Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Erastus" data-source="post: 654757" data-attributes="member: 10060">There were a lot of spells, feats and other things in 3e that might have gotten overused or had the potential to be abused in my campaigns... to be honest haste wasn't one of them.  I can't think of a single character in the three or four D&D campaigns we've run since d20 that had a problem with it (and on one of those campaigns half the party were arcane casters).  So one thing that strikes me about this change is that it seems like tweaking for the sake of saying things have been tweaked.  One more thing that lets them slap the 'New and Improved' label on the revised books.  That seems like a big part of the rationale for this change.A fighter getting on in levels gets what?  3-5 attacks on a full attack action?  Probably doing insane damage from all those attacks with magic items, buffs, strength bonuses, feats and the rest of the kitchen sink?  And a mage casting one extra spell is such a threat?  Okay, many spells affect an area so the mage is potentially hitting more than one opponent in a round.  But then we've got fighters with cleave and combat reflexes, many other options, that gives them a chance to attack more than one opponent in at least some shape or form.  I don't see any imbalance here.But how do we fix it?  Make it so that the spell can give fighters even more attacks and spellcasters can only do one thing!  Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.I've never been a big fan of the 'seriously limit something so that more people will take a certain feat (which is deeply flawed)'.  Why, exactly, would I sacrifice a spell that is going to be considerably more effective just to get off a quick spell that is pretty much a tinker toy at my level?  I never saw the quicken spell option as a combat feat.  Just take a little longer to cast a much more effective spell, cast on the defensive and take combat casting if you're worried about getting interrupted.  It's more of a 'spell needs to be cast in a hurry because of dire circumstances' feat.  Haste is a combat spell.  Why limit a combat spell so people favor a feat that works best in non-combat situations?  No sense at all.The fact that it makes the title 'haste' a bit of a misnomer also leaves a little bit of a funny taste in my mouth, as it does for some others here.The rationale that they are just taking the spell back to its 2e roots is somewhat unsettling to me.  I played 2e, I liked 2e, but then 3e came along, intended to be an improvement over the previous systems with more consistency and internal logic.  And I did for the most part see it as a huge improvement.  It was in effect supposed to be a 'whole new game'. Rationalizing the change by saying that it's the way things were done in the older versions of the game when this is a 'whole new game' makes me nervous about some of the other changes we might see.  How valid is 3e as a whole new game if we're revising it with 2e  concepts?Funny, I didn't have any concerns about haste.  I do now.  I wasn't quite sure what I was going to say when I started posting this, but I guess I've decided I don't really like this after all.  I wonder if WoTC could use their Star Wars license to put the phrase 'I have a bad feeling about this' on their revised products?</blockquote>

Verification