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

[buzzard]

rangerjohn, why not actually try playing 3.5 before declaring that it has completely ruined your enjoyment of the game?

Or just continue to play 3e or whatever edition of D&D suits your fancy. 3e rules won't self-destruct when 3.5 comes out.

Ahh yes, the WotC agents will certainly break into your house and confiscate your 3.0 versions of books, thereby preventing you from every playing anything but the current edition.

Feh. If you're going to have a tantrum, take it elsewhere.

buzzard

 

[Barastrondo]

You do realize that most myths are about gods, don't you?

Actually, probably at least half of them are about heroes. They're the ones that the listeners are expected to identify with more.

Interestingly, there are gods who are played up in myth to be kind of like high-end D&D characters who are over-reliant on their magical goodies; Thor, for instance, ain't much good without his hammer and gauntlets. And consequently, Thor gets made a fool of a lot — Mjolnir gets stolen, and Thor can't just go storming into the giant hall to get it back. Loki has to dress them both up like women and offer Thor as a "blushing bride" to the giant in order for them to get their hands on it. Thor hates it, but what can he do? Without his wonderful trinkets, he has to rely on Loki's cunning (not Loki's magical powers, but his cunning) to get anything done.

D&D can easily create the Thor build, but it ain't for me.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Sigh. You guys should crack open your PHB sometime.

Excerpt from fireball:

Honestly, RJ, wait until you've reviewed the revisions before deciding if you like it or not. Your pessimism is almost trollish at this point.

We can say the same thing about you and your optimism.

 

[ForceUser]

Bleh, double-post.

 

[ForceUser]

We can say the same thing about you and your optimism.

This isn't point-counterpoint. I am simply suggesting that people reserve judgement until they have read the damn book. Anti-revision rants based on half-assed opinions formed on internet rumors and news tidbits just happens to be a pet peeve. Anyway, now that I've had my Dogbert moment ("Out! Out! You demons of stupidity!!") I'm done with this discussion.

 

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by Elder Basilisk:

And all this fits in with "back to the dungeon" how?

And if wizards are supposed to be so good in non-combat social situations, why is it that they have no social skills on their class skill list?

The design you're suggesting would place wizards in the same position as Deckers in a Shadowrun game. Supposedly very important to have around but basically filling an entirely different role than that of the rest of the party. The decker neutralizes security and/or finds info while everyone else waits around and then the decker's player waits around while everyone else plays the adventure (or, as my DM did it, the decker is an NPC who tells you a few things and then shows up again at the end of the adventure). Similarly, your non-combat wizard seems like he plays his own game before the party enters the dungeon, takes a movie break while the party plays out their combat encounters and then the rest of the party takes a break when it's wizard time again.

Mind you, that's not my experience of 3e at all but I'm confused as to why you are putting a positive spin on that particular view. It seems pretty much like a worst-case scenario to me. Simply functioning as an enabler who scouts out the area or conjures up a secure resting place for the night. That sounds about as fun to play as the walking bandaid that 2e clerics were supposed to be. (Were they really? I wouldn't know; I never played one--I know that when I played the SSI AD&D computer games, the clerics in my party were little more than band-aids).

Yeah, I remember playing Shadowrun a few times, and never cared for it. And yes, the decker in that game was completely useless outside a computer terminal (as I recall he was a NPC too). Clearly, I don't want to make casters useless in combat- they still need combat useful spells, and I wouldn't try to take those from them. What does bother me is the over-emphasis on combat spells to the exclusion of almost anything else I see most 3E arcane casters display. I have played in 4 campaigns since 3E came out, and run 2, and except in the game I am currently running, all arcane casters have focused on combat oriented spells (fireballs, magic missiles, ice storms, disinitgrates, etc) vs other spells (divination, utility, illusion, etc) about 80/20 or 90/10. Granted, this selection of spells depends on the player, but the system itself rewards those who only focus on combat, and punishes those who diversify or focus elsewhere. Just look at the scroll list in the DMG- they are almost all combat or defensive spells, with very few utility or non-combat spells on there.

Maybe it is this silly "back to the dungeon" philosophy or the game system itself that encourages combat-only PCs- I don't know. When 3E first came out, all the classes recieved big power-ups, some merited (bard, fighter, druid, rogue), and some not (cleric, wizard). It seems to me that WoTC has begun to realize that maybe they went a little too far with some of the power-ups, and decided to reign them back in to 1E and 2E standards. Haste never bestowed extra spellcasting actions in previous editions, and allowing it to do so greatly overpowers casters. This isn't nerfing casters, its correcting an imbalance that has come up time and again in playtest and game sessions. I'm in favor of any changes that help to balance out the power of classes, and that is how I see these changes.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I would guess that the primary reasons that arcane casters tend to favor combat spells over non-combat spells are as follows (although I must say, most Divination specialists tend to be exceptions to that rule--they often have 1 non-combat spell prepared at each spell level):

1. Extremely limited spells/day: Low level wizards can only cast a few spells every day

2. The need to be able to do SOMETHING in combat. Since Arcane Casters without their spells are commoners with a good will save, if they don't take enough combat spells to cast one in each combat of the day, they can pretty much sit out and take a movie break. Since (as per 1) they have limited spells per day, playing the game and having a wide selection of non-combat spells prepared aren't compatible goals until high level.

3. Noncombat spells are highly specialized. If the wizard has Detect Secret Doors prepared, it won't be useful when they come across writing in a strange language. And if he has Comprehend Languages, it won't give the party a safe place to rest for the night. And Rope Trick isn't helpful unless the party needs to hide (probably to rest). Consequently, a wizard who prepares 4 non-combat spells can't really count on using any of them. He can usually count on using combat spells. Therefore, wizards once more have incentive to focus on the spells they know they're going to use until they have enough slots that they can afford to have a significant number wasted. Sorcerors don't have to worry about spell slots but get such a pathetically small selection of spells known that they can't afford to know many non-combat spells until 7th or 8th level. (They won't know many combat spells until then either).

All of those reasons combine to explain the preponderance of combat spells in wizards' selections. And none of them are likely to change in the 3.5e revision. If one wanted to change those incentives, one would have to give wizards more slots, sorcerors more spells known, and/or make it easy to get a feat like Signature Spell (FRCS) that would allow wizards to convert their prepared non-combat spells into magic missiles on the fly.

Originally posted by Elder Basilisk:
I have played in 4 campaigns since 3E came out, and run 2, and except in the game I am currently running, all arcane casters have focused on combat oriented spells (fireballs, magic missiles, ice storms, disinitgrates, etc) vs other spells (divination, utility, illusion, etc) about 80/20 or 90/10. Granted, this selection of spells depends on the player, but the system itself rewards those who only focus on combat, and punishes those who diversify or focus elsewhere. Just look at the scroll list in the DMG- they are almost all combat or defensive spells, with very few utility or non-combat spells on there.

 

[Sejs]

It says Fireball creates that kind of intense heat, though.
Fireball does not melt metal in a matter of minutes, nor even seconds, but almost instantly - in a fraction of a second.

Don't forget - objects take half damage (divided before being applied to hardness and HP) from Fire, Acid and Electricity. Cold does one-quarter it's normal damage to objects. Sonic does full damage.

Average 10d6 fireball does 35 points of damage. Against an unattended group of objects that consist of a Longsword (Hardness 10, Hp 5), a Large Steel Shield (Hardness 10, Hp 20), a Heavy Mace (Hardness 10, Hp 25), and an Ogre's Club (Hardness 5, Hp 60). 35 damage, halved, comes to 17.5 or 17. The longsword is destroyed (-2hp), the large shield is a bit charred but otherwise okay (13hp), the heavy mace is fine (18hp), and the ogre's club is a bit worse for wear (48hp) but still quite serviceable... however it is also on fire. But that's okay too, as the 1d6 fire damage/round will mostly be shrugged off by the club's hardness of 5 - it'll burn away eventually, but that'll take hours to happen.

There isn't any 'glowing metal' additional damage. The spell description doesn't include any, therefor it doesn't happen. The Heat Metal spell would do that, but you'll also note that the spell takes 3 rounds to 'wind up' before it gets to the really hot stage. Someone would take damage from something they are wearing being on fire (a cloak for example), which would do the normal 1d6/round.

If you wanted to personal-research an Improved Fireball spell that did +2d6 of sonic damage from explosive impact, and acted as a 3rd-round (then 4th next round, and 5th the following round) Heat Metal on a failed saving throw to targets in the AoE - you're free to do so. But such would be probably a 4th level spell, because it would be above and beyond the scope of a normal Fireball.

I am siding with the Anti Mage-Nerfers, for lack of a better term.

I call 'em Whiners; but hey ~ you say toe-may-toe, I say toe-mah-toe. *shrug*

Edit: whoops, forgot a close-bracket.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

How about we stop the insulting others while pretending that other people shouldn't be insulted?

This particular statement is simply a less extreme version of "you call them African Americans, I call them N---gg--s; hey you say toe-may-toe, I say toe-mah-toe. *shrug*." There is a much larger difference here than pronunciation--as activists correctly point out in the case of the racial slur. One term is neutral and descriptive. The other is a loaded word intended to insult and demean. Don't treat people like idiots by pretending that difference doesn't exist in order to get away with snide insults.

(I understand that people often consider the history of oppression to be a factor in the offensiveness of the "n word" in contemporary discourse and don't mean to suggest that such a history of oppression is implicit in the term "whiner" simply that the two terms are similar in that they are both intentionally offensive and are not only descriptive but also carry a value judgement about the comparative worth of the person they are applied to (although to quite different degrees) and that comparing either to a difference in pronunciation is absurd).

I call 'em Whiners; but hey ~ you say toe-may-toe, I say toe-mah-toe. *shrug*

 

[Shard O'Glase]

This isn't point-counterpoint.

No tis the insult others who dare disagree with me family fun hour.

I am simply suggesting that people reserve judgement until they have read the damn book. Anti-revision rants based on half-assed opinions formed on internet rumors and news tidbits just happens to be a pet peeve. Anyway, now that I've had my Dogbert moment ("Out! Out! You demons of stupidity!!") I'm done with this discussion

And, I am simply suggesting that people reserve judgement until they have read the damn book. PRO-revision rants based on half-assed opinions formed on internet rumors and news tidbits just happens to be a pet peeve. Anyway, now that I've had my Dogbert moment ("Out! Out! You demons of stupidity!!")[because yes hiding an insult in a dogbert quote makes it so much better] I'm done with this discussion.

Basically the verbal attacks on the anti side can be turned around and used agianst the same person making the assault. Have they read the book, can they say yes everything is good because they've played with the new rules for a long time. Oh and where is there detailed analysis on why the changes are good. I have seen a lot more analysis and reasoned argument on the anti side than I have sen from the pro side. Though I have seen some good arguments on the pro side I have just seen more from the anti side.

I happen to like the idea of the save or die changes though I need to see the full changes before I really say yeah. I always thought save or dies were a bane to the game, too much was decide by one die roll. The problem I see though is if with the save the negative consequences are too minor, straight damage is not enough of a benefit on the failed save. Also the wiz/sor lives from 1st level onto a fairly high level in a perpetual state of save or die. Except it includes all sources of damage as their source of instant death. Unless they do something to balance the wiz/sor at the low levels the high level rebalnce by reducing the high elvel effective spells(save or die) they have jsut kept the classes imbalanced this time against the arcane arts.

Also fo me the problem is save or die are about the only changes I may like. I see harm/heal/haste/ and poly spells needed changes but I don't like the changes I see.