighters, after you are in posistion and just hacking away the utility of an extra partial aciton drops, but anytime the fighter needs to move an extra partial aciton is of incredible use.

And yes spells that effect the number of aciotns you can take are masively powerufl(hence why I think slow is even more potent than haste until its low level save modifier makes the save easy) which is why I am not disagreeing with your conclusion, jsut your methods to reach said conclusion.

 

[maddman75]

I think it's still unbalanced in the hands of an NPC.

Balance is *completely* irrelevent for NPCs. The DM can give them any ability he wants. I could outlaw the haste spell and then say that the pact this evil sorcerer made with a demon gives him Demonic Speed for one round per level once a day, giving him an extra partial action and a +4 profane (just for flavor) bonus to AC.

Are dragons balanced? The closest you come to ANY concern for NPC balance is CR value for XP calculation. And if you feel that haste gives this paticular baddie an especially useful advantage, the DM can always award more XP.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

bla, 4 rounds? What the hell are you talkig about, certainly not a balanced D&D game combat. I have never played any fight that went on under 12 rounds. (Your group seems to play d&d like it was Diablo 2 or something like that.)
Also the warmup time is 2 rounds not 3...I stated that 3 is too much. Also it would be possibly to allow Haste to be casted as a free action like the spell enhancer so you could at least cast another spell the same round you cast Haste, thus losing the initial round, so the wait is actually only one round after the casting.
1 round warmup would be enough in non powergaming campaigns.

12 round fights.
If a session of mie had a 12 round fight, I don't think anything would be accomplished that day except the fight. I'm in the 3-4 round fight camp. And I don't think it is because we play the game diablo style.

 

[Creampuff]

For me, the jury is still out on whether or not haste is too powerful. A few thoughts:

If you took a 5th level wizard with a 15 intellegence, and haste and fireball are his two 3rd level spells, and a 5th level barbarian of equal ability and started them 20 feet apart and ran this combat lots of times, I would argue the barbarian would win more often than not. If anything, haste is at best an equalizer in this situation.

I disagree with the argument that enemies preparing for haste with slow and dispel magics is metagaming. Do PCs use haste a lot? Absolutly. Why? Because they are smart. Should enemies use haste frequently along with having slows and dispel magics? Absolutly. Why? Because they are smart and have been around al least as long as the PCs, and thus know the tactical advantages of such spells. Unless you as a DM prefer ignorant, incompetent oponents to challange your PCs, having them prepare for the best possible fight is not metagaming, its being a good DM.

I am not sure if the 'if everyone uses it, it must be too powerful' argument is a valid point or not. But I think that a modified haste that only allows an extra move equivelent action and a +2 dodge bonus would make haste an underbalanced spell.

Just a few thoughts.