Poll: Power creep in 3.5, how significant?

[Shadeydm]

Actually, I think that most builds are quite impossible in-game, except if the player is bent on it. But this means, the player already tries to optimize his character, which means, he'll even reign supreme in core-only by using a CoDzilla (C = Cleric, D = Druid) build - because Natural Spell equals a hulking, flesh-rending, and spell-hurling beast.

I thought natural spell was from a 3.0 splat book did it get updated in 3.5?

 

[Hjorimir]

Nothing stops you from running that I noticed. If so it gets a LOT bigger.

Unless there is some exception to the rule that I'm not aware of, how about the fact that you have to run in a straight line?

 

[MerricB]

Note that it is a full-round action (I think, I'm at work). Nothing stops you from running that I noticed. If so it gets a LOT bigger.

Running... cool. Straight line. No damage at all.

Mind you, have a look at the book:
"As part of this manuever, you can move up to two times your speed along the ground." Running is out.

In any case, it's one of 3 6th level manouvers you get at 12th level 12d6 damage isn't too bad for wizard, let alone someone who is quite good in HtH.

12d6 is standard for Wizard, and they have a better DC - by far.

I don't think the Swordsage is that great in HtH, actually. Ok, but more like a caster than a melee combatant.

What makes the Swordsage fade at higher levels is the diminishing number of actual high-level manuevers they have. The manuevers don't scale well. By 18th level, Ring of Fire is pitiful.

A pure fighter at level 12 will get 4 attacks per round (hasted). Assume that three will generally hit, and the damage code will be about 2d6+2d6 elemental+11 for each one, which is about 75 damage per round, not counting criticals (with a range of 17-20). That's what the Swordsage has to work against. (Assumptions: 22 strength, +1 flaming frost greatsword, WF, WS, GWF, IC)

Ring of Fire at level 12 deals 12d6 damage - or 42 damage on average, but with the possibility of successful saves... 21 damage. You should be able to get it to affect a group of opponents, although Attacks of Opportunity may be a problem.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

I thought natural spell was from a 3.0 splat book did it get updated in 3.5?

Player's Handbook 3.5, no less.

I much prefer the shifting option for druids in PHB2 over Wildshape (which is incredibly buggy)

Cheers!

 

[Henry]

I thought natural spell was from a 3.0 splat book did it get updated in 3.5?

It's a core feat in 3.5.

No self-respecting druid above 5th level should be without it, IMO.

 

[Henry]

Player's Handbook 3.5, no less.

I much prefer the shifting option for druids in PHB2 over Wildshape (which is incredibly buggy)

Cheers!

OTOH, the PHB2 shifting option, while pretty cool, disallows everything from casting spells in animal form to feats that depend on wildshaping for their use. It's cleaner, but IMO a horrible power-down that druids don't need.


---------------

With regards to "power-creep": I do see some of it, but I've got to hand it to WotC -- they've been able to reign in the most egregious increases pretty well in 3.5 over their problems from 3.0. I think in focusing on the problem areas they discovered (spell save DCs, extra actions in a round, etc.) they managed to keep away from the really game-breaking stuff.

The most problematic areas I've seen, personally, are:

Touch spells that have no save. You'd think they learned their lessons from Harm, but then they turn right around and re-introduce the Orb spells, with FULL DAMAGE and NO SAVES or SPELL RESISTANCES on them. Jeez!

The redesign of the uses per day paradigm as seen in Book of 9 swords. Not Swordsage and crusaders, per se, or even the mechanics of the system, but the switch to "use it all the time, as much as you please", with only a swift to full round action to retain all maneuvers, is such a huge shift from "extraordinary" to "wire-fu" it puts a strain on viability of wizards, sorcerers, and pretty much everyone except warlocks. Maybe other players are fine with the PCs having powerful magical abilities all day long, but it just doesn't sit well with me, and represents a power curve I just dislike inherently.

 

[MerricB]

OTOH, the PHB2 shifting option, while pretty cool, disallows everything from casting spells in animal form to feats that depend on wildshaping for their use. It's cleaner, but IMO a horrible power-down that druids don't need.

It's not always a power-down. Shift as a swift action, any number of times per day? Very nice. You can always shift out of animal/plant/elemental form to cast spells.

The Fochluchan Lyrist in our party uses her basic cat form just for its extra speed to travel around the battlefield. It's very interesting to see.

Cheers!

 

[ruleslawyer]

OTOH, the PHB2 shifting option, while pretty cool, disallows everything from casting spells in animal form to feats that depend on wildshaping for their use. It's cleaner, but IMO a horrible power-down that druids don't need.

Druids don't need a power-down?

IMHO, it was a bad idea to combine a primary caster with a strong combat capability in the way that the druid works out, which is, specifically, casting + combat capability rather than casting OR combat capability. The fact that the master of many forms (shifter) doesn't get a spell progression is, IMHO, pretty good indication that having shapechanging capability is plenty powerful without needing massive magical ability. the PHB2 variant seems to support that, and I think it's strong enough.

 

[blargney the second]

The redesign of the uses per day paradigm as seen in Book of 9 swords. Maybe other players are fine with the PCs having powerful magical abilities all day long, but it just doesn't sit well with me, and represents a power curve I just dislike inherently.

I think that this change is loooong overdue, and makes for a better & more elegant D&D game system. As far as I'm concerned it has nothing to do with power creep, and everything to do with making the game more enjoyable overall.

 

[Stalker0]

But I'm not sold that power creep is bad for the game.

I agree with this statement in a lot of areas. The PHBII was WOTC's way of saying that some of the old "epic" feats from back in the day weren't all that good, and were perfectly fine for mid to high level games.

While this is a power creep because it does make some of the old feats look pretty weak, I think its more to the fact that many of those ARE pretty weak, and were rarely taken anyway.