D&D 3E/3.5 Which 3.5 spells aren't improvements

[jessemock]

I disagree. If you are going to use Polymorphing as a weapon, most of the time you are not going to want to turn them into something big and powerful.

Untrue, one: the range on the spell allowed for some very interesting things to pop up in the middle of an orc horde--a subsequently 'confused' orc horde. Two, what's wrong with big and not powerful? Squirrels, newts, frogs--lame. Now, turning that terrifying bodyguard into a dolphin--that's funny.

 

[Malacoda]

I haven't read over every spell, but I like most of the changes brought to magic by 3.5e. I especially like the reduction in duration of the ability enhancement spells, which I refer to as Breakfast Spells, as at higher levels many of these were passed around with the morning breakast. One cleric called Endurance his "morning coffee."

Personally, I like the idea that most spells have short durations. Magic let's you do stuff better than a given skill feat or class ability, just not as long or as often. Invisibility is superior to Hide, but a rogue can sneak around all day if necessary, where invisibility lasts for only one short scouting foray. Plus, you can add a metamagic feats, such as Extend Spell.

 

[Scion]

I haven't read over every spell, but I like most of the changes brought to magic by 3.5e. I especially like the reduction in duration of the ability enhancement spells, which I refer to as Breakfast Spells, as at higher levels many of these were passed around with the morning breakast. One cleric called Endurance his "morning coffee."

What was the problem with this? sounds like characters making good use of their abilities.

Personally, I like the idea that most spells have short durations. Magic let's you do stuff better than a given skill feat or class ability, just not as long or as often.

But the shorter duration buffs tend to mean that you are more reliant on what your base class gives you. Which for the mages is pretty much zip. So that, in turn, forces them to use more save or die type of spells just to try to keep up.

Personally I hate both save or die spells and the shorter duration buffs. There was no reason to change them from d4+1 and 1 hour/level. If it was a problem in a couple of groups out there because they were low magic then they should modifiy it for their game. For normal magic games the spells were an interesting option, but generally not the best for lots of reasons.

Spellcasters get a pretty limited number of slots, and at higher levels low level spell slots are good for almost nothing generally. Combat wise that is. So you have utility type of spells that have decent durations or good effects when cast.

While many of the spell changes are fine, nerfing the ability to use these for the utility that they deserve is just becomeing a recurring theme. In properly made campaigns casters and noncasters are fine. When people start giving one side or the other too many advantages then people start to say things are unbalanced one way or another. At some point it will apparently wind up being where no spell can do anything at all, 9th level spells will be equivalent to 1st level spells now. Spell dc's will start at -10. Whatever. It is just a bad trend.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I haven't read over every spell, but I like most of the changes brought to magic by 3.5e. I especially like the reduction in duration of the ability enhancement spells, which I refer to as Breakfast Spells, as at higher levels many of these were passed around with the morning breakast. One cleric called Endurance his "morning coffee."

Personally, I like the idea that most spells have short durations. Magic let's you do stuff better than a given skill feat or class ability, just not as long or as often. Invisibility is superior to Hide, but a rogue can sneak around all day if necessary, where invisibility lasts for only one short scouting foray. Plus, you can add a metamagic feats, such as Extend Spell.

whopedee do the cleric actually used his class abilities, and cast endurance every morning. Of course a belt of endurance would cover him better but who cares. Now its a I only cast it if I was suffering from massive int damage and I prepared this useless waste of a spell.

Invisibility isn't superior to hide at mid to high levels, it is at low levels. What it did is let the scout at low levels get a bit more assurance in scouting, and at mid to high levels allow the primary socut to have some backup. Now its only use is in a fight, and for basic invis that's not much of a use. I guess it sets up a sneak attack for the rogue so the damage potential might come close to that of a simple attack spells. And it lets you get off a couple SM spells which as 1 round spells are vitually useless without some great defense.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

1min/lv Should be enough for short scouting missions in dungeons or the like.

 

[Malacoda]

What was the problem with this? sounds like characters making good use of their abilities.

My problem is not with the actions of the character, but rather with the spell itself.

But the shorter duration buffs tend to mean that you are more reliant on what your base class gives you.

Which I see as a good thing.

Which for the mages is pretty much zip. So that, in turn, forces them to use more save or die type of spells just to try to keep up.

I don't really agree with this. Stat enhancers are only a small number of spells in the arcane spellcaster's arsenal. Making them balanced does not suddenly cripple the wizard.

Personally I hate both save or die spells and the shorter duration buffs. There was no reason to change them from d4+1 and 1 hour/level. If it was a problem in a couple of groups out there because they were low magic then they should modifiy it for their game.

I was not running a low-magic game, and I found them to be a problem. Not a major, game-breaking problem, but still a problem.

 

[Malacoda]

whopedee do the cleric actually used his class abilities, and cast endurance every morning.

Sorry, you are confused. I was not complaining about the actions of the characters, but rather the power of the spell.

I never get worked up over characters using the resources they have available. Quite the opposite, actually. It shows they are interested in the game. I just want those resources to be balanced for their intended level. If I feel they are not, then I will complain.

 

[Scion]

Which I see as a good thing.

A good thing that some classes are hosed in other areas because they have casting, and then casting is hosed because it almost makes the characters all right? isnt that nice.

I don't really agree with this. Stat enhancers are only a small number of spells in the arcane spellcaster's arsenal. Making them balanced does not suddenly cripple the wizard.

Since a whole barrage were nerfed for little to no reason, it is getting pretty bad. And since they were balanced before they are just a waste of space now. it is better to cast nearly any other 2nd level spell instead, and a good portion of first level spells for that matter.

I was not running a low-magic game, and I found them to be a problem. Not a major, game-breaking problem, but still a problem.

What problem? the item it emulates is cheap, and much much better to have instead. It was merely an option for a much more vulnerable version that took a different resource.

Now, again, it is just a waste of paper and ink. Before it was useful, but only barely so. What was the problem?

 

[Scion]

I just want those resources to be balanced for their intended level. If I feel they are not, then I will complain.

It was before, now they arent. Time to complain!

 

[Malacoda]

And since they were balanced before they are just a waste of space now.

"No there weren't!"
"Yes they were!"
"No there weren't!"
"Yes they were!"

My experience show a number of spells in 3e to be unbalanced. I like many, though not all, of the fixes. This includes the stat enhancers. What's is the point of arguing it? I am sorry your experience difffers and thus the game was changed in ways you dislike. And, I certainly would expect you to voice your opinion. Mine differs. Get off my back about it.