Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 866501" data-attributes="member: 3146">Re: Must restate the obviousNonsense. What it means is that the spell was an integral part of the balance of the game, classes, and options within those classes. "Integral" does not necessarily mean overpowered.If you want a comparable spell, consider Animal Friendship. For a first level spell, a character can have a dire tiger or a legendary elephant companion indefinitely. Its more powerful than any summoning spell of any level except possibly Gate or the various Binding and Ally spells. A first level spell that competes with Summon Nature's Ally IX!?!? "Obviously grossly overpowered. (And needed an overhaul). Duh." But then again, most people don't see it that way. They look at the benefits of animal friendship as one of the class features of druids.How about removing animal friendship--a first level spell. Wouldn't you then say that "druids are now combat-enfeebled?" We could remove Flame Strike. How would that effect the combat power of clerics and druids? Or we could get rid of Cure Moderate and Cure Serious Wounds. There weren't 2nd or 3rd level healing spells in 1e or 2e. By your logic, if doing that would make dramatic changes in the way 3.5e combat works, CMW and CSW are "grossly overpowered." That's nonsense, of course. And, so, by extension, your test is nonsense.3e Haste may have been overpowered. (I don't think it was). However, demonstrating that changing it will have far reaching consequences for game balance doesn't prove that it was overpowered. There are lots of non-overpowered spells that would have very far reaching consequences if they were removed from the game. Animal Friendship, Cure Moderate Wounds, and Cure Serious Wounds are only a few of those.</blockquote>

Verification