Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Brottor Dankil" data-source="post: 2622194" data-attributes="member: 27953">I only used low level spells as a example, so that's why I said the list goes on and on.  If somebody needs further examples with higher level spells that now suck in 3.5, I can provide that list too.Why should a 2nd level spell not be effective after 5th level.  I'm not saying always effective, but at least effective for a few rounds if the initial saving throw fails (which is no guarantee).  Most spells improve as the caster gets better at casting it, but Hold Person becomes less and less effective, to the point where you don't even bother keeping it.  I do think that the old duration was high, because as the spellcaster advanced, a hold person would eliminate one enemy from an entire combat encounter, if the saving throw failed.  But I think they went too far in restricting it.  Maybe it needs a duration based on a spellcaster/enemy hit dice ratio?  But as it stands, the spell is only truely effective from 3rd to 5th or 6th level, then it's little better than Hypnotism or Sleep.Shield changed from +7 cover bonus to +4 shield bonus (so no stacking if you already have a shield bonus) both being 1 min/level duration.  By comparison, Mage armor is a +4 armor bonus, hr/level duration.  I just think the power balance for Shield went too far the wrong way.  Maybe make Shield +4 a deflection or cover bonus at least so it can stack.Why should a mere third level spell allow a spellcaster to cast an extra spell per round?  Why should a mere first level feat allow a melee artist to attack an extra time per round?  Haste was reduced in power from 2nd Ed to 3.0 and again from 3.0 to 3.5.   What's wrong with a spellcaster using up a third level spell slot to be able to cast an extra spell per round for the next few rounds?  Or even three spells per round with Quicken (at a spell slot 4 levels higher)?  Quicken is not useless with the old Haste, but now Haste is nearly useless, merely another buff spell for melee artists.  Don't melee artists get feats allowing them to attack extra times in a round without a duration limit?  And doesn't Haste allow melee artists to get the benefit of an extra attack per round?  The balance for spell casters is not there.  Haste is now barely better than expeditious retreat for spell casters.I do have a problem with low level spells being totally uneffective at high level.  Are melee artist skills/feats of low level uneffective at high levels?  I think every spell should have the benefit of only allowing one shot at a saving throw and one shot at magic resistance, not allowing multiple saves per spell just to reduce duration.  If the duration of a spell is too long, then put a cap it, so at least the spellcaster has some idea how long an enemy is going to be out in the rare event they fail save.  Yes metamagic can be used on low level spells to make them more effective, but at the expense of higher level spell slots.  But then what do we do with all the first and second level spell slots that are totally useless now?  Why do only spellcaster abilities become less useful as the characters progress? I don't see anybody elses abilities become less useful in the slightest.Arcane spellcasters use MM at higher levels because it is about the only effective first level spell at higher levels.  If you want your spellcasters to use something else, then make the other spell(s) more effective at higher levels.  For petes sake it's five 1d4+1 MAXIMUM for a tenth level caster and up (average 17.5 damage) to one opponent.  How many attacks from a tenth level Fighter would the spell caster have to take to get off that ONE spell.  Or how about a 20th level fighter.  Yet we quibble that MM is out of balance because it's the only 1st level spell that spellcasters use.  Could it be that the entire remaining 1st/2nd level spells are out of balance, grossly underpowered, which is why MM is chosen more often?-Brottor</blockquote>

Verification