Thanks, guys, you've ruined Haste for the rest of us.

[loisel]

Quickened for sorcerors

People suggest that quicken will replace haste. Does that leave the sorceror hanging dry?

(Arcane preparation isn't core so let's disregard it.)

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Yes it appears that haste wins the hast/quicken spell fight. Yet, with or without haste, quicken at +4 levels will remain a crappy feat. It isn't even close to balanced with empower or maximize etc. It just sucks, in fact it sucks about as much as haste is overpowered. The best fix for haste I've seen is making it a full round casting time. so in you 3 round fight it would be 4 spells for the haster, and 6 for the quickener I'd still say haste wins out then again I go back to quicken sucking.

Hmm...I am going to reverse myself and agree with you that Quicken is weak relative to Empower or Maximize. In the simplest case a Doubly Empower spell is twice as good as the standard spell at +4 spell level. To get the same bang from Quicken you must burn that same +4 spell slot plus the regular spell.

There are a lot of apples and oranges examples, too. Many spells can't be Empowered at all. And some spells can be doubly Empowered to get a very impressive new effect, e.g. Double Empowered Fox's Cunning to crank up the spell DCs. I think these other cases are a wash -- the option to singly or doubly Empower a spell gives flexibility that Quicken does not vs. Quicken works on other effects.

What should Quicken be? +3 spell slot? +2?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Re: Quickened for sorcerors

People suggest that quicken will replace haste. Does that leave the sorceror hanging dry?

(Arcane preparation isn't core so let's disregard it.)

It is not difficult to alter Quicken to allow Sorcerors to use it -- make it an exception to the normal full round requirement for sorcerous metamagic.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

What should Quicken be? +3 spell slot? +2?

On the safe side I'd say +3. I think it is a slightly weak +3 but a strong +2. A+2.5 if you will. So to stay safe I'd go with +3, though +2 wouldn't be obscenly broken I think.

Doesn't change that I think haste needs a fix, just not the one presented for 3e revised.

 

[Quixon]

Okay, so a bunch of people complained and now Haste is nerfed. Thanks a lot.

What about those of us who thought Haste was perfectly fine the way it was? How can a wizard now hope to keep up with the damage that a fighter can do?

You are Welcome.
A bunch of people complained because the spell was so powerful that people would take it with their 3rd, 4th, 5th even 6th level spell slots.

And after play-testing WotC seems to agree.

As for how a Wizard/Sorcerer can keep up with the Fighters - well this comment is so out there I can only think either somebody is playing a Spellcaster wrong or your fighters are grossly overpowered or being catered to by your DM.

I have DM'ed many, many 3e games and have yet to see a Wizard/Sorcerer rendered useless by a equal level fighter - especially once pc's hit about 5th level. Hell, 90% of the time its the other way around.

 

[loisel]

i'm not sure quickened for sorceror will be in

It is not difficult to alter Quicken to allow Sorcerors to use it -- make it an exception to the normal full round requirement for sorcerous metamagic.

...except that, apparently at the Winter Fantasy seminar...

A long hard look was taken at meta-magic feats. In the end they are not being changed because the proposal did not have enough time to be play tested and the fix could have been worse than the relatively minor problem it would fix.

I feel a lot like WotC has been treating the sorceror like a second-class arcane spellcaster; I wouldn't be surprised if this no haste, no quickened thing, and (apparently) no higher # of skills weren't just a continuation of the same thing. If they don't like the class, they should just rip it out.

 

[Grog]

Re: Re: Quickened for sorcerors

It is not difficult to alter Quicken to allow Sorcerors to use it -- make it an exception to the normal full round requirement for sorcerous metamagic.

For that matter, I hope they remove the full-round casting time for sorcerors using metamagic feats - because as it stands now, metamagic seriously sucks for sorcerors.

 

[BlackBart]

Re: Re: Re: Quickened for sorcerors

For that matter, I hope they remove the full-round casting time for sorcerors using metamagic feats - because as it stands now, metamagic seriously sucks for sorcerors.

It's not a full-round casting time, it's a full round action. There's a huge difference there, and given that the only cost for a Sorcerer to use a metamagic feat is a move/move-equivalent action, they are generally better suited to using metamagic than a wizard is.

 

[Grog]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Quickened for sorcerors

It's not a full-round casting time, it's a full round action. There's a huge difference there, and given that the only cost for a Sorcerer to use a metamagic feat is a move/move-equivalent action, they are generally better suited to using metamagic than a wizard is.

Hunh. So it is. Luckily for me it never came up in any of the 3E games I've run...

 

[Dinkeldog]

Re: i'm not sure quickened for sorceror will be in

*snip*
I feel a lot like WotC has been treating the sorceror like a second-class arcane spellcaster; I wouldn't be surprised if this no haste, no quickened thing, and (apparently) no higher # of skills weren't just a continuation of the same thing. If they don't like the class, they should just rip it out.

Hey Loisel. Welcome aboard.

I don't think WotC treats sorcerers like second-class spellcasters. They multiclass into prestige classes that give per level spell advancement without losing a thing for one. For another, if you check all of their Adventure Path modules, you'll find that almost every arcane spellcaster is a sorcerer. They've gotten table time at least at all of those playtest sessions.