Poll: Power creep in 3.5, how significant?

[BryonD]

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.

I'd split the difference and say that I like the idea but am concerned by how they overdid it in Bo9S.

 

[BryonD]

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.

I think that puts it well.

 

[WhatGravitas]

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.

Indeeeeed! Y'know, on the WotC boards, they call 'em the CoDzillas (Cleric-Or-Druid), because they *ruuule* core, and don't even need supplements.

And as some other people has pointed out, the original druid is bad, because he can run around in Wildshape all the time, can still cast spells, and has many Sor/Wiz spells... essentially, a Druid in core-games is a hulking, spell-hurling bear sorcerer.

Okay, a bit of hyperbole, but that's the reason why they either needed a power-down, or everybody else (besides clerics, who can get Divine Might to hulk) needs an up (okay, wizards can hold their water)...

That's - as said above - also the reason why I think that the D&D 3.5-power creep is quite forgiveable (due to the high bar set by CoDzilla).

 

[MerricB]

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!

Henry, the problem with Harm wasn't the touch attack with no save. It was that the target ended up with 1d4 hp regardless of how many they actually had - from 50 to 5000.

I think Orb of Force is a mistake. The other Orb spells are perfectly fine. Ranged Touch is not easy to do (cover and melee give a +8 AC straight away), their short range is horrible, and elemental resistances are quite common.

Elemental damage is a disadvantage (except Force).

Sure, you get opponents where you can throw orb after orb after orb at them for full effect, but what's the Fighter doing? Hitting the opponent again and again and again for full effect.

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.

I don't think it does. And, note that Wizards and Sorcerers now have all-day effects through Reserve Feats. The wizard in my AoW campaign has a legacy item that gives scorching ray at will.

Cheers!

 

[Xyanthon]

Anything other than the commoner class is wildly overpowered . Nah, anyway I know that there are some things that are broken, but really, I don't see why I as a DM shouldn't be able to fix things as they arise. I pretty much don't allow for any new rules until I've been able to read though them to see how they would impact my game rules-wise and flavor-wise. That said, I've got a whole stack of books to read, heh.

 

[Nyeshet]

I almost chose the middle option - a bit weak in comparison to core, but there are a few options out there that when combined can be notably broken. So long as the GM is wise enough not to allow these options to combine, then the problems are not too terrible or problematic.

 

[Shadow_Fox26]

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.

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.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm

"In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action."

You're encountering the same problem with this running scenario as you had with stacking two maneuvers that each require a standard action.

You cant stack actions. If two abilities each require a standard action, you can only use one, because you only get one standard action per round. When you perform a standard action, you can not use infinite standard actions.

The same holds true for stacking the Run action and the Ring of Fire maneuver. Each one requires its own full round action. You cannot use a full round action to run, and then stack on as many full round actions as you wish, just because you are already engaged in a full round action. You have already spent your one full round action for your turn using the run action.

As far as a Swordsage being "quite good in HtH", the class follows a very simple and classic formula. Decreased accuracy results in increased damage. Rogues have medium BAB but get sneak attack. Scouts have medium BAB but get skirmish. Ninjas have medium BAB but get sudden strike. Monks have medium BAB but get flurry of blows and increased unarmed damage. Swordsages have medium BAB but get a variety of combat maneuvers, some of which deal damage.