Ray of Enfeeblement question?

[Balrog]

The 1st level arcane spell Ray of Enfeeblement has come up in discussion with one of my players lately. is there any errata for the 3.5 version or not? It no longer gets a save, unlike in 3.0 when it did.

I started my campaign well over a year ago in 3.0, but had to go into hiatus for about 6 months from August until February while I was at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri in the Army. I recently returned and picked up my campaign again. while I was away, another player filled in and ran a new campaign, which was no problem. But during that time, most of my group purchased the 3.5 core books and have pretty much switched over to those rules.

Here is the problem. My campaign has seen a core group of characters rise from 1st to 12th level. I am loath to abandon the rules we have played under for the previous year. I know, I know. Most of the rules are the same. But there are enough differences that after being out of the loop for 6 months, I am having too many rules questions bog down my game. I recently ruled that until further notice, 3.0 is still the ruleset for my campaign. (NO BIG DEAL) All but one player agree with me on this. With a couple of exceptions, (i.e., Haste spell), I am sticking with 3.0.

Anyway, just curious what other peoples opinions and observations were about various changes from 3.0 to 3.5, especially with some of the spells. I am not anti-3.5 by any means, I am just trying to keep a balanced campaign going.

 

[Trainz]

It's your game, you do what you want with it.

That said, I probably wouldn't want to join it. You nerf Haste a la 3.5, but don't balance it with some of the goodies of 3.5 ? Nah. Not my thing.

It's your right as DM to set the rules, but it's also your players right to play or not in the game you propose. You have to measure your needs: stick to your views of the rules, and risk loosing players, or discuss with them what would be satisfying to all, and keep 'em all...

The choice is yours.

 

[Telperion]

The 1st level arcane spell Ray of Enfeeblement has come up in discussion with one of my players lately. is there any errata for the 3.5 version or not? It no longer gets a save, unlike in 3.0 when it did.

Anyway, just curious what other peoples opinions and observations were about various changes from 3.0 to 3.5, especially with some of the spells. I am not anti-3.5 by any means, I am just trying to keep a balanced campaign going.

You can find the PHB 3.5 errata on the Wizards.com webpage.

An arcane caster has to make a ranged touch attack to in order to affect anyone with a Ray of Enfeeblement. Wizards and Sorcerers have the lowest BAB in the game, and they aren't all well known for their high dexterity score either. The end result is more balancing in 3.5 IMO, because a Fort save against a 1st level spell is pretty much a pushover for anyone the caster might want to target. SR still works, so that keeps the spell from being abused overly much.

On a more general basis I think the spells section works nicely enough in 3.5. There are quite a few surprises waiting for you, so you basically have to re-check every spell before you cast it for a while. One example: Lightning Bolt's range is now 120 ft.

It's a drag, but you can live with it. Also, to save time I suggest asking help from the players: while you are crunching the numbers, handling rules and doing the general DM stuff they can page trough the PHB and then just show you page that you need to check when they want to cast a spell.

Changing from 3.0 to 3.5 basically means that you should read over the PHB again, and page trough the DMG. Fairly little has changed, but there are quite a few little details that make a difference.

 

[Trainz]

The only spell in 3.5 we have a problem with is Blasphemy (Holy Word...). We house-ruled it:

- Allow the same hit-dice as caster level effect to affect creatures that have more hit-dice than caster-level;

- Allow a will save to resist the spell.

This way, I can use Balors and Pit Fiends again IMC.

All the other spells we're fine with (in 3.0, we house-ruled about a dozen spells...).

 

[The Souljourner]

So far, I've seen no problems with 3.5. Rangers are actually playable, paladins got a needed boost (though probably not quite enough), and many spells got tweaked. We started a game in 3.0, upgraded to 3.5 when it came out.. no biggie. I really think the benefits of 3.5 *far* outweigh the trouble of switching over. You'll just have to bone up a bit and rely on your more 3.5 savvy players to catch when you make a mistake. You just need to be gracious when they say "hey, it doesn't work that way anymore".

-The Souljourner

 

[Balrog]

Thanks to all for the replies. Its true that on the surface it seems unfair to use the 3.0 rules while tweaking with a couple of individual spells (i.e. Haste), but I only did this after polling the players after our first session back. I initially had decided to use the 3.5 rules, but the 1st session showed me I was in over my head. I had not had the time to properly review the 3.5 core books, and the session got bogged down with too much rules clarification and discussion. Afterwards, several players indicated that sticking with 3.0 would be preferable to them, at least for the time being with these characters. After polling all(we have a group of 6 including myself), I decided to stick with 3.0. Now I am starting to think that may have been a mistake on my part. I agree that 3.5 is much improved over 3.0, and spells and classes need little or no House-ruling as compared to before.

I have a little more time now to go through the 3.5 core books and study up, hopefully without slowing down the campaign. After DMing 3.0 since it came out, I guess I was just set in my ways and understanding of the rules, as are a couple of players. But had been more difficult starting over after our group switched from 2nd Ed to 3rd Ed, so this should be a piece of cake in comparison. A little more like switching from 1st Ed to 2nd Ed back in the early days of our group.

I dont worry about the players picking up and leaving. We pretty much all decide how we want to play as a group. I dont DM as a dictator,more as an elected President with checks and balances. The group we have are close friends and 4 of the 6 have been gaming together for 15 years. One other has been with us for 5 years, and is my brother-in-law. Only one is a newbie, and he is the most fun at the table. He still has that sense of wonder. I dont take for granted their enjoyment of the game, and noone has any problems communicating the direction they would like to see our gaming go. I prefer to handle rules discussions/arguments outside of our actual gaming session, and hopefully after a little more study on my part, I wont be surprised next time.

 

[dcollins]

Anyway, just curious what other peoples opinions and observations were about various changes from 3.0 to 3.5, especially with some of the spells. I am not anti-3.5 by any means, I am just trying to keep a balanced campaign going.

The extent of the spell changes in 3.5 is nearly inexplicable (with the standard, very small number of exceptions: haste, heal, harm, polymorph). My group also sticks with 3.0 for largely this reason. More: www.superdan.net/down3-5.html

 

[Sir Whiskers]

IMO, the best changes in 3.5 are the classes - they have been improved in so many ways. If you want to stick with the 3.0 rules-set for now, I would recommend using the 3.5 classes, the 3.0 rules/spells/items, and house rule any specific changes you want to use (such as haste). You can always house rule in 3.5 rules a few at a time, as you become familiar with them.

My group handled the change in this way: we converted to 3.5, but no one has yet sat down and gone through the new rules with a fine-toothed comb. This means we're playing a mix of the two rules-sets. As we notice changes in the rules, we point them out and (almost always) use the new rule from that point forward. Given how complex the rules are, and how subtle some of the changes are, we've become pretty casual about whether or not we're playing the rules perfectly - it's just not worth the effort.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

My own take: Stick with 3.0 and take a few of the changes that you like.

For instance, if I had my way, this is what I'd do:

Classes:
3.5 for all of them except specialist wizards.
Rogue 3.0 has a more advantageous special ability progression though.
Fighter is slightly improved
Barbarian slightly improved
Bard is dramatically improved
Cleric is unchanged
Druid is dramatically improved
Paladin has some abilities delayed but is better overall.
Ranger is dramatically improved
Monk is dramatically improved
Sorceror is slightly improved
Specialist wizards were screwed up. I'd recommend sticking to 3.0 unless you adapt the 3.5 Necromancy spells (in which case, you should make Necromancy a two school or even a three banned school specialty).

Feats: Most of the new ones are good. Some of the reprints aren't. Spell Focus, etc. were unnecessarily nerfed. And power attack was beefed up a lot--possibly too far. Improved Trip, Sunder, and Imp Disarm all got a lot better (I'd use the 3.5 versions).

Skills: Most are unchanged but the combat feint bluff rules are an improvement and the jump rules are comprehensible without a calculator.

Rules: Grappling rules are actually spelled out in a comprehensible manner. I'd use 3.5 grappling in any 3.x campaign.

Spells:
I'd gladly use 3.5 Harm, Ray of Enfeeblement, Dimensional Lock, and the other new spells (touch of fatigue, ray of exhaustion, etc).
But I'll keep the other 3.0 spells (buffs, disintegrate, etc).

Scrying is a special case--the mechanic completely changed. Having a skill check favored high level casters who would rarely fail and favored wizards (who have enough skill points) over druids, etc. Having a will save (3.5) favors high level scrying targets (since their will save probably improves faster than the scrying DC). This makes scrying more effective at high levels in 3.0 and less effective at mid levels and the reverse true (more effective at mid levels, less effective at high levels) in 3.5

 

[Balrog]

Thank you all again for your replies. I cannot say at this time that I have made a decision one way or the other yet. As Sir Whiskers and Elder-Basilisk said, there are advantages to sticking with 3.0 and house ruling certain aspects from 3.5.

The bottom line is that we decide as a group what we want to do, and then do it. It seems to make everyone happy with our efforts. If we discuss the pros and cons of a switch, and we get some disagreement, we can always run a separate campaign, either solely 3.0 or solely 3.5, to see where that leads. But if after we discuss it, the majority would prefer to go one way or the other with my campaign, I am going to go with the flow. It is my campaign, and I have poured alot of work and time into making my homebrew breath. It is not the rules though, that rule my campaign. The characters, their motivations, and the plots of both them and the NPCs make this work. The rules are just a tool, and as long as we all agree on them, its all good.

Having said that, what I foresee happening is that for the sake of continuity, we will probably end up keeping this campaign 3.0, with maybe a couple of individual house rules related to 3.5. Then one of the players will probably end up starting an alternate campaign that is solely 3.5. When 3.0 first came out, our group went through the same transition. We were firmly ensconced in a lengthy 2nd Ed campaign based on the Rod of Seven Parts. We never switched that campaign over to 3.0, even though 3rd Ed had been out for 6 months. but what we did do was start an alternate campaign with another DM from the group running 3.0. It was a learning process. This seems somewhat similar to that time.

Again, thank you all for your replies. Hopefully after a little more discussion before our next session, we will work out this dilemna. Either way, we will game on and have fun.