Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kingius" data-source="post: 5966686" data-attributes="member: 85123">A quick counterpoint here:&quot;A DM might cry foul if a fighter made a 100 point attack against a dragon that he had to spend several feats to get, but a caster can essentially kill one with just one 3rd level spell called Shivering Touch and have no repercussions because of caster power. Which one should be nerfed?&quot;Shivering touch affects dexterity. In my 3.5 Rules Compendium it states that a creature with 0 dexterity cannot move, it doesn't actually kill anything. It's also a touch spell; it's extremely risky putting a 5th level wizard toe to toe with a dragon. It is also a spell for a specific campaign and not intended for use outside of it, whereas the Fighter we were discussing works in every campaign. That's not to say that mages are not very powerful; they always have been, but that somehow the fighter is a poor choice at high levels is the myth I'm busting. I've been playing D&amp;D for a very long time, incidentally, and there's something I've noticed... the mages run out of spells, given enough encounters... but the fighter is as effective every single round of every single battle. He's Mr Endurance.Edit to add some further thoughts: Hold Person paralyses opponents too. Its a devasting spell at low levels that I like my villainous clerics to use. The difference between the two spells being discussed would be a saving throw, but Hold Person works at a distance, wouldn't work on a dragon (of course) and does not requires an attack roll to hit. Later on, there is Hold Monster as well, which is also less risky to use because it works at a distance.Back on track though, to limit spell casters a bit, perhaps the rule that allows players to choose their own spells on leveling up is at fault. If mages have to find the damn things in dungeons to learn new ones it would be fairly easy to DM police overpowered spells. Does anybody do this?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kingius, post: 5966686, member: 85123"] A quick counterpoint here: "A DM might cry foul if a fighter made a 100 point attack against a dragon that he had to spend several feats to get, but a caster can essentially kill one with just one 3rd level spell called Shivering Touch and have no repercussions because of caster power. Which one should be nerfed?" Shivering touch affects dexterity. In my 3.5 Rules Compendium it states that a creature with 0 dexterity cannot move, it doesn't actually kill anything. It's also a touch spell; it's extremely risky putting a 5th level wizard toe to toe with a dragon. It is also a spell for a specific campaign and not intended for use outside of it, whereas the Fighter we were discussing works in every campaign. That's not to say that mages are not very powerful; they always have been, but that somehow the fighter is a poor choice at high levels is the myth I'm busting. I've been playing D&D for a very long time, incidentally, and there's something I've noticed... the mages run out of spells, given enough encounters... but the fighter is as effective every single round of every single battle. He's Mr Endurance. Edit to add some further thoughts: Hold Person paralyses opponents too. Its a devasting spell at low levels that I like my villainous clerics to use. The difference between the two spells being discussed would be a saving throw, but Hold Person works at a distance, wouldn't work on a dragon (of course) and does not requires an attack roll to hit. Later on, there is Hold Monster as well, which is also less risky to use because it works at a distance. Back on track though, to limit spell casters a bit, perhaps the rule that allows players to choose their own spells on leveling up is at fault. If mages have to find the damn things in dungeons to learn new ones it would be fairly easy to DM police overpowered spells. Does anybody do this? [/QUOTE]

Verification