You nerf Haste... what now?

[Henry]

This whole discussion only really belongs in a power game, and FR is the most popular one out there in general.

Well, I can't reeeeally agree with that, since Limper's query was for D&D in general, but for 99% of the spellcasters out there, waiting till 15th level to cast that spell is balancing enough. After all, there are quite a few CR 15 and higher creatures who can either dispel magic, use anti-magic, or who can detect invisible things normally.

 

[LokiDR]

Well, I can't reeeeally agree with that, since Limper's query was for D&D in general, but for 99% of the spellcasters out there, waiting till 15th level to cast that spell is balancing enough. After all, there are quite a few CR 15 and higher creatures who can either dispel magic, use anti-magic, or who can detect invisible things normally.

If anyone tried to pull a persistant improved invis in any sort of "serious" non-muchkin game I ran, I would be very unhappy. In FR, you can do things like deeper darkness/blindsight, which is far lower level than persitant imp. invis.

As for creatures that could stop this, there aren't that many. Those that use tremorsense are defeated with a simple fly. IME, invisibility is not countered nearly as often as it is used, which makes it pretty darn powerful. I use this tatic in City of the Spider Queen, and I would say less than 10% of the written encounters can stop it.

*shrug* I guess it all depends on the game you are playing. I'm sure there are plenty of powergaming groups out there that don't use FR.

 

[durath]

As for creatures that could stop this, there aren't that many.

I don't know about creatures that could detect invisible but any PC class oppponents of the persistant II mage should be able to with no problem. Invisibility purge is a 4th level cleric spell and I think see invisible is only a 2nd level Sor/Wiz.

By the time any one of our players could do the persistant tricks their opponents could also have access to more powerful detection spells like true seeing. There is a counter for everything in this game. I've yet to see an unbeatable PC.

 

[ForceUser]

In my campaign I bumped haste to 4th and gave casters access to rapid strikes at 2nd.

 

[Seule]

I think the big issue is Persistant Spell. As others have pointed out, it gets very very powerful when used with spells that are usually limited to rounds per level, or other short duration. I think a reasonable fix is to open it up to any spell with a duration other than Instantaneous or Concentration, and just have it give x10 duration. That way all spells should scale in a reasonable way, that way Persistant Shield will last 10 minutes/level, Persistant Improved Invis will last 10 minutes/level, and a Persistant Mage Armour will last 10 hours/level, or a very long time. Persistant Tongues would last 100 minutes/level. Persistant Endure Elements would last 10 days, but for a 5th level spell would that really be so bad? You might want to restrict it to spells with a variable duration, and you might also want to limit it to 24 hours max. However, I think it would be afar better balanced feat.

--Seule

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Originally posted by ForceUser
In my campaign I bumped haste to 4th and gave casters access to rapid strikes at 2nd.

What are rapid strikes?

 

[shilsen]

What are rapid strikes?

I think it's a 2nd lvl Sor/Wiz spell that came out in Dragon. Allows an extra melee attack per round. I'm going off memory here, so I could be wrong.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I would watch those enervates, if I were you. Channeling negative energy is an evil action.

Now here we have an interesting piece of debatable terminology.

Defenders of the Faith does indeed point out in a sidebar that "Channeling positive energy is a good act, while channeling evil energy is an evil act".

However, this is a sidebar to the section about the use of turn attempts - direct channeling, for lack of an official term - for non-turning purposes, and goes on to note that "No class can channel both types of energy."

In the PHB, however, we see that Cure Light Wounds explicitly involves channeling positive energy, and Inflict Light Wounds negative. Heal channels positive energy. Harm doesn't mention channeling - it simply "charges an opponent" with negative energy, and Enervation "releases" negative energy.

By the literal wording of the sidebar, clerics who can spontaneously cast cure spells and turn undead - who obviously can channel positive energy - would be incapable of casting an Inflict spell, since "no class can channel both types of energy". Evil clerics would likewise be unable to cast Cure spells or Heal. This, despite the fact that none of the spells bear [Good] or [Evil] descriptors.

My contention, therefore, is that the sidebar stating that channeling positive energy to be a good act refers only to the "direct" channeling uilised by turn attempts, and that the use of spells which involve positive or negative energy are non-aligned, unless they bear an explicit descriptor.

-Hyp.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

lol, this is a new one to me. Someone saying that mages are less powerful than melee fighters. In my experience a mage at mid and especially high levels has better damage dealing capability than a fighter.

 

[Swack-Iron]

What kind of bonuses are these fighters using? I have never seen a fighter dish out more than 50 pt of damage from one attack. Several in a round, sure, but not from one. Maybe a charge by a mounted fighter w/ lance... Well, this isn't a smackdown thread.

I'm in that game with Unseelie, so I can answer that one for him (reconstructing the math from memory; I don't play this character). Torvo the dwarf is a Fighter 14/Barbarian 1. He has a STR base 20, with Gauntlets of Ogre Power +2. He uses a dwarven war axe 2 handed (for the 1.5x damage). He has Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec, as well as Improved Critical. And the axe is a +2 Keen weapon.

So, he's doing 9 pts. STR + 2 from Weapon Spec. + 2 from the basic magical properties of the axe, for 13+d10 damage (average 18.5 damage per swing; minimum 14, maximum 23). HOWEVER, the crit threat range on the axe is 18-20, so approximately 3 out of 20 swings are crit threats. Those shots that crit (probably 2 out of 3 crit threats confirm to criticals) his average damage is 39+3d10 (average 55.5 damage on a crit, which forces a Save vs. Massive Damage; minimum 42, maximum 69).

And all that is not even counting his Power Attack feat or raging. It doesn't hurt that the player has a reputation for phenomenally lucky dice rolling, so more often than not on a crit he'll be dishing out something more like 63+ points of damage. Imagine how much worse it would be with a greatsword (greater threat range), or a sonic burst weapon (more damage on crits)...

All of this is perfectly reasonable amounts of damage for a character a few levels lower than Torvo the dwarf. So LokiDM, why aren't the fighters in your game doing damage like Torvo?