Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Shadowfax7 01-19-04, 02:57 PM	I got a question regarding the 3.0 version of Horrid Wilting and maybe someone still playing 3.0 can answer this question . . . I know there are some REAL 3.0 experts out there as per their signatures. :D Was the official 3.0 version of Horrid Wilting errated to d6s prior to the 3.5 version. I seem to recall a post which stated that WoTC had errated this spell prior to 3.5, but it was not listed as errata in the PHB errata document for 3rd ed. (meaning 3.0). Thanking you in advance for your response.
Drizzt69 01-19-04, 08:08 PM	It was never erreta'd to my knowledge.
Sir Pandemonium 01-19-04, 10:52 PM	On the other hand, I swear it was. (Just like I swear that the Sun card of a Deck of Many Things was errated to only 20,000 XP) But, alas, I can not find the "ruling" anywhere. (For either.) So, I believe it was, but I can not prove it. :sad:
Dalaeck 01-19-04, 11:29 PM	1d8 fits the damage curve, d6 does not.
cwslyclgh 01-20-04, 04:25 AM	you might be thinking of delayed blast fireball, which was errated to d6's... horrid wilting never was (until the revised books) as far as I know.
Shadowfax7 01-20-04, 11:36 AM	CWSLYCLGH . . . you might be right, but like Sir Pandemoniom I could of sworn it was :D DALAECK . . . I would be interested in your thoughts/work up of the comparison of the damage curve for Horrid Wilting.
Eldren 01-20-04, 03:09 PM	There have been people who mentioned that it was errata'd to d6s instead of d8s, but I never personally saw such an errata. As far as I'm aware, the spell was meant to do d8s of damage. The thing I always found amusing about it was that it maxed out at 25d8, and since it did d8 per caster level, but the game at the time of the Player's Handbook publication only allowed PCs to reach 20th level, one wonders how someone was to get an additional 5d8 out of it. :) The Epic Level Handbook wasn't published until 2002, two years after the Player's Handbook had come out. Personally, I've always thought the spell should continue to do d8s of damage; you're having your freaking moisture sucked out of your body! That has to feel worse than normal physical trauma from other direct-damage spells. Of course, I always felt that the spell should do d10s of damage to water elementals... :devil:
Dalaeck 01-20-04, 11:25 PM	old wizard is glad to oblige :tiphat: The damage curve is a rough exponential and is as follows: 1st level: d4 maximum is magic missile 5d4+5 = 17.5 average damage. 2nd level: ignore 3rd level: d6 maximum is fireball 10d6 = 35 average damage 4th level: ignore 5th level: d6 maximum cone of cold 15d6 = 52.5 average damage 6th level: ignore 7th level: d6 delayed blast fireball 20d8= 90 average damage 8th level: horrid wilting 25d8 = 112.5 average damage 9th level: meteor swarm 48d6 damage = 168 average damage With horrid wilting in 3.5 as d6 then you have a rather huge gap in the damage curve... they didn't think this one out (gross incompetence). I have a little Excel graph to show this but I don't know how to get it online. I would gladly email it to you if you want.
J. Grenemyer 01-21-04, 02:32 AM	Originally posted by Dalaeck they didn't think this one out (gross incompetence). :rolleyes: D, I know you're more mature than that. Grow up! ;)
Sancus 01-21-04, 02:54 AM	Originally posted by Dalaeck 8th level: horrid wilting 25d8 = 112.5 average damage 9th level: meteor swarm 48d6 damage = 168 average damage With horrid wilting in 3.5 as d6 then you have a rather huge gap in the damage curve... they didn't think this one out (gross incompetence). Except this has no relevance to 3.5 because Meteor Swarm was also changed, and now caps at 32d6, not 42d6. So the comparison is 25d6 average 87.5 vs. 32d6 average 112. Of course, this is an oversimplified comparison anyway since you're ignoring that Meteor Swarm can deal 32d6 to a target with only a ranged touch, no save, and also ignores the subtleties of how dealing damage to one target is not nearly as powerful as dealing damage to many. Damage caps only tell a tenth of the full story of the power of a spell. You can't compare magic missile and fireball as an apples to apples damage cap comparison because the spells are completely different. Magic missile deals force damage, which is more powerful than elemental damage, but it doesn't allow a save, and can only deal that much damage to one target. If you split the missiles up, their radius is much smaller than fireball. Cone of cold is not as effective an area effect as a fireball is and has FAR shorter range, and so on and so forth. Damage caps are a silly mechanism that they should never have even bothered to discuss in the 3.5 DMG because there are many other things that need to be considered just as importantly in spell balance.
Shadowfax7 01-21-04, 11:20 AM	Thanx Dalaeck, your chart is adequate I don't need an Excel graph. First, I understand this pertains 3.0 and not to 3.5. Second, I can see how the chart increases damage max by 17.5 points every 2 levels up to 5th/6th level. Third, I presume you meant d8 delayed blast fb. . . .and this was a typo. > "7th level: d6 delayed blast fireball 20d8= 90 average damage" (unfortunately I don't have access to my 3.0 books at work, nor the 3.0 SRD due to weblink restrictions to confirm the error) Now, at 7th level the chart shows the max of 90 points which is an increase of 37.5 points (approx 2 x 17.5 points - double the previous bi-level increase) going from 5th to 7th levels. At 8th level it shows an increase of 22.5 points for one more spell level (which would be a bi-level increase of 45 points). This is approx 2.5 x 17.5 points. At 9th level it shows an increase of 78 points going from 7th to 9th level which is approx 4 x 17.5. But should not the damage max at 9th level be 3 x 17.5, instead of 4 x 17.5 to be in line with the chart OR the damage max at 8th level be 3 x 17.5, instead of 2.5 x 17.5 and keep the damage max at 9th level as 4 x 17.5 ?? Maybe I missed something interpreting the chart ?? PS to all . . . I do know that 3.5 attempted to rectify this by modifying the damage on DBFB and HW, but I am curios as to Dalaeck's computation of the 3.0 damage curve so I can compare it to 3.5's damage curve.
Dalaeck 01-21-04, 12:26 PM	Just looking at the numbers doesn't convey anywhere near the information as graphical analysis. http://univmail.mcmaster.ca/~ouellecv/D&D/Chart.gif Shows the clear exponential dependance of the properly built 3rd edition spell system. And the following damage progression for the "new houserules without ryhme or reason" known as 3.5. http://univmail.mcmaster.ca/~ouellecv/D&D/Chart2.gif Rather sad how poorly built 3.5 is. I was in utter shock when I heard this and I talked with the "designer" and he told me it now "fits the damage progression". That is not a lie. He actually said that. It's clear what we're dealing with here, I'm sorry J, this is incompetence or bias, your choice.
Shadowfax7 01-21-04, 03:02 PM	Dalaeck, thanx for those links.
Dalaeck 01-21-04, 03:44 PM	No problem! My pleasure. And Eldren in 3rd edition there's an item called a "bead of karma", which is a prayer bead on p.223 of the DMG. It raises your caster level by +4. The candle of invocation can further raise your caster level to 26. Any wizard can benefit from the bead to get 24d8 damage out of horrid wilting, only a cleric of water domain can actually get that last damage dice in there. :P Sancus: Cone of cold is not as effective an area effect as a fireball is and has FAR shorter range, and so on and so forth. Doesn't that also trigger warning bells in the back of people's minds that the 3.5 spell system is screwy? A 3rd level spell of the same school is in all ways better than a 5th? At least in 3rd edition we had a cone of cold that got larger for every 2 levels.
d_nychus 01-21-04, 05:04 PM	Originally posted by Sancus Except this has no relevance to 3.5 because Meteor Swarm was also changed, and now caps at 32d6, not 42d6. Actually, it wasn't even that high in 3.0. It was 24d6. There is no way to get 48d6 damage from 3.0 meteor swarm. The spheres only did 24d6 to a creature if it hit it, and there was no spread damage if they hit a creature. They only did spread damage if they "reached their destination." The charts above are catagorically wrong, especially the 3.0 chart. If it were a true chart of damage output, the 9th level wizard spot should be remarkably lower than the 8th level one. Meteor Swarm Evocation [Fire] Level: Sor/Wiz 9 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 action Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level) Area: Pattern of fireball-like spreads (see text) Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: None or Reflex half (see text) Spell Resistance: Yes When the character casts this spell, either four large spheres (2-foot-diameter) or eight small spheres (1-foot-diameter) spring from the character's outstretched hand and streak in a straight line to the spot the character selects. Any creature in the straight-line path of these spheres is struck by each one and takes 24d6 points of fire damage (no save). If the spheres reach their destination, each bursts in a spread. Each large sphere deals 6d6 points of fire damage. The four spheres explode with their points of origin forming a diamond or box pattern around the spell’s central point of origin, which the character designates upon casting. Each large sphere has a 15-foot-radius spread, and each blast is 20 feet apart along the sides of the pattern, creating overlapping areas of the spell’s effect and exposing the center to all four blasts. The smaller spheres each have a 7 1/2-foot-radius spread, and each deals 3d6 points of fire damage. They explode with their points of origin forming a pattern around the spell’s central point of origin (which the character designated upon casting) of a box within a diamond or vice versa, with each of the outer sides measuring 20 feet long. The center has four areas of overlapping effect, and numerous peripheral areas have two or three overlapping areas of the spell’s effect. Creatures caught in a blast can attempt Reflex saves for half damage. Creatures struck by multiple blasts save against each blast separately. Shows just how poorly the 3.0 damage scaling was when an 8th level necromancy spell did more damage than a 9th level evocation spell. 3.0 had the mistake of using older versions for balancing some spells and not for others. 3.0 meteor swarm was actually a weaker version of 2e meteor swarm (10d4 ->6d6, 5d4 ->3d6), while 3.0 horrid wilting was a much more improved version of the 2e version, which was already a very overpowered spell in 2e. Much more well done in 3.5 and better thought out in 3.5. and 3.5, as noted by Sancus, does not go on flat damage alone for balancing spell power. Differing spells have differing effects, and have to be judged accordingly.
J. Grenemyer 01-21-04, 05:33 PM	Hello Everybody, Originally posted by Sancus Cone of cold is not as effective an area effect as a fireball is and has FAR shorter range, and so on and so forth. Sancus, I think your interpretations are a little off. First off, the effect of an Ice Storm is a 60 foot Cone-shaped burst, for which the damage cap is 15d6 (as opposed to Fireball’s 10d6 cap). That cone shape allows for a high volume of space to be filled with the spell’s effect, particularly if cast from above your opponents (which is easy for a 9th level Wizard to do with Fly). Higher damage potential over a larger area calls for the spell to be placed at a higher level. Originally posted by Dalaeck Doesn't that also trigger warning bells in the back of people's minds that the 3.5 spell system is screwy? A 3rd level spell of the same school is in all ways better than a 5th? No warning bells here, because a brief comparison is all it takes to realize Fireball is not “in all ways better” than Cone of Cold. Really, Dalaeck. Why are you trying to deliberately mislead? :confused:
Sancus 01-21-04, 05:33 PM	Originally posted by Dalaeck And the following damage progression for the "new houserules without ryhme or reason" known as 3.5. http://univmail.mcmaster.ca/~ouellecv/D&D/Chart2.gif Why is your level 8 data point at around 70 damage? 25 * 3.5 is 87.5, not 70. Your graph shows that it doesn't fit the damage progression because your level 8 number is wrong :P
d_nychus 01-21-04, 05:45 PM	Psst, I think he's capping things off at 20th level, because Epic levels were designed by his most hated enemy, the dreaded Andy Collins. That foul fiend actually thought that one can advance beyond 20th level, a most heinous crime against the sanctity of the immaculate 3.0. Yes, no manipulating the data here. None at all.
Sancus 01-21-04, 05:52 PM	Of course, that would ignore the fact that there is at least umpteen ways to get your caster level above 20 in 3.5 without epic levels... Red Wizard, Archmage, ioun stones... and of course epic levels are core now anyway. I can make charts too!!! http://sancus.off.net/pics/3.5chart.png
d_nychus 01-21-04, 06:08 PM	Cool, want to make a real chart for 3.0, using the correct value for meteor swarm, and why it was never used in any of my games? 24d6, avg. 84 points of damage. It was never used, clearly, because we read the spell correctly.
Sancus 01-21-04, 06:14 PM	Eh, I don't really want to turn this thread into an argument about 3.0 Meteor Swarm interpretations since the spell was pretty badly written and is much nicer in 3.5, but ... I don't see why striking a creature on the way to their destination would prevent the spheres from reaching their destination, unless it's a huge dragon or something like that... I'm pretty sure that striking a medium sized humanoid wouldn't prevent a bunch of big ass meteors from reaching their targeted destination :P
Dalaeck 01-21-04, 06:24 PM	Horrid wilting 3.5 caps at 20 damage dice, not 25 like in 3rd edition, my data point is accurate, your data point is false. The 3.5 spell system is in all respects inferior to 3rd edition. D_nychthus you take 24d6 (no save) in the straight line path of the meteors and 24d6 after they reach their point of explosion (like for instance, you), thus 48d6 damage. Even by your limited interpretation, which is wholly false, if I select you as a target mr.D you are both in the straight line path and in their point of destination. Deal with it. 48d6. If you have house-rules and poor interpretation than that's your problem, not mine, nor the rules. I will point out to you D that it's not " A creature in the straight line path of the spheres" but " Any creature in the straight line path of the spheres is struck by each one." It is wholly impossible for more than one creature to be struck by each sphere if the spheres annihilate on impact. They do continue along their paths to their target destination and explode unless the creature/wall/whatever is so large that it blocks them completely.
d_nychus 01-21-04, 06:29 PM	Well, if striking a creature did not stop the path of the meteors, why the "If" qualifier? Any creature in the straight-line path of these spheres is struck by each one and takes 24d6 points of fire damage (no save). If the spheres reach their destination, each bursts in a spread. That's a big freakin' "if" right there. The only way that "if" has any bearing in the spell is if there was some way for th meteors to NOT reach their destinations...such as if they struck something else earlier. Note that the preccedent in D&D is that if an effect strikes something else before its orignal target, typically that keeps the original target from being hit. Otherwise, one can argue that creatures struck by missile fire while in melee would still not stop the missile from hitting the original target. The way the spell reads, you "fire" four or eight meteors from your square, to four or eight target squares. If a creature intervines, it takes teh full brunt of the blast, but there is no spread. But if the meteors reach their destinations, they go boom and spread out like normal fireballs. Now, whether or not this was intended, the fact remains that this is the most valid reading of the spell, simply because of that one "if" qualifier.
Dalaeck 01-21-04, 06:36 PM	I added stuff to my above post, read it please. The "if" is an appeal to reason, that if the sphere's hit the proverbial brick wall then they don't continue and burst. Line of effect is the standard for spells and line of effect is only blocked if there's not a 1-by-1 area for the spell to go through.
d_nychus 01-21-04, 06:40 PM	Originally posted by Dalaeck Horrid wilting 3.5 caps at 20 damage dice, not 25 like in 3rd edition, my data point is accurate, your data point is false. The 3.5 spell system is in all respects inferior to 3rd edition. D_nychthus you take 24d6 (no save) in the straight line path of the meteors and 24d6 after they reach their point of explosion (like for instance, you), thus 48d6 damage. Even by your limited interpretation, which is wholly false, if I select you as a target mr.D you are both in the straight line path and in their point of destination. Deal with it. 48d6. If you have house-rules and poor interpretation than that's your problem, not mine, nor the rules. Okay, even IF you interpretted the spell that way, which is questionable (read: wrong), you still cannot EVER have 48d6 damage from this spell. The diamond formation only allows one area to take the full 24d6 from the spell. That one area is dead center in the diamond, and is inelligible to "hit dead on" because of it. At the very MOST, this reading of the spell, which is wrong anyways, will provide only 30d6 points of damage (by getting hit by being in the "straight-line path" and then getting clipped with one of the 6d6 fireballs.), which is still nothing compared to the 25d8 points horrid wilting gets for one level lower, and to mutiple characters. Again, there is no way to get 48d6 damage from 3.0 meteor swarm. There is a way to get 32d6 damage from 3.5 meteor swarm, so it is a vast improvement.
J. Grenemyer 01-21-04, 06:47 PM	I'm really becoming dissapointed by all the false information that is being publicly posted. Originally posted by Dalaeck The 3.5 spell system is in all respects inferior to 3rd edition. This is not a fact. It is an opinion, and should be taken as such. Originally posted by Dalaeck .. if I select you as a target mr.D you are both in the straight line path and in their point of destination. Deal with it. 48d6. What an exceptionally rude post. There's no reason to get angry or become rude, even if you perceive yourself being treated that way. If the facts speak for themselves, then let them speak. Facts don't have attitudes, and are much more likely to convince without them. Now then, the interpretation above is in direct contradiction to 3.0 Meteor Swarm's spell text, which reads in part, "...If the spheres reach their destination, each bursts in a spread. (Emphasis mine). The spheres from Meteor Swarm (just like the seed of a Fireball) will detonate prematurely if they strike a character or object that lay on the straight line path to their target. ("Any creature in the straight-line path of these spheres is struck by each one and takes 24d6 points of fire damage (no save). ") Again, emphasis mine. Further, you cannot select a character as a target. You can only select a point on the map. If a character is located at the destination point selected, they will not be struck by the spheres, but they will be effected by each sphere's burst effect accordingly. Why? Because the spheres burst into a spread effect immediately upon arriving at the pre-selected destination point. A character is either (A) on the path the spheres take (damage, no save), (B) located at the point the spheres burst (hit by overlapping bursts, with save) or (C) on neither the path nor the burst point (taking no damage). :teach: [ADDENDUM: The term "any" in 3.0 Meteor Swarm spell text means just what it says. Literally any creature (regardless of size) can be struck -and thus stop- the spheres from moving on.]
Dalaeck 01-21-04, 06:48 PM	Originally posted by d_nychus The diamond formation only allows one area to take the full 24d6 from the spell. That one area is dead center in the diamond, and is inelligible to "hit dead on" because of it. Even using your interpretation, which is wrong again, a creature with some size could readily take 48d6 damage. Meteor swarm 3.5 is not only a downgrade of the damage, it also requires 4, count them 4 touch attacks, and because of the changes in the way energy resisitance is calculated (on a hit by hit basis rather than over the full round) it does pathetic damage to creatures with even moderate energy resistance. 3.5 meteor swarm is a pile of utter crap compared to 3rd edition.
Dalaeck 01-21-04, 06:53 PM	Originally posted by J. Grenemyer This is not a fact. It is an opinion, and should be taken as such. It's an opinion with a whole lot of reasons behind it... sorry J, if anything 3.5 screwed up it was spells. I'm also not being any more rude than D is. The spheres from Meteor Swarm (just like the seed of a Fireball) will detonate prematurely if they strike a character or object that lay on the straight line path to their target. No. Many creatures can be on the straight line path of the spheres. It says "Any" creature, not "A" creature. You cannot have many creatures being hit by spheres that disintegrate upon impact when it clearly states that " Any creature is hit by each sphere ". There is only one interpretation that meshes with the entire spell description: Any creature in the straight line path of the spheres takes 24d6. If the spheres are prevented from reaching their target destination (wall of force for instance) they do not explode into fireballs. A creature itself does not prevent such an obstacle. Everything in the area of the explosions take whatever appropriate damage.
J. Grenemyer 01-21-04, 07:08 PM	Hello Dalaeck, Originally posted by Dalaeck It's an opinion with a whole lot of reasons behind it... sorry J, if anything 3.5 screwed up it was spells. It's OK. We just have to be careful because some folks will not wait for the evidence. They'll just take the banner and run without first making an informed decision. Originally posted by Dalaeck I'm also not being any more rude than D is. Be the better man! You'll benefit for it down the road. :D Originally posted by Dalaeck No. Many creatures can be on the straight line path of the spheres. It says "Any" creature, not "A" creature. You cannot have many creatures being hit by spheres that disintegrate upon impact when it clearly states that " Any creature is hit by each sphere ". To review, here is part of the opening spell text for 3.0 Meteor Swarm (taken from the OGF SRD): Any creature in the straight-line path of these spheres is struck by each one and takes 24d6 points of fire damage (no save). If the spheres reach their destination, each bursts in a spread. Now then, without that lest sentence I would be tempted to interpret the “Any creature” text to mean all creatures. But, with that last sentence written the way it is, plus the fact that the designer (Sean Reynolds, IIRC) did not use the phrase “All Creatures”, there really is no other way to interpret the spell. So, while any number of creatures could theoretically be on the straight line path, only the first will be struck (by all the spheres) and effected. At that point, the spell stops. :D
Dalaeck 01-21-04, 07:19 PM	Originally posted by J. Grenemyer So, while any number of creatures could theoretically be on the straight line path, only the first will be struck (by all the spheres) and effected. At that point, the spell stops. No, that's adding things the spell does not say. It does not say that the spheres stop upon striking a creature. Indeed the spell description directly conflicts with such an interpretation because many creatures can be on the straight line path of any of those patterns and every creature must be struck by every sphere. The only correct interpretation is the one that makes sense with the whole of the spell, that is that if the spheres are prevented from reaching their location, by say for instance losing line of effect from a wall of force then they do not explode into fireballs. Any creature on the straight line path would regardless take 24d6 damage, though the spheres may not explode afterwards hitting the wall of force.
Dalaeck 01-21-04, 07:50 PM	Originally posted by d_nychus Shows just how poorly the 3.0 damage scaling was when an 8th level necromancy spell did more damage than a 9th level evocation spell. As that has now been conclusively proven wrong I will point people to 3.5 shapechange which allows you to use dragon breath weapons in 3.5. Throw in an orange ioun stone and now you can do 24d10 on round 1 with a collosal gold dragon, then as a free action change into a collosal silver dragon and do 24d8, then on the next round let's say green, for fun... yep. Hallmark of a well crafted balanced spell system. Brilliant. Just brilliant. Anyhow, this is old news.
J. Grenemyer 01-21-04, 07:50 PM	Hello Dalaeck, For the record I want you to know I can see where you're coming from with your interpretation. Also, I don't want this to seem like an, "I'm right, you're wrong" argument, because it's not. My goal is to make clear what the designers have made clear on their own a good 2-3 years ago. If a character is in the path of the spheres from a Meteor Swarm, they take the full brunt of the damage from the spell (all 24d6). At that point, the spell ends. The term "Any" does not have the same meaning as the term "All", and according to the designers is not meant to be taken as such. Objects are not listed in the spell description because it is already in the rules that objects can block line of effect. Further, their is only one path that the spheres follow, regardless of the pattern type the spellcaster chooses. :D
Dalaeck 01-21-04, 07:58 PM	I'm am again J, not in the buisiness of discovering intent of designers. I read the spells, and use them as written. I interpret only so far as the spell text allows me, as a DM, to interpret. In this case, I would be tempted to have the meteors explode on any impact, even before their pattern has developed, but that's not what the spell says. Nor am I here to convince D or anyone else for that matter. I think horrid wilting got nerfed, meteor swarm got nerfed harder and all in all 3.5 is an awfull rendition of D&D. I am still curious as to where you got any quote for 3rd edition meteor swarm so please post it.
J. Grenemyer 01-21-04, 08:18 PM	Dalaeck, you are really beginning to test my faith in you as a person. Originally posted by Dalaeck … you can do 24d10 on round 1 with a collosal gold dragon, then as a free action change into a collosal silver dragon and do 24d8, then on the next round .. Dalaeck, we are both aware of the fact that you were informed of the errata for Shapechange before the turn of the year. With that knowledge firmly in mind, why are you spreading disinformation by claiming the actions described in the quoted text above are possible, when in fact they are not? Originally posted by Dalaeck I'm am again J, not in the business of discovering intent of designers. But some of us are. And that knowledge is critical in any forum where people are trying to understand the game and alleviate confusion caused by the game rules. Originally posted by Dalaeck I read the spells, and use them as written. I interpret only so far as the spell text allows me, as a DM, to interpret. I can respect that. It’s what all of us as DM’s do to one degree or another. However, when new information comes to light (such as a designer giving his two cents on why a given rule was written a certain way), that information deserves consideration. Originally posted by Dalaeck I think horrid wilting got nerfed, meteor swarm got nerfed harder and all in all 3.5 is an awfull rendition of D&D. Which is a perfectly legitimate opinion. We all have a right to our opinions. However, we do not any of us have the right to obfuscate or “accidentally” overlook any inconvenient truths or facts about the game that don’t coincide with our opinions or undermine them. Nor do we have the right to confuse dislike for a designer’s work with dislike for a designer. Nor do we have the right to publicly and personally attack the game designers. We’re both adults and we know better. Originally posted by Dalaeck I am still curious as to where you got any quote for 3rd edition meteor swarm so please post it. God, that’s going to be hard. I’ll start by checking Sean Reynolds message board archives to see how far they go back. :)
Dalaeck 01-21-04, 09:07 PM	I actually don't use errata J, neither does 99% of the gaming community. In fact we as a group who go on these boards represent such an infinitely small proportion of the gaming community that it's not even funny. We are litterally the loons with nothing better to do. :D (I'm actually going to be doing a dissapearing act shortly because of work and campaigns I need to run - probably no more than a post a day if that). I don't use errata as well because those are mostly sage replies, and to be honest having that 2HD/level go to 1HD/level was not a misprint. It's saying "we goofed bad". I really can't see something like that hitting the printing presses if it has been playtested. Even the dumbest of the dumb wizard players would go "hmm..." and wizard players are rarely dumb. Maybe there arn't anymore wizard players at WOTC playtesting. (Could be, they suck rocks in 3.5 compared to a druid or cleric). I have all the respect in the world for the sage, his partners in the 3.5 fiasco I'll have to admit I have little to none. I still don't take his advice over what's in the book. I'll take it into consideration, but not likely seriously. Even if the writter of the 3rd edition PHB were to tell me he wanted the spell to be written like X and used like Y, then I still wouldn't do it. I'de be curious, but it's not in the book and I don't need 500 pages of extra paper when the book is fine as is. My point is have fun J. Have fun with 3.5, and from that other thread you seem to be doing so. You're also very liberal as a DM, you'll add a lot of stuff I consider way overpowered and unfair, but your game is running smoothly so who cares? I know my players would be all over me if I implemented 3.5. It would be like a slaughtering house where I would have to pull every dirty trick I know just to keep my monsters alive for seconds at all. And I don't like playing like that. I much prefer using their abilities to the fullest and knowing the PC's have a way around them if they work hard - rather then being on the defensive all the time. (Oop, there's a level 1 spiked-chain weilding improved trip enlarged fighter, can't send orcs into mellee, gotta throw stuff instead.. Oop, there's a wizard with 3.5 shapechange, he's a collosal dragon, he breathes, he breathes again, he breathes again, damn). I'm not even talking the rules abuses like infinite vorpal swords from shapechanging into a balor. The rules as written just simply wouldn't work. And thus from my perspective they are far inferior as a rule set as written, in the book, no running around trying to figure out everyone's intent for the harm spell, or whatever. I was asked why d8 for horrid wilting, I showed why with a graph, and I added that 3.5 has a skewed damage curve, and it does. My interpretation is that's the hallmark of a good/bad game design. That's it that's all. Old wizard wanders away...
d_nychus 01-21-04, 11:56 PM	You know, immature attacks and outright lies about WotC becomes anyone not. Honestly, it makes a person seem much more childish than anything else. More people use errata than you claim, as a fact. In this day and age, the bulk of gamers also has internet access. And only if they are blind do they not notice that WotC has a website devoted to supporting the game. I would state that the opposite is true, at least half the gaming community uses the online errata. And yes, WotC has goofed big from time to time, and the errata is them trying to correct it. The excuse "they screwed up, and I refuse to even look at their correction of it," does not hold much water. Especially when talked about so insultingly. Note that even 3.0 had a huge errata, and a huge FAQ to help answer various questions. Now, back to meteor swarm. So, the term "any" means that much to the spell? Thus, breaking all tennents, the spell first acts as a line effect with no save, passes through all forms of soft cover, but is blocked by normal cover, and even passes through the target space along with detonating there, also dealing its damage multiple times to the same character? :looloo: Umm, I think I'll stick with the correct reading of the spell, myself, thank you very much.
lanilifar 01-22-04, 01:10 AM	I would state that the opposite is true, at least half the gaming community uses the online errata. I find this very doubtful myself. Of my gaming group, I am the only one who even knows if errata exists. I also rarely use it myself. I don't have or know any statistics, but I doubt it is anywhere near 50%. But who knows? On meteor swarm: I have always read it the same way Dalaeck does. You shoot the meteors, they pass through creatures (doing damage along the way), then explode (unless they hit something big enough to stop them, in which case they just go splat into that (but that had to be a very strong thing, otherwise the meteor damage just punched through anyway)). The only thing I wouldn't do, is damage the same square twice (ie 24d6 no save, then 6d6 reflex half 4 times for being in the overlap). Horrid Wilting was never changed for 3.0. It should not have been changed for 3.5, IMO.
cwslyclgh 01-22-04, 01:29 AM	have always read it the same way Dalaeck does. You shoot the meteors, they pass through creatures (doing damage along the way), then explode then the text of the spell makes no sense, there is no reason to include "if the meators reach thier destination..." in the text of the spell if the intent was for it to work the way discribed, in fact that phrase does nothing but imply the opposite.
lanilifar 01-22-04, 02:00 AM	there is no reason to include "if the meators reach thier destination Yes, there is. What happens if the meteors impact on a 10' thick stone wall? What happens if they hit a Wall of Force? If that line was not there, I would assume they explode on impact, creating bursts as described (with half the area only, as the walls would prevent the rest of the area from forming). However, they don't do that. They just kind of splat into the walls, without exlpoding. As described. But a 1 HD orc standing 30' in front of the target point, does not stop the meteors. A 2 inch thick wooden wall will proabaly not stop the meteors. A Wall of Paper will not stop the meteors.
Sheer_FALACY 01-22-04, 02:43 AM	Except that you need line of effect to target the spell, so nothing significant can be in the way. That 10' wall won't stop the meteors, because the only way you can target it past them is if there is a clear route.
lanilifar 01-22-04, 04:15 AM	Except that you need line of effect to target the spell Yep. You must have Line of Effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast. Like lightning bolt (and unlike fireball despite fireballs pea), meteor swarms point of origin is your hand. Unlike fireball, meteor swarm's effects begin in the very next square adjacent to you. Several large sphere's (I like to think of them as flaming meteors) rumble and shake and burn, while streaking away from you. Anything in their way gets smashed, or is too tough to smash. If they reach the target you have chosen, they explode in a pretty pattern. For Example: An 18th level wizard comes to a fort with a wooden wall. The wooden wall doesn't look especially sturdy, so from 100' away he sends a 10'wide x 140' long lightning bolt at the wall. The bolt streaks through the air, hits the wall, does enough damage and bursts through for the rest of the 40'. An 18th level wizard comes to a fort with a stone wall. The stone wall looks sturdy, so from 400' away he sends 4 flaming rocks of doom to detonate 40' beyond the wall. The meteors streak through the air, hit the wall, do enough damage and burst through for the rest of the 40', whereupon they explode in firebal like spreads (each with their own point of origin). I can understand your interpretation. The spell is confusing and unclear (although all of my gaming group read it the way I described, I have seen many on these boards with varied interpretations, not just the two mentioned on this thread). I am ok with your interpretation (although I feel it makes for an awfully weak 9th level spell). Can you understand mine?
Dalaeck 01-22-04, 02:05 PM	Originally posted by d_nychus You know, immature attacks and outright lies about WotC becomes anyone not. Honestly, it makes a person seem much more childish than anything else. Um. They are both WOTC product my good D. And nothing I've said is a lie, it's what I beleive given the data, that simple. More people use errata than you claim, as a fact. I highly doubt that statement. I've known about 3rd edition errata since only a year now and I still don't use it. And yes, WotC has goofed big from time to time, and the errata is them trying to correct it. The excuse "they screwed up, and I refuse to even look at their correction of it," does not hold much water. Sorry D, I don't look at either 3rd or 3.5 edition errata. I'm not being preferential here. I take your statement to mean 3rd edition is better constructed at the outset than 3.5? Accepted if so because clearly that's my point. Thus, breaking all tennents, the spell first acts as a line effect with no save, passes through all forms of soft cover, but is blocked by normal cover, and even passes through the target space along with detonating there, also dealing its damage multiple times to the same character? You need to read the description of line of effect again my good D. p.150 of PHB. A hole of at least 1 square foot through it does not block a spell's line of effect. It is like line of sight, as on p.123, where lidda can attack the orc behind Jozan at a -4 to attack in ranged combat. To even do that she needs line of sight, and line of effect has even fewer restriction than line of sight. The interpretation of meteor swarm as said is perfectly valid and cogent with the rules. Umm, I think I'll stick with the correct reading of the spell, myself, thank you very much. [/B] You unnecessarily nerfed this spell in your games. Now you have an even more nerfed one to work with so I'm sure you're happy. :looloo: Heck at even just 15 fire resistance 3.5 meteor swarm does what? 8d6 = 28 bludgeoning damage + ((6d6 = 21-15)x4) = 24 fire damage? 52 damage? And I have to make 4 attack rolls only one of which can benefit from a quickened true-strike? I'de take the errataed shapechange any day and do 10d10 = 55 damage a round easy, and my choice of energy types, every round. Heck I'de even take 3.5 horrid wilting over 3.5 meteor swarm and that's not saying much.