D&D 3E/3.5 Spell/Rule Changes from 3.0 to 3.5 -- How did we survive 3.0?

[SteveC]

Define "low levels".

I'd define low level as 1-4. At these levels a wizard is significantly behind the curve of power, but catching up. I'd say middle levels are 5-12, and at that point the wizard is fairly well matched against other character types and increasing. I'd call high levels 13+ and at this point the wizard is significantly ahead of the curve and pulling ahead. That's a very general statements, and doesn't apply universally. I'd say the cleric is ahead of the wizard on all counts, but I suppose that's another debate entirely.

At 5th level, the Wizard can craft slippers of spider climbing, gauntlets of ogre power and a bunch of other permanent items. However, they've sacrificed XP and gold for the ability.

I think it's a very bad idea to balance the wizard's power level based on item creation. For one thing, not all GM's allow this or give the time for it. Beyond that, when you're crafting items you're putting your character development behind the rest of the group, both in terms of EXP (not so much with weak items) but also in terms of money. Doesn't your 5th level wizard really have something better to spend 2400 gp on? Spending significant money on crafting items means less money for spells, which can make a bad situation at low levels even worse. It also means that a character who is not an item crafter is less viable as a character choice. That means fewer options, and that's a bad thing to me.

Sleep

At 1st level, sleep is still a very, very potent spell. (1 round to cast it isn't as bad as it sounds - it just means that the opponents get one chance to act).

It also means that the wizard is standing around for the the whole time casting a spell, and can easily have it disrupted. At 1st through 4th levels, a wizard has very little to offer to a group in classic adventuring terms: they can use sleep or color spray to eliminate a small group of opponents once or twice. A figher or barbarian can do just about the same job and keep doing it round after round. The standard schtick of the wizard has always been, "I can do some pretty impressive things, but only a few times in the day." A wizard should be able to have an effective role in combat, even at low levels, with those spells. Otherwise, what is he supposed to do?

Buff Spells

At 3rd level, cat's grace works for one combat. +2 AC and +2 to hit with ranged effects isn't that bad. Or +2 to hit and +3 damage for bull's strength (2h weapon, obviously!). Compare with divine favour, and suddenly it looks pretty good.

So a wizard can use a second level spell to have a minor enhancement on one character for one combat. Since we moved to 3.5 I have never seen any of the buff spells cast...until I house ruled them. Yes, I know "objection! anecdotal evidence!" but, in my experience. mages cast Enlarge Person if they want to buff the fighter. They cast Shield or Mirror Image to improve their defenses and False Life to improve hit points. Once I changed the buffs to 10min/lvl they started to see some use again, which is how I think it should be (emphasis on "how I think" YMMV).

The Keen/Improved Crit stacking doesn't interest me much. Power Attack has a trade off; there is none for Keen/Improved Crit. Consider that many +1 weapon bonuses give you the equivalent of possessing a feat. Now Keen/Improved Crit. works the same way.

The major flaw with the stacking is simply it reduces criticals to a yawn factor. With the right weapon, almost every hit is a critical! Boring!

Hmmn, this is going to sound waaay more snarky than I intend it to, so let me add the smileys up front just because you or I might find something a snooze fest or a yawn factor doesn't mean it's appropriate to take out of the game. ...and another one behind, too. The question is: does stacking these bonuses up front result in a worse game experience than not? To my mind, since it really doesn't make a character significantly more powerful than other combat options, I think removing the stacking is a bad thing, since it removes options, and that's what I'm all about. I also question whether or not paying for a magic item and spending a feat really needs to have any drawbacks besides the fact that elementals, undead, constructs and most evil outsiders (i.e., opponents that characters level 8+ are likely to be facing) simply ignore the ability.

Cheers!

...and to you as well!

 

[Nail]

Odd, Nail. When working it out longhad, I get the GS wielder at an average of 118.8 damage per round as well...

I guess I better send Thott a bug report.

Whew.

I was getting nervous that I had missed something.

Since I've never played NWN, I'm not sure what sort of implementation they have. I suspect that the problem is in how they calculate criticals and the extra bonus damage form things like holy, flaming, etc. Too bad it's not 3.5e compliant.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Whew.

Since I've never played NWN, I'm not sure what sort of implementation they have. I suspect that the problem is in how they calculate criticals and the extra bonus damage form things like holy, flaming, etc. Too bad it's not 3.5e compliant.

Well, like I said, NWN multiplies those numbers on a critical hit - so a Flaming Greatsword would do 4d6 (slashing) + 2d6 (fire) on a critical hit.

I fixed that by adding in a damage penalty on a critical hit equal to the average damage of the enhancements (in this case, -3.5).

My numbers agree with the calculator's as far as average damage on a normal hit and average damage on a critical hit - as must yours, if you stop and check.

What we don't agree on is the average damage per round derived from those figures.

 

[Wish]

Since we moved to 3.5 I have never seen any of the buff spells cast...until I house ruled them. Yes, I know "objection! anecdotal evidence!" but, in my experience. mages cast Enlarge Person if they want to buff the fighter. They cast Shield or Mirror Image to improve their defenses and False Life to improve hit points.

I'm going to chime in to agree here. They just don't see any use. I've seen them cast in a few, very limited circumstances, but not on any regular basis. Those circumstances are one of the following:
1) Magic item creation (making a stat boost item).
2) It's the cleric's 2nd level domain spell (Bull's Strength mostly).
3) PCs have advance knowledge of a single big fight (eg - the low level wizard casts Fox's Cunning to jack up his save DCs, knowing that he's got only one fight today and it probably won't last long enough for him to need his full aresenal).

 

[Nail]

Back on topic:

In both my games I have seen the 3.5e buffing spells used...even in the game where we play 11th -12th level PCs. At high levels we're using them in fights that eiether we know are about to happen, or ones that we know we can win.

For the second category, think of it this way: we don't want to waste resources on an easy fight....and at 12th level, 2nd level spells are not usually big contributors in the big fights. For the small fights, though, they are enough of a contribution to "get it over with" in a few rounds.

In the 12th level game, the buff spells we use are Bull's Strength, Bear's endurance, and Cat's Grace......and they are used on those that don't already have stat boosters, obviously.

.....
Another way I see these spells as useful is in providing a basis for custom spells. Since a 2nd level spell can give a +4 bonus for 1 min/level, what must a 5th level spell be able to do? YMMV, but I'd argue +6 bonus for hours.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I have only very rarely seen the anibuff spells used in 3.5 I occasionally see them cast by a cleric with bull's strength as a domain spell but it's far more common for strength domain clerics to just prep another Enlarge Person in their second level domain slot. (You see, 1 min/level Enlarge Person is a good 1st level spell; 1 min/level Bull's Strength would merely be an OK 1st level spell). I have seen it usefull cast once to let an enlarged, halfling fighter/cleric/monk grapple an advanced shadow-template dire bat. But that's very much a corner case (and from a player who probably didn't have the best grasp of spells or tactics anyway).

The only other uses I see for them are item creation and occasionally buffing a rogue's intelligence to help with a disable device roll.

 

[Storm Raven]

In both my games I have seen the 3.5e buffing spells used...even in the game where we play 11th -12th level PCs. At high levels we're using them in fights that eiether we know are about to happen, or ones that we know we can win.

So, you use them when you have prescient knowledge of what you are going to face, or when they make no difference to the outcome? And people wonder why they have been asserted to be useless.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Not so. Power attacking for a fixed value is DRAMATICALLY worse than allowing a fixed set of attacks to vary.

For instance, consider three examples:
1. The halberdier from the Fighter/PsyWar comparison threat (Ftr 20) vs. an AC 22 creature (I believe a summoned elder elemental is around that number).
Atk: +37/+37/+32/+27/+22 for 1d10+23 points of damage normally.
Normal damage: 130.625 damage (80.625 after taking DR into account)
Power Attack for 5: 175.175 (129.627 after DR)
Power Attack for 15 (normal optimal PA vs. AC 22): 234 damage/round
Power Attack for 16 (optimal PA vs. AC 22, DR 10/-): 194.5 (after DR)

It seems to me that, by varying the amount of power attack, you can get nearly a 50% increase in damage per round in this situation.

2. 10th level cleric: Hasted, Righteous Might (pre-erratta), Divine favor, using strength domain, with weapon focus and a +1 greatsword
Strength 14+8 enlargement+10 enhancement=32
Atk: +23/+23/+18 (+7 base+11 str+3 luck+1 weapon focus+1 enhancement+1 haste-1 size) for 3d6+20 damage (+16 str, +3 luck, +1 enh)
vs. AC 16 target (raging 8th level barbarian)
No power attack: 95.6175 average damage/round including crits
Power Attack 5: 127.74 including crits
Power Attack 7: 132.165 including crits

Especially at higher levels, optimum PA is a lot better than a fixed power attack of 5. And, while players may not be able to reliably calculate the optimum PA at tables, they can come a good deal closer to it than simply selecting a fixed number like 5. I know I happened upon something pretty close to the optimul PA number when my fighter/wizard ended up fighting an advanced legendary tyranosaurus this weekend. When my 10th level cleric was fighting the barbarian, I also landed on the optimal power attack number. Against the Clay Golem in the next battle I think I got the optimal power attack number as well. (When the optimal number is "everything" it's not that hard). And I'm a lot less organized in that regard than a good number of players I know. One friend in Vancouver has three pages of flip charts describing optimal power attacks for single and full attack against any particular AC with any given set of buffs. He keeps it in the same binder as his character sheet. Even for people who don't do calculations at the table, they usually have several groups of set power attack values (2, 4, 5, 10, and everything are the ones I see most often) and are often able to pick one that is more advantageous than 5.

In short, I don't think a fixed value does justice to the effect power attack has at the game table. Using a fixed value results in a much flatter and more linear chart while using an adjustable power attack will result in a more curved chart with higher low-AC damage and a gentler fall-off as ACs get higher.

EB: Power Attacking for a fixed value - in this case, 5 - is no better or worse than allowing each particular set of attacks to vary, and may in fact be worse. In the interest of minimizing extraneous variables (and since the likelihood of a player calculating optimum PA ratios at table-time is rather small), I think it's a fine simplification. YMMV, of course.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Sorry, EB - Perhaps I didn't explain correctly.

Picking a single value for Power Attack in this case is suboptimal in a "Damage Per Round Against AC BLah" kind of way; sure.

However, we're not discussing the optimal use of Power Attack. What we are discussing is the effect of allowing critical threat range stacking on a falchion as compared to a greatsword.

Given the nature of this comparison, it is only fair that the falchion wielder and the greatsword wielder Power Attack for the same amount on each strike - otherwise, the comparison becomes more of a "Which player can do the math in his head faster" comparison, and less a pure comparison of the weapons.

Therefore, yes, vary the PA if you must, but you must keep the PA ratio the same on both runs (falchion vs. greatsword).

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I think that keeping power attack values the same on general principle would obscure the results of the comparison, however. If Falchions benefit from more power attack against certain ACs than greatswords do, then a fair comparison between the two won't put them at the same power attack values. That would be a bit like comparing the range of a 10 mpg SUV with a 28 gal tank and a 12 mpg SUV with a 20gal tank on 20 gallons of gas rather than comparing their range on a single tank.

Now, of course there IS a "which player can do math in his head faster" comparison going on. The player who can pick more optimal power attack values will generally do better than the one who can't. That's the nature of power attack and it doesn't matter that much whether we're discussing greatsword vs. Falchion or spiked chain vs. scythe. If I'm right, picking optimal power attack values is probably more important for a falchion-wielder at low-mid levels than for a greatsword wielder. In that case, an answer like:

If you can do math quickly and accurately in your head, you can get somewhat more damage out of a falchion through optimal use of power attack. (As long as your foes are vulnerable to crits).

If, OTOH, you want to do less math, picking optimal power attack numbers is slightly less important with a greatsword.

Sorry, EB - Perhaps I didn't explain correctly.

Picking a single value for Power Attack in this case is suboptimal in a "Damage Per Round Against AC BLah" kind of way; sure.

However, we're not discussing the optimal use of Power Attack. What we are discussing is the effect of allowing critical threat range stacking on a falchion as compared to a greatsword.

Given the nature of this comparison, it is only fair that the falchion wielder and the greatsword wielder Power Attack for the same amount on each strike - otherwise, the comparison becomes more of a "Which player can do the math in his head faster" comparison, and less a pure comparison of the weapons.

Therefore, yes, vary the PA if you must, but you must keep the PA ratio the same on both runs (falchion vs. greatsword).