Official responses to 1 min/level Buff spells

[LokiDR]

Re: Re: Re: Official responses to 1 min/level Buff spells

You do realise I'm talking about magic. Not locks, magic. The entire sorcerer class is based aorund that they don't have formal training and yet they somehow get magic to work for them. That's about excatly what the UMD skill is about. Thematically the sorcerer should be much more proficient at this than any other class is. If there not thematically supposed to be able to use a monks belt a rogue certainly shouldn't.

Sorcerers alter reality through sheer force of will. They do not poke it untill some they wants comes out. UMD does not fit sorcerer, not unless you could get a holy avenger to work by chanting "I am a paladin. I AM a paladin".

 

[dcollins]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Official responses to 1 min/level Buff spells

That's funny, I didn't think anyone here agreed on anything. All of the changes so far have had several supporters.

Agreeing has nothing to do with it. My original statement was "four-fifths of these changes I've never heard anyone complain about".

I'd like to see it if anyone could point out any prior thread (before 3.5 change announcements) where anyone was complaining about any of the following -- (a) buffs being too long, (b) Spell Focus being too powerful, (c) the need to void hierarchical DR rules, (d) wanting Power Attack to double effectiveness in any circumstance, (e) the need for a Prestige Class that gives double spellcasting equivalence at every level, (f) the desire for a Paladin's warhorse to disappear, etc., etc., etc.

 

[Numion]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Official responses to 1 min/level Buff spells

Agreeing has nothing to do with it. My original statement was "four-fifths of these changes I've never heard anyone complain about".

I'd like to see it if anyone could point out any prior thread (before 3.5 change announcements) where anyone was complaining about any of the following -- (a) buffs being too long, (b) Spell Focus being too powerful, (c) the need to void hierarchical DR rules, (d) wanting Power Attack to double effectiveness in any circumstance, (e) the need for a Prestige Class that gives double spellcasting equivalence at every level, (f) the desire for a Paladin's warhorse to disappear, etc., etc., etc.

My search doesn't work, but I do distinctly remember seeing posts about buffs being too strong (I've even complained myself about triple-empowered whatevers), too high save DCs, the weakness of cleric / wizzie multiclass, uselesness of DR and power attack being weak. Also, you didn't iclude in your list haste or the stacking of arrows and bows, which have been debated to no end.

 

[LokiDR]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Official responses to 1 min/level Buff spells

I'd like to see it if anyone could point out any prior thread (before 3.5 change announcements) where anyone was complaining about any of the following -- (a) buffs being too long, (b) Spell Focus being too powerful, (c) the need to void hierarchical DR rules, (d) wanting Power Attack to double effectiveness in any circumstance, (e) the need for a Prestige Class that gives double spellcasting equivalence at every level, (f) the desire for a Paladin's warhorse to disappear, etc., etc., etc.

If any person played that way, it was an obvious house rule. Why would people complain? They just change the things they don't like. I can recall house rules covering most, if not all, of the situations that have come up in 3.5. Most of the 3.5 threads have had at least a few "We have been playing like that for a while" statements.

 

[Trainz@work]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Official responses to 1 min/level Buff spells

I'd like to see it if anyone could point out any prior thread (before 3.5 change announcements) where anyone was complaining about any of the following -- (a) buffs being too long, (b) Spell Focus being too powerful, (c) the need to void hierarchical DR rules, (d) wanting Power Attack to double effectiveness in any circumstance, (e) the need for a Prestige Class that gives double spellcasting equivalence at every level, (f) the desire for a Paladin's warhorse to disappear, etc., etc., etc.

a) I personally, in the past, generated a thread in which I described that one hour/level stat buffs irked me. It generated quite a few responses.

b) I did see threads that where talking about spell focus. Before the revelation of 3.5.

c) I have seen (and posted in), threads in which I (and / or) someone was saying :"The sinergy between planning encounters that your PC's must have the minimum weapon pluses to hit them is metagaming and goes against suspension of disbelief". The fact that they lowered DR (5, 10, 15) adresses that directly.

d) Power attack. I agree, but that doesn't mean that ALL their changes, absolutely ALL of them, must be customer/feedback oriented. That said, you are wrong: Power Attack does not double effectiveness in any circumstance, only while wielding a two-hander http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53488

e) There where quite a few threads too about dual-class cleric-arcane.

f) The Disappearing Horse trick: In my first edition days, it was sometimes interpreted like what they are doing in 3.5, in 2nd edition, some people house-ruled it that way... the issue has been around for decades.

From my POV (and some others in this thread, it seems), they did base their review quite a lot on player feedback. Not so from your POV, or so it seems... agree to disagree and all that.

 

[smetzger]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Official responses to 1 min/level Buff spells

I'd like to see it if anyone could point out any prior thread (before 3.5 change announcements) where anyone was complaining about any of the following -- (a) buffs being too long, (b) Spell Focus being too powerful, (c) the need to void hierarchical DR rules, (d) wanting Power Attack to double effectiveness in any circumstance, (e) the need for a Prestige Class that gives double spellcasting equivalence at every level, (f) the desire for a Paladin's warhorse to disappear, etc., etc., etc.

I can't. And I don't remember seeing any posts about those specific topics.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'd like to see it if anyone could point out any prior thread (before 3.5 change announcements) where anyone was complaining about any of the following -- (a) buffs being too long, (b) Spell Focus being too powerful, (c) the need to void hierarchical DR rules, (d) wanting Power Attack to double effectiveness in any circumstance, (e) the need for a Prestige Class that gives double spellcasting equivalence at every level, (f) the desire for a Paladin's warhorse to disappear, etc., etc., etc.

a) I found threads like that at Monte Cook's forum - and he didn't even work on 3.5.
b) Complaints about save DCs being too high were made long before the release of certain prestige classes or even Greater Spell Focus. Did it occur to you that they have playtesters, too, who are willing to work on higher levels now that they are familiar with them?
c) You find threads like that all the time.
d) With monster ACs going up... people did complain about the fragility of monsters, especially high-CR ones. (Not counting mini-groupings like demons (weak) or dragons (strong)).
e) People complained about multi-class spellcasters quite a bit.
f) I found complaints about the mount being useless, but I don't recall people asking for "pokemon" either.

These threads weren't the most popular, however. Often they were a couple of back-and-forth replies within another thread.

To specifically answer your question, I never saw threads on b, d, e or f - but those are specific solutions. I saw lots of complaints about the problems.