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

[SimonMoon5]

I think a lot the problems many people here are having with the change in haste is based on how they play mages. They seem to want to be moble artilery with damage above the fighter for a short time. Is that what you want, or do I have it wrong?

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but what I personally want is not for wizards to do more damage than fighters, but rather for them to be able to do damage that is not totally insignificant compared to a fighter. For example, take my examples of a fighter doing 160 points of damage a round, versus a wizard doing 12 points of damage (per individual in the area of effect) per round.

Now, sure, great, the wizard may get lots of people in the area of effect... but if it's only 12 points, why bother? The fighter will be along in a little while to do 160 points. I must admit to being perplexed by all the people who apparently regularly fight armies of monsters that (1) can be taken down by that 12 points of damage, and (2) nevertheless pose a threat to the party somehow unless they are dealt with quickly by the wizard.

The wizard's damage is just not even comparable. If the wizard could reliably do 1/4 the damage of the fighter, that would be better. Perhaps even 1/3 to 1/2. I'm not asking the wizard to do *more* damage than the fighter, or even as much . I just want the wizard's damage to not be inconsequential.

And that's where Haste comes into the picture... or rather, leaves the picture in 3.5e.

The archer also can't beat my defensenes. I am a different wizard with normal AC of 67, always invisible, immune to death effects/energy drain/magic missle, and the first element that hits me. Staple gun sits at AC 30something.

Sounds like the incantatrix and fighter-archer in the game I play.
My incantatrix, however, has a level to go before getting Empower Spell (and the campaign's on hold for the moment).

Yet, since the game does not (usually) involve the PCs fighting each other, I'm not sure how useful this comparison is. (On the other hand, my incantatrix has Wind Wall memorized... just in case. )

 

[Petrosian]

I find it perfectly reasonable to judge ideas and discuss things based on "what we now know" and to leave " but there might be other things later that change this" until it occurs.

I find in quite ridiculous that people will flay an idea alive before seeing all the factors.

Interesting take.

Do you likewise find supporting, approving of, and arguing in favor of the ideas in the same situation equally ridiculous? or is this "ridiculous" only applied for those who disagree with you?

It seems to me that if the position is that there is not adequate info to disagree, there is not enough to agree with either.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Well that's about it for me. We could argue until July about "what if", no? We could assume things that WoTC is doing and we could guess about the balances and styles of play that will result. I find in quite ridiculous that people will flay an idea alive before seeing all the factors. So I guess we'll just see in July. I'm done debating a circular argument here with those that will not see all the information is not out there yet and a real conclusion can't be formed.

Peace.

I don't think it is ridiculous to say you don't like are in favor of X without the full info, as long as you admit that there is other info that may change you mind. People said the same thing as you before 3e came out, and yet most of my complaints for my games held up after I got "all the info". I'd say at least 75% of the things I said I didn't like from there releases I still don't like after play and the other 25% I don't like I jsut don't care about 1 way or the other. And I don't think I'm some unique paragon of foresight. I just have a lot of experience in playing and running rpgs and have a good fel for what I like and don't like in them. I feel a lot of people on these baords are the same. We may not knwo all the answers but as a general rule we know what we like in a game.

 

[Shalewind]

I find it perfectly reasonable to judge ideas and discuss things based on "what we now know" and to leave " but there might be other things later that change this" until it occurs.

I just have a lot of experience in playing and running rpgs and have a good fel for what I like and don't like in them. I feel a lot of people on these baords are the same.

Both very correct and I apologize. I was in the wrong for taking that kind of a defense and mind set. I don't think I can make an informed decision on this topic right now, most people here raise very good points (even if I disagree with some ) Sorry for the raised words. No harsh feelings, guys...

Good luck with the debate.

 

[LokiDR]

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but what I personally want is not for wizards to do more damage than fighters, but rather for them to be able to do damage that is not totally insignificant compared to a fighter. For example, take my examples of a fighter doing 160 points of damage a round, versus a wizard doing 12 points of damage (per individual in the area of effect) per round.

Now, sure, great, the wizard may get lots of people in the area of effect... but if it's only 12 points, why bother? The fighter will be along in a little while to do 160 points. I must admit to being perplexed by all the people who apparently regularly fight armies of monsters that (1) can be taken down by that 12 points of damage, and (2) nevertheless pose a threat to the party somehow unless they are dealt with quickly by the wizard.

The wizard's damage is just not even comparable. If the wizard could reliably do 1/4 the damage of the fighter, that would be better. Perhaps even 1/3 to 1/2. I'm not asking the wizard to do *more* damage than the fighter, or even as much . I just want the wizard's damage to not be inconsequential.

And that's where Haste comes into the picture... or rather, leaves the picture in 3.5e.

Your experience is WAY out of the league of mine. The only thing I have ever seen out-pace my spellcasters is The Staplegun. I have even managed to make one GM use pre-placed antimagic fields just because I was shutting down so many combats.

From everything you have said on this thread so far, I don't think your DM likes you, or loves the fighters. Your example of a "typical mid-level fighter" was the only example I can recall that did 130+ damage in a round. Can't you apply those skills to mages instead?

I agree that higher level attack spells are sorely missing from the mage spell list. I see that as the problem, rather than haste. 2 save-or-die spells with huge DCs at range make most fighters look weak.

Sounds like the incantatrix and fighter-archer in the game I play.
My incantatrix, however, has a level to go before getting Empower Spell (and the campaign's on hold for the moment).

Yet, since the game does not (usually) involve the PCs fighting each other, I'm not sure how useful this comparison is. (On the other hand, my incantatrix has Wind Wall memorized... just in case. )

The example does show, however, that I can be very useful without killing the BBEG. I am an amazing scout, for example. I don't feel outdown by the fighters. In most cases, they just get chewed up and spit out by the creatures we fight and it is up to the evoke, Staplegun, and me to clean up. If not for the fighters, we three wouldn't have much of a chance, and they do inflict damage.

Without the extra spell per round, wizards will have to do some planning and strategy. That I like.

 

[Petrosian]

FWIW my opinion on the haste change...

I think it is an inequitable reduction and one which makes for some stupid results...

Inequitable... i would have preferred it give a MEA, not an attack. A MEA could be used by a fighter to gain a full attack when otherwise he is looking at a charge or move-swing-once. It could be used by a sorcerer to cast a metamagiced spell and move or to draw an item and so on. The extra attack only benefits those who use "attacks" and not any other potential action.

Stupid results... so now since the only action gain we see is an attack, we will see sorcerers with quickdraw who routniely cast a spell and then throw a dagger or who cast a spell and then fire an arrow shot, and so on. More likely, you will see "i cast my spell then throw a flask of holy water/alchemists fire." type deals. That doesn't seem very mage-like to me, but that is what it encourages.

Indeed... who benefits the most from the new haste? Well, they would need to have both credible spellcasting and attscks... could they perhaps be CLERICS!!!

yeah, that seems like a goodm well thought out, controlled change to me.

 

[Pax]

Yes, if he hits. Just like a wizard can cast a mighty cone of cold for 25 points of damage... *if* it gets through spell resistance. Since that won't happen half the time, that's actually only about an average of 12 points of damage... from a freakin' fifth level spell.

12 damage per target in the spell's area. No, not much per target, but if there're some 5 or 10 targets in that area ...

And, actually, there were some errors in my damage calculation. I forgot two things: Great sword is 2d6 not d10, so his average damage should increase by 1.5 * 3 = 4.5, making it 135 points of damage per round. Plus, I forgot that the whole point of this thread is that Haste still works for fighters; in fact, the PC I based this example character on already has Boots of Speed. So, let's add a fourth attack's damage to the total, making it 180 points of damge total. Now, since he would miss on a roll of "1", let's take away 5% of that damage, reducing him to only 171 points of damage per round.

So, against an opponent with an AC of 22 or less, he averages 171 points of damage per round.

No, sorry, you'll miss more than 5% of the time. See below.

I don't think that an AC of 35 is typical for monster of his level. For PCs maybe, but not for monsters. I'll check and come back.

For "you face but a single opponent" monsters, I daresay it is. Otherwise, for equal-to-party EL encounters, I daresay there had BEST be a half-dozen-ish targets ...

I also snipped your wizard example because it's not using the same conditions I am. My example barbarian/fighter is core rules only. I would appreciate wizard counter-examples being core rules only. Otherwise, I'll pull out a "typical" Deepwoods Sniper/Initiate of the Order of the Bow.

Those examples were in RESPONSE to someone else's OoBI / Deepwoods sniper example.

And I still disagree with the claim that damage to multiple opponents is as useful as the total damage being done to one individual. A fireball might do 1000 points of damage if it lands on a Creeping Doom, but do not tell me that fireballs are as good as a fighter who can do 1000 points of damage a round.

Then I daresay you are used to GMs who use (as a sole method) single-bigger-badder for increasing enemy-challenge encounters.

Face some ten enemies, such that the EL is suited for the party, and multiple-badguy-damage spells start looking a lot better.

Edit: after looking through the SRD version of the Monster Manual (well, up through E anyway), I find only a few creatures of CR 14 or below which have an AC above 22: hezrou with AC 26, Gelugon AC 28, Vrock AC 25, Cornugon AC 25, Elder/Greater Air Elemental AC 27/26, Elder/Greater Fire Elemental AC 25/24... and some celestials which seem a bit atypical: trumpet archon AC 27 and Astral Deva AC 29.

Try looking at CR 10 and CR 11 critters, and figure on a half dozen or so of them. Otherwise, you ARE implying "sigle big bad enemy" as "the norm" ... and it shouldn't be. At the least that'd increase the numbers of targets.

As well, remember that several monsters can themselves use magic items. Think Lich.

So, I'll compromise and assume an average AC of 26. Well, since the example barbarian's attacks are at +30/+30/+25/+20, and since I've already taken into account the 5% miss chance for rolling a "1" in his 171 points of damage per round, that means that the only additional miss chances come from that +20 attack, which misses an additional 25% of the time. So, I'll subtract 25% of one attack's damage (effectively subtracting 1/16 of the 171 points of damage), which results in a new average of 160.3125 points of damage per round against a typical opponent with an AC of 26.

You know what, fine ... whatever ... now picture FIVE of those enemies at once. While you take one down, the wizard takes half of the other four down.

And since neitehr is intended to function in a vacuum ... the wizard has just set YOU up for a possible cleave in the next round.

 

[Aloïsius]

It has already been posted, but, just compare the new Haste (third level spell) with some others.

*1/round per level, +4 AC, +1 attack, perhaps speed x2 (don't know for now)
The attack is pretty useless for a wizard, cause he will miss most of the time. The hypothetical extra speed may be more usefull, as is the AC boost, but the duration of the spell...well

*Mage armor wizard/sorc1
1hour per level, +4 AC.

*Shield wizard/sorc1
1minute/level +7 AC, + save bonus

*fly wizard/sorc 3
10 minutes/level, speed x3 (or more for halfling), surest way to escape melee attack

*Blink wizard/sorc 3
1round level, 50% miss chance, allow to pass wall or closen door, negate dex bonus to ennemy AC, half damage from corporeal source, allow to strike ethereal creature...

Haste was a useful spell, with a drawback : the more you cast spell per round, the more you lose spells. A fighter has an infinite amount of attack, you don't. Now haste is useless for a third level spell if you compare it with Fly, Blink, Mage armor or Shield. The right solution would have been to give an extra move, plus it would have been far more consistant with the spell's name. Now, just call it frenzy.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Haste was a useful spell, with a drawback : the more you cast spell per round, the more you lose spells.

The ability to get multiple spells out per round is very valuable. Furthermore, when you cast Haste the battle ends sooner, so no, you don't waste spells. In fact, after round 2 or 3 you can just sit on a rock and file your nails.

 

[Aloïsius]

And then, ten round later, new wave of monsters, and you don't have anymore spells. Oops. Maybe those four fireball in two round were overkill ?