Haste, should it age you?

[da chicken]

[ignore]

 

[da chicken]

[note: stop using opera on these boards]

 

[da chicken]

PCs have all of the advantages, anyway. More and better equipment, typically they have strategic initiaitve, often more knowledge of the opposition than the opposition has regarding a small band of random mercenaries. So, let the NPCs use haste with impunity (assuming they feel their lives are in danger).

If you don't want to be hasted, it does allow a Fort save, even as is.

The point is, the spell becomes too powerful for NPCs if it ages. There's a reason aging is no longer used as a balancing mechanic. You won't find it anywhere in any WotC published material. It balances the game for PCs and not for NPCs. Ultimately, this is why no-save miasma is a very bad spell, and why "triple natural 20 = death" is a bad rule for PCs.

I don't know about you, but in the games I play and run, the PCs never have all the advantages. NPCs are always more plentiful, and often more powerful. NPCs after level 8 or so almost always know that the PCs are coming, and after level 12 they start to know when they're attacking.

NPCs don't need the "advantage" of an unbalanced spell because the PCs have it hard enough already when the game is fair.

Being as there is not (to my knowledge) any spell that simply grants a partial action in any WotC source, there is no basis for assigning the "extra partial action = +3 bonus" value. Just because somebody pulled that figure out of their rear does not give it the value of Truth.

No, but it is reasonable.

The +4 haste bonus to AC, per the spell, is lost if you lose your Dex or dodge bonus to AC (e.g. flat-footed, bluffed, etc.). This makes it not quite as good as a +4 enhancement bonus.

Ah, but it stacks with everything. Meaning you can get an epic AC bonus from non-epic armor (+5 mithral shirt of speed = +13 AC, +7 max Dex, light, no check penalty). Additionally, while you might lose the bonus in some circumstances, the bonus will apply at times when an armor bonus or natural armor bonus would not (touch AC, incorporeal attacks, et al). It should be worth +4.

Note also, that while a natural armor bonus is decidedly worse than a deflection bonus, a ring of protection +X and an amulet of natural armor +X cost the same. All non "armor" AC bonuses are costed by: bonus * bonus * 2,000 gp, whereas normal armor bonuses are bonus * bonus * 1,000 gp. That's why bracers of armor are cheaper than rings of protection. Meaning you're already getting a break by calling it +4.

And the extra partial action? Well, there's a weapon enchantment, speed, that grants an extra attack for a +4 bonus. A partial action is better than that in every conceivable way, making it +5 minimum.

Gee, now it appears the overall bonus should be closer to +9 or +10!

This is all moot, BTW, as the most recent issue of the Main FAQ changes it to work exactly like boots of speed and costs +2.

My whole point is that the item values are dependent upon the levels of the original spell. If you want to raise the bonus, you have to increase the level of the spell. Or you have to throw out the whole system despite the fact that it works nearly all the time. Or you have to admit that you are being random and inconsistent. Not that it really matters which one you pick. It is your game. But you have to declare your intent if you want to discuss this any further. Where do you stand on the system? Do one or two spells invalidate it, or are those spells in some way 'wrong'?

-Fletch!

Inconsistent? With what? Your opinion?

Look, you can't cost a permanent haste effect as if you were just making any 3rd level spell permanent. You don't get to ignore game design just because you find a cheaper way to price something.[i/] If the spell provides AC bonuses, you have to price them as AC bonuses. Proper game design involves not allowing players to get something for nothing, and you're ignoring the fact that haste has a very limited duration. If we look at Persistant Spell (which doesn't apply to haste, but it serves as a good example), you must spend +4 levels for an (effectively) permanent spell. Meaning a permanent haste spell would be about 7th level.

What did you say earlier? +7 would be 8th level? Gee, isn't that kinda close?

I don't care about haste. There are other things in the game that are blatantly badly designed (harm, polymorph other, simulacrum, gate).

And if we're talking about spells, we're necessarily talking about components of the system, and not the system itself. Nobody is claiming the initiative system doesn't work, or that combat actions are messed up.

My "intent" was to make three points:
1. Aging is a bad mechanic. It was purposely designed out of the system.
2. d20 Modern uses a nerfed from of haste, which people who find the spell too powerful might want to look at.
3. WotC staff has been quoted as saying that speed, as presented in DotF, would more correctly calculate out to about +7.

 

[cea]

I think haste is powerful (at least for low magic world)
and haste should be 4.

But instead of putting it to 4, I have a suggestion.

someone who is hasted, exhausted after the duration of haste.
ie he will be very tired, and he will get some penalty to his AR and his dex. (or any appropriate penalties, I dont know)

what about this?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I would impose fatigue penalties during the battle, not after the fact. In the hands of an NPC... and what if the PC isn't challenged immediately after the fight?

 

[Lela]

I would impose fatigue penalties during the battle, not after the fact. In the hands of an NPC... and what if the PC isn't challenged immediately after the fight?

Just after the spell ends would work for me. The BBN goes the same route with the idea. It won't come up often at higher levels but when it does, it will have a powerful effect on the battle.

But, on another note, I have to go with the guys who've don't see the spell often. My munchkin spellcaster has actually made use of other spells, feats, and skills to unbalance the game. I don't mind this. I find ways to up other characters and they don't mind the descrepancy anyway. Sometimes they prefer it. Thus, I don't think Haste would bug me too much. Though I am starting to worry about him bringing in a Sorcerer to the current campaign. He'll be our first Arcane in a party filled with Druids and Rangers. We'll have to work everything into a new swing, but it'll work.

Looking at how serious you're all taking this, I find it ironic that I consider D&D to be one of the only areas of my life where I can be completely sure everything will work out. You know, the whole "Game" thing.

Enjoy,

 

[mkletch]

The point is, the spell becomes too powerful for NPCs if it ages. There's a reason aging is no longer used as a balancing mechanic. You won't find it anywhere in any WotC published material. It balances the game for PCs and not for NPCs. Ultimately, this is why no-save miasma is a very bad spell, and why "triple natural 20 = death" is a bad rule for PCs.

This statement implies that the NPCs are a) disposable combat elements, or b) NPCs are not viable, long term game elements with realistic desires, motivations, fears, etc. If something is balanced for PCs, it should be balanced for NPCs, unless you have a very unrealistic game world.

As for miasma, that depends on how you interpret the description/wording. As for "triple natural 20 = death", that depends on your gaming style. If you have or want a high-lethality world, where combat is discouraged and roleplaying emphasized, then 20-20-20 is a great way to do that.

And the extra partial action? Well, there's a weapon enchantment, speed, that grants an extra attack for a +4 bonus. A partial action is better than that in every conceivable way, making it +5 minimum.

That one has no basis in the game system, either. The base spell is haste, and if you reverse engineer the pricing on most weapons, and then apply that formula to a speed weapon, it should be a +1 bonus, not +4. So again, to get a reasonable effective bonus for a speed weapon, we have to increase the spell level of haste. Another data point for raising the level of haste.

And if we're talking about spells, we're necessarily talking about components of the system, and not the system itself. Nobody is claiming the initiative system doesn't work, or that combat actions are messed up.

This, I guess, is what I have been trying to point out for some time. The fact that the magic system almost always works well means that it can be used to detect/reveal poorly designed game elements. Haste is only one of a moderately long list of spells that are normally questionable with that POV reinforced by the magic item system.

-Fletch!

 

[da chicken]

This statement implies that the NPCs are a) disposable combat elements, or b) NPCs are not viable, long term game elements with realistic desires, motivations, fears, etc. If something is balanced for PCs, it should be balanced for NPCs, unless you have a very unrealistic game world.

Pick up a D&D module. Any of them. It shouldn’t matter. Read a couple encounters. Many of them say “the creatures attack on sight and fight until dead.” Now look in the DMG. Look at the NPC wealth-by-level guideline chart. Now look at the PC wealth-by-level guideline chart. Now look in the Monster Manual. Look at Dragaons, who have an unlimited use breath weapon. Look at Demons and Devils, who have numerous high-level spell-like abilities usable at will.

Do you know why a Balor, who has spells like blasphemy and greater dispelling at will isn’t broken? Because he’s never on the scene long enough for there to be an appreciable difference between “at will” and “X times per day.” The only “at will” spell PCs can get is detect evil.

The rules are different for NPCs. The game not only acknowledges this, it assumes it. Ignore your suspension of disbelief you use in-game and look at what happens in a D&D game rationally. Look at it like a game designer. That is how you determine if something is balanced.

Balanced in our context does not mean equal.

That one has no basis in the game system, either. The base spell is haste, and if you reverse engineer the pricing on most weapons, and then apply that formula to a speed weapon, it should be a +1 bonus, not +4. So again, to get a reasonable effective bonus for a speed weapon, we have to increase the spell level of haste. Another data point for raising the level of haste.

I guess that means true strike needs to be an epic spell, ‘cause that works out to 800,000 gp on a magic item. And slay living can be first, since arrows of slaying only cost ~2,000 gp.

Your method is flawed. You’re reverse engineering and comparing the result to basic guidelines, not recipies. The weapon enhancment speed is priced at +4 because of ad-hoc balance requirements. When you’re balancing a game system, you can’t assume that your general pricing sceme is going to work across the board. That’s why the guidelines for magic item pricing say “look to what other items which have similar effects cost,” not “price things as cheap as the guidelines allow and to heck with sanity.” You must look at the effects of your design and not just crunch the numbers.

I’ll just quote myself, as it makes my point pretty well:
“Look, you can't cost a permanent haste effect as if you were just making any 3rd level spell permanent. You don't get to ignore game design just because you find a cheaper way to price something. If the spell provides AC bonuses, you have to price them as AC bonuses. Proper game design involves not allowing players to get something for nothing, and you're ignoring the fact that haste has a very limited duration. If we look at Persistant Spell (which doesn't apply to haste, but it serves as a good example), you must spend +4 levels for an (effectively) permanent spell. Meaning a permanent haste spell would be about 7th level.”

 

[Fenes 2]

Actually, we have to judge balance according to our campaigns, not the designs of WotC. I'd rather quit Dming than adopt the "NPCs are so different from PCs since they only live through one encounter" spin. I build my NPCs as if they were PCs, which means they are not generally equipped for one fight against the party where they get to use up all their ressources before getting killed.

 

[da chicken]

This isn't about balancing your campaign or my campaign or anyone's specific campaign. We assume you do that on your own, but that cannot be a reason to develop an unbalanced game. It isn't an excuse for lazy game design. The point is that while the game designers know people will house rule their RPG, but no part of your game should require every gamer to change it.

Your argument is analagous to saying a spell is balanced because it is susceptible to counterspelling. Counterspelling balances the magic system itself (because every spell is susceptible to it) so you must assume that counterspelling was taken into account when the game itself was designed.

You can't say haste (or whatever) isn't broken because everyone will house rule it. The point is, if I pay money for a game it shouldn't be fatally flawed. I shouldn't have to house rule a game just to make it playable.