If the mage spells are being weakened, what compensation is being given to the mage?

[Edena_of_Neith]

(look of relief)

Thanks, ForceUser.
You have saved the day!

I can still roast my foe with Fireball, and watch in glee as his magic armor melts, his magic sword wilts, his magical items all evaporate or are ruined, his clothing becomes a torch, and his greek fire explodes. (Or, I can turn him into a frozen statue and shatter him with my mace!)
Not to mention, I can still burn down the forest, set fire to the town, blast the enemy supply caravan, and otherwise make mayhem.
Things like this almost convince me that evocation is a better school than necromancy is!

Now, if they change this in 3.5, I will get angry ...

 

[rangerjohn]

The operative word there was unatended. She described survivors as suffering additonal affects from clothes, armor, and swords either being to hot to touch or catching flame.

 

[Zhure]

"He" not "she."

Maybe the surviving targets rolled a '1' on their saves. Unsurviving targets no longer attend objects.

 

[rangerjohn]

Sorry about that Edena. Oh if they didn't survive then thier object would most likely be destroyed as you say Zhure. However Edena specifiaclly said survivors drop thier swords. Like I say it is logical, if the sword is not seared to the hand. But it is not D&D. Apparently there is some force given off by a living creature protects possessions.

 

[Zhure]

Never try to apply too much logic to magic, as my old Wizard professor used to say. One loophole leads to another then you'll be wondering why dragons can fly with those little flimsy rings.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Ah, ok, to clear up this mystery ...

I am informed that in Dungeons and Dragons 3.0:

If the target makes his save, his items are unaffected.
If the target fails his save, his items must then also save.
Unattended items must automatically make a save.
Items that fail their save are destroyed.

Therefore:

If I Fireball an enemy fighter in armor, he must make a save.
If that fighter fails his save, all his items must now save.
If his armor fails it's save, it is destroyed.
Destroyed means melted, which means the armor is hot enough to further damage the fighter.
Melted means hot. Hot means anything touching the ruined armor must save or be set ablaze.
Anything set ablaze by the armor forces yet more saves out of anything the fighter is carrying that has survived to this point.
The chain reaction, from the armor and anything else that failed it's save, continues until everything left saves, or everything left is destroyed.
The hapless fighter takes damage from the Fireball, then more damage from the melted armor (each round), then more damage from other items - such as clothing - on him that are now ablaze (each round), plus possible additional damage if he foolishly carried greek fire or smokepowder.

Is this about right, for 3.0?

Are they changing this, in 3.5, or do my instincts serve me right when I think they have not changed this reality in 3.5?

 

[Zhure]

Sorry, Edena, attended objects don't have to worry about saves unless the possessing character rolls a '1' on the saving throw. PHB, page 150.

"Items Surviving after a Saving Throw: Unless the descriptive
text for the spell specifies otherwise, all items carried and worn are assumed to survive a magical attack. If a character rolls a natural 1 on his saving throw, however, an exposed item is harmed (if the attack can harm objects). The four items nearest the top on Table 10–1: Items Affected by Magical Attacks are the most likely to be struck. Determine which four objects are most likely to be struck and roll randomly among them. The randomly determined item must make a saving throw against the attack form and take whatever damage the attack deals (see Strike an Object, page 135). For instance Tordek is hit by a lightning bolt, and gets a natural 1 on his saving throw. The items most likely to have been affected are his shield, his armor, his waraxe, and his stowed shortbow. (He doesn’t have a magic helmet or cloak, so those entries are skipped.)
If an item is not carried or worn and is not magical, it does not get a saving throw. It simply is dealt the appropriate damage. Magic item saving throws are covered in the DUNGEON MASTER‘s Guide."
Greg

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

(very solemn look)

Zhure, you have done something nobody else has ever done before.

You have shown me a core rule, that I would Rule Zero (change the rule)

I wouldn't Rule Zero that rule against the players, since the rule obviously protects the hard won items of the characters from chance destruction by an enemy attack.
However, I would Rule Zero it against my own NPCs, as a DM. (as per my Fireball post above.) The players, at least, would enjoy it when they rained mayhem down on my NPCs.

I do not agree with the rule concerning item damage as given in the core rules, based on your post above, Zhure.
I do believe that this rule gives fuel and credibility to Rangerjohn's arguments, however.

 

[Zappo]

Rolling a 1 on the save means that an item is affected, even if attended.

Edit: I never considered a fireball to be so hot as to cause the kind of damage Edena described. If the heat was enough to melt steel items easily in just the fraction of a round of exposure, it wouldn't be 10d6; it would be more like save or die.

As for the wiz10/ftr10 debate, I think that the incapacity of the character of just blasting people or just hacking people is evident. Whatever he does, he's using just half of his potential at a time. Any of these approaches however is a problem with a dumb player, not with a crippled character. The wiz10/ftr10 should focus on fighting and take spells such as exp retreat, buffs, haste, [imp.] invisib, shield, blur, mirror img, keen edge, etcetera, as well as combat casting, still spell, and maybe quickened spell (a quickened shield is good stuff!). I would laugh at such a character taking spells that are targeted at foes. If I did this character, I wouldn't even have fireball or magic missile in the book, and I would probably just give him INT 13 or 14 and a headband of intellect +2 so that he can cast 5th level (and not be crippled if he loses the headband). Mithril armor, or bracers if I have the money. A few scrolls of higher level spells for emergencies.

Naturally, I would have to build and play the complete character to be sure, but I estimate that he would fight slightly worse than a ftr20 and be substantially more versatile. Greater dispel is a bad problem, naturally. Overall, a fairly balanced character, though possibly weaker at low levels. PrCs give him an extra edge, as they do for anyone else.

 

[Al]

Hmmm...the thread seems to have ballooned, but I'll post as much rebuttal as is humanly possible.

Here's a good place to elaborate and thereby gain credible support for your thesis. Give us some bullet points explaining briefly and succinctly why the anibuffs are now near-worthless. Horrid Wiliting was certainly quite horridly OTT previously, so let us know why toning it down went wrong. Might also help gain support if you explained what was actually done to hamper it. Disintegrate barely worthwhile? Heard it did ridiculous amounts of damage now. Ridiculous damage doesn't sound barely worthwhile. What's up with that?

Okay, quickly speaking, I think that Elder-Basilisk posted an excellent analysis of why the anibuffs are now nerfed. The whole point of the anibuffs was duration, not power. WotC kept power, but nerfed duration, hence neutering the whole point of the spell.

As for Disintegrate, it is now 'barely worthwhile' compared to comparable direct-damage spells. Now only does it require a ranged touch attack roll (not always guaranteed with the average 11th level wizard only having a +6), its damage is comparably anemic. 22d6 save for 5d6 gives an average 77 damage on a fail and 17 on a save. Maximised Fireball does 60 points on a fail, and 30 on a save- and requires no ranged touch attack, and affects multiple enemies. That is why Disintegrate is now barely worthwhile. Incidentally, the Max. Fireball also forces a massive damage save, so Gothmog's point is invalid. 'Power Munchkin', as Psi(Severed Head) so...equolently...put it, would be far better off going down the assault line.

Horrid Wilting is weak at the new power level due it not matching other damage spells. Given that epic is non-core, it now has an effective damage cap of 20d6. This is comparable to Delayed Blast Fireball, at a level lower, assuming that non-elemental damage and the delay function are comparable. It is less than Maximised Flame Strike, at a level lower at a flat 90 points, half of which is non-elemental.

I mostly disagree with this one. While I know WotC reads message boards; and even takes them into account when deciding what changes to make to the game; I also think playtesters/customer feedback play a much greater role into how WotC changes the game. I have no formal proof or numbers on this; I am just basing it on the fact the it is well known how much playtesting and Customer feedback went into 3E.

Customer feedback, by and large, will be coming from similar people to messageboard-users. The more serious end of the gaming market. Casual gamers don't feel the need (in general) to phone customer feedback and give a blow-by-blow account as to why the d8 damage dice on a Horrid Wilting distorts the power curve in favour of wizards. Playtesting is well and good, but if it wasn't picked up in pre-launch testing, I would still be inclined to believe that it was as a result of post-supplemental playtesting that the problems became apparent. The point about playtesting, however, is merely analytic speculation (since I've been told to mark it clearly ).

I disagree. People only really started complaining about wizard supplements when the FRCS was released, due to that Spell Power.

FRCS is a supplement, and one which I banned almost immediately. You only underline my point- the supplements are too powerful, not the core rules.

Scion of Vyshaan- I agree with you entirely. People on the messageboards can get far too emotional at times, and often flail out widely. I do sympathise with your predicament. I've had to defend the save-or-die spells

Thesis or hypothesis, Al's theory explains a lot. And his analysis of the result seems, to me, spot on.

Thanks

The irony is that for all of the 'pro-nerfers' demands for rational argument, ultimately they often fail. Whilst they can still be on solid ground, such as with Harm and Heal, the arguments are clear and cogent. But I've yet to see a clear and detailed analysis as to why Horrid Wilting is broken (and please don't even mention the suggested level caps, as nearly every spell in the book breaches them) and why Disintegrate is broken. Jumping up and down as shouting 'Power Munchkin' isn't helpful, and can often be offensive. Scion's sentiments are all too true.