[Rev] Spells Slated to be Revised

[Felon]

Seems they didn't change HARM in D2M.

After all, why mess with perfection?

Now that's the spell that makes everyone wonder if they really ever playtested the darn game.

They address Harm quite nicely in D2M: it ain't there (mainly because spells don't progress any farther than 5th-level, but it still works out nicely).

 

[hong]

So, what are the odds that these versions will come to replace the ones currently listed in the 3e PHB?

Unlikely, I'd say. D20M seems to be designed with the intention that magic should play a less central role than in D&D. Hence spellcasting progression only goes for 10 levels, all the magic stuff is shunted to the back of the book, and spells are generally toned down. D&D starts from a different viewpoint, which is that magic is important, and rather than tone spellcasters down to match everyone else, everyone else should have magic items and special abilities to match the spellcasters.

 

[Felon]

They both function as the DC to hit the character, but they are derived differently, which makes all the difference.

Other than including a class bonus (which allows characters to get away with wearing little or no armor), they seem essentially the same.

It's quite possible that the class and level defense bonuses of characters in d20M necessitated either changing shield's bonus or increasing its level.

Possibly, but I tend to doubt it. If anything, with class-based defense bonuses and a generally lower BAP for most characters (even warrior archetypes like soldiers and gunslingers use the BAP of clerics/rogues, not fighters) , D2M seems designed to alow for higher defenses than D&D characters possess. It makes sense, since hit points are fewer and healing is harder to come by, characters need a higher rate of misses to survive.

There are no partial actions in d20M, which necessitated rewriting haste (and is a pretty substantial difference, by my account).

Well, you've got a point there, but they could still just have said "characters get an extra move or attack action each round", which would've been a lot simpler than what they came up with instead. Also notice that they didn't seem have to compromise the way surprise rounds work, despite the lack of the term "partial action".

(Notice also the change in bonus to defense, lower just like shield.)

Yes, I was thinking about that myself. It is possible that they're simply trying to keep Defenses within a certain range--high, but not too high--since D2M characters are less likely to encounter titanic opponents that can consistently roll a totall of 38 or so on their attacks.

To answer your original question, I'll give you 20:1. But, you could be right, after all, they are revising the core books.

Hey, it's not like the demand to tweak these spells isn't there. But OTOH, I suppose they don't want to go nerf-crazy with the revised books.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

The Shield spell would still be useable in the D20M form because it still blocks magic missiles and stacks with other defensive spells.

Haste[/] on the other hand would move from "must have" spell to "who cares" spell if this version goes into effect. I would personally be pissed if it was only of benefit to fighter-types in a revision.

 

[Felon]

Re: Re: [Rev] Spells Slated to be Revised

Unlikely, I'd say. D20M seems to be designed with the intention that magic should play a less central role than in D&D. Hence spellcasting progression only goes for 10 levels, all the magic stuff is shunted to the back of the book, and spells are generally toned down. D&D starts from a different viewpoint, which is that magic is important, and rather than tone spellcasters down to match everyone else, everyone else should have magic items and special abilities to match the spellcasters.

I was giving that some thought too. But the thing is, the offensive spells (magic missile, fireball, lightning bolt) aren't toned down, and Ice Storm seems as nasty as before. Neither are curing spells for that matter. Seems like once magic has been added to D2M (as in Urban Arcana), spells and magic items become as powerful and prevalent as they are in D&D. Why would shield and haste be singled out for such significant revision?

 

[Seule]

Re: Re

Haste[/] on the other hand would move from "must have" spell to "who cares" spell if this version goes into effect. I would personally be pissed if it was only of benefit to fighter-types in a revision.

In previous editions it was only of use to fighter types, it explicitly disallowed the casting of extra spells. Haste is the most broken spell in the game in my opinion, because everyone has to have it. It is a huge benefit, and Mass Haste is even worse. Living City has just released a ruling that in that game, Haste provides an extra Move-Equivalent action instead, I would not be surprised to see the revised PH go that direction as well. As written it is a must-have effect at any character level. I play in a game at 20th level, and we still start every combat with Mass Haste. No spell should be able to dominate combat at every level.
In my own personal game, all Haste-like effects simply don't exist. Makes people think about tactics a lot more, particularly spellcasters.

--Seule

 

[Xeriar]

Re: Re: Re

In previous editions it was only of use to fighter types, it explicitly disallowed the casting of extra spells. Haste is the most broken spell in the game in my opinion, because everyone has to have it. It is a huge benefit, and Mass Haste is even worse. Living City has just released a ruling that in that game, Haste provides an extra Move-Equivalent action instead, I would not be surprised to see the revised PH go that direction as well. As written it is a must-have effect at any character level. I play in a game at 20th level, and we still start every combat with Mass Haste. No spell should be able to dominate combat at every level.
In my own personal game, all Haste-like effects simply don't exist. Makes people think about tactics a lot more, particularly spellcasters.

--Seule

I would be fine with this if the fighters didn't get to rack up attacks (12 in a round!) I like Shadowrun/AEG's 3-second round where multiple actions are very, very hard to pull off.

As it is, I think the spells that need the most work are shield (rules-messy), Blasphemy and harm (no save...)

 

[Frostmarrow]

Perhaps shield will work exactly as a last all day mundane large steel shield but with automatic proficiency, no dex modifier, no weight, and no spell failure chance. It stops magic missiles yet is no good against other spells. It can be used to bash opponents.

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Re

Living City has just released a ruling that in that game, Haste provides an extra Move-Equivalent action instead, I would not be surprised to see the revised PH go that direction as well.

Hee hee. I made almost exactly the same suggestion not 6 months after 3E's release. It got shouted down at the time.

Now, the fools see that I was RIGHT! RIGHT all along! They will PAY for their IMPERTINENCE....

Ahem.

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Re: [Rev] Spells Slated to be Revised

I was giving that some thought too. But the thing is, the offensive spells (magic missile, fireball, lightning bolt) aren't toned down, and Ice Storm seems as nasty as before. Neither are curing spells for that matter.

Those spells _have_ been toned down, but indirectly. Remember that you can't start off as a spellcaster in d20M (usually), and spellcasting progression only goes for 10 levels. The benefits of these spells are highly tied to either caster level (fireball, lightning bolt) or character level (you can't get cure serious wounds until you're a 5th level acolyte, and since you can't start as an acolyte, that means you'll typically be a 8th-9th level character). Hence an Nth level character in d20M will typically be casting weaker fireballs and curing spells than an Nth level character in D&D, even though the spells themselves haven't changed.