Post/Author/DateTime	Post
imthedci 01-12-04, 10:23 AM	Here's the basic question: How much of the materials in the class splatbooks (Defenders of the Faith, Sword and Fist, Tome and Blood, Song and Silence) that has not already been reprinted in a 3.5 book (i.e. core books, Miniatures Handbook, Complete Warrior, etc.) is 3.5 compatable? I've been making a list and there is a good amount of feats/prestiege classes/spells/items that haven't been updated yet and i'm just wondering if there is a document or something that updates all of the stuff not updated yet to 3.5.... Confusing, huh?:confused: :confused: :invasion: Thanks, Greg
q'afuu 01-12-04, 10:49 AM	IMX, very little splat book material needs to be updated.
d_nychus 01-12-04, 10:55 AM	Well, except for the broken abilities... Wait a second...
eudas 01-12-04, 11:09 AM	AFAICT, anything that has yet to be reprinted/updated in a 3.5 book must be examined on a case-by-case basis. Tamer of Beasts, for example, from MOTW, is defunct in 3.5, because the mechanic (animal friends) which drove its primary ability (animal mastery) is missing due to the removal of the animal friendship spell. Using spell research to bring the animal friendship spell back (and maintaining a distinction between animal companions and animal friends) enables this class to be viable again. [ See the following link for more information: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=155149&highlight=tamer+beasts ] Other classes have more subtle problems, and suffer from extensive erratas (both for the individual splatbooks and for 3.0 in general (and not only for classes, but for class features and miscellaneous feats)) and from certain mechanics being replaced by new mechanics (how Divine feats work, for example, was errata'd and modified several times, from what I understand, before it has reached its current Complete Warrior incarnation; for example, try to follow the development of Divine Might from DOTF to CW). In closing, I don't have any real percentage number to answer your original question, but I hope that this information helps anyway. cheers, eudas
paolung 01-12-04, 12:44 PM	yeah, there are some things that have to be re-worked, but for the most part they translate over fairly well. when they don't, a little work and creativity can fill in nicely.
d_nychus 01-12-04, 12:59 PM	Honestly, the translation difficulties existed in using the 3.0 spaltbooks with 3.0, too. I'm not going to say they were bad books, but there was a LOT of questionable material in them, especially in the first few.
eudas 01-12-04, 01:25 PM	Originally posted by d_nychus Honestly, the translation difficulties existed in using the 3.0 spaltbooks with 3.0, too. I'm not going to say they were bad books, but there was a LOT of questionable material in them, especially in the first few. Yeah, people say alot of stuff in DOTF was broken, but I really don't see that so much... then again, most of the PRC's in it didn't really appeal to me. But if you want to talk about terribly designed stuff, look at MOTW. The more experience that I get with D&D 3.x, the more I see how poorly written it was. Song & Silence (S&S) and Tomb & Blood (T&B) weren't too bad. The Psionics Handbook (PsiHB) could have been a splatbook if the author hadn't been trying to pad out his word count by copying half of the 3.0 PHB and changing two words per paragraph. Easily half of the book could have been '...as per the PHB, except x instead of y.' But I digress... this thread isn't really about *evaluating* the books so much as it is about *updating* them... eudas
d_nychus 01-12-04, 02:58 PM	Well, the biggest thing from DotF that I remember being broken in 3.0 was the Speed effect as a +3 ability. It gave a CONSTANT haste effect as written, which makes no sense, considering that 3.0 haste gave a +4 AC bonus. So, for a +3 ability, you got +4 to your AC, and an extra partial action every round. umm....err...hello? I'll take a dozen.
Kaya Kenobi 01-12-04, 03:35 PM	What I didn't like about the DotF is that the magic items were mostly broken.
eudas 01-12-04, 04:07 PM	Originally posted by Kaya Kenobi What I didn't like about the DotF is that the magic items were mostly broken. I think that, somehow, I intrinsically understood that *any* equipment guidelines in non-core books is going to be ridiculous, and so i spared it but a glance as i paged through to information of real interest to me. Then again, I think that stuff like item creation guidelines should be primarily of interest to DM's, of secondary interest to spellcasters with item creation feats, and not of much interest to others. eudas
danielinthewolvesden 01-12-04, 05:21 PM	I think they are all dead.:b: CW made it pretty clear that they are not just gonna make the old PrC's compliant with the new rules- rather they are re-writing them. I wouldn't allow anyone to start into any the PrCs from a pre-3.5 source and would allow the magic items & feats all on a case-by-case basis- and the answer is usually "no". Of course, if I had a character that was already a Splatbook PrC, (and that PrC hadn't yet been updated) but we'd changed over to 3.5- then I'd work with my DM to make that PrC complaint with 3.5, and play it like that until the new "Complete ..." came out- and hope the change wasn't too radical. If it was, I'd work it out with my DM. It seems clear to me that WotC meant to drop a few of the PrC- "Forsaker" for example. Forsaker clearly needs a re-write, and it is 100% "warrior"- but it wasn't in CW. Thus- this much beloved class of munchkins & 'armchair theorists" is very likely dead. :b: But if you want one- take a Bbn with a VoP and roleplay out that you don't like magic. :angel: Ravager is another, and there are a few more. However, clearly many of the DotF PrC will re-appear in the "Complete Divine". But don't get your hopes up about several of the paladin type PrCs- like the Hospitaler, as the "mostly fighting classes" were all supposed to be in CW. Note- AFAIK, there will be 4 "Complete book" for "fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue". No MotW "Complete" book.
Kaya Kenobi 01-12-04, 05:35 PM	Originally posted by eudas I think that, somehow, I intrinsically understood that *any* equipment guidelines in non-core books is going to be ridiculous, and so i spared it but a glance as i paged through to information of real interest to me. Then again, I think that stuff like item creation guidelines should be primarily of interest to DM's, of secondary interest to spellcasters with item creation feats, and not of much interest to others. eudas The only things worth looking at, is now in the 3.5 DMG which I embraced because everything I really need is in there: Trap rules from S&S Magic item rules from T&B
eudas 01-12-04, 05:39 PM	Originally posted by Kaya Kenobi The only things worth looking at, is now in the 3.5 DMG which I embraced because everything I really need is in there: Trap rules from S&S Magic item rules from T&B Heh, at this rate it becomes: "Why buy splat books? I can just wait for the next version of the DMG to cannibalize splat book content..." eudas
Unda Harvum 01-12-04, 06:38 PM	Originally posted by danielinthewolvesden I think they are all dead.:b: CW made it pretty clear that they are not just gonna make the old PrC's compliant with the new rules- rather they are re-writing them.I tend to agree with you, at least about those PrCs and feats that could be designated as "PrCs or feats mostly used in combat, and not spellcasting mostly". There's probably going to be Complete Spellcaster (or whatever they may call it) which will upgrade a lot of the other feats from the splat-book. But the fact that some feats are not updated, and possibly should be considered unsupported and dead (though no official word has come been said to this effect - the last offial word I've heard is that the splat-books are 90% compatible with 3.5 - whatever that means) - does not mean you can't use them in your own campaign. All feats from non-core books (and even core for that matter) is suject to DM fiat, and the same would be true for old splat-book material. The DM should just be aware that the feat he is allowing is (probably) not officially "in good standing" anymore. I for one would hate to see Expert Tactician go away in my campaign, as I've been working towards that for quite a few levels by now.
Kaya Kenobi 01-12-04, 09:29 PM	Originally posted by eudas Heh, at this rate it becomes: "Why buy splat books? I can just wait for the next version of the DMG to cannibalize splat book content..." eudas And thus the reason why the 3.5 DMG was my only 3.5 core purchase..
Asmodeous 01-13-04, 12:32 AM	From what I can tell, and knowing the motives of any profit wanting corporation, the splat books will all be replaced with books like the complete warrior. I think the next book, see front page is called earthen arcane or something due next month is the wizards/sorcerer book version which should be followed by a divine version, rogues/bards and a psychics. Then once, wotc have every book up to 3.5 released, then they will work on 4.0 phb, followed by a dm, monster manual just to keep our books turning over and the income into their coffers.
Dunelord 01-13-04, 07:25 AM	Originally posted by Asmodeous From what I can tell, and knowing the motives of any profit wanting corporation, the splat books will all be replaced with books like the complete warrior. I think the next book, see front page is called earthen arcane or something due next month is the wizards/sorcerer book version which should be followed by a divine version, rogues/bards and a psychics. Then once, wotc have every book up to 3.5 released, then they will work on 4.0 phb, followed by a dm, monster manual just to keep our books turning over and the income into their coffers. Unearthed Arcana is what your thinking of. It is a redo of some earlier editions alternative rules books updated for 3.5. Has stuff like different ways to role up characters and alterantive class powers. I have looked at some of previews and it seems pretty cool.
Kaya Kenobi 01-13-04, 07:27 AM	Originally posted by Asmodeous From what I can tell, and knowing the motives of any profit wanting corporation, the splat books will all be replaced with books like the complete warrior. I think the next book, see front page is called earthen arcane or something due next month is the wizards/sorcerer book version which should be followed by a divine version, rogues/bards and a psychics. Then once, wotc have every book up to 3.5 released, then they will work on 4.0 phb, followed by a dm, monster manual just to keep our books turning over and the income into their coffers. I haven't bought any 3.5 books other than the 3.5 DMG and Dragonlance..
danielinthewolvesden 01-13-04, 06:50 PM	Originally posted by Unda Harvum I tend to agree with you, at least about those PrCs and feats that could be designated as "PrCs or feats mostly used in combat, and not spellcasting mostly". There's probably going to be Complete Spellcaster (or whatever they may call it) which will upgrade a lot of the other feats from the splat-book. I for one would hate to see Expert Tactician go away in my campaign, as I've been working towards that for quite a few levels by now. Thanks. Yes, the next book, out in Spring will be the Complete Divine or something like that. Then an Arcane then a rogue. In the Mini-Handbook there is a new Tactical soldier PrC or something like that. Check it out. :cool:
Kaya Kenobi 01-13-04, 06:58 PM	Originally posted by danielinthewolvesden Thanks. Yes, the next book, out in Spring will be the Complete Divine or something like that. Then an Arcane then a rogue. In the Mini-Handbook there is a new Tactical soldier PrC or something like that. Check it out. :cool: You've got to be kidding with me... More splat books..
Karlindel 01-13-04, 07:36 PM	Most of the classes are relatively 3.5 compatible. You may need some minor changes, but I tended to tweak PrCs myself in my campaigns anyway. I would say that about 60% is 3.5 compatible with only cosmetic changes(changing Wilderness Lore to Survival, removing Intuit Direction, etc.). You could check out the Living Greyhawk Campaign Sourcebook www.living-greyhawk.com in the files section. It has an update for most of those Prestige Classes that need to change. The authors have mentioned that the Complete series of books will not include a large amount of re-hashed material. However, some classes will be updated, such as Spellsword was in Complete Warrior. I think the Complete books will be a lot like the splat books, in that there will be very little in them that I will find worthwhile. I personally like the tactical feats, one of the few good new things introduced in Complete Warrior.
Eldren 01-13-04, 07:50 PM	As you can see, the pro-nerfers for 3rd Edition are alive and well, even in the version of the game (3.5) that panders to them most. :angel: For the most part, most material from the 3.0 splatbooks is as relevant to your 3.5 game as it was to the 3.0 game, all pending Dungeon Master approval, natch. There are some feats which don't make sense because of some of the alterations in 3.5, but those are usually pretty easy to port across. For instance, "Quicker Than The Eye", from "Song & Silence", lets someone make a Bluff check as a move-equivalent action, and if they beat the opposed Sense Motive check, they're able to deny their target their Dexterity bonus to Armor Class. The effective function of this feat is to let a Rogue with lots of ranks in Bluff make a Sneak Attack just about every round, as long as they don't want to make more than one attack a round (thus, this feat is more useful at lower levels; at higher levels, it's just better to flank, and get all your iterative attacks as Sneak Attacks). Some people are hoping spells like Miasma, from "Masters of the Wild", if they appear in a 3.5 updated book, go away or change radically. Personally, I hope that particular spell, if it remains in 3.5 "officially", stays just as it is. But given how much WotC has liked to nerf magic in 3.5, I don't hold out much hope. :headexplo Ultimately, the majority of the material from the splatbooks in 3.0 is valid unless there's an official (translation: WotC-published) source for 3.5 that supercedes it (like the 3.5 Archmage vs. the Archmage from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Sourcebook, which hasn't yet been updated to 3.5). Talk with your Dungeon Master, be aware of certain core mechanics changes (like the new facing rules, or the lack of a partial action in 3.5), and use stuff from the splatbooks as you're able and as is appropriate.
q'afuu 01-13-04, 08:30 PM	Originally posted by Eldren Some people are hoping spells like Miasma, from "Masters of the Wild", if they appear in a 3.5 updated book, go away or change radically. Personally, I hope that particular spell, if it remains in 3.5 "officially", stays just as it is. But given how much WotC has liked to nerf magic in 3.5, I don't hold out much hope. :headexplo That's that spell that allows a lone 10th level druid to kill the Tarrasque with one casting (and possibly a lot of patience), right?
Dunelord 01-14-04, 12:15 PM	Miasma was the first spell I ever banned from D and D. I mean no offence to anyone but I can't see how a logical argument can be made that it was a even closed to balanced spell.
eudas 01-14-04, 12:34 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu That's that spell that allows a lone 10th level druid to kill the Tarrasque with one casting (and possibly a lot of patience), right? Miasma is a Drd4 spell, so they can cast it at level Drd7. The duration is 5 rounds/level, which would be 35 rounds at Drd7, and while the target can hold its breath for 2*(Constitution score) rounds, it must make a Constitution check vs DC (10 +1*(number of previous successes)). If the victim fails, they fall unconscious (0hp). So most targets are pretty killable; just load up on a couple of Miasma spells, and a sharp knife... Miasma it, CDG it. Of course, the Tarrasque has to be killed and then Wish'd away, but that's a nit. The spell just needs a slight reworking and a saving throw added in; the concept is good, but the implementation sucks balls. eudas
q'afuu 01-14-04, 01:37 PM	The Druid can cast it at 7th level, but if he extends it and casts it as a 10th level druid, he gets 100 rounds worth of duration. That gives a decent chance that the Tarrasque will fail his Fort save at some point. Mr T can hold its breath for 70 rounds and has to make a Fort save to continue doing so afterwards, at a DC of 10 + 1/previous success. With a +38 to its Fort save he can save vs. DC 58 at best and will always save vs. DC 40 unless a 1 is rolled, meaning 48 rounds max before the save can't succeed and 30 min before a 1 is needed to fail the save. Add the 70 from holding its breath and 118 rounds are needed to be absolutely certain, 100 are needed to make the save fail on more than a 1. Even at 10th level it's not a sure thing, but at lower levels the spell is almost garanteed to fail. Provided the Tarrasque realizes he needs to hold his breath, of course. Personally, I don't see how anyone would figure that out before it's too late, but that's just another strike against the spell.
eudas 01-14-04, 02:17 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu The Druid can cast it at 7th level, but if he extends it and casts it as a 10th level druid, he gets 100 rounds worth of duration. That gives a decent chance that the Tarrasque will fail his Fort save at some point. Mr T can hold its breath for 70 rounds and has to make a Fort save to continue doing so afterwards, at a DC of 10 + 1/previous success. With a +38 to its Fort save he can save vs. DC 58 at best and will always save vs. DC 40 unless a 1 is rolled, meaning 48 rounds max before the save can't succeed and 30 min before a 1 is needed to fail the save. Add the 70 from holding its breath and 118 rounds are needed to be absolutely certain, 100 are needed to make the save fail on more than a 1. Even at 10th level it's not a sure thing, but at lower levels the spell is almost garanteed to fail. Provided the Tarrasque realizes he needs to hold his breath, of course. Personally, I don't see how anyone would figure that out before it's too late, but that's just another strike against the spell. Oh, I see. Good point; I wasn't looking at the Tarrasque's stats. Still, even if you look at the design, they probably figured "Well, the Con check takes the place of a Saving Throw", but I fail to see how they thought a Con check of 10 + # of successful saves was balanced against a duration of 5 * caster level; almost anybody that has this cast on them is *eventually* going to fail, and if you give it a long enough duration, the Con check becomes meaningless as you've so eloquently pointed out above; it becomes a "Save or Die" spell without the "Save" part. eudas
Kaya Kenobi 01-14-04, 03:19 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu The Druid can cast it at 7th level, but if he extends it and casts it as a 10th level druid, he gets 100 rounds worth of duration. That gives a decent chance that the Tarrasque will fail his Fort save at some point. Mr T can hold its breath for 70 rounds and has to make a Fort save to continue doing so afterwards, at a DC of 10 + 1/previous success. With a +38 to its Fort save he can save vs. DC 58 at best and will always save vs. DC 40 unless a 1 is rolled, meaning 48 rounds max before the save can't succeed and 30 min before a 1 is needed to fail the save. Add the 70 from holding its breath and 118 rounds are needed to be absolutely certain, 100 are needed to make the save fail on more than a 1. Even at 10th level it's not a sure thing, but at lower levels the spell is almost garanteed to fail. Provided the Tarrasque realizes he needs to hold his breath, of course. Personally, I don't see how anyone would figure that out before it's too late, but that's just another strike against the spell. You know that all the Tarrasque has to do is step on the druid and the spell will be over, right? A barbarian will certainly kill the druid once he goes into a rage and plays stompy with him. I can think of so many things that will almost certainly kill a druid long before the duration will even affect the monster.
q'afuu 01-14-04, 03:37 PM	Originally posted by Kaya Kenobi You know that all the Tarrasque has to do is step on the druid and the spell will be over, right? Check out the Tarrasque's speed and the range the druid has on his Miasma spell. Even running won't allow the Tarrasque to get to the druid in the same round the spell is cast, and with that pathetic speed it'll never catch up. Mr T may be hard to kill (barring spells like Miasma), but he certainly doesn't strike me as a particularly dangerous opponent. Besides, contrary to what you seem to imply, the spell is not over when the druid dies. Killing the druid won't save the afflicted character from the spell. I'm glad you brought this up though, since I do have a remark about the 'holding your breath' mechanic. I was very surprised to find that holding your breath doesn't limit your actions in any way or conversely, that strenuous activity doesn't reduce the number of rounds you can hold your breath. A barbarian lying down motionless and holding his breath can't hold it any longer than if he was charging opponents left and right. Strange, IMO.
Kaya Kenobi 01-14-04, 03:49 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu Check out the Tarrasque's speed and the range the druid has on his Miasma spell. Even running won't allow the Tarrasque to get to the druid in the same round the spell is cast, and with that pathetic speed it'll never catch up. Mr T may be hard to kill (barring spells like Miasma), but he certainly doesn't strike me as a particularly dangerous opponent. Besides, contrary to what you seem to imply, the spell is not over when the druid dies. Killing the druid won't save the afflicted character from the spell. I'm glad you brought this up though, since I do have a remark about the 'holding your breath' mechanic. I was very surprised to find that holding your breath doesn't limit your actions in any way or conversely, that strenuous activity doesn't reduce the number of rounds you can hold your breath. A barbarian lying down motionless and holding his breath can't hold it any longer than if he was charging opponents left and right. Strange, IMO. Strange, yes... As is the rest of the game.. But it's a houserule where when the spellcaster dies, the spell ends too.
q'afuu 01-14-04, 03:55 PM	Yes, that is a houserule. As such, it has no bearing on games where such a houserule is not set by the DM, which is probably nearly all other games out there.
Dunelord 01-14-04, 04:37 PM	Why don't we compare it with other classes? Let's say a Dwarf at 16th level. If you play a dwarf Consitution of say 18 at character generation, + 2 for being a dwarf. That puts you at 20. Through in all your Stat gains that puts you at 24. Say plus r six from magic for a total of 30. That would mean you could Hold your breath for 60 rounds, but the spell would have a duration of 75 rounds. That means a character built to live through the spell has a 60% of dying, and I think we can all agree this is a pretty extream example. Anyone with a con under 25 is pretty much going to die.
q'afuu 01-14-04, 04:52 PM	I used the Tarrasque example because it's an extreme one. It shows that a single 10th level character can deal with a specific CR 20 encounter without spending more than 1 5th level spell slot, in a way that's nearly garanteed to work and which pretty much involves no risk to the character. Ok, that's for a large part due to the Tarrasque being a badly designed creature, but still. Added problem is that the only way to properly deal with this is a Dispel of some sort. Since that's a spell with a verbal component though and I don't know any PCs who routinely prepare a Silenced one, that solution often doesn't work - target the casters (who often have a bad Fort save anyway) and you take away the opposition's best (if not only) chance of beating the spell, while seriously reducing those caster's options at the same time since they can't cast anything with a verbal component.
eudas 01-15-04, 10:36 AM	[edited for redundancy.] eudas
danielinthewolvesden 01-15-04, 12:07 PM	Originally posted by Karlindel You could check out the Living Greyhawk Campaign Sourcebook www.living-greyhawk.com in the files section. It has an update for most of those Prestige Classes that need to change. However- do note one important thing from that site- altho one can keep levels in a non-updated PrC- one can not enter it or gain new levels in it. Thus, the non-updated PrC's are effectively dead.:b:
danielinthewolvesden 01-15-04, 12:09 PM	Originally posted by Eldren Ultimately, the majority of the material from the splatbooks in 3.0 is valid unless there's an official (translation: WotC-published) source for 3.5 that supercedes it (like the 3.5 Archmage vs. the Archmage from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Sourcebook, which hasn't yet been updated to 3.5). Many have said this, but it is clear that some PrC's & Feats have simply been dropped, and will NOT be updated. For example- the Forsaker. I *DO* wish that WotC would make this clear!
Nick Soapdish 01-15-04, 03:04 PM	Originally posted by Kaya Kenobi Strange, yes... As is the rest of the game.. But it's a houserule where when the spellcaster dies, the spell ends too. Can a spellcaster voluntarily end any spell then (other than suicide)?
q'afuu 01-15-04, 03:46 PM	Originally posted by Nick Soapdish Can a spellcaster voluntarily end any spell then (other than suicide)? If you're asking about the official rules: no. Only the ones with the Dismissible tag (D) in the duration and the ones that require concentration to maintain. As said, under the official rules death of the caster doesn't end a spell either.
Eldren 01-15-04, 08:30 PM	You know, I didn't want to turn this into another Miasma-bashing thread, but since everyone seems intent on it, I'm going to weigh in. It's been awhile, anyway, since this spell has been really argued about, and I admit to missing the near flamewars that erupted in the past. :devil: Q'afuu said earlier in this thread that he didn't understand how someone would know to hold their breath... Well, you just kinda do. If you're choking, you hold your breath to stop air attempting (and failing) to come in. This ceases the involuntary muscle spasms as you choke. This lets you be a little more calm and centered, and gives you a chance to seek out assistance. The rules for holding one's breath in Dungeons & Dragons don't come anywhere close to approximating holding one's breath in real life. Most people have a tough time holding their breath for two or three minutes; if your brain goes without oxygen for 6 minutes, brain damage begins to set in. 10 rounds equals 1 minute. You can hold your breath for a number of rounds equal to twice your Constitution. This means your average peasant with a Constitution of 10 can hold their breath for a full 2 minutes, a feat that's normally reserved for well-conditioned athletes in sports like swimming. Any Dungeon Master who would deny their PCs the chance to hold their breath if affected by this spell seriously has it in for those PCs, and needs to consider handing over the screen and the Dungeon Master's Guide to someone else until they can curb their violent anti-player tendencies and be objective again. If you have to be uber-realistic about this, though, consider: Most PCs adventure in a world where magic is reasonably common amongst adventurers. Sure, commoners are still highly suspicious of the strange guy in the pointy hat who sets up a tower on the edge of town, and has strange lights, sounds and smells coming from the tower at all hours, but an adventurer is just going to shrug and say, "Feh. Wizards." Magic is commonplace to adventurers. They take it for granted that the grievous wounds they suffer in a fight are going to be dealt with by holy power from a Cleric not too long after the fight is over (or if the fight is protracted, during the fight). They come to a point where they take it for granted, if somewhat miraculous, that they can be brought back from the dead for a few thousand gold coins and 6 seconds of casting time. With all of this being a regular set of occurrences in an adventurer's life, is it really that huge of a stretch to assume that if one can't breathe, when they could just six seconds ago, that they're being affected by magic, and their best bet to stave off the effects is to hold their breath? It requires some logical extrapolation, but I'd have a hard time playing under a Dungeon Master who wouldn't let a Necklace of Adaptation protect someone from Miasma. Sure, the Necklace's description doesn't specifically say it protects against that spell. Then again, that spell hadn't been published at the time the rules for the Necklace were. I'm willing to concede that the spell is probably too powerful for the level it's at, and would probably want to raise its level by two or so, but that would be about it. Remember that anything and everything from the splatbooks is optional, and if a Dungeon Master doesn't want a spell or feat from "Masters of the Wild" in their campaign, then quite simply, the spell or feat in question isn't in their campaign. But making outlandish and absolutist statements like "That's overpowered!" is a pretty lame pasttime. It might be overpowered for your game, but that doesn't mean it is for someone else's. More to the point, an intelligent Dungeon Master who has reasonable knowledge and mastery of the rules will have no problems finding ways to challenge his or her players no matter what abilities from the Core Rulebooks or optional rulesets are in use in the game. Nerfing magic is doing nothing but punishing the players. You're cheating them of the power their characters earned the right to use. Don't nerf magic, alter the circumstances so that the magic remains challenging, but that the character with the magic is challenged in spite of the spells they're using. That's a Dungeon Master's job. The DM's job isn't to act as game editor and suddenly nerf any and all magic they don't feel personally equipped to handle. Don't use it as an excuse to give up and just take something away from the players; use it as an excuse to become a better Dungeon Master. Because God forbid that someone might have to put some effort into being a Dungeon Master... :rolleyes:
q'afuu 01-15-04, 08:50 PM	I'll just address a few of these points. Originally posted by Eldren 1) Q'afuu said earlier in this thread that he didn't understand how someone would know to hold their breath... Well, you just kinda do. If you're choking, you hold your breath to stop air attempting (and failing) to come in. This ceases the involuntary muscle spasms as you choke. This lets you be a little more calm and centered, and gives you a chance to seek out assistance. 2) Any Dungeon Master who would deny their PCs the chance to hold their breath if affected by this spell seriously has it in for those PCs, and needs to consider handing over the screen and the Dungeon Master's Guide to someone else until they can curb their violent anti-player tendencies and be objective again. 3) But making outlandish and absolutist statements like "That's overpowered!" is a pretty lame pasttime. It might be overpowered for your game, but that doesn't mean it is for someone else's. 4) More to the point, an intelligent Dungeon Master who has reasonable knowledge and mastery of the rules will have no problems finding ways to challenge his or her players no matter what abilities from the Core Rulebooks or optional rulesets are in use in the game. Nerfing magic is doing nothing but punishing the players. You're cheating them of the power their characters earned the right to use. Don't nerf magic, alter the circumstances so that the magic remains challenging, but that the character with the magic is challenged in spite of the spells they're using. That's a Dungeon Master's job. The DM's job isn't to act as game editor and suddenly nerf any and all magic they don't feel personally equipped to handle. Don't use it as an excuse to give up and just take something away from the players; use it as an excuse to become a better Dungeon Master. 5) Because God forbid that someone might have to put some effort into being a Dungeon Master... :rolleyes: 1) In this case, by the time you start choking you can't inhale anymore. Best case scenario: you just inhaled. Not to fill your lungs to max capacity, just breathing. I agree the rules for holding your breath don't rhyme with the real world, but in light of this the difference is really extreme. Take a normal breath and see how long you can hold it. Then do the same while doing some light exercise. You'll be lucky if you get to half a minute. 2) IMO, any DM who uses this spell against the PCs has it in for his players period, regardless of whether or not they get to hold their breath. In all but a few cases, the spell is a killer. Save or don't save and die either way. 3) Let's say it's overpowered for more or less standard games, where the official Crs apply and where stats and equipment available to the PCs more or less correspond with what the DMG suggests. 4) It's not even so much the players' use of the spell that worries me. The real problem is the possibility that the DM uses it on the players. Like I said, use it against the spellcasters first and it's game over. 99 times out of a 100 a garanteed TPK. 5) Yeah, God forbid. God forbid a DM being able to see a spell (or skill, or ability, or whatever) for what it is and understand how problematic it is.
ManTimeForgot 01-15-04, 09:02 PM	The low level druid with Miasma cannot take out the tarrasque, unless 3.5 removed the tarrasque's ability to sprint. The tarrasque may have a relatively low movement rate, but when he runs he is going to outrun you solid. And his reach is such that when he catches up with that he will get to eat you. Game over. You are dead. And the tarrasque will simply regenerate when the spell ends. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
q'afuu 01-16-04, 09:53 AM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot 1) The low level druid with Miasma cannot take out the tarrasque, unless 3.5 removed the tarrasque's ability to sprint. 2) And the tarrasque will simply regenerate when the spell ends. 1) 150 ft once every minute isn't all that good and more importantly, doesn't allow the big T to fly, which a 10th (or even 7th) level druid can do thanks to his wildshape alone. 2) The Tarrasque is not immune to suffocation. Probably an oversight in the writeup, but there you have it.
Dunelord 01-16-04, 10:24 AM	Originally posted by q'afuu I used the Tarrasque example because it's an extreme one. It shows that a single 10th level character can deal with a specific CR 20 encounter without spending more than 1 5th level spell slot, in a way that's nearly garanteed to work and which pretty much involves no risk to the character. Ok, that's for a large part due to the Tarrasque being a badly designed creature, but still. Added problem is that the only way to properly deal with this is a Dispel of some sort. Since that's a spell with a verbal component though and I don't know any PCs who routinely prepare a Silenced one, that solution often doesn't work - target the casters (who often have a bad Fort save anyway) and you take away the opposition's best (if not only) chance of beating the spell, while seriously reducing those caster's options at the same time since they can't cast anything with a verbal component. Originally posted by q'afuu 2) IMO, any DM who uses this spell against the PCs has it in for his players period, regardless of whether or not they get to hold their breath. In all but a few cases, the spell is a killer. Save or don't save and die either way. The spell doesn't offer a save, so it doesn't matter what there save is in any catagory. Which to me is half the problem with this. If it were a level or 2 higher and offered a save I would say that would be about right.
Dunelord 01-16-04, 10:45 AM	That's a Dungeon Master's job. The DM's job isn't to act as game editor and suddenly nerf any and all magic they don't feel personally equipped to handle. Don't use it as an excuse to give up and just take something away from the players; use it as an excuse to become a better Dungeon Master. Because God forbid that someone might have to put some effort into being a Dungeon Master... :rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE] Have you ever actually tried to run this spell? Or better yet 2 Druids, each with a wand of it in your party? I don't belive in "nerfing" magic just because it is powerful, I do belive in taking out horribly overpowered spells. Somebody didn't do the math here is all this spell is, sorry. Now maybe in game where for whatever reason the PCs didn't use the spell to win every battle with someone who needs to breath you might have a point it's not over powered. But I don't want to presure PCs to act like fools, or at the very least someone who doesn't seak a tactical advantage when they are someone who wants one. If you can win every battle your in with a spell/reatlivtly cheap magic item why not do it? I would rather ban a spell here and there (my total by the way is 3) and have a world where a PC can take every advantage they can, if that is what they want to do. As to your comments on putting work into being a DM I resent that. I put a few weeks of thought into almost any game I run, and months into most. I am sorry if you think NOT useing one spell in an optional book is being lazy, but I must disagree.
q'afuu 01-16-04, 12:15 PM	Originally posted by Dunelord The spell doesn't offer a save, so it doesn't matter what there save is in any catagory. Well, it offers a save to postpone death, but in all but the rarest occasions the spell duration is too long for anyone to hold their breath until the effect expires. This does offer the possibility that someone does something about the spell in the meantime, but as I said the only commonly available solution to this is a Dispel of some sort - and those require the caster to be able to speak (since I usually don't see silenced dispels being prepared unless as part of a pre-defined strategy), which he can't while under the effect of Miasma.
eudas 01-16-04, 12:16 PM	To shift the discussion away from Miasma and back towards splatbooks and updating material for 3.5: Personally, I think that the people who made the MOTW splatbook were 1) real big fans of druids and rangers, and maybe barbs. REAL big fans of druids and rangers. 2) were making up a lot of reasonably neat stuff to really make their favorite classes shine, and had a lot of good ideas, but very poor judgement on the balance of many balance calls for their prc's, feats, and spells. 3) maybe got a little overzealous in some aspects of making the stuff up, hence making things like Miasma, and due to (2), here we are. Really, when it comes down to it, if they do most of the groundwork in coming up with the ideas in the first place, and putting out most of the mechanics for it, which you can then take and tweak to personal taste, then that's a good thing.. less time that you have to put into it. as i gain more experience with the system, i am more comfortable with fiddling with the bits. when i started, i didn't want to fiddle with anything... i wanted to play solid core only; nowadays, i find myself more interested in tweaking things to personal taste, and updating 3.0 materials to 3.5 is an excellent opportunity. eudas