The new Disintigrate?

[daemonslye]

They could have just thrown a [Death] on it.

*lol*

...thanks, I needed that.

~D

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

The real problem with that was not necessarily that disintegrate was too good but that Finger of Death was too weak. Comparing it to Destruction, for instance, it is weaker in nearly every way--especially in its effect on a successful save.

Disintegrate was changed since it was blatantly better than Finger of Death. WotC had to either change it's level or change it's effects - and they wanted to change as few spell levels as possible.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Disintegrate will still do a very good job of destroying materials. You'll still be able to use to destroy walls, doors, and other such things. It just won't be as useful for killing. No biggie. I always felt Disintegrate should be there more for material destruction than creature destruction. So start aiming at the enemies stuff, it will still work very well.

 

[Tar-Edhel]

Re: re

Disintegrate will still do a very good job of destroying materials.

Ok guys I give up. I searchd WotC's site twice to se the new disintegrate but I can't find anything about it.

Would someone be kind enough to direct me to the source of that info?

I'm beginning to feel WotC is out to get me. SF/GSF nerfed, Poly, haste and disintegrate, Scrying changed...

Each new change I hear about is something my wizards uses daily.

 

[Hackenslash]

Leave Disintegrate Alone....It Rocked !!!

IMHO, I think that Disintegrate should be left the way it was and not try and change it into a Blasting "Green" superpowered Lightning Bolt. Why do some DM's have trouble with characters being able to kill off their beasties with one spell. When I am DM'ing I let the PC's let rip with whatever they have no matter what, even if they do destroy the major enemy, that took me 3 hours to create, with one spell. If it works then fair enough, have a back up plan, if it doesn't then you all know that the caster is well going to be the next target of whatever vileness the enemy can conjure up or at the very least direct it's supporting henchmen to attack the wielder of so deadly a magic spell. So, go for it guys, let it rip with those distintegrates but be prepared to deal with any consequences if they fail....oh well that's my 2 cents.Cheers all

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Re: re

Disintegrate will still do a very good job of destroying materials. You'll still be able to use to destroy walls, doors, and other such things. It just won't be as useful for killing. No biggie. I always felt Disintegrate should be there more for material destruction than creature destruction. So start aiming at the enemies stuff, it will still work very well.

I concur. Disintegrate is very useful outside of its strict combat power.

IMHO, as a general design issue, it is best to weaken insta-doom spells, especially those of level 6th (or 7th) and lower.

I reserve judgement until I get to see 3.5 in total (even though this is going to hurt my Transmuter PC).

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Why do some DM's have trouble with characters being able to kill off their beasties with one spell.

Because it isn't fun when a PC does it all the time?
Because a battle that only lasts one round isn't fun?
Because the non-wizard didn't get to do anything, and they aren't having fun?
Because a smart villain would find a way to become immune to Disintegrate within the rules ... oh wait, there's no Disintegrate ward.
Because it interferes with the CR system (the CR guesstimator appears to ignore saving throws)?

 

[Kraedin]

Would someone be kind enough to direct me to the source of that info?

Dungeon #100.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

All of that would be much more convincing if:

A. The PCs weren't constantly one failed save away from death.

B. PC wizards got enough spells that they could afford to spend the 6 or 8 high level spells/encounter that DMs seem to require before the encounter is "fun."

C. If disintegrate really did result in single spell battles. The iconic example of this compaint seems to me to be Wizardru's Winterwight succumbing to a Disintegrate in round 4 or 5 of the combat (After the PCs either failed to beat his spell resistance or he saved against every other spell that had been tossed at him). My experience with Hold Person (which regularly receives similar complaints) is the same. For the one time, it enabled a 4th level party to defeat the fiendish evil cleric in round 1, there were ten or eleven times that the enemy made his or her save or that taking out the one foe left seven others alive and kicking. PCs with huge strengths, Keen scythes and improved critical, generate similar one round combats whenevery they crit yet nobody complains about that. I see disintegrate (and hold person) as being roughly in the same category.

Because it isn't fun when a PC does it all the time?
Because a battle that only lasts one round isn't fun?
Because the non-wizard didn't get to do anything, and they aren't having fun?
Because a smart villain would find a way to become immune to Disintegrate within the rules ... oh wait, there's no Disintegrate ward.
Because it interferes with the CR system (the CR guesstimator appears to ignore saving throws)?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

A. The PCs weren't constantly one failed save away from death.

I wish this wasn't true. There aren't enough long-lasting good defense spells. Opponents usually have low save DCs (check out the save DC of a titan's spell-like abilities), which isn't a problem if the opponent can dish out disintegrate every round but is a problem if an opponent wants to dish out hold monster every round.

B. PC wizards got enough spells that they could afford to spend the 6 or 8 high level spells/encounter that DMs seem to require before the encounter is "fun."

They can at 20th-level ... where did 6 or 8 come from? The typical encounter is supposed to last 5 rounds - not 1 round, and not 8 rounds.

C. If disintegrate really did result in single spell battles. The iconic example of this compaint seems to me to be Wizardru's Winterwight succumbing to a Disintegrate in round 4 or 5 of the combat (After the PCs either failed to beat his spell resistance or he saved against every other spell that had been tossed at him). My experience with Hold Person (which regularly receives similar complaints) is the same. For the one time, it enabled a 4th level party to defeat the fiendish evil cleric in round 1, there were ten or eleven times that the enemy made his or her save or that taking out the one foe left seven others alive and kicking. PCs with huge strengths, Keen scythes and improved critical, generate similar one round combats whenevery they crit yet nobody complains about that. I see disintegrate (and hold person) as being roughly in the same category.

Sure, if the DM goes out of the way to create a creature with really good saving throws, such as a cleric (good Will save) who is fiendish. (A fiendish cleric is an outsider, and is immune to hold person in any event.)

In any event, that winterwight example looked like it was actually a challenge. That would be more fun for me as a spellcaster player, rather than "oh look, it's CdG bait".

Or you can add spellcasters to every encounter so you have someone who can cast remove paralysis or freedom of movement - but then you end up with ridiculous scenarios. ("That tribe of giants has a high level cleric? The one in the black hat, right?")

Not every monster has the ability to cast death ward or other countermeasures that the players have.

Furthermore, the complaint was about high level - not 4th-level.

PCs with huge strengths, Keen scythes and improved critical, generate similar one round combats whenevery they crit yet nobody complains about that.

Sure they do. DMs complain endlessly about high-CR monsters having such wimpy AC scores. If they had better AC scores then the PCs wouldn't be able t o kill them in one blow - at least not on a regular basis. Ever wonder why so many DMs hate vorpal or polymorph other?