What do you think of the 3.5 spell changes?

[Gothmog]

After reading several threads and noting the outcry over the changes to several spells in 3.5, I was wondering what the ENWorld community thought of these changes, and how they correlated with what edition of D&D you began playing? To summarize what we know:

* Buff spells like Bull's Strength have a 1 min/level duration, and bestow a +4 enhancement bonus
* Polymorph Self has a 1 min/level duration now
* Disintigrate is no longer an instant-kill spell, now inflicting something along the lines of 4d6 per caster level on a failed save, or much less on a successful save.
* Stoneskin is DR 10/adamantite
* Haste no longer allows casters to cast two spells per round- it is purely extra move or extra physical actions.
* Hold Person allows a save every round to break it
* Harm does 10 hps/level of damage on a failed save

My question is: What do you think of these changes, and under what edition did you start playing D&D?

Edit: Added Hold Person and Harm info

 

[EricNoah]

The changes don't bother me either way; it's hard to know how the changes impact the game without seeing the rest of the game; and I started with an edition prior to 1st edition.

 

[Gothmog]

Oops, you're right Eric, I forgot to put OD&D as an option. So without a moderator going in and changing to poll, I guess count OD&D and 1st edition as the same era.

 

[EricNoah]

Made the change!

 

[Gothmog]

Thanks Eric!

 

[A'koss]

So far the changes look very promising almost across the board. I would have done Hold Person a bit differently myself (one save, bound but not helpless) but toning down the Save or Die/Nerf spells are a huge plus (especially in HL/EL play), no question.

And like Eric, I started with OD&D as well...


Cheers,

A'koss.

 

[EricNoah]

Speaking of Hold Person -- you know what would be kind of neat? A "hold" spell that also makes the victim invulnerable while held. Kinda like held inside a tight-fitting force-field. That way they lose their turn like Hold Person, but it's not necessarily an insta-kill spell.

 

[A'koss]

I've heard the "Temporal Stasis" idea for hold before too, but it becomes an almost better defensive spell than an offensive one...

Wizard: "The wall are closing in! I'll cast Hold Person on the gnome, we'll use him to wedge the walls apart!"

Gnome: "I am not amus-"

Afterward..

Fighter: "Hmm... Gnomechakus!"


You could then also use hold on allies who are about to get creamed, turning them into statues to be healed later. Held targets also make for great snowsleds, battering rams, shields, clubs... the possibilities are endless.


Cheers,

A'koss.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

started with the red box, and well my initial impression is that I think they made bad changes. But I can't say I hate them yet.

some of these needed changes, others didn't, but whatever the change was I'm not that happy with it.

I'm anti save or die, so the disingrate idea isn't bad, but not what I wanted.

 

[Grayhawk]

Speaking of Hold Person -- you know what would be kind of neat? A "hold" spell that also makes the victim invulnerable while held. Kinda like held inside a tight-fitting force-field. That way they lose their turn like Hold Person, but it's not necessarily an insta-kill spell.

How about Otiluke's Resilient Sphere?