Tzarevitch said:
3.0 Hold Person may be better, but not the 3.5version. A consistant +2 Hit and damage for 3 minutes is better than a save to avoid spell that allows a re-save the next round . . . and the next . . . and so on. Basically, you've used your action for the round to cancel your target's action for the round.
Wrong. For potentially several rounds. Given the extreme vulnerability of most targets of
hold person to Will saves (obvious fighter types, for example), the liklihood is that they will fail their save on a consistent basis. Note that the target of
hold person is apparently not scot free if he saves once, he has to resave the next round or be held for that round.
I also dispute that summoning a celestial wolf is better than giving a dedicated melee type a +2 to hit and damage at 3rd level. For a 3rd level fighter that is a huge increase in his hit chance and some extra damage now and for the rest of the fight as opposed to the summoned wolf that has 1 weak attack, only lasts 3 rounds and arrives the round AFTER you need it.
Summoning the wolf into flanking position gives the meless guy +2 to hit. It also makes the wolf's attack significantly better. Coupled with the wolf's natural trip ability, there is a good chance that you will give your melee type +6 to hit on one or more occassion when the wolf is in play. So, the end result is that the wolf is likely to do as much damage as the increased damage from
bull's strength and is going to be better at increasing the attack rolls of the melee type.
If I cast Bull's Strength on my 3rd level fighter ally with a 14 Str, Weapon Focus and and a Greatsword+1 for example , his Str climbs to 18 and he inflicts 2d6+6 (13 average) damage EACH round at +9 to hit. Aganst 3rd level adversaries that is very likely to hit.
If I summon a celestial wolf into flanking position with such a combatant, then the 3rd level fighter will have a +9 bonus to hit and deal 2d6+4 damage (11 average) while the wolf will attack at +5 to hit (also likely to hit 3rd level adversaries) and inflict 1d6+1 damage (4.5 average) with the possibility of a trip attack succeeding in that sequence (raising the fighter's attack bonus to +13 while the opponent is prone).
Hmm, more damage, better side benefits.
Summon monster II sure seems like a no brained over
bull's strength.
Using your Burning Hands example (which is admittedly lower level, but it is scaleable as you said), at 3rd level the burning hands will do 3d6 damage (10.5 average) If he fails his save. If he saves you are looking at half that, and to top it off you are standing way too close to your target. Note there is no save against the fighter's enhanced damage and he can do it again for the rest of the fight at no extra cost to me while I do something else useful.
And the fighter's increased damage is spread out over many rounds, which makes it less useful. In addition, you left out the fact that
burning hands can (and usually does) encompass more than one opponent in its area of effect. if the party is facing, say a group of six gnolls (An EL 3 encounter), an average damage roll probably kill three of them immediately, a situation far prefereable to having the fighter slowly work his way through them.
As I said before, at low levels, 3.5 Bull's Strength and the other enhancement spells are still generally better than similar level spells. Yes there are some spells that are better, but there are also many that are less useful or only occasionally useful.
No, they are generally
far crappier that spells of similar level. Heck, the animal buffs as they stand in 3.5 are less useful than many 1st level spells.
