Revised 3e Seminar: Stacking bonuses

[Destil]

I'm going to wait and see, but from what I've seen so far, most of the changes to the rules are negative steps as far as player characters and their ability to create varied and interesting characters/survive goes.

From the looks of things every wizard and cleric will now need Greater Spell Focus and Greater Spell Penetration to have a hope of effecting high CR monsters. Fighters will need multiple different enchanted weapons. Rogues will too but they wouldn't do the rogues any good because armor classes are being boosted through the roof. Etc. Etc.

Of course, we havn't really seen any significant information on how the player classes are being altered... or spell lists. (I'm really hoping a few spells aimed towards to a multiclass casters will be added, myself)

Likewise one monster (which I would note is intended to a top of the line fiend) is hardly a good way to judge the entire MM by, I'd be suprised if high DR disapears, but I'm guessing it'll be reserved for things like golems.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Likewise one monster (which I would note is intended to a top of the line fiend) is hardly a good way to judge the entire MM by, I'd be suprised if high DR disapears, but I'm guessing it'll be reserved for things like golems.

Here, here. So much panic over one (extremely high-level) monster. If you don't like it, you could always consider there are weak Pit Fiends (MM 3.0) and strong ones (MM 3.1).

BTW, Andy Collins posted some more in the DR discussion on the Rules board. He basically said that along with the change in weapon materials that overcome DR, monster DR is going down across the board -- so that DR 15 Pit Fiend is one of the high-end DRs.

His reasoning is that it makes a party more inclined to take on a monster (sure, the fighter loses 15 hp per hit, but he can still do damage) instead of the current "well, no +5 sword -- run away!"

Seems like a pretty good idea to me, upon clarification-- doesn't change mechanics much, but adds a lot of flavor to the game.

 

[Seule]

From the looks of things every wizard and cleric will now need Greater Spell Focus and Greater Spell Penetration to have a hope of effecting high CR monsters.

My understanding is that this theory (which is not limited to this thread, I've seen it elsewhere) comes entirely from the Pit Fiend going up by 4 in SR and by a good chunk in Saves.
I suspect that the Pit Fiend stats we have seen are for a monster of about CR 20, which would put the SR right at the level it was, in relation to it's CR. Saves have gone up, yes, but Pit Fiends shouldn't give in to every Disintegrate and Destruction that come along. It just means that you'll have to use more spells that have a save for a lesser effect, and count on stacking those lesser effects to help the melee fighters kill it, as it should be. Spellcasters, archetypally, are the support characters. They can enhance the fighters, they can attack the enemies, and they can do 101 other things like travel instantly, see far places and stick to walls. Toning down the damage dealing potential of wizards (by nerfing Haste among other things) can only be a good thing. And I speak as the player of a 20th level dedicated blast mage, who can currently put out a reliable 48d6 points of damage a round.

I don't think the situation is as dire as you paint it. For all we know, they are rewriting the multiclassing rules or something. Until we see the entire revision, we can't be sure.
If anyone who was involved in the revision was coming out and saying they had doubts, I'd put more stock in it, but I remember the naysayers before 3rd edition, and they were all proved emphatically (IMNSHO) wrong.

--Seule

 

[Perithoth]

Could someone clarify the bit about the Shield spell?

The FAQ currently lists Shield as providing a +7 cover bonus to AC for 50% of the battlefield, and negates magic missiles. So as currently written, it stacks with a shield.

Going to a shield bonus I understand (so the spell doesn't stack with a shield), but then the +7 bonus seems rather high -- unless it's restricted to only half the battlefield still.

My suspicion is that it will be like d20M shield, which is +4 to the whole battlefield -- but does anyone know?

Woops. I goofed, you are right that the shield spell in the current FAQ is a cover bonus.

If the D20 Modern shield spell is a guide for the new one then it doesn't list a bonus for it and it will stack with anything. I guess we will have to wait and see what the new shield spell is going to be.

I am hazy on this part of the seminar. I know it was brought up during the rules section with Andy C. but I was working on 2.5 hours of sleep at the time and I can't remember what was said.

Anyway, I do know that Andy C. said that the last remenents of facing (there is no facing in 3e) will be expunged so Shield will now be 360 degrees instead of 1/2 the battle field. This is probably why it is going to be reduced from +7 to +4.

Sorry about the mistake,

Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Perithoth
Lord of Grumpiness

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Why would +7 be high for a shield bonus but not for a cover bonus? The only difference is that the shield bonus stacks with hiding behind battlements but not a normal shield and that the cover bonus stacks with a normal shield but not battlements. And that the cover bonus is usually directional.

IMO, going to the d20 Modern version (+4 AC, no facing) would make the spell pretty useless. Wizards would no longer be able to get a decent armor class--pretty much no matter what they do without risking serious spell failure for large or tower shields. And since the spell wouldn't cut down on damage taken by very much anymore (reducing it from +7 to +4 cuts its effectiveness by at least 75% in most cases since small bonusses to AC become more significant as AC approaches higher values) and can't be cast significantly prior to combat, there's not much point in casting it at all.

In any event, there's no contradiction between the FAQ and the purported revision of the spell since the revision will be released in 3.5e and the FAQ is for the current ruleset.

Could someone clarify the bit about the Shield spell?

The FAQ currently lists Shield as providing a +7 cover bonus to AC for 50% of the battlefield, and negates magic missiles. So as currently written, it stacks with a shield.

Going to a shield bonus I understand (so the spell doesn't stack with a shield), but then the +7 bonus seems rather high -- unless it's restricted to only half the battlefield still.

My suspicion is that it will be like d20M shield, which is +4 to the whole battlefield -- but does anyone know?

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

So were you told the AC bonus was going to be reduced or is this just a guess?

Anyway, I do know that Andy C. said that the last remenents of facing (there is no facing in 3e) will be expunged so Shield will now be 360 degrees instead of 1/2 the battle field. This is probably why it is going to be reduced from +7 to +4.

Sorry about the mistake,

Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Perithoth
Lord of Grumpiness

 

[Perithoth]

So were you told the AC bonus was going to be reduced or is this just a guess?

Glyn,

At this time I don't rember anything being said during the seminar about reducing the bonus from shield. But having listen to the other changes (Haste for example) and them checking them agains d20 Modern, I will bet that the shield in 3.5 will be pretty damn close if not completely like it.

What kind of bonus it will give is unknown.

The facing is going away.

Andy C. said that each new D20 game that they worked on was a learning process for them. A lot of rules rethinking was done during these projects (Modern, Star Wars, Wheel of Time, etc.) but not all of the changes will be used. For instance HP will stay HP because the system in D20 Modern just doesn't fit the D&D universe.

That is all I can give you. If I can find the guys that taped the seminar I can go back and see & hear what I missed. Beyond that I am trying to seperate out speculation from what I remember hearing. Sorry for the confusion on the shield spell.

Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Perithoth
Lord of Grumpiness

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I don't know that it will be exactly like d20 modern. Haste, for instance is better than the d20 modern version--granting a +4 bonus to AC instead of a +2 bonus. Hopefully it won't require a full attack action to get the extra attack either.

Shield is already dramatically different from the d20 modern if it's labelled a shield bonus since the d20 modern version seems to be an unnamed bonus. Hopefully, they'll leave it at a +7 bonus. (Or maybe change their minds and make it an unnamed bonus after all).

At this time I don't rember anything being said during the seminar about reducing the bonus from shield. But having listen to the other changes (Haste for example) and them checking them agains d20 Modern, I will bet that the shield in 3.5 will be pretty damn close if not completely like it.

What kind of bonus it will give is unknown.

The facing is going away.

Which is a good thing. But not nearly good enough to lose the stacking benefit.

Come to think of it, it will be interesting to see what they do with Tower Shields if they're eliminating all traces of facing. . . .

Andy C. said that each new D20 game that they worked on was a learning process for them. A lot of rules rethinking was done during these projects (Modern, Star Wars, Wheel of Time, etc.) but not all of the changes will be used. For instance HP will stay HP because the system in D20 Modern just doesn't fit the D&D universe.

Well that much is good. Thanks for the update and the correction. I appreciate the time you've spent summarizing this and answering questions. I apologize if my shock and anguish over the impending evisceration of my main LG character has been taken out on you or others.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

It may well be that you're right. Actually, the theory is based as much on the fact that the Pit Fiend is reported to still be CR 16 as anything else. If it's CR 20-22 now (making it one of the really high end monsters in the Monster Manual), then it wouldn't mean anything of the sort because it's much easier for 20th level wizards and sorcerors to beat SR and their save DCs are higher as well.

I guess I've come to be suspicious of WotC's balance judgements when I've seen things like Armor of Speed, Peerless Archer, and Ninja of the Crescent Moon come off their presses. I hope you're right and I'm wrong though.

My understanding is that this theory (which is not limited to this thread, I've seen it elsewhere) comes entirely from the Pit Fiend going up by 4 in SR and by a good chunk in Saves.
I suspect that the Pit Fiend stats we have seen are for a monster of about CR 20, which would put the SR right at the level it was, in relation to it's CR. Saves have gone up, yes, but Pit Fiends shouldn't give in to every Disintegrate and Destruction that come along. It just means that you'll have to use more spells that have a save for a lesser effect, and count on stacking those lesser effects to help the melee fighters kill it, as it should be. Spellcasters, archetypally, are the support characters. They can enhance the fighters, they can attack the enemies, and they can do 101 other things like travel instantly, see far places and stick to walls. Toning down the damage dealing potential of wizards (by nerfing Haste among other things) can only be a good thing. And I speak as the player of a 20th level dedicated blast mage, who can currently put out a reliable 48d6 points of damage a round.

I don't think the situation is as dire as you paint it. For all we know, they are rewriting the multiclassing rules or something. Until we see the entire revision, we can't be sure.
If anyone who was involved in the revision was coming out and saying they had doubts, I'd put more stock in it, but I remember the naysayers before 3rd edition, and they were all proved emphatically (IMNSHO) wrong.
--Seule

 

[Ace]

At last! The inconsistency of the Shield and Armour bonuses has been driving me wild for the past two years. I don't think they're ever explained properly in the PHB.

Look at the glossary: Shield bonus, Armour bonus. Huh?

Cheers!

Glad they changed that bit, it was my houserule anyway