D&D 3.x [Dragon] #307 - 3.5 Changes: Some we know, some we don't...
- Thread starter John Crichton
- Start date
shilsen
Adventurer
Dash Dannigan said:
Whether you're in the minority or not, I agree completely with your points. I liked all of the changes, for the same reasons. A couple of them are things I was implementing as house rules, and the rest seem pretty good too. Frankly, I can't see WotC making any changes which everyone would be happy with, but at the same time it does seem like there's a little too much whining about 3.5e. Then again, it was essentially the same when 3e was on the way.
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
If that's what they were thinking then they should rethink it.
Sleep and Charm are also both first level. A PC wizard should get something for casting a 3rd level spell instead of a first level. (And they still do if and only if they're smart enough to leave the weakened version of Hold Person on the cutting room floor). The weakened version of Hold Person may still be worthwhile as a second level spell. (Although I wouldn't take it for my cleric when Sound Burst and Calm Emotions are options). As a third level spell, however, it's competing with the likes of blur and secret page for combat utility.
As for Hold Monster... I'm sure it's effective. However, if the new version is supposed to compete with Wall of Force, Feeblemind, Dominate Person, Summon Monster V, etc, someone's not thinking clearly. A save every round hold monster is comparable to Phantasmal Killer not Cone of Cold.
Disintegrate is also a fort save which is much harder for wizard and rogue types to make. If they were concerned about instakills and the "go get a bag of chips syndrome" they should have changed a large number of spells--Sleep, Phantasmal Killer, Slay Living, Disintegrate, Circle of Death, Finger of Death, Destruction, etc. Let's face it, changing the hold spells to a save every round does a lot for making them less useful but does very little for eliminating the prevalence of "save or die" spells in mid-high level D&D. Given that holds are the nicest of the supposedly instakill effects (effect one target, don't actually kill you on a failed save--just make you coup de graceable--, and are negated by a second level cleric spell (remove paralysis)) claiming to nerf hold person to stop the "bag of chips" syndrome is like walking into the bar carrying a dead kitten and saying "Well, you know the rabid dire lion that's loose on the street, I've done something about it."
No. Most of the ones I'm thinking of remove the character from the game either permanently or until a Ressurection or True Resurrection can be cast.
Don't forget Remove Paralysis. As far as I can tell that's four ways which is more ways than there are to stop Phantasmal Killer (make the save, be a paladin, have Mind Blank active), Sleep (make the save, be 5HD or more, or be an elf), Slay Living (Make the save and have enough hit points to survive the damage or have Death Ward up), Disintegrate (Have the touch attack miss or make the save), or any of the real instakill spells.
As opposed to all of the other spells that make a character dead instead of a candidate for being dead. I don't see why it's more fun to be a easy to kill than to be killed.
Right. Are they going to change the mummy's despair, the Ether Hulk's Daze, the Umber Hulk's Confusion, the Frost Worm's fascination ability, and the Bodak's death gaze then?
Or is it only PC spellcasters who will have their abilities nerfed to the point of uselessness?
John Crichton said:
Sleep and Charm are also both first level. A PC wizard should get something for casting a 3rd level spell instead of a first level. (And they still do if and only if they're smart enough to leave the weakened version of Hold Person on the cutting room floor). The weakened version of Hold Person may still be worthwhile as a second level spell. (Although I wouldn't take it for my cleric when Sound Burst and Calm Emotions are options). As a third level spell, however, it's competing with the likes of blur and secret page for combat utility.
As for Hold Monster... I'm sure it's effective. However, if the new version is supposed to compete with Wall of Force, Feeblemind, Dominate Person, Summon Monster V, etc, someone's not thinking clearly. A save every round hold monster is comparable to Phantasmal Killer not Cone of Cold.
Disintegrate is also a fort save which is much harder for wizard and rogue types to make. If they were concerned about instakills and the "go get a bag of chips syndrome" they should have changed a large number of spells--Sleep, Phantasmal Killer, Slay Living, Disintegrate, Circle of Death, Finger of Death, Destruction, etc. Let's face it, changing the hold spells to a save every round does a lot for making them less useful but does very little for eliminating the prevalence of "save or die" spells in mid-high level D&D. Given that holds are the nicest of the supposedly instakill effects (effect one target, don't actually kill you on a failed save--just make you coup de graceable--, and are negated by a second level cleric spell (remove paralysis)) claiming to nerf hold person to stop the "bag of chips" syndrome is like walking into the bar carrying a dead kitten and saying "Well, you know the rabid dire lion that's loose on the street, I've done something about it."
No. Most of the ones I'm thinking of remove the character from the game either permanently or until a Ressurection or True Resurrection can be cast.
Don't forget Remove Paralysis. As far as I can tell that's four ways which is more ways than there are to stop Phantasmal Killer (make the save, be a paladin, have Mind Blank active), Sleep (make the save, be 5HD or more, or be an elf), Slay Living (Make the save and have enough hit points to survive the damage or have Death Ward up), Disintegrate (Have the touch attack miss or make the save), or any of the real instakill spells.
As opposed to all of the other spells that make a character dead instead of a candidate for being dead. I don't see why it's more fun to be a easy to kill than to be killed.
Also mentioned in the article was that that this will happen to other spells and spell effects as well. Not just hold. That may clear some things up...
Right. Are they going to change the mummy's despair, the Ether Hulk's Daze, the Umber Hulk's Confusion, the Frost Worm's fascination ability, and the Bodak's death gaze then?
Or is it only PC spellcasters who will have their abilities nerfed to the point of uselessness?
I think Hold Person should be level 2 on all lists, and after listening to elder-basilisk, perhaps hold monster should be 4th. Or maybe Hold Monster should automatically work for a few rounds (1d4) before the monster gets to start saving every turn.
The biggest pain seems to be getting through SR, and having the monster fail a save, only to have it pass its save on the next turn. Your spell worked, bypassed everything it needed to, but the spell inherently isnt as powerful because it could just stop the next round. For all that trouble, you might as well have cast some meta-magicked magic missles.
Technik
The biggest pain seems to be getting through SR, and having the monster fail a save, only to have it pass its save on the next turn. Your spell worked, bypassed everything it needed to, but the spell inherently isnt as powerful because it could just stop the next round. For all that trouble, you might as well have cast some meta-magicked magic missles.
Technik
John Crichton
First Post
Well, we don't really know what is going to happen to other spells, but the article did say that they are trying to eliminate many of the "on/off" effects of spells like the current Hold spells. It's a bit early to be calling "nerf!" just yet, IMO.Elder-Basilisk said:
Ok, so the polymorph stuff sounds good as long as Baneful POlymorph can't be used 'for the good'
I think the changes to Hold Person will create more problems than it solves. Currently if someone is held they can be effectivly ignored for the duration of the fight. Thus if a PC is held the DM can just ignore that character and concentrate attacks on other characters; most DMs will not Coup De Grace held PCs, it would be considered mean. Now however, the DM has much more of an incentive/temptation to Coup De Grace the PC. I think the spell has been turned from "Go get the Bag of Chips" to Save or Die.
I think the changes to Hold Person will create more problems than it solves. Currently if someone is held they can be effectivly ignored for the duration of the fight. Thus if a PC is held the DM can just ignore that character and concentrate attacks on other characters; most DMs will not Coup De Grace held PCs, it would be considered mean. Now however, the DM has much more of an incentive/temptation to Coup De Grace the PC. I think the spell has been turned from "Go get the Bag of Chips" to Save or Die.
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
I agree with this 100%. The polymorph changes are the only ones I think sound like improvements
The Hold person change however, definitely changes the tactical use of it from "removing a character from the fight" to "setting a character up for a coup de grace." Even if your foe needs a 16 in order to save, he's still only got about a 50% chance of staying held for two rounds. So, it seems like the primary way to use the spell would be to enable a party member to coup de grace the character. (If you didn't want to coup de grace, you'd use Sound Burst and deal damage as well as have an area effect or Calm Emotions to take multiple foes out of the fight--or if you're a wizard, you'd use fireball, suggestion, or slow). Hold Person isn't likely to take many PC or NPCs out of the fight for long.
The Hold person change however, definitely changes the tactical use of it from "removing a character from the fight" to "setting a character up for a coup de grace." Even if your foe needs a 16 in order to save, he's still only got about a 50% chance of staying held for two rounds. So, it seems like the primary way to use the spell would be to enable a party member to coup de grace the character. (If you didn't want to coup de grace, you'd use Sound Burst and deal damage as well as have an area effect or Calm Emotions to take multiple foes out of the fight--or if you're a wizard, you'd use fireball, suggestion, or slow). Hold Person isn't likely to take many PC or NPCs out of the fight for long.
smetzger said:
John Crichton
First Post
There's a flaw right there in the thinking. All this assuming that a DM won't go for a killing blow with the new Hold vs. the old Hold. If my goal was to kill a group of characters (as the villain or monsters) I'm not looking to just immobilize the big guy for a bit; I want to take him down and kill him. If someone is held and not attacked at all that is putting on the kid gloves. If the system is to be played to its fullest, that held PC should go down first reguardless of if the spell will end soon or not. I know that when I run things, that if I'm going to toss off a hold spell that PC is in deep trouble as he will be dead soon.
Besides, where's the heroics in just knowing that the foe will be held for X amount of time. It'll be fun to have that big, armoured, evil cleric walk up for a coup de grace, only to meet a very pissed off and very mobile fighter at the last second. Just sounds right to me.
Besides, where's the heroics in just knowing that the foe will be held for X amount of time. It'll be fun to have that big, armoured, evil cleric walk up for a coup de grace, only to meet a very pissed off and very mobile fighter at the last second. Just sounds right to me.
I also think that the new Hold Person will result in _more_ PC deaths than the old one.
Under the old system, my NPC spellcasters would cheerfully ignore the Held fighter and concentrate on the still-moving PCs (after all, he wasn't a threat, and they could always take care of him afterwards. Better to focus on wiping out the rest of the party). Now? There's a significant chance that he'll be freed up quickly, so my strategy will change: surround him with henchmen, Hold him and have them all coup-de-grace him.
That's not being nasty, it's just tactically sound. You can't risk waiting to coup-de-grace when the fight's over, so you'd better do it immediately, and as frequently as possible before the spell wears off.
In once-a-week play over the past 2 years, we've seen _one_ PC death to Hold person; the party often stocked up on Remove Paralysis scrolls. Now? If I play it right, the Held PC will rarely last long enough for a Remove Paralysis to be useful.
Under the old system, my NPC spellcasters would cheerfully ignore the Held fighter and concentrate on the still-moving PCs (after all, he wasn't a threat, and they could always take care of him afterwards. Better to focus on wiping out the rest of the party). Now? There's a significant chance that he'll be freed up quickly, so my strategy will change: surround him with henchmen, Hold him and have them all coup-de-grace him.
That's not being nasty, it's just tactically sound. You can't risk waiting to coup-de-grace when the fight's over, so you'd better do it immediately, and as frequently as possible before the spell wears off.
In once-a-week play over the past 2 years, we've seen _one_ PC death to Hold person; the party often stocked up on Remove Paralysis scrolls. Now? If I play it right, the Held PC will rarely last long enough for a Remove Paralysis to be useful.
Last edited:
IceBear
Explorer
Yeah, a lot of good points about the Hold spells. Again, we're seeing things in a vaccuum so maybe some of these points have been addressed, but I'm not holding my breath. I do agree that, tactically, one could ignore held opponents in 3E whereas in 3.5 one should go for the CdG.
IceBear
IceBear
Similar Threads
