Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 843478" data-attributes="member: 3146">Nonsense. If you nerf the "must have spells" you don't necessarily get any more variety in spell choice or creativity in spell usage (note that most DMs call this abuse if it is actually useful when it comes up in game). What you see is less variety in spell choice and less variety in tactics.The reason for this is simple--the spells that are being nerfed (other than harm--but especially Haste and to a large degree Hold Person) were enabling spells. The thing people complained about with Haste was that it enabled characters to pull off things that would otherwise be impossible--like Acid Fog or Wall of Fire+Wall of Force (Hemisphere) in one round. Eliminating the current version of Haste removes the that tactic and removes a lot of possibilities for creativity in spell combinations. The change to the Hold Spells is also one that dramatically reduces the possibility for their creative usage. If one can't count on a creature staying out of combat, it's no longer a spell that can be used to stop people without hurting them, remove foes from a fight, or set up for a coup de grace. It's a spell that will be far more suited to the set up for coup de grace manuever than for anything else.As to increasing the variety in spell choice, you won't necessarily see that either. You will only see that if there are more clearly effective tactics than there were before. However, that is not likely to be the case. Instead, there will be fewer. If fireball and magic missile are effective, you'll wizards forgoing haste and prepping another fireball. More variety? I think not. (And would you consider it variety if the wizard went for Icy Burst instead?--if so it's not the kind of variety that makes much of a difference). If fireball and other direct damage spells aren't effective when limited to one per round (and I'm of the opinion that wizards and sorcerors need 2 spells per round if they want to compete with the damage output of fighters, rogues, and barbarians) then, not just one tactic (the buffing mage who hastes all his friends) but two will have dissappeared (the blaster mage will be gone too). So, you'll be seeing a whole lot more wizards with Slow instead. I don't see that as increasing the amount of variety in spell selection.And, of course if nerfing the "must have" spells means that a class has very few effective tactical options (somewhat like the old school fighter/wizard who is very difficult to construct effectively in 3e), you won't see more variety in spell selection--you'll see fewer PCs of that class.</blockquote>

Verification