Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 1329001" data-attributes="member: 1465">The people who are unhappy with the change to Invisible have scored the critical hit to 3.5 spell changes. Now that I think about it, many (maybe all?) the changes to spells were driven ONLY by the consideration of combat. Spells that were too effective in combat were toned down. Spells whose duration could have covered more than one combat were shortened. Who cares about the ones who used spells out of combat mainly (which is IMHO a much more entertaining way of playing spellcasters)? We've got a whole miniatures line to plan, let's focus on combat, everything else will be flavor text. Yes there are new spells for out-of-combat only, Overland Flight and Longstrider for example, but they are made exactly to try compensate later, and it doesn't help creative playing to chop useful spells into more specialized ones.Anyway, I say again I don't bother that much, to me there is not much difference between 3.0 spells and 3.5 spells, and that's why I may allow a player to take the other version if he wishes so.I had one and only concern about spells in 3rd edition: I don't like spells which become useless at higher levels. I think every single spell should be always still usable. This was not improved but neither worsened by 3.5. But it lead the 3.5 designer to introduce the stupid (but of course nowadays quite necessary) spell-swapping of Sorcerers and Bards, which is the one and only case of a character &quot;forgetting&quot; a previous ability.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 1329001, member: 1465"] The people who are unhappy with the change to Invisible have scored the critical hit to 3.5 spell changes. Now that I think about it, many (maybe all?) the changes to spells were driven ONLY by the consideration of combat. Spells that were too effective in combat were toned down. Spells whose duration could have covered more than one combat were shortened. Who cares about the ones who used spells out of combat mainly (which is IMHO a much more entertaining way of playing spellcasters)? We've got a whole miniatures line to plan, let's focus on combat, everything else will be flavor text. Yes there are new spells for out-of-combat only, Overland Flight and Longstrider for example, but they are made exactly to try compensate later, and it doesn't help creative playing to chop useful spells into more specialized ones. Anyway, I say again I don't bother that much, to me there is not much difference between 3.0 spells and 3.5 spells, and that's why I may allow a player to take the other version if he wishes so. I had one and only concern about spells in 3rd edition: I don't like spells which become useless at higher levels. I think every single spell should be always still usable. This was not improved but neither worsened by 3.5. But it lead the 3.5 designer to introduce the stupid (but of course nowadays quite necessary) spell-swapping of Sorcerers and Bards, which is the one and only case of a character "forgetting" a previous ability. [/QUOTE]

Verification