Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="(Psi)SeveredHead" data-source="post: 6285390" data-attributes="member: 1165">Except for the last clause, what you said made sense.I'll use level 2 spells as an example. If you're going to compare Invisibility to Alter Self to Scorching Ray, why should they all have the same casting time? Alter Self lasts a long time, it could have a casting time measured in minutes and still be perfectly balanced. Invisibility is more powerful than Scorching Ray (although they're not directly comparable, they're apples to orange). I would give Invisibility a longer casting time, but not a direct combat spell like Scorching Ray, which needs to be fast to be useful.And yes, this would mean going through every single spell, which is what n00bdragon was worried about. (There are a lot of spells. I once went through every problem spell in the 1st-level core rules for wizards, and gave up after that.)It depends on how you nerf the wizard. I don't think the wizard is broken. I don't think spells are broken (except maybe save DC calculations). I think many, many wizard spells are broken, and these are broken on an individual level, so you should focus on fixing these broken spells.I don't see how spending three or even two rounds casting Fireball nerfs the wizard &quot;properly&quot;. People aren't saying Fireball is broken. They are saying turning invisible is broken though.As n00bdragon mentioned, there's so many spells that even nerfing the broken ones in the core rules are time-consuming enough, much less splats. If you ran core-only and also nerfed the broken spells, you could solve 3e's continual balance problems. It would be a lot of work, though, and it doesn't help that previous group attempts failed, because poster A thinks spell A is broken but poster B thinks spell A is fine.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="(Psi)SeveredHead, post: 6285390, member: 1165"] Except for the last clause, what you said made sense. I'll use level 2 spells as an example. If you're going to compare Invisibility to Alter Self to Scorching Ray, why should they all have the same casting time? Alter Self lasts a long time, it could have a casting time measured in minutes and still be perfectly balanced. Invisibility is more powerful than Scorching Ray (although they're not directly comparable, they're apples to orange). I would give Invisibility a longer casting time, but not a direct combat spell like Scorching Ray, which needs to be fast to be useful. And yes, this would mean going through [i]every single spell[/i], which is what n00bdragon was worried about. (There are a lot of spells. I once went through every problem spell in the 1st-level core rules for wizards, and gave up after that.) It depends on how you nerf the wizard. I don't think the wizard is broken. I don't think spells are broken (except maybe save DC calculations). I think many, many wizard spells are broken, and these are broken on an individual level, so you should focus on fixing these broken spells. I don't see how spending three or even two rounds casting Fireball nerfs the wizard "properly". People aren't saying Fireball is broken. They are saying turning invisible is broken though. As n00bdragon mentioned, there's so many spells that even nerfing the broken ones in the core rules are time-consuming enough, much less splats. If you ran core-only and also nerfed the broken spells, you could solve 3e's continual balance problems. It would be a lot of work, though, and it doesn't help that previous group attempts failed, because poster A thinks spell A is broken but poster B thinks spell A is fine. [/QUOTE]

Verification