Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Jallis 370 11-18-04, 02:53 PM	Yes, why has haste been ruined? All right, you dont get such a big bonus to AC but why is it not an extra partial action anymore? The spell has become useless in my eyes... I know, or hope, that there is a reason for making haste suck, but I cannot figure it out... Same with making undeads to a template and lower it's CR, but that's another issue...
calypso 11-18-04, 02:59 PM	A little behind the times eh? ;) Yes, it sucks now. That's all there is to it. Calypso
Heron_Marked_Blade 11-18-04, 03:03 PM	Because 3.5 got rid of partial actions. As it was written, 3.0 haste was incredibly broken. Three spells per round (standard action + partial action + Quickened spell)? Please. As it is, the spell is still useful in certain situations. Don't underestimate the usefulness of applying the Speed special weapon ability to -all- your party's weapons at the same time, as well as granting up to +30 speed to each target. 3.0 haste did so much more than a 3rd-level spell should ever do. That's why it was changed in 3.5 (and changed for the better, IMO).
calypso 11-18-04, 03:05 PM	Because 3.5 got rid of partial actions. As it was written, 3.0 haste was incredibly broken. Three spells per round (standard action + partial action + Quickened spell)? Please. As it is, the spell is still useful in certain situations. Don't underestimate the usefulness of applying the Speed special weapon ability to -all- your party's weapons at the same time, as well as granting up to +30 speed to each target. 3.0 haste did so much more than a 3rd-level spell should ever do. That's why it was changed in 3.5 (and changed for the better, IMO). Well of COURSE it was broken... but they didn't have to nerf it as hard as they did. I probably wouldn't even take it as a 3.5 caster. Calypso
jake_lex 11-18-04, 03:05 PM	I've seen the suggestion made of returning 3.0 Haste to 3.5 as Improved Haste, probably as a 5th or 6th level spell. That seems fairly reasonable to me.
DM Zoc 11-18-04, 03:15 PM	Better to over-nerf than to under-nerf. Over-nerfing makes something worth less; under-nerfing makes everything else worth less.
Heron_Marked_Blade 11-18-04, 03:18 PM	I probably wouldn't even take it as a 3.5 caster. Heh, as a 17th Wizard I haven't cast it once in my career (but that's because my first DM stole my licorice material component and didn't give it back.... :pbbbtt: ). And I'm glad they got rid of partial actions. How would you rewrite Haste so that it's not broken and still a 3rd-level spell?
tarkin 11-18-04, 03:20 PM	3.0 Haste is about the equivelent of a 7th level spell. There are already 7th level spells that come close to duplicating it, and a 9th level spell can be used to get the effect (Shapechange into a Choker). As is, 3.5 Haste is one of the better support/buffing spells a caster can use in combat. If facing a creature with high spell resistance, you will be glad to cast it.
calypso 11-18-04, 03:54 PM	How would you rewrite Haste so that it's not broken and still a 3rd-level spell? +30 speed and an extra move action. I would probably be happy with that, off the top of my head. Calypso
DungeonMaster 11-18-04, 03:55 PM	Because 3.5 got rid of partial actions. As it was written, 3.0 haste was incredibly broken. Three spells per round (standard action + partial action + Quickened spell)? Please. You can do this with 3.5 psionics easily. Are 3.5 psionics broken? You can also buy a 3.5 metamagic rod of quicken and couple your first spell to say a metamagic rod of maximize. Are the 3.5 metamagic rods broken? A druid can wildshape in 3.5 and get "pounce". Is 3.5 wildshape broken? Shapechange anyone? Really Jallis to answer your question: The reality is no one save the fool has any idea why the fool did this in light of the rest of the inanity he put in the 3.5 rules. My guess is gross incompetence. The simple fact of the matter is designers want to have more actions in one round and they've had to invent all sorts of silly names like "swift" and "immediate" in 3.5 to describe what was already clearly described. It's silly really.
DM Zoc 11-18-04, 04:18 PM	You can do this with 3.5 psionics easily. Are 3.5 psionics broken? You can also buy a 3.5 metamagic rod of quicken and couple your first spell to say a metamagic rod of maximize. Are the 3.5 metamagic rods broken? A druid can wildshape in 3.5 and get "pounce". Is 3.5 wildshape broken? Shapechange anyone? Actually, this is one of the most popular arguments for why psionics is broken. That's a discussion for another forum, though. There is a lot of debate over the metamagic rods, but they are balanced by being expensive: a significant portion of the character's wealth; even with the rod of quicken, you're only casting two spells per round, which is the same limit that's always been in place, and the rod itself has limited uses per day. Shapechange is a 9th level spell which has nasty side effects on top of the ability to cast an extra spell. If you want to re-make 3.0 Haste as a 9th level self-only spell that doesn't improve your AC and turns you into an ugly guy with long arms, the go ahead.
DungeonMaster 11-18-04, 04:25 PM	There is a lot of debate over the metamagic rods, but they are balanced by being expensive: a significant portion of the character's wealth; even with the rod of quicken, you're only casting two spells per round, which is the same limit that's always been in place, and the rod itself has limited uses per day. The rods are very cheap compared to what the tome and blood people originally stated them as. It would be a good argument if they didn't simultaneously reduce their price. Also the "3 spells in one round" is misleading. A plain quickened spell (not through rod) is nowhere near as good as a spell of equivalent level. Compare magic jar to magic missile. It's not even funny how much "quicken" sucks. Likewise casting a maximized through rod + a quickened through rod is >> then haste casting two of the same spell.
spasheridan 11-18-04, 04:31 PM	I've used the 3.5 Haste spell several times. That minor bonus to AC and HIT are nice. Speed bonus is great. I don't think that a spell should allow you to cast 2 spells a round, so tat nerf was fine. I just don't like the extra action is only a attack with a full attack. I would like to see potion drinking, door opening, move and a full attack. Or an extra attack on a full attack. Just don't let them cast 2 spells / manifest 2 powers a round because of the spell.
Keenath 11-18-04, 04:32 PM	I'm a little confused. Did EVERYONE miss that Haste now affects your ENTIRE PARTY? I'm just shocked at how down on this spell everyone is. Yes, now it doesn't turn one wizard into superman -- but EVERYONE gets a few bonuses. Even your wizard gets an extra attack per round, so it's not like anyone gets screwed out of their bonus...
calypso 11-18-04, 04:33 PM	Even your wizard gets an extra attack per round ... oh goody? Yes, verily, now that I am hasted I will wade into combat with my +3 BAB and dagger! Calypso
DungeonMaster 11-18-04, 04:54 PM	Yes the 3.5 haste affects the entire party and as Calypso said - so? The 3.5 haste spell is only good for mellee members in full-attack position. If they have to move more than a 5ft step then they're basically losing out on the haste spell. If you're the caster then you're losing out on the haste spell. The enhanced speed doesn't stack with other speed enhancements because it's typed. It's not "worthless" but I wouldn't consider it "good" and I would never take it as a 3rd level spell. When you compare to second edition where it doubled your number of attacks and speed then you're talking!
Aracor 11-18-04, 05:15 PM	Personally, I feel that haste was horribly broken in 3.0. And to be honest, my entire party loves haste. Our fighters love the idea of getting an extra attack at their full base, because then they don't need to shell out the cash for making a weapon of speed. And they get to spend those enhancements on more damage instead. It's still one of the first three spells most arcane casters in my parties take, it's just not definitely THE first any more. And I think I would happily take 3.0 haste, even dropping the massive haste bonus to AC, as a 8th level spell. At 9 it would take some consideration. How is it only good for melee members in full-attack position? Archers love it, because they can easily get full attacks since they can hit things farther away from them than melee range. And it's nice to be able to charge 120' and belt someone. The bonus to hit, reflex saves, and AC is just gravy. ~Aracor
zudbash 11-18-04, 05:28 PM	Yes the 3.5 haste affects the entire party and as Calypso said - so? The 3.5 haste spell is only good for mellee members in full-attack position. If they have to move more than a 5ft step then they're basically losing out on the haste spell. If you're the caster then you're losing out on the haste spell. The enhanced speed doesn't stack with other speed enhancements because it's typed. It's not "worthless" but I wouldn't consider it "good" and I would never take it as a 3rd level spell. I have to respectfully disagree. It is a great spell and my bard uses it a lot. It is true that the spell probably helps the wizard the least and thus, is probably underused as most of the time the wizard is not in a support role. But while a wizard might prefer a spell with a little more "flair", for a bard or gish-type caster it is great. Buff yourself and your friends at the same time. You are right that you cannot use the extra speed and the extra attack at the same time. But for a mobility-based combatant you can't go wrong by casting Haste. If you move you get the extra speed. If you don't move you get the extra attack. And it is great for getting the slower moving members of your party up to "normal" speed. My experience my be a little biased in that my current party the bard and barbarian/fighter both have spring attack and like to do a lot of maneuvering in combat. When they don't maneuver the extra attack is very nice. The wizard and cleric are both gnomes and need the extra speed to keep up or run away as the situation dictates. On top of all that there are the attack and AC bonuses. So it's a great spell for our party. Maybe it's not a great spell for every party, but I prefer to have to select from several good spells than to have a spell like 3.0 Haste which is an automatic pick for any arcane caster.
Aracor 11-18-04, 05:38 PM	Maybe it's not a great spell for every party, but I prefer to have to select from several good spells than to have a spell like 3.0 Haste which is an automatic pick for any arcane caster. Plus the fact that nearly every divine caster I saw in 3.0 seemed to miraculously get a domain that had haste as a 3rd level spell, just so they had it. Huh. ~Aracor
Nithendil 11-18-04, 05:49 PM	3.5 Haste is the best 3rd level spell IMO. Fireball is so overrated. I'm typically in melee heavy parties, and with haste I'm the party's crack dealer. I get complemented everytime I cast that spell. It's an extra attack, at full BAB for the entire party. Battles last twice as long, easily, when I don't cast haste. Wizards, stop being so selfish! Help your fellow party members out with a few buffs now and then, combat will often go much smoother.
calypso 11-18-04, 05:58 PM	Wizards, stop being so selfish! Help your fellow party members out with a few buffs now and then, combat will often go much smoother. Yeah, it's called Chained 3.0 Haste. :P Calypso
Nom 11-18-04, 06:00 PM	haste is supposed to be a fighter buff, not a way to get multiple spells per round. In 3.5, it grants 1 extra attack (full BAB), +30 move, and a stackable +1 attack, +1 AC, and +1 Ref to every member of the party, with no penalties. If your party can't find a way to exploit that, I'd say they have serious tactical problems. At low-mid levels, haste should be one of the first (if not the first) spells that the party sor/wiz casts in a serious encounter.
Trisstessa 11-18-04, 06:10 PM	I think the 3.0 haste was Insanely broken. Honestly the 3.5 spell is balanced and extremely useful. The extra action isn't great for casters right off but the extra 30ft. of movement is. Mabey when facing intellegent foes other DMs don't have the enemies behave as a player might, but mine does. Once it is apparent that we have casters intellegent enemies try and take our casters out first. An extra 30 ft a round helps keep out of harms way. Also the fact that it is a mass haste spell and will work for the whole party in 1 cast on average is simply awsome. The extra attack granted to tanks as a full round action is still useful and it has many times saved our party. :weep:
Lord Schpungus 11-18-04, 07:40 PM	The simple fact of the matter is designers want to have more actions in one round and they've had to invent all sorts of silly names like "swift" and "immediate" in 3.5 to describe what was already clearly described. It's silly really. Schism is a 4th level power, and caps its extra magic at your highest spell level -3. 3.0 haste could have you cast 2 9th level spells a round. Evil. Second, calling a quickened spell "a free action except for these stipulations" is tantamount to giving it a different name anyways. I like swift and immediate. They make a clear distinction between screaming in terror to your buddies (a free action) and swiftly conjuring mystical energies to fry your enemies (a quickened spell, and a swift action). In 3.0 there was a difference between a 'free' action and a 'free' action, depending on what you wanted to do with it.
Lord Schpungus 11-18-04, 07:42 PM	It's not "worthless" but I wouldn't consider it "good" and I would never take it as a 3rd level spell. As opposed to 3.Old where anyone who didn't take it as their 3rd level spell was being a goldarned fool and a purposefully stupid player.
DM Zoc 11-18-04, 07:47 PM	The rods are very cheap compared to what the tome and blood people originally stated them as. It would be a good argument if they didn't simultaneously reduce their price. Also the "3 spells in one round" is misleading. A plain quickened spell (not through rod) is nowhere near as good as a spell of equivalent level. Compare magic jar to magic missile. It's not even funny how much "quicken" sucks. Likewise casting a maximized through rod + a quickened through rod is >> then haste casting two of the same spell. I'm fairly certain that you can only use one rod at a time. Someone let me know if I'm wrong about that, because I really don't like the style of rods (I don't like how they look, so I never considered using one).
calypso 11-18-04, 07:49 PM	I'm fairly certain that you can only use one rod at a time. Someone let me know if I'm wrong about that, because I really don't like the style of rods (I don't like how they look, so I never considered using one). Nope, you're right. Calypso
alecthemad 11-18-04, 07:55 PM	I ran the Temple of elemental evil under 3.0. I had a sorceror in that game who when he hit 6th level would start every combat with hasting himself and then the wizard. Wizard would haste the dwarf fighter and then throw off a spell. It got crazy fast. In the end the group that had won initiative could fry anyone caught unawares. I let them get away with it until I started City of the Spider Queen and I had more arcane casters in the adventure. I nearly killed the party with three hasted 5th level wizards who each moved, cast fireball twice. Everyone was down to <10 hitpoints (13th level party here) and they teleported out. One more wizard would have been a total party kill. When I read 3.5 haste I thought it was a harsh response to the problem. But I have been running a pure 3.5 campaign for 6 months now and I am very please with the changes. (except the whole weapon size thing, I liked the 3.0 method better).
Nithendil 11-18-04, 08:31 PM	When I read 3.5 haste I thought it was a harsh response to the problem. But I have been running a pure 3.5 campaign for 6 months now and I am very please with the changes. (except the whole weapon size thing, I liked the 3.0 method better). I'm sure your players will mind very little if you use the 3.0 weapon size rules with your 3.5 campaign.
DungeonMaster 11-18-04, 09:00 PM	Schism is a 4th level power, and caps its extra magic at your highest spell level -3. 3.0 haste could have you cast 2 9th level spells a round. What about fission? Schism + fission? Anyways, whether you like it or not there's mechanic for casting two 9th level powers (and more) in 3.$. The debate really centers on what is appropriate level for such powers and/or monetary recompensation because the idea is still there, in the core rules and in non-core rules. In 3.0 there was a difference between a 'free' action and a 'free' action, depending on what you wanted to do with it. Pardon? Calypso it says nowhere that you can't use more than one metamagic rod in one round. You can't use more than one metamagic rod on any given spell - that much is clear. But that doesn't mean I can't maximize a fireball then throw a quickened one in the same round. alecthemad there must have been something screwy with your party did you give them appropriate treasure for their level? 6 5th level fireballs are the same as 3 10th level fireballs and 3 10th level wizards is a CR 13 encounter. In either edition even without haste or metamagic rods you could have the wizards casting empowered fireballs for 15d6 each blow and your party "should" be able to survive it without too much sweat at all. In 3.5 they could cast 3 maximized empowered 90 damage fireballs and 3 quickened 10d6 fireballs in the same round.
smrtgmp 11-18-04, 09:07 PM	3.5 haste is a very useful spell. My thrall uses it in the first round of nearly every combat. Granted, we have a huge group, so we get a lot of milage out of it. Even so, the massive speed boost helps you get into full attack range sooner, at which point you get an extra attack per round. This spell has saved our collective assess so many times its not even funny. A +1 to hit might not seem like a lot, but there have been several instances when it was the difference between a hit and a miss. Also, the speed boost helps the party healer get where he needs to be to keep people alive. Combine it with slow on the enemies and let the slaughter begin.
PhaedrusXY 11-18-04, 09:09 PM	Actually, I don't think it sucks now at all. Especially if you have a ton of allies. It's just different. I have a necromancer NPC in my game who can control over 200 HD of undead, and they are all really beefed up from feats and special abilities she has. When she casts haste, they ALL get an extra attack and can move faster. It is a GREAT spell for her. Much better than the 3.0 version, really.
teclis 11-18-04, 10:18 PM	What about fission? Schism + fission? Anyways, whether you like it or not there's mechanic for casting two 9th level powers (and more) in 3.$. The debate really centers on what is appropriate level for such powers and/or monetary recompensation because the idea is still there, in the core rules and in non-core rules. Pardon? Calypso it says nowhere that you can't use more than one metamagic rod in one round. You can't use more than one metamagic rod on any given spell - that much is clear. But that doesn't mean I can't maximize a fireball then throw a quickened one in the same round. alecthemad there must have been something screwy with your party did you give them appropriate treasure for their level? 6 5th level fireballs are the same as 3 10th level fireballs and 3 10th level wizards is a CR 13 encounter. In either edition even without haste or metamagic rods you could have the wizards casting empowered fireballs for 15d6 each blow and your party "should" be able to survive it without too much sweat at all. In 3.5 they could cast 3 maximized empowered 90 damage fireballs and 3 quickened 10d6 fireballs in the same round. 3 points: first, both schism and fusion are very limited compared to 3.0 haste. furthermore, If I recall correctly, in 3.0 psionics they were all but useless because psionic haste supercedes them in every way, at third level. second, the fact that 3 fith level wizards cam emulate 3 10th level wizards with 3.0 haste goes a long way to demonstrate the brokeness that was 3.0 haste. third, you can use 2 metamagic rods in the same round, but you can only hold one and cast (have to have a hand free for somatic components) so you can either drop the first and draw the second, or you can use a pair of gloves of storing and do some fancy juggling.
calypso 11-18-04, 10:24 PM	Calypso it says nowhere that you can't use more than one metamagic rod in one round. Nor did I ever say you couldn't. If you'll note, I agreed that you can only use one rod at a time. Calypso
Heron_Marked_Blade 11-18-04, 10:33 PM	Calypso it says nowhere that you can't use more than one metamagic rod in one round. You can't use more than one metamagic rod on any given spell - that much is clear. But that doesn't mean I can't maximize a fireball then throw a quickened one in the same round. Except that rods of metamagic are use-activated, a rod needs to be held to be used (unless otherwise noted in the rod description), and holding two rods means no hand free for the Somatic component. No dice. Not unless all your spells are Stilled. alecthemad there must have been something screwy with your party did you give them appropriate treasure for their level? 6 5th level fireballs are the same as 3 10th level fireballs and 3 10th level wizards is a CR 13 encounter. But they aren't 10th-level casters. They're three 5th-level wizards, which is a CR 6.5 encounter. The fact that one 3rd-level spell transforms this into a "CR 13 encounter" is a pretty clear indication that the 3rd-level spell is broken. Broken. BROKEN. Can you not see this? In either edition even without haste or metamagic rods you could have the wizards casting empowered fireballs for 15d6 each blow and your party "should" be able to survive it without too much sweat at all. Not the three 5th-level wizards, they couldn't. In 3.5 they could cast 3 maximized empowered 90 damage fireballs and 3 quickened 10d6 fireballs in the same round. What are you talking about? We're talking about three 5th-level wizards here. They just got access to 3rd-level spells, and fireball is just going to deal a base of 5d6 damage. There is no way a 5d6-wizard can deal the damage you're talking about, in either version. And you can't use two metamagic rods in one round, unless your spells are all Stilled. So how else is 3.5 broken? Might as well get it off your chest now (again). :D
Admiral Yi Sun Shin 11-18-04, 10:33 PM	3.0 haste = most broken spell ever!!! Its a good thing that they got rid of it considering every wizard build was based on casting haste on yourself for 2 spells per round. A 3rd lvl spell lets you mimic the quicken effect which takes 4 higher spell lvls. I think it fair as it is except that the AC bonus should be +4. Also note that you could get off as many as 6 spells in a round at higher lvls, hasted twin spell + quickened twin spell + normal twin spell = 6 spells which could be 60d6 fireballs, 144d6 meteor swarm (no save), 6 saves or die, or a myriad of other possibilities.
calypso 11-18-04, 10:40 PM	broken. Broken. BROKEN. So you generally agree that haste was fine in 3.0? Calypso
Heron_Marked_Blade 11-18-04, 10:51 PM	So you generally agree that haste was fine in 3.0? Except that I sense the subtle and dry sarcasm behind this question, I'd be like... :OMG! ;) 3.0 haste was extremely problematic. I think the changes to this spell in 3.5 were appropriate and brought the spell into line (at least moreso) with other 3rd-level spells.
ravidubey 11-18-04, 10:54 PM	Overall 3.5 haste wasn't really nerfed, just brought into line with the rest of the game! In 3.5 you can haste everyone in your party granting bonuses to AC and saves, +30 speed, and an extra attack. This has a huge effect on combat and is in line with a 3rd level spell. Compare with Prayer-- it's no contest which is better and by far. Granting an extra action like it did in 3.0 is plain broken-- you can do anything with that extra action! It made haste more desirable than almost any other enhancement/defensive spell.
calypso 11-18-04, 11:27 PM	Except that I sense the subtle and dry sarcasm behind this question, I'd be like... :OMG! :D And now, for a rather pointed question: Why shouldn't magic missile be nerfed? It's probably the single most powerful 1st level spell, and for the most part you'd be crazy to not take it. It's a force spell AND it scales nicely. And, before anyone throws in the "but it has a counterpart that makes it useless (shield)" argument, 3.0 haste also has a counterpart that makes it useless: dispel magic. Calypso
Admiral Yi Sun Shin 11-18-04, 11:52 PM	5d4+5 damage??? 25 force damage max, average of 17...and this is considering it is a 9th lvl spell caster or something of the sort...I don't get how 17 damage at 9th lvl is overly powerful??? Dispel Magic still has a chance of failure and in fact a pretty big one depending on the caster level of the haste spell. Where is your arguement again? Actually a substantially powerful spell is scorching ray, touch attack for 4d6 damage as a 2nd lvl spell and you get another ray every couple levels. By 9th lvl, equivalent for the 5d4+5 magic missile, I think the caster has 2 rays for a total of 8d6 damage which isn't that bad for a 2nd level spell considering people generally have a really low touch AC.
calypso 11-19-04, 12:07 AM	Where is your arguement again? The fact that it scales, has no saving throw, always hit, can target multiple foes, and does force damage. I mean, I can take out 5 of a casters mirror images with a 1st level spell. Calypso
DungeonMaster 11-19-04, 12:11 AM	Except that rods of metamagic are use-activated, a rod needs to be held to be used (unless otherwise noted in the rod description), and holding two rods means no hand free for the Somatic component. No dice. Not unless all your spells are Stilled. Dice. You can hold a rod in one hand, use it, then drop the rod as a free action and pull out the other as move equivalent under any circumstance. Alternatively you can polymorph into a creature with multiple arms. Or have an unseen servant hand it to you. There are innumerable ways to do this - anyone claiming the contrary is flat wrong, by the rules. But they aren't 10th-level casters. They're three 5th-level wizards, which is a CR 6.5 encounter. Er... no. It's a CR 8 encounter. The fact that one 3rd-level spell transforms this into a "CR 13 encounter" is a pretty clear indication that the 3rd-level spell is broken. Broken. BROKEN. Can you not see this? No. If you can't take 6 5d6 fireballs cast by low-level wizards at 13th level it's not their fault - it's yours. 6 5th level wizards is a CR 10 encounter. There's no excuse in either 3rd edition or in 3.5 for not kicking the crap out of the 3 wizards, haste or no haste. This isn't an example of the spell being "broken". Claiming that it is an example displays ignorance of the game structure and the CR system. What are you talking about? We're talking about three 5th-level wizards here. They just got access to 3rd-level spells, and fireball is just going to deal a base of 5d6 damage. There is no way a 5d6-wizard can deal the damage you're talking about, in either version. Read the context rather than spouting "broken". I explained how a 10th level 3.5 wizard can cast 10d6 fireballs empowered maximized and a quickened fireball all in the same round. So how else is 3.5 broken? Might as well get it off your chest now (again). Sigh... where to start? Metamagic rods would be a good place. 3.5 blasphemy + bead of karma + death knell + orange ioun stone + evil domain = roomfulls of titans, balors, pitfiends all paralyzed/dead no save no SR? Might want to justify why that one's possible. Having you and your familiar breath with a different great wyrm breath weapons 1/round for 2 hours from shapechange might be another starting point. I guess one could claim errata to reduce that to what 28d10 fire damage? Might want to tell me why 3.5 meteor swarm exists. Meh, I'm sure you know all this and more.
DungeonMaster 11-19-04, 12:23 AM	3.0 haste was extremely problematic. I think the changes to this spell in 3.5 were appropriate and brought the spell into line (at least moreso) with other 3rd-level spells. No, I think blink is way better than 3.5 haste, even for a warrior. I would never argue that 3.5 haste can't have it's uses, I'de be a fool to say the contrary (how did you get 200 HD of undead Phaedrus? :P ) - it's just no where near as good in most circumstances as other 3rd level magic, such as blink. You need to justify Heron why you think haste was extremely problematic and how 3.5 changed that with the inclusion of meta-magic rods - because I can't say I agree. The rods are cheap and allow access to higher level spell slots than the caster can cast. They break all the rules - in ways that haste did and in other ways that haste just can't such as maximized time-stop. Calypso: haste has it's better counterpart - slow - which counters any haste and affects any number of targets.
calypso 11-19-04, 12:26 AM	Calypso: haste has it's better counterpart - slow - which counters any haste and affects any number of targets. Good point, forgot about that. Calypso
Admiral Yi Sun Shin 11-19-04, 12:39 AM	How does the 3 10th lvl wizards each cast a quickened 10d6 fireball and a maximized empowered fireballs which do 60 + 1/2 10d6 damage not 90 damage as you stated. A 10th lvl wizard can cast up to a 5th lvl spell, this allows for 1 empower and no quicken or maximazation. Unless they all have rods of lesser maximization which cost 27,200gp which is 11,200gp above the respect NPC equipment value. And if the wizard happens to be a PC, with the respected 49,000gp, you'd be using up more than 1/2 of it on a single item which would be pretty detrimental to the overall character. Or if you can't just buy the rod, you'd have to find one which may make it even less likely that a PC mind you could acquire a lesser rod of maximazation at 10th lvl. Your scenario is utterly ridiculous. It'd be the equivalent of questioning the balance issues of +5 weapons of speed when a 1st lvl fighter has one. So please restate a more appropriate scenario to support your arguement, also cite rulings in the books more accurately such as your max + empower fireball damage was incredibly wrong.
Heron_Marked_Blade 11-19-04, 12:52 AM	6 5th level wizards is a CR 10 encounter. There's no excuse in either 3rd edition or in 3.5 for not kicking the crap out of the 3 wizards, haste or no haste. This isn't an example of the spell being "broken". Claiming that it is an example displays ignorance of the game structure and the CR system. But the fact is that you wouldn't have a CR 10 encounter if it wasn't for 3.0 haste. You're facing a CR 8 (you're right) encounter -- are you suggesting it's okay for a single 3rd-level spell to bump it up to a CR 10? In fact, you wouldn't be facing a CR 10 encounter since a CR takes into account a creature's spells and spell-like/supernatural/extraordinary abilities. If you're ruling that facing three 5th-level wizards with access to haste is a CR 10 encounter, then any group of three 5th-level wizards must be a CR 10 encounter. And the rules clearly show that a group of three 5th-level wizards is a CR 8. If the difference between a CR 10 group of three 5th-level wizards and a CR 8 group of three 5th-level wizards is a 3rd-level spell called haste 3.0 (which in your example is the case), then it's clearly the spell that is the problem. Any single spell that raises the CR of an encounter by +2 is a problem, IMO. Are we both suggesting that 3.0 Haste was broken? Because I'm having trouble understanding why you'd argue that 3.0 haste isn't broken. And if you are arguing that it's broken, I don't understand how you can't see the 3.5 revision to the spell as a good thing. Sigh... where to start? Metamagic rods would be a good place. You're preaching to the choir. My players will never find one, or find the knowledge needed to craft one. A particularly painful item. But they exist in 3.0, as I think you pointed out (they're in T&B). And the increased cost in 3.0 really doesn't make that much of a difference: they exist mechanically, and money at higher levels isn't an issue. Metamagic rods aren't a 3.5 invention. Making them Core is part of the consolidation that happens in every revision; it happened when 2E was revised into 3.0, and it'll happen when 3.5 is revised into 4+E. Having you and your familiar breath with a different great wyrm breath weapons 1/round for 2 hours from shapechange might be another starting point. I guess one could claim errata to reduce that to what 28d10 fire damage? I'm sure a particularly rules-lawyerish player might get away with it, but as soon as you or your familiar moves, the spell on your familiar will end. In fact, by an exact reading of the RAW, as soon as your familiar grows larger than 5'x5', the spell ends. "The familiar must be within 5 feet at the time of casting to receive the benefit. If the spell or effect has a duration other than instantaneous, it stops affecting the familiar if it moves farther than 5 feet away..." Becoming the size of a Mature Adult red dragon (size Huge, I believe) certainly means the vast majority of the familiar is more than 5 feet away from the caster. And as it grows larger, it is moving away from its original position. It's center is certainly more than 5 feet away from the caster. Bye bye spell. :D Meh, I'm sure you know all this and more.Indeed I do, and I don't mean to hijack this thread from the original topic. I don't think every change to 3.5 was perfect, but I do think 3.5 on the overwhelming average is much more user-friendly and consistent than 3.0 was. I think spells, on average, are more balanced. I think playing a wizard (yes I have in both editions and do currently in 3.5, thank you) is much less of an arms race in 3.5 than it was in 3.0, and nonspellcasters (at least the ones in my group) have more fun at higher levels. I think the adjustment of 3.0 Haste went a long way to making combat more group-friendly. It used to be everyone would just Fight Defensively for three or so rounds while they waited for the Wizard/Sorcerer to cast Haste on him/herself and spend the next three rounds casting three nukes per round. Why bother running up to an enemy if it was going to drop the next round from the Wizard's two Empowered Chain Lightnings and a Quickened Fireball? Anyway, it's late and I'm rambling. I've said plenty for 2cp-worth.
DungeonMaster 11-19-04, 12:57 AM	Unless they all have rods of lesser maximization which cost 27,200gp which is 11,200gp above the respect NPC equipment value. The NPC wizard takes the "craft rod feat" and crafts his rods for half price per DMG rules. 7000 GP for the maximize rod, 17 000 GP for the quicken. Yeah, maybe I overstated myself, they would need to be 12th level for both. The best they could do is cast many maximized empowered fireballs. The 3rd edition wizard using haste could churn out two empowered fireballs burning two 5th level slots a round for 105 average damage and the 3.5 wizard could pull a maximized empowered fireball for 90 damage a round burning only a single 5th level slot. No contest past 12th though, the 3.5 wizard churns out a maximized empowered fireball and a quickened empowered fireball while the 3rd edition wizard is stuck with at best two maximized fireballs. The rods will win in the end levels, always. And if the wizard happens to be a PC, with the respected 49,000gp, you'd be using up more than 1/2 of it on a single item which would be pretty detrimental to the overall character. I would do it. I did it in fact. The PC has no problem doing this by the rules. I don't know if I can still find the thread... You can make a very, very competent wizard spending half your wealth on metamagic rods.
DM Zoc 11-19-04, 01:08 AM	It is dangerous to put all of your eggs in one basket, as such. A rod has AC 9, Hardness 10, and 10 hit points.
Admiral Yi Sun Shin 11-19-04, 01:15 AM	The NPC wizard takes the "craft rod feat" and crafts his rods for half price per DMG rules. 7000 GP for the maximize rod, 17 000 GP for the quicken. Yeah, maybe I overstated myself, they would need to be 12th level for both. I'm glad you caught yourself on that one...yep, not until lvl 12 so rod making is omitted, so the NPCs wouldn't have any metamagic rods of empowering, maximizing, or quickening. The best they could do is cast many maximized empowered fireballs. The 3rd edition wizard using haste could churn out two empowered fireballs burning two 5th level slots a round for 105 average damage and the 3.5 wizard could pull a maximized empowered fireball for 90 damage a round burning only a single 5th level slot. Again, the maximized empowered fireball does 60 + 1/2 10d6 damage (straight out of the 3.5 PHB), you are still applying the metamagic rods even though they wouldn't have them. No contest past 12th though, the 3.5 wizard churns out a maximized empowered fireball and a quickened empowered fireball while the 3rd edition wizard is stuck with at best two maximized fireballs. The rods will win in the end levels, always. Your entire rod arguement is flawed because it applies both ways, why can't a 3e wizard use maximized empowered fireballs and quickened fireballs also. The 3e wizard has just as much access to the rods as the 3.5 wizards. The biggest difference is that the 3e wizard would in fact get maximized empowered fireball, a quickened empowered fireball, and a maximized fireball which obviously will do more damage. Also note that all these maximazations, empowerings, and quickenings are now changing your arguement as rods of empowerment/maximazation/quickening have to be used now which cost 64,000gp WAY above the expected item value of the wizard NPCs. I would do it. I did it in fact. The PC has no problem doing this by the rules. I don't know if I can still find the thread... You can make a very, very competent wizard spending half your wealth on metamagic rods. Well, if you make a 10th lvl wizard with a rod of empowerment/maximazation, i would laugh at you because u'd be so horribly weak. You're normal spell DCs will take a hit from a lower Int item, you'd have lower AC, not as many spells in your spellbook, lower resistances, possibly no means to carry your gold as you won't have a bag of holding possibly, and several other possibilities that would hinder your character in the long run. There is an old adage that goes "don't put all your eggs in one basket" and buy spenging most of your wealth on the 1 item is doing that...really 1 empower per day at 27200gp is not worth it. Only the higher lvl rods are worth anything and those aren't considerable unless you are above lvl 15 which this discussion is not on. It is on the brokeness of the "haste" spell. Once again, your arguement is failing you. Please provide a better scenario to support your arguement. =)
Bort333 11-19-04, 02:01 AM	Haste 3.0 = most broken spell ever. Haste 3.5 very good spell... probably should be level 4 though. Extra 30 feet. +1 AC +1 Reflex Saves, PLUS ONE ATTACK. Thats *HUGE* At level 5... that essentially doubles the meele damage the party does.
calypso 11-19-04, 02:08 AM	Haste 3.0 = most broken spell ever. Haste 3.5 very good spell... probably should be level 4 though. Extra 30 feet. +1 AC +1 Reflex Saves, PLUS ONE ATTACK. Thats *HUGE* At level 5... that essentially doubles the meele damage the party does. Buh? I'd barely use it as a 3rd level spell. And, you only get the extra attack if you do a full attack. Which isn't going to happen all the time, unless your groups typical battle is "I run up and hit it!" "K, then what." "Well... I stand there and hit it some more!" And, +1 to AC, wooh. +1 to Reflex saves, yipee. The best thing it has going for it is the +30 feet. As you can tell I'm less than enthused by the spell. :D Calypso
PhaedrusXY 11-19-04, 02:15 AM	I would never argue that 3.5 haste can't have it's uses, I'de be a fool to say the contrary (how did you get 200 HD of undead Phaedrus? :P ) - it's just no where near as good in most circumstances as other 3rd level magic, such as blink. I built a True Necromancer using all kinds of tricks from Libris Mortis, the new book on Undead. She's only character level 16, but can control 220 HD of undead with her Karma bead active... and that's just with spells like Animate Dead, and doesn't include her Rebuke ability. They all have approximately double hit points and alot of other buffed up abilities, too. You can make some really horrible stuff with that book. I can PM you the details if you really care, heh. But since you don't use 3.5 rules, you probably don't. :P
Nom 11-19-04, 02:46 AM	Don't forget that haste (3.5) is 1 creature / level, so you could only haste all your thralls (not incuding you) with a single haste if they average HD is 14 or larger (13.75 actually).
PhaedrusXY 11-19-04, 02:58 AM	Don't forget that haste (3.5) is 1 creature / level, so you could only haste all your thralls (not incuding you) with a single haste if they average HD is 14 or larger (13.75 actually).Thanks for the reminder. I'll only include the tougher ones in it, then, heh. She has 8 Fomorian skeletons (huge 15 HD giants), a very young red dragon zombie, a 12 headed hydra skeleton, a dread warrior (from Unapproachable East, doesn't count against HD controlled), and 20 advanced 3HD ghouls (created via a spell in LM that puts them in the same pool as stuff made with Animate Dead). The ghouls are just fodder anyway, so I won't include them. (Her wizard caster level is only 11.)
RaspK FOG 11-19-04, 05:31 AM	Haster under 3.5e is a real big-party beast: - Hastened barbarian, fighter, and monk. - Hastened bard and rogue. - Hastened druid, ranger, and animal companions. - Hastened paladin and mount. - Hastened wizard, sorcerer, and familiars. The funny part? If one of the high-Charisma guys has a couple of cohorts and followers as well, you can hasten all of these guys (yup, ALL OF THEM!).
Lord_Anthrax 11-19-04, 06:54 AM	I brought it back in its 3.0 version for my game, though I slapped a 250 GP material component on it. For getting in an extra attack, Snake's Swiftness from the Miniatures Handbook is more handy.
zudbash 11-19-04, 10:01 AM	Buh? I'd barely use it as a 3rd level spell. And, you only get the extra attack if you do a full attack. Which isn't going to happen all the time, unless your groups typical battle is "I run up and hit it!" "K, then what." "Well... I stand there and hit it some more!" Calypso OK, so you're not too crazy about the spell. Nothing wrong with that. But doesn't what you said also apply to: rapid shot? iterative attacks? two-weapon fighting? speed weapons? Surely your group occasionally gets to make a full attack.
calypso 11-19-04, 10:07 AM	OK, so you're not too crazy about the spell. Nothing wrong with that. But doesn't what you said also apply to: rapid shot? iterative attacks? two-weapon fighting? speed weapons? Surely your group occasionally gets to make a full attack. Don't get me wrong, of course we (and by we I mean not me) get to make full attacks. It just usually proves to be more fatal than taking advantage of spring attack, or using haste for an extra move action to move to safety. For instance, a troll's most deadly attack, rend, is useless if he has to move every round in order to attack. Same for quite a few others. I would honestly think haste would be great even if it only granted an extra move action per round. Calypso
DungeonMaster 11-19-04, 11:07 AM	I'm glad you caught yourself on that one...yep, not until lvl 12 so rod making is omitted, so the NPCs wouldn't have any metamagic rods of empowering, maximizing, or quickening. Um no, craft rod is acquired at level 9. Everything I've said in that post is 100% accurate. Your entire rod arguement is flawed because it applies both ways, why can't a 3e wizard use maximized empowered fireballs and quickened fireballs also. The 3e wizard has just as much access to the rods as the 3.5 wizards. No, no he doesn't. The core rules in 3rd edition have no metamagic rods. It's only optional rules in 3rd edition that included metamagic rods - and at 10 times the price no less. 3.5 has no haste. 3.5 has metamagic rods. It's the same deal. Also note that all these maximazations, empowerings, and quickenings are now changing your arguement as rods of empowerment/maximazation/quickening have to be used now which cost 64,000gp WAY above the expected item value of the wizard NPCs. No they don't need the more powerful rods - you don't yet understand the utter cheeseiness that is the metamagic rod. Metamagic does not raise the spell level, just the slot. A fireball is a 3rd level spell, an empowered fireball is a 3rd level spell and an empowered maximized fireball is still just a 3rd level spell. So you can use a "lesser" rod of maximize on an empowered fireball, even though the empowered fireball takes up a 5th level slot. Well, if you make a 10th lvl wizard with a rod of empowerment/maximazation, i would laugh at you because u'd be so horribly weak. Trust me, I know how to build wizards - in either edition. Here's the thread: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=242740&page=1&pp=50&highlight=3+5+wizard+s+challenge Without question you can make a wizard that plumbs metamagic rods to his utmost. Once again, your arguement is failing you. Please provide a better scenario to support your arguement. =) Usually people resort to these blatant statements when they themselves are failing. Try and prove what I said wrong with arguments - you won't be able to. The math is there, if you want big damage 3.5 metarods is where it's at and haste just doesn't compare.
calypso 11-19-04, 11:24 AM	The math is there, if you want big damage 3.5 metarods is where it's at and haste just doesn't compare. Oh I don't know, I'd much prefer to cast 3 spells per round in 3.0. 1 Standard, 1 Haste action, 1 from a Quicken. Whereas in 3.5 you can only cast 2. 1 Standard and 1 from a Quicken. And yes, there are Quicken rods in 3.0. Calypso
DungeonMaster 11-19-04, 11:46 AM	But the fact is that you wouldn't have a CR 10 encounter if it wasn't for 3.0 haste. *snip for clarity* Any single spell that raises the CR of an encounter by +2 is a problem, IMO. Ok first off: no I was not arguing the haste spell increased the CR of the encounter. I was arguing that even a plain, vanilla no haste, no metarods included CR 10 would have caused this party an equal amount of misery and so it's not the haste spell that was the problem. The party got creamed by a low-level encounter and likely just were very vulnerable to that type of attack (no fire resistance, no active spells, etc...). It happens, I've had low CR encounters go very very wrong. Are we both suggesting that 3.0 Haste was broken? Because I'm having trouble understanding why you'd argue that 3.0 haste isn't broken. I'm actually not arguing that haste is or isn't broken. I'm asking why change the spell then re-introduce similar if not worse mechanics into the core game and into optional rules? My personal opinion is that blink is a more powerful spell, but I prefer defence over offence in general in D&D because I like to walk out of the dungeon/campaign alive rather than just claim I wupped some monster really good once. You're preaching to the choir. My players will never find one, or find the knowledge needed to craft one. A particularly painful item. The problem as a DM that I have with restricting magic items is that they are essential to the game. If you restrict them arbitrarily, or in this case with intent, you wonder if you havn't done the players disservice. In my experience the core game is difficult if not bordering on very difficult. Players routinely die, not because of high CR's or overpowered abilities, but just plain simple mistakes. In the 4 years that I've been DMing 3rd edition the game I've never had a problem with haste. In second edition I had only minor problems with haste, it was a bit too powerful for 3rd level in my opinion but it had it's drawbacks. I casually hand the DMG to my players to craft their items following the standard rules and likewise have never had a problem. I mind the rules carefully but I won't arbitrarily restrict anything. I don't however plain hand out the MM to the players but even then at the very high levels with very high knowledge skills I do hand it to them. It's a different approach, every DM is different in fact and no two games are the same. What particular experience to you have with 3rd edition haste that made you so upset with it? The ruling you're giving on the familiar is incorrect by the RAW rules and very silly :P The familiar's center of mass doesn't need to be within 5 feet of you. :P That's ridiculous. I've taken a long hard look at 3.5 and in my opinion it's not as good as 3rd edition. I don't agree with your comments but really there have been ample threads on the subject (and this one) so let's not go there. It used to be everyone would just Fight Defensively for three or so rounds while they waited for the Wizard/Sorcerer to cast Haste on him/herself and spend the next three rounds casting three nukes per round. Why bother running up to an enemy if it was going to drop the next round from the Wizard's two Empowered Chain Lightnings and a Quickened Fireball? I have never, ever, ever seen anything like that. In 3 rounds most monsters will outright kill and maim an entire party. I don't know how your DM is running his monsters but that sounds completely aberrant to my experience as a DM or as a player - everyone tries really quite hard to kill things otherwise people start to die. Warrior enjoy keen improved critical vorpal swords, shields of absorption, horns of blasting, quadruple damage charges, and all other forms of insta-kills and huge unresistable damage that make them an equal match to all but the most skilled of wizards.
pyk 11-19-04, 11:51 AM	Um no, craft rod is acquired at level 9. Everything I've said in that post is 100% accurate. Did you spot the part under metamagic rods that says CL17?
TWG_Prometheus 11-19-04, 02:12 PM	I probably wouldn't even take it as a 3.5 caster. This quote from Calypso is one of the best arguments I've ever heard in favor of 3.5 Haste, actually. They made a suggestion that they might take a spell, but that they also might not. Every spell should be that way.
calypso 11-19-04, 02:21 PM	This quote from Calypso is one of the best arguments I've ever heard in favor of 3.5 Haste, actually. They made a suggestion that they might take a spell, but that they also might not. Every spell should be that way. In my opinion, there's no reason there shouldn't be a few standout, must-have spells. Calypso
TWG_Prometheus 11-19-04, 02:26 PM	I consider Dispel Magic a relative must-have for primary spellcasters myself, but that's due to utility rather than sheer power level. I can't imagine a good argument for making a spell of each level that dominates all the others by power level on purpose.
DungeonMaster 11-19-04, 03:11 PM	Did you spot the part under metamagic rods that says CL17? Caster level requirement has been done away with in 3.5 errata, which isn't wise. I strongly suggest you apply 3.5 errata because otherwise your rogues aren't proficient in the use of the sap and shapechange is 50 HD worth of supernatural abilities. Pheadrus that's nuts! I'm curious how though so send it to me by PM! :P
Admiral Yi Sun Shin 11-19-04, 03:40 PM	Did you spot the part under metamagic rods that says CL17? Thank you pyk, for point that out. Caster level requirement has been done away with in 3.5 errata, which isn't wise. I strongly suggest you apply 3.5 errata because otherwise your rogues aren't proficient in the use of the sap and shapechange is 50 HD worth of supernatural abilities. Actaully, I can't seem to find the abolishing of caster level requirement in the 3.5 errata at all unless the official WotC errata that I'm looking at right now is incorrect??? Um no, craft rod is acquired at level 9. Everything I've said in that post is 100% accurate. Yes I miss spoke, I though rods were 12 and staves were 9 but its the other way around. But regardless, the quote by pyk still proves that crafting that rod is still illegitamate. No, no he doesn't. The core rules in 3rd edition have no metamagic rods. It's only optional rules in 3rd edition that included metamagic rods - and at 10 times the price no less. 3.5 has no haste. 3.5 has metamagic rods. It's the same deal. Well, the Tome and Blood supplement is not a core book but it is still a viable supplement so technically it is legit for a 3.0 wizard to get those rods. And a 3.0 DM disallowing the use of those items would be no different that a DM disallowing it in 3.5 either. Also, I didn't realize they are in the 3.5 DMG at lowered costs, this is I agree is a bit cheesy. But none the less, the 3.0 wizard can still acquire the same ability but just at a bit more of a cost. No they don't need the more powerful rods - you don't yet understand the utter cheeseiness that is the metamagic rod. Metamagic does not raise the spell level, just the slot. A fireball is a 3rd level spell, an empowered fireball is a 3rd level spell and an empowered maximized fireball is still just a 3rd level spell. So you can use a "lesser" rod of maximize on an empowered fireball, even though the empowered fireball takes up a 5th level slot. I'm quite familiar how the rods work, however I didn't realize they changed it from the number of times per day used to the spell level the rod affects with the different levels of the rod. However, it is still a full round action so you can only apply the rods ability to one of the spells cast. So you could only cast a single empowered maximized fireball or a quickened empower fireball and another empower fireball providing in both cases you prepared an empowered fireball at the 5th lvl spell slot. First case you deal 60 + 1/2 10d6 fire damage and the other you deal 30d6 damage. It may seem like a lot but it really isn't even considering that its still only a 3rd lvl spells with a reflex save for 1/2. Trust me, I know how to build wizards - in either edition. Here's the thread: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=242740&page=1&pp=50&highlight=3+5+wizard+s+challenge Without question you can make a wizard that plumbs metamagic rods to his utmost. I don't get how the link you sent me pertains at all, that is a 14th lvl wizard who gets 150,000gp to purchase gear where it can easily afford the lesser rod of maximize and quicken at 49,000gp. While a 10th level wizard has 49,000gp and can afford the two items but would have NOTHING else and would therefore be quite crappy. You really made no arguement here except proving my point that exhausting all your funds on a single or two items is wasteful. Usually people resort to these blatant statements when they themselves are failing. Try and prove what I said wrong with arguments - you won't be able to. The math is there, if you want big damage 3.5 metarods is where it's at and haste just doesn't compare. Or they resort to these statements when your arguement is clearly flawed and informing you to acquire new sources to back up your arguement as that is what I'm doing to help save you from some embarassment. Really, your attempts at making metamagic rods appear as cheesy as 3.0 haste is a valid arguement, and I agree that the rods are chessy however not nearly as cheesy as the 3.0 spell haste. NO ability in all of DnD allows a caster to cast 6 spells in a round. I don't care if you can maximize and empower away, you are still limited to 4, haste allows 1 1/2 times the casting capabilities.
Elemental 11-19-04, 06:18 PM	Yes, why has haste been ruined? All right, you dont get such a big bonus to AC but why is it not an extra partial action anymore? The spell has become useless in my eyes... I know, or hope, that there is a reason for making haste suck, but I cannot figure it out... Same with making undeads to a template and lower it's CR, but that's another issue... Speaking as a player in an epic level arena game, which is about as fiercely competitive as you can get, Haste has been excellent value for money. Character 1 is a Lich Mystic Theurge / Heirophant. Being able to fly at 120ft, combined with Improved Blink means there's nowhere she can't go, and an extra attack is always useful for summoned creatures (which it can affect up to 19 of at once). Since I thought I'd got whacked with a maximised sonic Polar Ray, then remembered that extra 1 to touch AC, it's been my best friend. For the polymorphing, scythe-toting Battle Sorcerer, the extra move is useful for closing with enemies, and the extra action for +50-odd to hit with a great big scythe is pure gold. The +1 to attack is a detail, but gives me room for an extra 2 Power Attack damage. Before that, I was in a level 10 arena game. Everyone, everyone, regardless of character or concept had to have Haste by some means for the +4 AC and extra partial action (usually used to fire off two buff spells in a turn). The spellcaster with Haste would beat any without it, all else being equal. It bemuses me how anyone can defend it.
DungeonMaster 11-19-04, 06:31 PM	Actaully, I can't seem to find the abolishing of caster level requirement in the 3.5 errata at all unless the official WotC errata that I'm looking at right now is incorrect??? It's under the DMG section of errata. Bottom left hand side of the DMG errata p.1 under Caster level - it's unavoidable. It says to yank the lines and replace with text that no longer makes it a prerequisite. The crafting of rods is legitimate at level 9, easy. Well, the Tome and Blood supplement is not a core book but it is still a viable supplement so technically it is legit for a 3.0 wizard to get those rods. And a 3.0 DM disallowing the use of those items would be no different that a DM disallowing it in 3.5 either. This is akin to me saying that it's "legit" for you to create a 3.5 hulking hurler because the hulking hurler is from a WOTC non-core supplement. Or the belt of magnificence from the miniatures handbook. Or any number of broken items, PrC or races from non-core books. The argument rests upon comparing what they did to the core rules - not what the non-core rules do because you can do anything with non-core rules from the billion damage hulking hurler to creating a true necromancer that controls 220 HD of undead. The rods are core 3.5. Haste is core 3rd edition. They are one and the same on levels of cheese and in my opinon the rods are cheezier. However, it is still a full round action so you can only apply the rods ability to one of the spells cast. Nope, read the text again. It's a use-activated item and it's only sorcerors not even bards that must take a full round action. My argument stands. You really made no arguement here except proving my point that exhausting all your funds on a single or two items is wasteful. Actually I defeated the challenges using a whole pile of cash on rods. It's possible - even desirable to do so. Personally quicken is overrated - it's the rod of maximize I would prefer over any other and it's damn cheap at 7000 GP. *snip* New sources to back up your arguement as that is what I'm doing to help save you from some embarassment. None at all, I'm more than wiling to admit I'm wrong when I am truly wrong - and I have been wrong in the past. You have been truly wrong more than once now and yet again in this exchange, the tone you've taken doesn't show that. I'm not trying to embarrass you, we're here to discuss and in some cases, to learn. NO ability in all of DnD allows a caster to cast 6 spells in a round. I don't care if you can maximize and empower away, you are still limited to 4, haste allows 1 1/2 times the casting capabilities. Try a maximized from metamagic rod 3.5 timestop then shapechange into a choker and use metamagic rods of quicken in choker form. That's easily a total of 15 spells in one "round". If you're feeling really lucky then try and use a metamagic rod of extend on the time stop and you could roll 10 rounds of timestop for a total of 30 spells in one "round". Trust me now? The metamagic rod is much, much worse than haste in the hands of a clever caster. I have no clue (other than gross incompetence that is) why they made them core in 3.5 and lowered the price.
Nithendil 11-19-04, 06:45 PM	You make good points, DM, but even core material (especially from the DMG) doesn’t have to be allowed. It is entirely within your right to make them uber expensive or just not allow them. That's not even a houserule, the items given are just examples of items you can allow into your campaign. I think cleric services are waaaay too cheap and immovable rods a pain in the a$$, so when I DM I jack up the prices and no-one really complains.
Admiral Yi Sun Shin 11-19-04, 11:45 PM	It's under the DMG section of errata. Bottom left hand side of the DMG errata p.1 under Caster level - it's unavoidable. It says to yank the lines and replace with text that no longer makes it a prerequisite. The crafting of rods is legitimate at level 9, easy. Yeah I see it, so you can in fact make the rod, quick question, why is it CL 17 then? Personally, I think that has some bearing on when you should be able to craft it, poassibly we are forgetting to include something in the creation requirement? I will have to look into that a bit more, but yeah you're right about that. This is akin to me saying that it's "legit" for you to create a 3.5 hulking hurler because the hulking hurler is from a WOTC non-core supplement. Or the belt of magnificence from the miniatures handbook. Or any number of broken items, PrC or races from non-core books. The argument rests upon comparing what they did to the core rules - not what the non-core rules do because you can do anything with non-core rules from the billion damage hulking hurler to creating a true necromancer that controls 220 HD of undead. The rods are core 3.5. Haste is core 3rd edition. They are one and the same on levels of cheese and in my opinon the rods are cheezier. If you want to be hulking hurler that does bajillions of damage, there is no restriction other than the word of the DM...just as a DM can ban the use of hulking hurler, he can also ban the use of metamagic rods, and vice versa, he can allow both. This really has no bearing, other than that a 3.0e wizard still has the opportunity to get the metamagic rods unless specifically dictated against by the DM. Nope, read the text again. It's a use-activated item and it's only sorcerors not even bards that must take a full round action. My argument stands. Again, I must admit you are right, however it is still use-activated which means you need the quick draw feat to use both the quicken rod and maximize rod in the same round, also you can't apply them to the same spell which you applied correctly in a max empower fireball and a quicken empower fireball. Actually I defeated the challenges using a whole pile of cash on rods. It's possible - even desirable to do so. Personally quicken is overrated - it's the rod of maximize I would prefer over any other and it's damn cheap at 7000 GP. Its 7000gp considering you are making it in which case you'd also expend 560xp, in which case you are no longer lvl 10 but lvl 9. Otherwise it costs 14,000gp which is still a hefty amount, in fact u could kiss your headband of intellect +6 good-bye and settle for a +4 which isn't a bad thing, but you'll come up short on lets say purchasing spells, ring of protection, etc...again, you won the challenge maybe but it doesn't pertain to a lvl 10 character who has 1/3 the gold of a 14th lvl character. So the same purchases on a lower lvl character is not possible which I'm sure you know to be rather obvious. None at all, I'm more than wiling to admit I'm wrong when I am truly wrong - and I have been wrong in the past. You have been truly wrong more than once now and yet again in this exchange, the tone you've taken doesn't show that. I'm not trying to embarrass you, we're here to discuss and in some cases, to learn. I also know when to concede, in fact I conceded on two points of the arguement, however I know that in the overall, I'm still right and I will continue to prove this. Try a maximized from metamagic rod 3.5 timestop then shapechange into a choker and use metamagic rods of quicken in choker form. That's easily a total of 15 spells in one "round". If you're feeling really lucky then try and use a metamagic rod of extend on the time stop and you could roll 10 rounds of timestop for a total of 30 spells in one "round". Thats not one round, as you mention it is 5 rounds or 10 rounds with the extend. If you applied the same scenario with haste, you could get 60 spells in that time. Pending the fact you are high enough lvl to apply the appropriate metamagic feats and all. Whatever you apply, to increase the number of spells per round cast, a haste spell always increases it by 1 1/2 times. That is why it is so overpowered and even more so than the metamagic rods. Trust me now? The metamagic rod is much, much worse than haste in the hands of a clever caster.I have no clue (other than gross incompetence that is) why they made them core in 3.5 and lowered the price. I agree that the metamagic rods are cheesy, just as 3.0 haste, hulking hurlers, 220hd control for necros, and all the other broken cheesy rules. However as we are arguing which is worse, haste vs metamagic rods, i will have to still say the 3.0 haste because it is something that is only applicable to 3.0, the rods exist in both editions. Also the shear power of haste is so much greater than the rods themselves, well i should say potential power. =) Well I have no idea why they would change the metamagic rods either, which goes to show that 3.5 isn't that perfect either. =P Your move next... =)
pyk 11-20-04, 06:22 AM	Caster level requirement has been done away with in 3.5 errata, which isn't wise. It's not in the SRD, so I'm not sure where this gets implemented in 3.5 I strongly suggest you apply 3.5 errata 3.5 errata. Don't think that would jive with my books. I use 3.0. Now, I strongly suggest you find out if the person is using the version you're talking about before making such "strong" suggestions.
DungeonMaster 11-22-04, 11:48 AM	Was away for the weekend! Terribly sorry Pyk! It wasn't specifically aimed at you though despite being a reply. I don't use any errata actually for my game (3rd edition core) and it runs fine. Yeah I see it, so you can in fact make the rod, quick question, why is it CL 17 then? That's another subject of debate. I personally think the caster level requirement should be enforced - wholeheartedly. Some items are very very powerful if gained early (like beads of karma for instance) and being able to craft any number of them is too powerful. Finding them, actively searching for them that is or through random treasure is typically fine. he can also ban the use of metamagic rods, and vice versa, he can allow both. This really has no bearing, other than that a 3.0e wizard still has the opportunity to get the metamagic rods unless specifically dictated against by the DM. The DM can ban anything - can do anything. It's his game. You take it or you leave it. That includes 3rd edition haste, 3.5 metamagic rods. Discussions on the boards usually center around what's permissable in a "core" game - the unoptional rules associated with the game at it's simplest level. By those rules the rods are legit, just as haste is legit in 3rd edition. The metamagic rods are no less "core" and "unoptional" than magic weapons and special materials that are needed by warriors to defeat DR. Again, I must admit you are right, however it is still use-activated which means you need the quick draw feat to use both the quicken rod and maximize rod in the same round, also you can't apply them to the same spell which you applied correctly in a max empower fireball and a quicken empower fireball. You don't need the quickdraw feat. You have a metamagic rod in hand (it's a weapon too incidentally), you cast a spell through that metamagic rod, you drop the rod as a free action (tethered to your cloak for instance) you use a move action to retreive a stored quicken rod and cast the quickened spell. You could polymorph into any number of things with multiple arms and have no difficulty with it either. Or have an unseen servant hand you the rod. It's really not complicated. Its 7000gp considering you are making it in which case you'd also expend 560xp, in which case you are no longer lvl 10 but lvl 9. This isn't a large cost to absorb. Dying, even once, is significantly more "expensive" in terms of XP. You can claim it's "difficult" but I'll just claim it's "clearly possible" and in fact desirable. I would much prefer to be able to maximize my empowered fireballs or any other spell 3/day rather than have an additional +2 to my intelligence score. however I know that in the overall, I'm still right and I will continue to prove this. I've lost track of what you're trying to prove? If you applied the same scenario with haste, you could get 60 spells in that time. You can't. That's the comparison: core rules vs. core rules. As it stands the 3.5 core rules allow for just as many spells if not more to be cast in one "round". The metamagic rod of extend automatically allows you to extend a 9th level spell - timestop - to double your output of spells in one round. It does the exact same thing as haste does in 3rd edition in this scenario. Except that 3.5 has metamagic rods of maximize that allows you to maximize all those delayed blast fireballs which you can't in 3rd edition core rules, allows you to maximize the energy drain, and so forth. The rods win, always, at the higher levels. They are by far and large "better" than 3rd edition haste. However as we are arguing which is worse, haste vs metamagic rods, i will have to still say the 3.0 haste because it is something that is only applicable to 3.0, the rods exist in both editions. Also the shear power of haste is so much greater than the rods themselves, well i should say potential power. =) Again, that's like me saying take divine metamagic as a basis for discussion - the non-core rules in 3.5 allow for quickened miracles, persistant timestops and all sorts of uber silliness. Here's a funny thread: http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=4850618&postcount=38 Infinite wishes without XP and the ability to destroy Hextor in one standard action. The "potential power" of haste is nothing when you add in non-core rules, literally and figuratively. 3rd edition haste is no better than metamagic rods - they are at best one and the same.
Kullak-Kobold Sorcerer 11-22-04, 12:44 PM	I'm a little confused. Did EVERYONE miss that Haste now affects your ENTIRE PARTY? I'm just shocked at how down on this spell everyone is. Yes, now it doesn't turn one wizard into superman -- but EVERYONE gets a few bonuses. Even your wizard gets an extra attack per round, so it's not like anyone gets screwed out of their bonus... I am currently playing a bard in a good campaign. Haste has been incredibly useful. Example, I am at the top of the inititive order and cast Haste. Party member hold action to let creatures move close, party members get full attack option with the extra attack. Or Party members with ranged weapon, use extra attack on their inititive without holding their action. It has also been useful for my character if I have an action before my opponents. I cast Haste, opponent moves close, I attack with my extra attack. Rather than, I move forward/charge and get one attack. The spell effects the entire group, and the +1 bonus to hit and AC, and the extra attack has ben great for our group.
bitnine 11-22-04, 01:16 PM	Heh, I've always wondered if this would be considered a balanced, fine, useful, handy spell at 3rd level: Magebuff Transmutation Level: Sor/Wiz 3 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 1 standard action Target: One Creature Duration: 1 round/level Saving Throw: Fortitude Negates (harmless) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless) The target of this spell is infused with powerful arcane energies. They are able to apply the effects of the Quicken Spell feat to any one spell cast each round. This adjustment does not increase the level of the spell cast, and the spell does not count toward their limit of quickened spells or swift actions. Additionally, the target gains a +4 bonus to AC, applies whenever a dodge bonus would be applicable.
Heron_Marked_Blade 11-22-04, 04:17 PM	Magebuff Transmutation Level: Sor/Wiz 3 Once again, I roll a Detect Facetious Comment skill check and handily overcome the DC! All is still right with the world.... ....or is it....?
zudbash 11-22-04, 05:22 PM	Once again, I roll a Detect Facetious Comment skill check and handily overcome the DC! All is still right with the world.... ....or is it....? Well, he didn't specify what the material component was. Maybe 5000 gp of diamond dust...?
Kullak-Kobold Sorcerer 11-22-04, 06:49 PM	Has it been mentioned in the off topic part of this thread that metamagic Rods require the creater to be 17th level to make them? DMG pg 236. Reducing the cost with Craft Rod based on the DMG rules on crafting feats would not apply to that scenario.
DungeonMaster 11-22-04, 07:59 PM	Has it been mentioned in the off topic part of this thread that metamagic Rods require the creater to be 17th level to make them? Yes, that's been overuled by the errata. You need only be level 9. As for Bitnine's spell I don't see a problem with it, in fact metamagic springs from second edition - the tome of magic to be precise where metamagic was a spell, not a feat.
Admiral Yi Sun Shin 11-22-04, 08:08 PM	Acutally, I don't approve of Bitnine's spell because that is the exact problem that 3e haste caused and it was removed because it was imbalanced. So why would we reimplement it? Especially that spell, that is a spell solely designed for spellcasters and no other and granting 5rds of quicken spells at 3rd level in addition to +4 AC, you just effective got an item more powerful than a greater rod of quicken (thats more than 170000gp value). You can cast 5 quickens on any lvl spell at 3rd level and 20 quicken spells at lvl 20, with NO penalty what so ever. Plus a +4 dodge bonus, thats ridiculous powerful because it'll stack with mage armor. Yeah, now we can have a wizard with a higher AC than the fighter. That is the most ridiculously unbalanced spell. In fact, its practically a mirror image of haste, which shows why 3.0 haste is so powerful. Maybe if that were a 7th level spell, with a 10000gp component and a 1000xp penalty.
bitnine 11-22-04, 08:42 PM	As for Bitnine's spell I don't see a problem with it, in fact metamagic springs from second edition - the tome of magic to be precise where metamagic was a spell, not a feat.I can see not having a problem with the basic mechanic, and not wanting such to be barred from the game. Myself, it's more that I wonder if that spell as written is appropriate for inclusion as a 3rd level spell. If there was a chain of tome of magic-like spells, I would imagine that they'd start at a less substantive effect than quicken, and ramp up sometime after the 3rd level. That and perhaps a cap on the upper level of spells effected or number of spell levels total. Perserving the metacap is a good thing.
Heron_Marked_Blade 11-22-04, 10:11 PM	You mean that was a serious spell suggestion??? Once again my faith in mankind is shaken.... :nonono: Let me list the problems with that spell: 1) It is a 3rd-level spell that grants what is arguably the most powerful metamagic feat for free... 2) a feat which normally requires a spell slot 4 levels higher than the spell to be modified (i.e. adds on more spell slots than this spell takes up)... 3) but one which through this spell can be applied to a 9th-level spell... 4) and uses an unprecedented "not-Quickened, not-Swift, not-action" action... 5) and all of this is done through a 3rd-level spell. What's remotely balanced about this spell??? I haven't even mentioned the +4 dodge bonus to AC. Am I getting through to anyone? "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!"
Admiral Yi Sun Shin 11-22-04, 10:21 PM	Don't worry Heron, I agree also, that spells is the most ridiculously thing ever, I guess people will never understand how unbalanced 3.0 haste was?
bitnine 11-22-04, 10:28 PM	You mean that was a serious spell suggestion??? Once again my faith in mankind is shaken.... :nonono:You're half-and-half. It wasn't supposed to be a wild jibe. It was to gauge what people felt about the specified mechanic. I personally wouldn't place it at 3rd level, and I would want some other limiters, such as on the spell level effected. However, mainly I'm curious as to where other people would place the benefits of the spell as written.
Admiral Yi Sun Shin 11-22-04, 10:46 PM	First off, a spell like that should be more general as to apply to everyone not just a wizard. Next, it should be a 7th lvl spell at least. Next, it should be to the effect of not getting an extra standard action but forfeiting your move action for a 2nd standard action. So you can stand still and cast 2 spells or stand still and get an extra melee attack. Also, if you opt to maintain your move-action, you get double movement such that if you had 30ft movement it'd now be 60ft movement. Then you'd also get a +1 dodge bonus to AC for every 4 caster levels. Max +5. Lasts a number of rounds equal to 1/2 the caster level. Not sure if there should be an xp penalty and/or component cost. Anyway, that'y be my rendition of a balanced "Improved Haste" (3.0 haste) spell.
Heron_Marked_Blade 11-22-04, 10:47 PM	It was to gauge what people felt about the specified mechanic. Ah, that I can understand. :) I'm of two minds about spells that apply metamagic. On the one hand, metamagic in 3.0/3.5 is the domain of feats. As such, spells shouldn't grant a metamagic feats. Period. On the other hand, it is possible to research an Iceball (fireball that deals cold damage [Elemental Substitution (cold)], or a 5th-level fireball spell that has a 15d6 damage cap [Empowered fireball]). So clearly it is possible to research a spell that has a metamagic feat attached to it. My requirement would be this, though: You can't create/research a spell that allows you to apply a metamagic effect to another spell. You would have to research each spell with the metamagic effect applied to it. That is the only way to keep metamagic feats valuable and worth taking. Otherwise, why bother? Just research a spell that allows you to Quicken one spell per round for the next X number of rounds. Can you imagine the number of scrolls you'd scribe of that spell? I'd never leave home without at least three of 'em. Bottom line, I think the above spell is an example of trying to fix something that isn't broken.
Nom 11-23-04, 02:59 AM	The problem with 'magebuff' isn't that it allows a 'free' spell, it's that it allows a free spell every round for the duration of the spell. Consider the following: Quickspell Transmutation Level: Sor/Wiz ? Components: M, see text Casting Time: 1 free action Range: Personal Target: You Duration: Instantaneous Casting this spell allows the caster to immediately cast another spell as a quickened spell (a free action). The quickened spell must have a casting time of 1 standard action (or less). Only the casting time is affected, components and other requirements must still be met as normal for a 'free action' spell. Quickspell does not count against the per-turn limit of quick spells, but the quickened spell does. Material component: A tiny hourglass (cost 25gp), which is shattered during casting. Question: what spell level? Option: quickspell must be placed in a spell slot of at least the same level as the spell being cast (including any modifications due to metamagic). Observation: except for the expensive material component, 3.0 haste / magebuff grants this once / round for the duration of the spell. Question: did the 'extra' spell gained from 3.0 haste provoke an attack of opportunity?
Heron_Marked_Blade 11-23-04, 09:03 AM	There's precedent for what your spell does, Nom, at least in the Forgotten Realms. Spell Enhancer (3.0) allowed you to immediately cast another spell in that same round, with a +2 to the Save DC. Spell Enhancer (3.5) allows you to immediately cast another spell in that same round, with a +2 to the spell's caster level. The spell is a 4th-level spell in 3.0 as well as 3.5. Question: did the 'extra' spell gained from 3.0 haste provoke an attack of opportunity? As far as I'm aware, the extra spell from 3.0 Haste followed the rules for casting spells. 3.0 Haste didn't actually grant an extra spell, it granted an extra partial action (which could be used to cast another spell, take another attack, make another move, etc.). If you chose to cast a spell with that action, it was just like casting a spell normally -- if you were threatened at the time you provoked an AoO, etc.
DungeonMaster 11-23-04, 09:54 AM	The underlying question is: is quicken worth it? My answer is emphatically no. It's often difficult enough to justify metamagic but 4 spell levels is really, really hard to justify. Some people, rightfully so, find it impossible to justify even maximize spell. I have never, ever been able to use a quickened spell to any effect - and I have experimented with my NPCs against my players with all the metamagic feats. The reality is that an extra ray-of-frost in one round is never worth an extra confusion spell in the following round, or enervation, or any 4th level slot. The difference gets amplified as levels increase - who would trade an extra charm person a round versus a hold monster? An extra hold monster versus dominate monster? Only circumstances so particular as to be contrived would ever warrant the tradeoff and even then the DC loss alone is weighing heavily against you.
Heron_Marked_Blade 11-23-04, 10:08 AM	The underlying question is: is quicken worth it? My answer is emphatically no. It's often difficult enough to justify metamagic but 4 spell levels is really, really hard to justify. Some people, rightfully so, find it impossible to justify even maximize spell. Huh, interesting. It's all about your playing style, I guess. I played a Wizard in a high-level 3.0 campaign that we converted to 3.5, and I use more metamagic now than I did before...primarily Maximize, in fact, although I'm never without a few Quickened spells, or Silent Dimension Doors/Teleports. And I assure you, the situations are not contrived at all. Any wizard will be screwed in an area of Silence, or when grappled, without the appropriate Metamagic feat. I haven't had a problem with the lower Save DCs from applying metamagic to spells — there are other ways to raise DCs, or you have an option to use No Save spells, and no wizard should ever expect to target a strong save and get away with it consistently. I use Fort saves vs. Rogues/Wizards/Sorcerers, Reflex saves vs. Fighters/spellcasters, and Will saves vs. Rogues/Fighters. My 17th-level Wizard casts spells with saves averaging anywhere from 19-23 + spell level, and he does pretty well. :twocents:
DungeonMaster 11-23-04, 10:56 AM	Heron, I'll readily agree that still spell, silent spell and empower are very useful. 1 spell level hike isn't a hard price to pay. And two spell levels isn't that bad either. You're then comparing a silent dimension door to a teleport spell. It's about equivalent. There's an obvious list of situations that the silent dimension door will certainly help you out more than the teleport spell. Certainly if you're a sorceror the metamagic has much more applicability. But sorcerors can't quicken spells. You are literally - not figuratively - literally trying to compare at the start of the day - before you adventure you know not what's going to happen - conciously memorizing a quickened ray of frost versus say a wall of fire. It's totally not worth it from my perspective. Ridiculously so in my mind.
VirgilCaine 11-23-04, 12:14 PM	I'm a little confused. Did EVERYONE miss that Haste now affects your ENTIRE PARTY? I'm just shocked at how down on this spell everyone is. Yes, now it doesn't turn one wizard into superman -- but EVERYONE gets a few bonuses. Even your wizard gets an extra attack per round, so it's not like anyone gets screwed out of their bonus... I'll never understand how people can think, that with the way the Vancian system works, using up a LIMITED resource FASTER is a GOOD thing. A wizard, at any one time, is never going to be able to instantly get his spells back or scribe more scrolls or get another wand. Sure, you can teleport a wand or whatever from somewhere else or retrieve it (Leomund's Secret Chest), but you had to have the contents beforehand. Sure, the Magnificent Mansion, but thats a 7th level spell, not readily available, and you're running away from the situation.
Nom 11-23-04, 06:24 PM	There's precedent for what your spell does, Nom, at least in the Forgotten Realms. Spell Enhancer (3.0) allowed you to immediately cast another spell in that same round, with a +2 to the Save DC. Spell Enhancer (3.5) allows you to immediately cast another spell in that same round, with a +2 to the spell's caster level. The spell is a 4th-level spell in 3.0 as well as 3.5.But both of the above trade a 4th level slot for an ad-hoc DC or spell level increase. They don't trade a spell slot for an ad-hoc extra spell. And thus you haven't answered the question - what level slot would make the above spell balanced? I'll never understand how people can think, that with the way the Vancian system works, using up a LIMITED resource FASTER is a GOOD thing.In combat, if you're going to use the resources anyway it's alway a benefit to use them faster. In fact, using them faster may actually save resources, but defeating the opponent before he deals more damage to you. As to quickening, buffs are good candidates. If you've 'spare' 5th - 7th level slots you can fire off low level buffs at the same time as making attacks. For clerics, a quickened divine favor is a particularly attractive option.
Heron_Marked_Blade 11-23-04, 08:10 PM	And thus you haven't answered the question - what level slot would make the above spell balanced? I don't know that any spell slot would make that spell balanced. How powerful is the ability to cast an additional spell per round, above and beyond Quickened spells, for X number of rounds? It's certainly more powerful than Polar Ray (8th-level), or even Meteor Swarm (9th-level spell). I just don't think the mechanic is a good idea. How powerful would a spell that granted an extra full attack in a round be? I know a full attack takes a full action and casting a spell takes a standard action, but an extra spell per round is so much more powerful than a single attack that I think the comparison to an extra full attack is appropriate. I just don't think the mechanic is a good idea.
Nom 11-23-04, 09:09 PM	I don't know that any spell slot would make that spell balanced. How powerful is the ability to cast an additional spell per round, above and beyond Quickened spells, for X number of rounds? It's certainly more powerful than Polar Ray (8th-level), or even Meteor Swarm (9th-level spell).Perhaps true. Though the version I listed only grants 1 quickened spell, and it counts against the '1 quickened spell per round'. Unlike traditional Quicken, you trade horizontally (another spell slot) rather than vertically (increased spell level) and on an ad-hoc basis, which makes it seem very powerful. I'd probably put it at 6th level minimum, with the additional restriction that the spell slot for quickspell must exceed that of the quickened spell. As you state, 3.0 haste is so much more powerful it's just silly.
Heron_Marked_Blade 11-24-04, 09:09 AM	I don't know if you've looked at the Metamagic Components section in Unearthed Arcana, but that book offers some variant ways of dealing with metamagic feats. Any spellcaster can apply a metamagic feat to a spell with the appropriate (often very expensive) material spell component. So you can Quicken a Greater Teleport by sacrificing an amber and emerald necklace worth 7,000gp. This variant rule allows you to Quicken spells you couldn't normally Quicken (such as Greater Teleport). I'm not sure how they calculate the cost of the material component, though. I don't use it and I don't think I ever will, but it's another option.
JuliusCaesar 11-24-04, 12:00 PM	I'll never understand how people can think, that with the way the Vancian system works, using up a LIMITED resource FASTER is a GOOD thing. A wizard, at any one time, is never going to be able to instantly get his spells back or scribe more scrolls or get another wand. Sure, you can teleport a wand or whatever from somewhere else or retrieve it (Leomund's Secret Chest), but you had to have the contents beforehand. Sure, the Magnificent Mansion, but thats a 7th level spell, not readily available, and you're running away from the situation. I think that everyone here has come to the agreement that 3.0 haste was broken beyond belief. The qeustion is, is 3.5 haste a good 3rd level spell, and if it is, what level would 3.0 haste be. Personally I think it is epic, because it can allow you to cast multiple epic spells a turn. Look at it this way, my 18th level incantix can effectively cast 3 metorswarm spells a turn,(quicken metor swarm thanks to a metamagic rod, and a twin metorswarm thanks to instant metamagic class feature) now with a 3.0 haste that would be 4 of those, is there any cr 18 creature that could survive that, fireresitance can be gotten around by changing the energy type, and I don't know about SR, but if it dose, it can be gotten around, and the only creatures left are things that immune to magic with SR. And when you get epic it gets even more stupid, you fly up and cast your epic spell to create a 20 ft x20 ft block of admanitite and it falls and drops on someone. And you could do that twice! As long as there isn't a cap on the level of the extra spell you can cast with haste, it will be a epic spell.
Aracor 11-24-04, 01:02 PM	You DO know that instant metamagic has been errataed, so that you have to actually be able to cast the spell, right? So if you're capable of casting level 9 spells, you can't instant metamagic up a twinned meteor swarm. You can get a twinned disintegrate with instant metamagic, but not a twinned meteor swarm unless you're capable of casting level 12 spells. ~Aracor
DungeonMaster 11-24-04, 01:51 PM	Look at it this way, my 18th level incantix can effectively cast 3 metorswarm spells a turn,(quicken metor swarm thanks to a metamagic rod, and a twin metorswarm thanks to instant metamagic class feature) now with a 3.0 haste that would be 4 of those. Oh yes, I agree the fourth meteor swarm really is "breaking" that game - that's entirely the haste spell's fault. But the twin instant metamagic and the metamagic rod are "fine". I have but one last thing to say on this issue: :turkey:
JuliusCaesar 11-24-04, 05:16 PM	Thanks for pointing out that incantrix has been errated. At least it is something that makes sense, unlike the change to shapechange, well that did, a little bit. It didn't make very much sense, because in theory you could have highted a spell to level a billion for free. Heh, oh well. Anyway, so I will now have to stick to quicken(rod) split polar ray. :) Anyway, it was broken, just less broken. How to fix haste, maybe have multiple versions that give you a extra spell of a certian level or bellow? Like a 6th level version that gives you a extra spell but of the 5th level or less? One 9th level version for 8th level spells? That still dosen't bring into the question the ultimate mind blower. What happens with a quickened time stop? do you just get a full round after that?
Zelphi 11-25-04, 07:05 AM	Well this is an interesting topic. 3.5 haste is less useful, and rarely that good unless you're in specific circumstances - which doesn't make it a good spell. 3.0 haste has two issues - the height of the bonuses it provided, and casting 3 spells. 3.0 haste could've been easily fixed and it could've been made more useful than. 3.0 haste needed to be changed because of 3.5 changes. None of this escapes that 3.5 haste is a fairly crud spell. Doesn't mean 3.0 had it all right, but its a non issue. 3.5 haste is fundamentally a poor revision.
Archtyrant Terevoth 11-25-04, 07:47 AM	Question: what spell level? Quickspell is unpriceable in its current form. Basically what you'd need to do is set some kind of cap on it, like "quicken any 5th level spell or lower". Then you could actually put a spell level on it. You can't really do the variable spell level system, because having it be equal to the spell you quicken is clearly unbalancing. A feat + a slot 4 levels higher should be better than 2 spell slots. Who would take quicken spell then, especially given that with quickspell you dont' need to pick the spell ahead of time. I'd say offhand that +4 to spell slot would be fine. So you could have a 9th level quickspell that let you quicken a 5th level or lower spell. Now this seems a lot like the quicken spell feat, and it is. You're paying a 9th level spell and a 5th level spell to cast a quickened spell chosen on the fly and without the actual quicken spell feat. And that's certainly worth it. In fact you might still have people who would never take the quicken spell feat if you introduced this spell.
Heron_Marked_Blade 11-25-04, 12:20 PM	The benefit of Archtyrant Terevoth's suggestion is that you don't have to prepare a spell ahead of time, or (in the case of spontaneous casters) have to spend a full round casting. The tradeoff is that you're casting two spells (9th-level + [1st-5th] level) versus a single spell (Quickened 5th-level spell). I think it works.
teclis 11-26-04, 03:15 AM	dungeon master, you frankly astonish me in your defence of 3.0 haste. and your condenmation of quicken spell blows my mind almost as much. Our group plays 3.5, and quicken spell is one of the few meta magic feats that EVERY primary caster cannot live whithout. the real benifit of quicken is that it allows you to cast useful spells of 3rd level or lower in a high level combat. you get sheild, truestrike, scortching ray, ray of enfeeblement, mirror image, protection from energy, vampiric touch, and yes, even haste, into a combat in which you normally wouldn't touch 3rd level spells. comparing charm person to charm monster is a red herring, when the real situation is ray of enfeeblement in addition to your cone of cold, instead of waiting till next round to cast charm monster. the truth is, the vast majority of D&D adventures are not under a time limit. The PCs decide where and when they rest, so hitting the enemy as hard as you can, IN AS LITTLE TIME AS POSSIBLE, is paramount. (you can bet they are hitting you as hard) so quicken allows you to make use of your lower level spells in conjunction with your higher level ones. if all you have left is 3rd level slots or lower, you were probably going to rest anyway. now, it being established that quicken is a great feat, I would happily take 3.0 haste as a ninth level spell, right after shapechange, it blows timestop right out of the water. you get almost as many extra actions out of it, on average, and the spells you cast under it's influence can target opponents, and you get AC.
Zelphi 11-26-04, 06:04 AM	At the cost of higher level spells. Haste wasn't that bad, but only a tad over placed for a 3rd level spell. Why hasn't anyone mentioned Mass Haste? 3.0 Haste effected only one person in a beneficial way. Its not 3 spells, its 2 spells and a quickened one, which automatically limits its use to 5th level or lower spells (which isn't that good). Only 3 of 5 casters can use it and its benefit is questionable. You only get to cast 1 Quickened spell in a round and if you're applying it to a bunch of 3rd level spells then you're not getting that many in a go. Now you've got Metamagic Rods which would do pratically the same thing and far more. Its not an improvement if its still screwed up some other way. So now we have a limited use spell, some crappy metamagic rods and a bunch of other crap to put up with. All it need was one simple fix about casting spells if that, but nooo... we get the crap covered broken fan to go with the crap that hit it and blew back in our face.
DungeonMaster 11-26-04, 09:09 AM	dungeon master, you frankly astonish me in your defence of 3.0 haste. I'm not actually defending it in vacuo - merely pointing out 3.5 has similiar mechanics in it and if you're playing 3.5 by core rules you should expect the casters to get their hands on metamagic rods. They're one and the same. the truth is, the vast majority of D&D adventures are not under a time limit. The PCs decide where and when they rest, so hitting the enemy as hard as you can, IN AS LITTLE TIME AS POSSIBLE, is paramount. Therein lies your assumption - limitless resources and time IS a resource. Your high level combat seems to be puncutated with one or perhaps two battles a day while my high level combat is as the DMG prescribes: "p.145 Characters can survive many encounters before resting. At very high levels the need for rest is rarely an issue." I'm quite certain that if you're resting every other minute of the day that a quickened 3rd level spell can be appealing. But for most adventurers - those that follow the standard of the DMG - having a quickened vampiric touch is not worth a power word stun or a prismatic spray or a limited wish. The poor structure of the high level game you're playing will also lead to an over representation of the magic weilding classes not merely a skewing of the perception of the utility of quicken spell. comparing charm person to charm monster is a red herring, when the real situation is ray of enfeeblement in addition to your cone of cold, instead of waiting till next round to cast charm monster. If only it were. It's not even comparing charm person to charm monster it's charm person to hold monster . Your quickened ray of enfeeblement + cone of cold is worthless compared to two cones of cold. Only very particular circumstances - like the ones you're playing will lead you to this conclusion. In simple analogy: It might be well and nice that you've destroyed the balor and burned all your high level spell slots in the process - but when you're standing above his corpse on some forgotten plane of existence inside a dimensionally anchored unhallow of the balor's own crafting and the rest of the demonic troupe show up, the maralith and the 2-5 hezrou, you might have second thoughts about your actions earlier. More than likely you will not get the chance to have them.
(Psi)SeveredHead 11-26-04, 09:26 AM	You can do this with 3.5 psionics easily. Are 3.5 psionics broken? You have to spend an extra 6 power points on each power when using schism and that counts against the metacap. It's like a cheaper Quicken Spell, but you have to cast a 4th-level spell to start off with, and that's not a free action. There are a few broken things in psionics, but it would help if people would only call the things that are actually broken "broken". As for fission, that power needs some errata. If the duplicate dies the manifester loses a level as if he had died... but this isn't clear in the power description. It looks like a temporary negative level instead :( As for the metamagic rods, I call those broken. They break the magical metacap for no good reason.
DungeonMaster 11-26-04, 09:50 AM	I'm not calling psionics broken on that account. In fact I'm proposing it as another watermark for balance by asking that rhetorical question. Fission is better than 3rd edition haste. It doesn't matter. If you blow all your PP in one day you are literally not much more than a commoner for the rest of it. It's the same idea. The metarods, no matter how much people try to reduce their significance, are core unoptional 3.5 rules. Zelphi is quite right in his analysis.
Naeron 11-26-04, 10:44 AM	<snip> Therein lies your assumption - limitless resources and time IS a resource. Your high level combat seems to be puncutated with one or perhaps two battles a day while my high level combat is as the DMG prescribes: "p.145 Characters can survive many encounters before resting. At very high levels the need for rest is rarely an issue." I'm quite certain that if you're resting every other minute of the day that a quickened 3rd level spell can be appealing. But for most adventurers - those that follow the standard of the DMG - having a quickened vampiric touch is not worth a power word stun or a prismatic spray or a limited wish. The poor structure of the high level game you're playing will also lead to an over representation of the magic weilding classes not merely a skewing of the perception of the utility of quicken spell <snip>. I don't think that encounter frequency really impacts it as much as you suggest. In the type of campaign model you suggest 3.0 Haste becomes even more effective. As a 3rd level spell it allows a caster get off 2 spells a round and the second does not suffer the -4 level hit of being quickened. Thus an encounter can be finished in fewer rounds which means, hopefully, less damage to the party so consumes less healing resources, it might also mean less spell slot expenditure by other casters. The second spell can even be one that would be quickened in 3.5 giving the same effect but saving a higher level slot (a very useful benefit for multi-round combats). In 3.5 to get off 2 spells a round the caster must either quicken (and suffer the -4 level hit) or use a metamagic rod (which is treasure and also suffers in this model of high encounter numbers from only being usable 3 times a day). A high encounter rate between rests makes 3.0 haste more powerful while it reduces the effectiveness of 3.5 metamagic rods and makes the -4 level hit of quicken more prohibitive as top-end slots become more valuable. In a low encounter/rest model it may be more practical to use a 2nd quickened spell because the loss of a slot 4 levels higher is less critical but in the same model 3.0 haste is more useful because that second spell can be 4 levels higher and the use of 2 top end slots is still not critical. With a low number of encounters yes a metamagic rod becomes more effective as it could be used once every encounter (or more) but 3.0 Haste is still much more effective at getting 2 spells off a round than using quicken however many encounters you get a day (as long as the encounter warrants multiple spell casts per round and lasts multiple rounds of course). I completely agree that a low number of encounters between rests is incredibly beneficial to spell-casting classes when compared to the melee classes.
bitnine 11-26-04, 10:54 AM	Hm. What if I made a feat that allows a wizard to cast every spell he has memorized at once as a standard action? Does the fact that it's a bad idea most of the time and that it leaves a wizard sans resources means that the feat's effect is actually balanced?
Zelphi 11-26-04, 10:57 AM	Why does everyone seem to think that Encounters need to be ended quickly, and that they do end in 3 rounds or so. If you have rounds that short then its either fatally balanced or not really a challenge because you could end it with a spell or two. All those two spells in a round mean bugger all if you can't get two effective spells off, and that's just rapidly expending a limited casting rate for anyone who can use it. You might cast two DBF and have none take effect... and goddamit.. Why the hell haven't you mentioned Mass Haste yet? And why the Hell haven't you considered the "Anything you can do, they can do better" aspect of the spell. When you have an enemy Necromancer with 3.0 Mass Haste on an undead Army, its still not that powerful. Bare in mind that in 3.5 you'd get out 2 Maximised Meteor Swarms in a round with 3.0 Haste and 3.5 rules for the rest... but instead you only get 1 Maxed and 1 Quickened instead. Big change!
Heron_Marked_Blade 11-26-04, 10:59 AM	The metarods, no matter how much people try to reduce their significance, are core unoptional 3.5 rules. I disagree with this statement. They are core, that much is true, but they aren't "unoptional" by any means. You can limit access to them in exactly the same way you'd limit access to anything else -- and it is perfectly okay to limit access to things, even Core things. Just because PCs have money for an item doesn't mean that they have to find it. I prefer that my players not just browse through the DMG: "Ooh, that looks interesting -- I want one of those! And two of those! And if I can find someone silly enough to actually sell one of these, I'll buy it too!" I really don't think the Forgotten Realms (high magic setting) has mail-order catalogues floating around. Destroys the "realism" of what you're trying to create, don't you think? Of course, YMMV.
Zelphi 11-26-04, 11:07 AM	So in the same light, why is 3.0 haste an issue at all? As someone keeps reminding me when we play 3.5 pure core only. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Essentially, it doesn't matter if every DM in the universe bans metamagic rod and Skip says "Yeah they're a bit naffed, sorry about that, just ignore them". Because they are core, they are involved in the "balance" of 3.5 and they are perfectly legitimate tools. You have no reason to alter them other than you thinking they're crud. It doesn't stop them being legit and essential to discussions on core balance and core issues.
DungeonMaster 11-26-04, 12:04 PM	limit access to them in exactly the same way you'd limit access to anything else -- and it is perfectly okay to limit access to things, even Core things. Well I disagree with this statement because the rules assume you have magic items, special materials and so forth otherwise challenges are impossible to overcome. While you can have your high level characters running around without cloaks of resistance or stat enhancers or wands or staves but they're going to die really really quickly . The feat "craft rod" is very significantly weakened if you arbitrarily nix the metamagic rods from the list of rods. The fact of the matter is you're singling out these items because you inherently feel they're unbalanced - but they're still there in the core 3.5 rule books and there's nothing you can point to to say to the player that "really really wants" one and has everything appropriate to make them. You just have to say "that's broken - not in my game". And that's fine, it's the DM's job to make those sort of decisions. You can do the same for 3rd edition haste - the fact that it's in the PHB or in the DMG doesn't give overruling it any greater credence. There's no "optional" label stuck on the metamagic rods, no more so than admantine swords or cloaks of charisma.
DungeonMaster 11-26-04, 12:16 PM	I don't think that encounter frequency really impacts it as much as you suggest. Well I've run it and yes, I can tell you that encounter frequency very significantly impacts the game. Perhaps more than any other aspect. In 3.5 to get off 2 spells a round the caster must either quicken (and suffer the -4 level hit) or use a metamagic rod (which is treasure and also suffers in this model of high encounter numbers from only being usable 3 times a day). Actually the most efficient use of the metamagic rods are the maximize and empower rods. They're cheap and stack well with other metamagic. Likewise they can do things that haste cannot - such as extend buff spells and A high encounter rate between rests makes 3.0 haste more powerful while it reduces the effectiveness of 3.5 metamagic rods and makes the -4 level hit of quicken more prohibitive as top-end slots become more valuable. A high encounter rate means you're burning slots like mad to cast haste every encounter. It actually impacts the raw number of spells you can cast if you have to cast haste 10, 20, 30 times in a day - it impacts it very significantly. And that's just on you - as Zelphi says you're going to need more than that to haste everyone in the party and higher level slots. There are also a lot of "wasted" rounds while the rods are one-shot use. The rods likewise are permanent items that don't need to be replenished and don't cost slots to use. There are tradeoffs to either but if you gave me the choice of 3rd edition haste vs. 3.5 metamagic rods I would invariably choose the rods. There's so much more flexibility with the rods - empower, maximize, extend, widen, enlarge AND quicken. It's like candy to a caster. You can get two spells a round when you need it OR you can make that one spell go the extra mile in all these different ways.
Naeron 11-26-04, 12:42 PM	Well I've run it and yes, I can tell you that encounter frequency very significantly impacts the game. Perhaps more than any other aspect. I wasn't questioning that it impacts the game, I was questioning how much it impacts the use of haste/quicken in a comparison between 3.0 and 3.5. Now 20 encounters a day is ridiculously massive number and to suggest that such a rate of encounters would be an appropriate average is just silly and makes me doubt you have ever run this many encounters between rests in 3.0. It would throw use of haste, quickened spells or metamagic rods straight out the window and they would need to be of very low CR and EL compared to the party or it would be a guaranteed TPK. I was assuming that you were considering a reasonable number of encounters a day, say about 7 or 8. Well above the suggested average but still at a level where there are spell slots available to cast Haste if high level. At high level 3.0 haste was pretty much the most effective 3rd level slot use, by then most 3rd level slots were best used for buffs and defenses anyway as they do not cut it offensively. If a 16th level Wizard caste Haste followed by an 8th level spell and then a 7th level and a 6th level the next round that could be done for 3 or 4 encounters without running out of slots. And as an 8 encounter day must contain core lower CR stuff (or a TPK) those cover the encounters where the Wizard would not want to use haste and could cover with their 6th and 5th level slots. Zelphi - The reason why its very important to have the ability to end combats very quickly is that eachj round you shorten combat by is one less round of actions by your enemies. If they are powerful that action could be a kill on a party member or at least a lot of damage that then uses up healing resources.
DungeonMaster 11-26-04, 01:46 PM	DMG p.101. "The PCs should be able to take on many more encounters lower than their level but fewer encounters with Encounter levels higher than their level. As a general rule if the EL is two levels lower than the party's level the PCs should be able to take on twice as many encounters before having to stop and rest. Two levels lower than that and the number doubles again." So... you are level 20 an "epic" character in all senses of the word and the gates of hell open wide Naeron and nothing short of 4x2x2 = 16 pitfiends (CR 16) must you fight on this day because if you don't, the kingdom is ruined and all that you cherish will perish in a continual storm of fire, brimstone and misery. You might also consider protection from fire a better deal for a 3rd level slot once you've been hit by your 16th meteor swarm. This is actually valid at any level of the game and you can go to much higher numbers than this at the end levels. I've actually had an entire kingdom attack a group of PCs that were mislead into assisinating the leaders of two factions. The factions allied and row upon row of soldiers, catapults, enlisted mercenary giants, called demons and charmed dragons were assembled. The PCs had about a week of time to prepare but they still ended up running from their cloud city stronghold to other dimensions. The ennemy did follow through gates and teleportation circles they pressed on throughout every minute of the day. Wands, staves, scrolls, potions the wholebit were depleted and ruined. It took 4 5-hour sessions (a month since I play once a week) to get through that one day. The high level combat that most people envision on the boards is "kick down the door" but really that paradigm breaks down at higher levels. Just because you're sitting pretty in your stronghold surrounded by wards and cloaked in illusion doesn't mean the formian queens are not going to figure out you're weak when you're expended. In fact that's the most likely time they're going to strike you - and they commune ever 10 minutes or so of every day...
Zelphi 11-27-04, 05:45 AM	Zelphi - The reason why its very important to have the ability to end combats very quickly is that eachj round you shorten combat by is one less round of actions by your enemies. If they are powerful that action could be a kill on a party member or at least a lot of damage that then uses up healing resources. Which assumes you can end every fight quickly. I say that if you can then its not much of a challenge is it? A real challenge actually expends resources but leaves you able to face other different challenges. This style of encounter is poor because you don't match abilities, you simply throw stuff at them and they have to end it quickly. Better groups actually last longer in more stenous combats, but are also better able to handle things when they get low on resources. If you aren't being stressed for resources by the challenges you face for each level then you aren't recieving appropriate challenge. It doesn't matter what CR you face if you can kil it in just 3 rounds with a few select spells. You are assuming something of the party that fights long battles, but you are ignoring the real time those "long" battles take up. If you have 20 round combat, then its just 2 minutes in a day that you've been fighting. But for you, it seems that each fight only lasts about 30 seconds at most? My statement was actually a remark against this tendancy to have shortly resolved combats, if you actually stress and challenge a party, it can last for a long time as it probably should. Further more, in any day a Higher level group might be faced with any number of lesser opponents that don't mean anything, this is a perfectly reasonable method of encounter - where you hit them with a minor rival or whatever. Its not bound to 4 encounters of suitable CR, that's just an approximation of what they should face to gain a level. They can be hit with any number of smaller or meaningless encounters (including show offs from powerful enemies) to add flavour to a campaign.
JuliusCaesar 11-27-04, 12:31 PM	The problem with throwing a whole bunch of crappy monsters at high level PCs is that they are going to get tired of it, since they aren't getting good xp for them. Also it's alot of work keeping track of all these little monsters, where it's pretty easy to keep track of one hellish monster that may kill the entire party. It also effects treasure as well. Which is why I would fight dragons any day over elementals. Dragon battles are 90% of the time short, one way or the other. Either the party kills the dragon or it kills them. And they have great treasure and XP. Elementals take alot of time to kill. Fighting them is monantonous. Especially if they are earth elementals. As for quicken spells, they best quicken spells are buff spells, attack spells in general aren't to great to quicken. Buff spells you normally don't want to take the time to cast. The only quickened attack spell our party see use of is quicken empowered scorching ray. And if one or more of those rays critical, all the better. And the real problem with 3.0 haste is when it was combined with time stop, and then the wizard kills the entire encounter on the first round. And if you are complaing about a wizard not being able to survive multiple encounters, well wizards weren't designed to do that. They don't have the # of spells to do that. BUT they are great boss battle killers. If you want to last more then 1 or 2 fights and still be useful, then be a sorcerer, warmage or psion. And complaining about the rods, they have a limited use you know, 3 time per day I believe. Also you mostlikly aren't going to waste 7th level spells and above on crappy monsters, mostlikly let the rest of the party handle them, throwing out some 3rd or 4th level spells every once in awhile. Then when you fight something worthy of those spells, you need the quicken spells to survive, and to destory it. On average, are 18th level party averages about 2 - 3 encounters. Also the problem with the high level party not resting is normally(unless you throw them on some random plane that teleporting and teleporting like effects don't work or are messed up on) it would be hard to stop a high level party for just teleporting away, going back to town, resting and coming back the next day.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 11-27-04, 12:40 PM	If people are going to cry because a wizard could cast an extra spell then make haste affect spellcasters giving them extra time to possibly counterspell, or raise their Intitiative by a certain number for the next round if they are going to cast a spell...Also, to get more than one spell off with haste you couldn't move except for a 5-foot step.... And Quicken is expensive.....
VirgilCaine 11-27-04, 05:45 PM	And the real problem with 3.0 haste is when it was combined with time stop, and then the wizard kills the entire encounter on the first round. And how many times can he do that?
DungeonMaster 11-27-04, 06:20 PM	About as many times as the 3.5 wizard can because a metamagic rod of extend spell + timestop has the exact same net number of spells castable . Of course if you follow the actual spell duration rules you the player don't know when your timestop is going to end so you better have a backup plan... I still can't beleive people here actually think that they're going to be epic level characters and they're going to blow all their top spells in one go then wait around for 24 hours... king: "but the gates to hell havn't closed sir!" warrior: "Tut tut, we're the heroes here and the wizard needs his rest before another unspeakable evil claws its way into this dimension." wizard: "Quite right, I'm quite put out from that 6 second burst there and it's just not fair to think an epic hero like myself might have to fight for a whole minute or two on a weekend - I mean that would be nearly 20 rounds lord forbid! What do you think 9th level spell slots grow on trees? We have a union you know. No more than 12 seconds of combat on weekends and 18 on a weekday, excluding holidays and ash day portentuary 33."
Archtyrant Terevoth 11-27-04, 06:25 PM	The idea that the wizard expends his resources faster is ludicrous. Yes, he's spending a 3rd level spell to haste, and that's it. That's the only extra cost he's paying resource wise. If the encounter would have taken 4 fireballs to win with haste, it still takes 4 fireballs without haste, it's just that it takes only half the amount of rounds. If you kill the thing with only 3 fireballs, you aren't locked into casting a 4th fireball because you're hasted. There is no unnecessary loss of resources. In fact you are probably saving resources in the long run. If you kill the monsters faster you are saving your cleric spells or charges from his wand, because he doesnt' have to heal the damage they would have done had they survived an additional few rounds. And it's not like all this is some hypothetical effect we are talking about, this is what actually happened when people played with the spell. I know I'm not alone when I say that every arcane caster in every campaign in 3.0 cast haste at the start of every combat if they were able to. Similarly there was a total rush on any items that granted haste, like boots of speed. The only effect haste had on the game was making combats end in half the time. This put more emphasis on the initiative die. I'm really not sure why you would want to do that as 3.5 and especially 3.0 were already ultra deadly as it is. I'm not telling you what could happen if you play with 3.0 haste, I'm telling you what actually did happen. Remember we already played with this spell for a long time. The facts don't lie. We've already seen them play out in actual gaming tables. The advantages were immense and the disadvantages were practically nil. Seriously, I dare you to play in a game of 3.0 where your party never makes use of haste effects at all and all the monsters and NPCs use it liberally. Then come back and say it's not broken. You can make that claim about fireball, you can make it about magic missile or sleep, or any number of other spells or mechanics, but you cannot make it about haste.
DungeonMaster 11-27-04, 07:25 PM	The idea that the wizard expends his resources faster is ludicrous. If the encounter would have taken 4 fireballs to win with haste, it still takes 4 fireballs without haste, it's just that it takes only half the amount of rounds. If you kill the thing with only 3 fireballs, you aren't locked into casting a 4th fireball because you're hasted. No but you've got one less fireball to throw. No one's arguing you're locked into casting your 4th fireball - just that you might not have a 4th fireball if you've got 4 encounters per day and each encounter you are using that 3rd level slot. The metarods only cost gold, not slots. I'm not telling you what could happen if you play with 3.0 haste, I'm telling you what actually did happen. Remember we already played with this spell for a long time. The facts don't lie. We've already seen them play out in actual gaming tables. The advantages were immense and the disadvantages were practically nil. 90% of the boards "analysis" is in contradiction with my own experiences. There are no facts - people often buy into the "party line" and just blither from there. X is broken. Y is overpowered. I'de be willing to conjecture that 99% of the griping done on these boards never occurs in reality . 90% of the 3.5 changes likewise aren't related to any game experience beyond perhaps the skewed perceptions of those who wrote it. If they had been listening there would be no core metamagic rods. Seriously, I dare you to play in a game of 3.0 where your party never makes use of haste effects at all and all the monsters and NPCs use it liberally. Then come back and say it's not broken. Do the same thing with blink. Have every creature and NPC in the game use blink liberally - all your targeted spells and attacks fail with a 50% miss chance unless they have someway of seeing into the ethereal, your area spells do nothing but half damage. Just about everything can walk through walls but you can't. You always lose your dex bonus and blindfighting won't help you and make sure the PCs never take any countermeasures. Then come back and say it's not broken. I'm serious Terevoth, I've had my experiences with haste and honestly I think blink is just that much better.
ClobberinTime 11-27-04, 07:53 PM	Haste was never meant to be used by wizards, getting two spells in a round should be expensive, if you are going to go back to the old rules of haste then you have got to allow full attacks after movement for the fighters haste or not, and that just makes the game about who has the higher initiative modifier, sound like fun???
Aracor 11-27-04, 10:48 PM	Personally, I think that haste was broken in 3.0. I guess the reason for that is because in my experience with 3.0 haste, literally EVERY creature in each and every combat needed to have haste, or they would lose. And I'm not talking about just wizards, although that was pretty bad. Sorcerers were better than wizards with haste because they have more spell slots. And the +4 to AC was nothing to sneeze at either. I'm also talking about fighters. If a fighter with armor or boots of haste won initiative, they would be able to do a partial charge, followed immediately by full attack. The opponent would be at a massive disadvantage at that point, if not completely dead, because they just took at least 2-3 attacks, if not 5, before they'd even get a chance to move. I would call that broken. It got even worse with an archer. They could use the standard action granted by haste to use their manyshot feat, and then still make a full rapid shot attack. Someone's suddenly a pincushion, and they won't even get to make a full attack back unless they HAVE haste, because they're more than 5 feet away from the archer. It wasn't just the extra spells all over the place that made it broken, it was the entire extra standard action. And like I said, the +4 haste bonus to AC was just amazing, because it stacked with everything. And even if someone hadn't been casting two spells a round every single round, I can still almost guarantee that haste would be the first spell cast in virtually every combat, and it would be in high demand by everyone who could get it. And if a party that HAD haste was fighting a party that DIDN'T have haste, the party that didn't have haste would get stomped. That simple. Is there another definition of broken? Or would you disagree that a party without haste would lose terribly to one with haste? Or that haste gets even worse at high levels? A party without haste compared to a party with haste would lose terribly. That single spell would make the difference even if everything else was exactly the same. ~Aracor
Heron_Marked_Blade 11-27-04, 11:24 PM	That single spell would make the difference even if everything else was exactly the same. That's as good a definition of something that's broken as I've heard. While I can't imagine that someone would challenge the fact that 3.0 Haste was that overwhelmingly powerful (i.e. it was cast more than any other spell, and was the single spell that would make the difference in combat [over any other lower-than-6th-level spell]), I will listen to that person's argument. <<waits expectantly>> ;) I can't agree that Blink is better than 3.0 Haste. For one thing, 3.0 Haste has no drawbacks to you, period, while Blink causes you to miss an attack or waste a spell 20% of the time. I don't think I've cast Blink once in 12 levels (between 5th- and 17th-level), while I've cast Haste (both the 3.0 and 3.5 version) plenty of times. There's a better comparison between 3.5 Haste and Blink, in my opinion. It's not an immediate "no-brainer" decision about which one you'd cast, as it was when 3.0 Haste was part of the equation. That leads me to think there's a better balance between the two spells (3.5 Haste and Blink).
fractal 11-28-04, 12:05 AM	I'm willing to concede that the 3.5 Metamagic Rods of Quicken are broken. Extremely expensive before 20th, but still broken. What do they have to do with a discussion about 3.5 Haste vs 3.0 Haste? First off, is 3.5 Haste a good spell? I would say yes. I just finished playing in a campaign, we got to about 11th level. We were a melee heavy party, and our Sorceress took Haste as her first 3rd level spell. It was great! She would cast it on her first turn, and my Rogue would get more attacks, more attack, and more ac. The Paladin and Cleric in full plate would get more movement, so that they could actually reach the fray before my Rogue was in over his head. The Druid's animal companion became that much more powerful in a Pounce. The Sorceress herself and the Ranger became more effective with their ranged attacks. What else could she have cast, that could have had a similar effect on combat? I don't think there is anything, short of a much higher level. Of course, if we were a smaller party less oriented towards melee, the spell wouldn't have done too much, but that's why it's a balanced spell. In some situations it's good, in some you'll want something else. Consider, instead, 3.0 Haste. When would you ever want something else? There's not even the downside of spending time to cast it, because you immediately get back the standard action you just used! I would call that almost the definition of broken. If it had a 1 round casting time, that would be something different. Then you'd have to make a decision about when it was a good idea to cast it. Would that be enough to fix 3.0 Haste? Incidentally, our Sorceress made a lot of use of a Metamagic Rod of Maximize on her Scorching Rays. I thought the item had nice flavor, it's what a Wizard's staff really ought to be. It helps the arcane caster cast his spells better. What do D&D staves do? They help casters not actually use their spells, and then get used up. Who thinks Gandalf's staff gave him some extra powers that were getting used up, and who thinks it amplified and focused the spells he had access to anyway? Personally, I find the latter to be much more flavorful. It might need to be costed appropriately, but I like the mechanic much better.
DungeonMaster 11-28-04, 09:51 AM	literally EVERY creature in each and every combat needed to have haste, or they would lose. You know, from my experience combat often starts like the following: Monster gets surprise round. Monster wins initiative. PCs are half dead/paralyzed/dying. I don't know about other people's games but you need to play really very smart to avoid the monsters getting more actions than you do simply by getting the jump on you. If a fighter with armor or boots of haste won initiative, they would be able to do a partial charge, followed immediately by full attack. The opponent would be at a massive disadvantage at that point, if not completely dead, because they just took at least 2-3 attacks, if not 5, before they'd even get a chance to move. I would call that broken. Ok... so what about the core druid's wildshapes that allow "pounce"? You can even stack a 3.5 haste spell in there and guess what - same mechanic. The 3.5 psionics have "psionic lion's charge". Somehow you're going to have to justify to me why it was broken then but not broken when you play 3.5 with identical mechanics. Clearly the 3.5 designers don't think it's broken to move and full attack - why you say? likely because it wasn't broken in 3rd edition either. You know what I find broken, as an example? I find the draconomicon's metabreath weapons broken. I the PCs in the surprise round with maximized empowered clinging quickened breath weapon and then fly away and return X rounds later to do it again. It got even worse with an archer. They could use the standard action granted by haste to use their manyshot feat, and then still make a full rapid shot attack. Manyshot is not a core 3rd edition feat. And if a party that HAD haste was fighting a party that DIDN'T have haste, the party that didn't have haste would get stomped. Equip the other party with blink. Same deal. Are you trying to imply that if I have a party with polymorph other and another party without that the first party isn't going to get stomped? What if we keep going up the buffs tree? Will not a party with mass haste stomp a party with plain haste? What about a party with polymorph any object? Holy aura? Astral projection? C'mon. It's good but all of these named are at least it's match. That single spell would make the difference even if everything else was exactly the same. You can say that for many spells, blink nonetheless.
DungeonMaster 11-28-04, 10:05 AM	I can't agree that Blink is better than 3.0 Haste. As good? You keep focusing on how amazing haste is for a single class caster - what about blink for a rogue? For one thing, 3.0 Haste has no drawbacks to you, period, while Blink causes you to miss an attack or waste a spell 20% of the time. Of course, I understand your argument. You don't stop blinking while stunned, nauseated, frightened, etc... and there's no obvious counterspell however. I don't think I've cast Blink once in 12 levels (between 5th- and 17th-level), while I've cast Haste (both the 3.0 and 3.5 version) plenty of times. There's a better comparison between 3.5 Haste and Blink, in my opinion. It's not an immediate "no-brainer" decision about which one you'd cast, as it was when 3.0 Haste was part of the equation. That leads me to think there's a better balance between the two spells (3.5 Haste and Blink). It has never been a "no brainer" and honestly I'de never cast 3.5 haste. Not once. Worthless in my opinion except for very particular circumstances while blink will keep me/my target alive and fighting better than the opposition.
solbergb 11-28-04, 12:20 PM	As good? You keep focusing on how amazing haste is for a single class caster - what about blink for a rogue? . Rogues can't cast blink on themselves and then get a full round action like you could with 3.0 haste. What made it broken is that it was essentially a free action to cast the first round (because your "hasted" std action let you cast another spell, just as if you had not cast haste), and the usual followup action was to cast haste on a divine spellcaster who would then take two actions...so in round 1, you get 2 cleric actions instead of a mage+cleric, and in round two you have double the number of mages and clerics. That's not even getting into the blender effect of doing the second haste on a fighter, who can then get a charge attack, then a full attack before the enemy can react. All blink does for a rogue enable a rogue to use sneak attack 80% of the time, and he has to still get close enough to the enemy (possibly using up some of his full attack) and he can only "boostrap" it himself is he is a pretty capable caster or has good UMD and burns a scroll or wand. Meanwhile the arcane caster has spent his entire action buffing the Rogue, so the rogue has to do double-duty offensively in those early rounds to make up for the lost arcanist action. Of course, I understand your argument. You don't stop blinking while stunned, nauseated, frightened, etc... and there's no obvious counterspell however. You get hit half the time, 100% of the time with force effects. If you are stunned, nauseated, frightened while blinking...you're out of the fight, who cares if you are harder to hit....they'll either just focus on the dangerous opponents or if they have the leisure, swing a few more times. It has never been a "no brainer" and honestly I'de never cast 3.5 haste. Not once. Worthless in my opinion except for very particular circumstances while blink will keep me/my target alive and fighting better than the opposition. 3.5 haste is really, really good if you have strong melee types in the party..including companions, summoned allies, cohorts, etc. Even the iconic 4 person party can get pretty large by mid-high levels. It remains a good action until most of your fighter-types have boots of speed (which BTW, are almost required garb at high levels in any party that doesn't get hasted a lot..an extra full BAB attack 10 rounds/day is a better use of footwear than any other alternative). Haste 3.5 is kind of a wasted action if you are a party of spellcasters or are playing solo. In 1st and 2nd edition, haste was a FIGHTER buff. It did nothing for spellcasters except boost their movement. 3.5 returned it to that role. In 3.0, Haste was "sudden quicken for round/level" on any spellcaster and "Pounce+free attack" on any melee type for round/level. Sudden quicken 1/day takes a million feats to get into and doesn't work for an entire combat and can't be re-cast later. Pounce is a bit easier to do if you use the right splatbooks (although the DC version requires you to be a druid with wildshape uses) but it still doesn't give a full power charge and doesn't allow you to both do a heedless charge and momentum swing in one round. Haste 3.0 was also single target which was kind of weird, historically speaking. It didn't fit the D&D flavor of the spell, and anything that grants extra ACTIONS for round/level is hugely powerful. Actions are the most precious thing in phase-based combat...this is why a small party is fragile, and a lone opponent is often less powerful than you'd think. No matter what your might, you only get one set of actions/round. Anything that increases that, vastly increases your options. I think they did the right thing, and am a lot happier with 3.5 haste than 3.0 haste. 1 action gives the entire "physical fighter" set of people in the party free top-bab attacks, plus gives a stacking "bless" and a stacking AC increase and a mobility increase. At higher levels you can quicken it and not even need an action to boost the whole party significantly. That's pretty damn good for one action and a level 3 spell, but it isn't always the "best" thing to do. Whereas if you didn't cast haste round 1 on yourself in 3.0 and you could...you were a fool because you were depriving yourself of actions every single round after that AND not depriving yourself of any actions in the first round to get that advantage.
Kadasbrass 11-28-04, 12:41 PM	I use Haste often with my Battle Sorcerer, it is truely an nice spell to have, and the fact it hits many people in a single casting :w00t: If you want to see its true power, combine haste with Arcane Strike.
DungeonMaster 11-28-04, 12:53 PM	No, that's only one interpretation of the spell. Myself and many others have used haste with the interpretation that if you cast it on yourself you don't get the extra standard action in that same turn. Here's a thread but there are many others: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=267716&page=1&pp=50&highlight=haste It's one of the few spells that has the wording "on your turn" which is to be interpreted as "when you get a turn" not just "at any point" otherwise you end up with the Evard's black tentacles paradox. Anyhow, it's fruitless discussion because again: 3.5 has the same bloody mechanics built into it. You have metarods, druid's pounce, psionic lion's charge, psionic fission and the whole damn kit and kaboodle are one and the same. All blink does for a rogue enable a rogue to use sneak attack 80% of the time, and he has to still get close enough to the enemy (possibly using up some of his full attack) and he can only "boostrap" it himself is he is a pretty capable caster or has good UMD and burns a scroll or wand. He can also just buy a ring of blinking. You don't need to get close, you can easily rapid-shot sneak attack the living stuffing out of anything that can't see into the ethereal. I can cope with 80% success and them missing 1 out of 2! Meanwhile the arcane caster has spent his entire action buffing the Rogue, so the rogue has to do double-duty offensively in those early rounds to make up for the lost arcanist action. Nonsense. What "lost arcanist action"? It's like as if you never cast buff spells in combat. Give me a break. Next time a dragon breaths on you won't complain about your "lost arcanist action" from casting protection from elements lest it's from the grave. If you are stunned, nauseated, frightened while blinking...you're out of the fight, who cares if you are harder to hit....they'll either just focus on the dangerous opponents or if they have the leisure, swing a few more times. Or they'll try and kill you, specifically because you're weak? Trust me, the illithid is quite self-serving and while your friends are busy fighting his "compatriots" you look pretty squishy. In 1st and 2nd edition, haste was a FIGHTER buff. It did nothing for spellcasters except boost their movement. 3.5 returned it to that role. Second edition haste doubled attacks not any of this 3.5 one more attack nonsense. It doubled speed. It was by far more insane than 3rd edition haste. It aged you, but life was cheap back then (especially as a demihuman). Pounce is a bit easier to do if you use the right splatbooks (although the DC version requires you to be a druid with wildshape uses) but it still doesn't give a full power charge and doesn't allow you to both do a heedless charge and momentum swing in one round. What splatbooks? Pounce = 3.5 core. Druid dire lion wildshape, in fact plain lion or tiger too. 3.5 haste + 3.5 pounce = same frigging thing as 3rd edition haste. and a mobility increase. The speed increase is typed - an enhancement bonus which everyone has from magic item or spell at the higher levels. It never comes into play.
Heron_Marked_Blade 11-28-04, 01:11 PM	So, DungeonMaster, you'd agree that 3.5 Haste is much more in line with other 3rd-level spells now? It's no longer the "no brainer" 3rd-level spell every arcane spellcaster takes at 5th-level? It's more in line with spells like Nondetection, Protection from energy, Stinking cloud, Heroism, Waterbreathing, etc.?
solbergb 11-28-04, 01:56 PM	Nonsense. What "lost arcanist action"? It's like as if you never cast buff spells in combat. Give me a break. Next time a dragon breaths on you won't complain about your "lost arcanist action" from casting protection from elements lest it's from the grave. . Every action has opportunity cost of all other actions you might have taken. Casting blink on a rogue is only the optimal choice if the arcanist has nothing better to do. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. In the case of Blink..it usually isn't the best choice (something to buff the whole party, to impede the whole enemy, divide the enemy or remove an enemy from the board is usually better. Buffing is better done before combat begins, which makes most round/level single person spells fairly high opportunity cost unless there is a very large payoff...like a rogue with a lot of missile attacks in sneak range of an enemy that isn't flatfooted without blink) 3.0 haste was almost always the optimal choice for an arcanist, a true sign that a spell is broken. Second edition haste doubled attacks not any of this 3.5 one more attack nonsense. It doubled speed. It was by far more insane than 3rd edition haste. It aged you, but life was cheap back then (especially as a demihuman). . Yeah, and fighters in high levels did d8+17 2x a round, so they had to be doubled to do anything meaningful. (that assumes enlarged to storm giant size with +5 weapon). When a GM enforced aging rules, and 1st ed level limits for nonhumans, haste was not used often, because you got about 20 uses before you hit middle age (and nonhumans sucked, because they were level capped in all but thief). When UA and later 2nd edition opened up the options for metahumans all the age-based restrictions on haste and wish broke down. What splatbooks? Pounce = 3.5 core. Druid dire lion wildshape, in fact plain lion or tiger too. 3.5 haste + 3.5 pounce = same frigging thing as 3rd edition haste. Pounce = 3.5 core if you are a monster or an animal or shifted into a cat. I'm sorry, but the natural weapon attacks don't hold a candle to the damage a warrior can do with a full attack using manufactured weapons. And...3.5 haste+3.5 pounce does what 3.0 haste does..without needing the feat. Hmm... The speed increase is typed - an enhancement bonus which everyone has from magic item or spell at the higher levels. It never comes into play. Maybe not at your tables. Sure doesn't match my experience. Where are you getting 30' enhancement bonuses to speed anyway? The only people with enhancement bonuses to movement bigger than 10' are Monks or..people with boots of speed (haste). That's level 1 through 20 unless you've got custom built things like boots of expeditious retreat which conflict with the boots of speed slot... It also affects all movement modes, so your fly, spider climb, swim, etc are much faster. You're saying flying at 90' instead of 60' never matters? Not where I play. Mobility advantage means you can engage and disengage at will. Your party can coordinate, flank and harass well and your casters are never at any risk from close range attacks. That never comes up in your games? Well maybe not, if you never use Haste. And by the way...characters spend just as much time in the lower levels as the higher levels. From level 5 on, you can boost the mobility of the entire party with this spell. That can mean a heck of a lot.
Aracor 11-28-04, 02:31 PM	Yes, you can use metarods to get an extra spell off...3 times per day, but it's expensive. Especially if you're doing your highest level spells. And if you're doing lower-level spells, then the save DCs are lower and it's not as big a deal. And there are still arguments about when a metamagic rod is used, anyway. Personally, I rather agree that it's used when you use the feat, and that for a preparation based caster is when they prepare the spell (but that's another thread so let's not get into it here). Assuming you're right about using it to spontaneously quicken spells, yeah, it's nice. But as I said, expensive. Psionic Lion's charge, and for that matter all psionics, are not core. That's been an argument you've thrown around, so I figure I might as well do it back. So we're left with pounce. If a druid is pouncing, then they're not getting iterative attacks, and generally the attacks are a bit less in quality than a powerful magic weapon. I said generally, so please take that with a grain of salt. They're also losing the chance to cast magic when they do that. And that's a class ability, not a simple spell. And it still doesn't cover the two spells in one round trick, only the metamagic rods can copy that, and they're expensive, and limited. And this druid still can't partial charge with full power attack, and then get a full attack at his normal base. And as for blink, I'll happily admit that it's a great spell. But you have a chance of losing spells that you cast or attacks that you make, and it's a personal range only spell. You can't cast it on your friends as well. Both of those are nice balancing factors. As for monsters always getting the jump on you and then also winning initiative, something is going wrong with the players at that point. A high spot or listen check will help avoid a surprise round, and a high initiative check will allow you to react if you DON'T avoid a surprise round. Don't you ever fight monsters like giants that don't have a massive bonus to their initiative modifier? Huh. I suppose that would make a difference. At level 20, using core 3.0 rules, I could easily put together a rogue with a +12 or so to their initiative check. Start putting splat books into the picture and it gets near +20. With an initiative modifier like that, it starts looking sick if every monster beats your initiative all the time. ~Aracor P.S. I disagree that any other spell would make that much of a difference, blink included. Two sets of characters, exactly the same except that one group has haste (or mass haste, I was referring to a haste effect in general, not specifically that 3rd level spell), and the other has any other spell of their choice in place of haste, I hold to my opinion that the group with haste would win 9 times out of 10. Of course, if you'd like to prove me wrong, feel free.
solbergb 11-28-04, 03:31 PM	Hm, and a comment on metamagic rods. Lesser rod of quicken 35000gp Cash at level 5: 9000gp If you spend ALL your cash, you can have this by level 9 (as a PC, as an NPC it is even higher)....and it STILL doesn't do anything but level 1-3 spells. To quicken any spell up to level 6, 75500gp Cash at level 11? 66000. Quicken any spell up to level 9? 170000gp Cash at level 17? 340000 Half your cash....seems better than at lower levels? Sure if you want to do without +6 to casting stat, +6 constitution, +6 dexterity, +5 to all saving throws and mithril buckler of heavy fortification. Maybe these costs don't matter to you. But in 3.0, you could do as much as these rods did for 375gp, half that if you could scribe the scroll yourself, free if you could spare a 3rd level slot. Did more too...you got 4 "quickened" spells of every spell level for a L5 casting (5 if you use the pretty common interpretation that you get to use your hasted extra action immediately). You also don't need a 5lb rod in a free hand to make it work. I don't think the rods do much to replace Haste 3.0, so the contention that they make the situation "exactly the same" is kind of silly.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 11-28-04, 03:39 PM	It's not broken when you have creatures casting 3.0 Haste, or Evil Spellcasters casting it on themselves or their creatures...... Getting off that extra spell is no big whoop..... What spellcaster is going to always give up being able to move to cast an extra spell...By not moving you open yourself up to being slaughtered......
Aracor 11-28-04, 03:46 PM	It's not broken when you have creatures casting 3.0 Haste, or Evil Spellcasters casting it on themselves or their creatures...... Getting off that extra spell is no big whoop..... What spellcaster is going to always give up being able to move to cast an extra spell...By not moving you open yourself up to being slaughtered...... I'm not sure I understand what you're saying there. 3.0 haste granted you an extra partial action, which means you could cast a spell, move, cast another spell. You're not missing out on moving. You can still move up to your speed and cast two spells. ~Aracor
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 11-28-04, 03:53 PM	I'm not sure I understand what you're saying there. 3.0 haste granted you an extra partial action, which means you could cast a spell, move, cast another spell. You're not missing out on moving. You can still move up to your speed and cast two spells. ~Aracor No you could not......Haste grants you an extra partial action...Casting a spell is a standard action...In order to cast another spell you could only take a 5-foot step.....Check up on the rules.......
Heron_Marked_Blade 11-28-04, 04:02 PM	No you could not......Haste grants you an extra partial action...Casting a spell is a standard action...In order to cast another spell you could only take a 5-foot step.....Check up on the rules....... :uh-huh: What are you talking about? A partial action can be used as for a move action or a standard action. So yes, you can cast a spell, move, and cast a second spell (and a third if you have a Quickened spell ready). Or you can cast a spell, cast a second spell, and move. Etc. :nonono:
Aracor 11-28-04, 04:12 PM	What are you talking about? A partial action can be used as for a move action or a standard action. So yes, you can cast a spell, move, and cast a second spell (and a third if you have a Quickened spell ready). Or you can cast a spell, cast a second spell, and move. Etc. What he said. I'll try to explain it a bit better. Not counting 3.0 haste, a character has a full round of actions. That means they can take a full-round action, a standard action and a move action, or two move actions. Casting a spell is a normally a standard action, so they still have a move action left, and they can use that to move up to their speed. 3.0 haste grants an extra partial action. A partial action can be used as a standard action or as a move action. They still have their normal full round's worth of actions. So someone with 3.0 haste can do any of the following: Take a standard action, move action, then a standard action. Take a full-round action, then a standard action. Take a full-round action, then a move action. Take 3 move actions. They can do any of those things, in any order. Unless they're casting a spell that costs an entire round, they can move as well as cast two spells. ~Aracor
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 11-28-04, 04:18 PM	:uh-huh: What are you talking about? A partial action can be used as for a move action or a standard action. So yes, you can cast a spell, move, and cast a second spell (and a third if you have a Quickened spell ready). Or you can cast a spell, cast a second spell, and move. Etc. :nonono: Ok look at it like this then.......With a partial action you could move your speed, or attack......Now, what would stop me from not moving at all, and casting 2 spells?????? But, you can't do this.....
Aracor 11-28-04, 04:26 PM	Ok look at it like this then.......With a partial action you could move your speed, or attack......Now, what would stop me from not moving at all, and casting 2 spells?????? But, you can't do this..... You can, if you have 3.0 haste. If not, what stops you from doing that is the fact that you don't get two standard actions in a normal round. As I said, in a normal round, you get a full-round action, or you get a standard action and a move action, or you get two move actions. You do NOT get two standard actions. Period. ~Aracor
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 11-28-04, 04:28 PM	You can, if you have 3.0 haste. If not, what stops you from doing that is the fact that you don't get two standard actions in a normal round. As I said, in a normal round, you get a full-round action, or you get a standard action and a move action, or you get two move actions. You do NOT get two standard actions. Period. ~Aracor Says in the book you can attack as a partial action, or move your speed.....
Aracor 11-28-04, 04:40 PM	Says in the book you can attack as a partial action, or move your speed..... You're right. What's the problem? I'll split it up and say it slowly. 3.0 haste gives you an EXTRA partial action, that you can use along with your normal full round of actions. Your normal full round of actions allow you a standard action, and a move action. Or as another option, it allows two move actions. Or as the final option, it allows a single full round action. 3.0 haste gives you an extra partial action, that can act as a standard action or a move action. So total, with 3.0 haste, you have the above options, and a partial action (which can act as a standard or move, whichever you prefer). That means you can cast, cast, move. You can cast, move, move. You can move, move, move. You can move, cast, cast. There are lots of options. But you can't cast, cast, cast. Just like with a normal full round of actions WITHOUT 3.0 haste you can't cast, cast. You can cast, move. Or you can move, cast. ~Aracor
Heron_Marked_Blade 11-28-04, 05:56 PM	:banghead:
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 11-28-04, 08:32 PM	You're right. What's the problem? I'll split it up and say it slowly. 3.0 haste gives you an EXTRA partial action, that you can use along with your normal full round of actions. Your normal full round of actions allow you a standard action, and a move action. Or as another option, it allows two move actions. Or as the final option, it allows a single full round action. 3.0 haste gives you an extra partial action, that can act as a standard action or a move action. So total, with 3.0 haste, you have the above options, and a partial action (which can act as a standard or move, whichever you prefer). That means you can cast, cast, move. You can cast, move, move. You can move, move, move. You can move, cast, cast. There are lots of options. But you can't cast, cast, cast. Just like with a normal full round of actions WITHOUT 3.0 haste you can't cast, cast. You can cast, move. Or you can move, cast. ~Aracor Ok look at this then........With Haste you can move your speed, or cast a spell....Now, why can't you cast another spell normally instead of moving....Moving your speed is a partial action, which can grant you another spell to cast...but why can't you use your normal movement to cast another spell?
Jallis 370 11-28-04, 09:02 PM	Wasn't 3.0 a little overpowering anyways? 3.5 has balanced it all. THAT made haste overpowering...
Willie the Duck 11-28-04, 10:39 PM	90% of the boards "analysis" is in contradiction with my own experiences. Oh, well it contradicts your experience, well, it must be wrong then. There are no facts - people often buy into the "party line" and just blither from there. Pot, have you met mr. Kettle? Seriously, has your opinion changed about anything in light of a discussion on one of these boards? X is broken. Y is overpowered. I'de be willing to conjecture that 99% of the griping done on these boards never occurs in reality . Intellectual excercises are completely valid forms of discussion here. You continually claim never to play 3.5, but seem to be very up on the 3.5 rules. Should we dismiss your arguments because they haven't been field tested? 90% of the 3.5 changes likewise aren't related to any game experience beyond perhaps the skewed perceptions of those who wrote it. If they had been listening there would be no core metamagic rods. yeah, they're skewed, your the objective one. Seriously, the 3.0-3.5 shift wasn't perfect for me either, they fixed some problems I didn't think existed and ignored others I was adamant that they fix. That does not mean they weren't listening or that their experiences don't hold weight. Do the same thing with blink. Have every creature and NPC in the game use blink liberally - all your targeted spells and attacks fail with a 50% miss chance unless they have someway of seeing into the ethereal, your area spells do nothing but half damage. Just about everything can walk through walls but you can't. You always lose your dex bonus and blindfighting won't help you and make sure the PCs never take any countermeasures. Then come back and say it's not broken. It does have a significantly higher cost than haste. You may be significantly protected while under the effects of blink, but you also have a hard time doing offense (all your attacks and spells have a miss chance). It's pretty darn neat for a rogue, but if the rest of his party is useless, they're all going to get filleted. I have yet to have a group that uses blink extensively, and the enemies do. It is not a big thing. 3.0 haste, on the other hand, is vital for you to use more than the other side (yes gleaned from game play). You can talk all you want about other ways to get cheap multiple spells per round in 3.5, that does not make this spell balanced. As to my opinion, I just think the flavor of 3.0 haste is wrong. Being a 1e/2e gamer, I think of haste as a spell that effects the whole group and benifits the fighters most, not something that the mage casts on himself and boosts him the best. 3.0 isn't like that, 3.5 is.
Zelphi 11-29-04, 06:15 AM	3.0 haste being powerful is irrelevent. 3.5 fixed nothing and made the spell predominantly useless. It's good if you have a melee centric group? So what if you don't have a melee centric group? Understand that 3.0 haste 1. Only applied to one person until you got the level 6 version 2. Benefited anyone it was cast on in combat In 3.5 haste is crud 1. "Benefits" many people 2. Provides little benefit to anyone 3. Expiditous Retreat would be better Instead we get all the other crap like Meta rods which do far worse things and bunch of other crap. It doesn't matter if 3.5 haste is "better" than 3.0 haste. It doesn't matter if 3.0 haste needed minor fixing. It doesn't matter if it was better for Sorcs - because they had no alternative and if you look at the Classes forum people complain more about how crud the Sorc is now. 3.0 haste may have needed some tweeks - but it could've been better handled than it has in 3.5 To an extent I agree with Xun - 3.0 isn't bad when you consider the other side. Then you have to consider that it would'nt be that hard to add some side effects, whatever happened to the fatigued element of it? Imagine mass haste (which people are still ignoring) fatiguing everyone when it wears off. In the end - 3.5 haste could've been handled better, but the main issue is that 3.5 would make 3.0 haste too powerful.
Shatteredtower 11-29-04, 07:46 AM	It's good if you have a melee centric group? So what if you don't have a melee centric group? Then maybe you are less inclined to use the spell. It's still more useful than deep slumber or ray of exhaustion would be in an undead-intensive campaign, so where's the problem if the spell retains some usefulness, even if it's not optimal in all circumstances? Understand that 3.0 haste 1. Only applied to one person until you got the level 6 version 2. Benefited anyone it was cast on in combat Point #1 is meaningless. Point #2 fails to appreciate its own significance. 1. "Benefits" many people No need to put that in quotes. All of the bonuses are real, not virtual. 2. Provides little benefit to anyone It's not as good as being able to use Spring Attack to perform a full attack action, no, but that was a pretty nasty thing to do to the unhasted anyway. Let's not be underestimating the benefits of the "accumulation of small advantages." 3. Expeditous Retreat would be better If the only purpose you have for casting haste is to make the wizard (and only the wizard) move more quickly on the ground, then yes, it's better to cast the 1st level spell with the longer duration. If it was only all about making a grounded gnome illusionist get clear of danger, then yes, score one for that extra 10 feet on your land-based speed that gnomes and halflings would get. These are the onlys time expeditious retreat would be better -- but that's hardly ever all there is to it. Expeditious retreat cannot increase my swimming, climbing, or flying speed, or such speeds for my companions, my mount, and the mounts of my companions. It does not give me a bonus on my attack rolls with ray spells. It offers me no benefit at all if I'm unfortunate enough to be grappled or targetted by a fireball or squad of archers. I don't see the problem with the fact that your wizard is rarely going to want the benefit of an extra attack in any round where a full attack action is taken. I don't see this as a problem even where many players won't ever want to take a full attack action because it means having to be exposed to one in return. It does suggest to me that there are a dearth of spells that can be used more than once in a round -- a lot of the complaints about scorching ray would be silenced if one could not use more than one ray in a round without resorting to a full attack action. (I'm not saying that's necessary. I am just giving it as an example of the sort of thing that would have combined nicely with haste 3.5, especially for people who still find scorching ray excessive. Of course, if it was changed that way, your scorching ray plus haste combo becomes a lot more effective for anyone with the sneak attck class feature, which might be a fair trade-off in balance considerations.) The only spell that might gain anything from the extra attack option is chill touch, but that seems to depend on rules interpretations. I know that Skip Williams has come out against the idea of being able to use that spell effect more than once in a round and I know that I disagree with him, since a wizard with a touch spell that never does more than 1d6 damage per strike ought to be able to get a few breaks for being able to use it more than once. (Even if this would combine well with spectral hand, so what? It still wouldn't make chill touch the spell of choice to combine with spectral hand.) It doesn't matter if it was better for Sorcs - because they had no alternative and if you look at the Classes forum people complain more about how crud the Sorc is now. Oh, no... don't you dare try to blame this change on problems people have always maintained existed for the sorcerer. If the alteration of one spell alone could so upset a class, then there was obviously something wrong with both the class and the spell. Then you have to consider that it would'nt be that hard to add some side effects, whatever happened to the fatigued element of it? Imagine mass haste (which people are still ignoring) fatiguing everyone when it wears off. Almost always meaningless by the time you acquired it, since you were already capable of casting teleport at this point, not to mention lesser restoration. And if you used the 3rd level spell to effect only the wizard, how often was fatigue a meaningful effect? ("Oh, no! My wizard has a -3 penalty on Strength and Dexterity! I guess I should stay away from the front line in melee! Oh, wait...") Every side effect I've seen added to haste was either trivially bypassed or excessive enough to make the spell something you'd likely see used only by NPCs. (Aging effects, for example -- if you weren't playing an undead, you hardly dared to use this spell for long.) In the end - 3.5 haste could've been handled better, but the main issue is that 3.5 would make 3.0 haste too powerful. No, the main issue is that a blind dog with two legs missing would have made 3.0 haste too powerful.
Zelphi 11-29-04, 08:21 AM	Oh here we go... Then maybe you are less inclined to use the spell. It's still more useful than deep slumber or ray of exhaustion would be in an undead-intensive campaign, so where's the problem if the spell retains some usefulness, even if it's not optimal in all circumstances? It doesn't retain any great usefulness, it looses out fully. Combat centrict campaigns are one thing, but Undead heavy campaigns are rarer. This spell is circumstantially minimally useful to any party and barely useful at all for this combat centric party. Point #1 is meaningless. Point #2 fails to appreciate its own significance. Actually Point 1 is very pointful, because the 3rd level version that everyone is complaining about means you have to cast it a large amounts of time to benefit the entire party if you want to get this dreaded usage out of it. At the levels you gained it, it would benefit one character and that'd be it unless you started buffing the rest, clearing you of 3rd level spells. At higher levels its pointless to do such a thing unless you're a Sorc because Mass Haste covers that purpose - but then its a 6th level spell providing questionable benefits. No need to put that in quotes. All of the bonuses are real, not virtual. I put it in quotes because it may not amount to much at all, therefore benefit is questionable if you lost out on some other spells like Heroism (which ultimately grants more of what you need). It's not as good as being able to use Spring Attack to perform a full attack action, no, but that was a pretty nasty thing to do to the unhasted anyway. Let's not be underestimating the benefits of the "accumulation of small advantages." Except you can't spring attack with a full attack, you can only move after a full attack, which is nowhere near the same thing and requires a large tumble check to achieve succesfully. The actual benefits are minimal, and in 3.5 the only real benefit you've gained is that it effects more people (in no great way). If the only purpose you have for casting haste is to make the wizard (and only the wizard) move more quickly on the ground, then yes, it's better to cast the 1st level spell with the longer duration. If it was only all about making a grounded gnome illusionist get clear of danger, then yes, score one for that extra 10 feet on your land-based speed that gnomes and halflings would get. This speed increase (30ft) is the only benefit you'd gain over other spells that would help you in more ways (namely Heroism and level 2 buff spells). Expeditious retreat cannot increase my swimming, climbing, or flying speed, or such speeds for my companions, my mount, and the mounts of my companions. It does not give me a bonus on my attack rolls with ray spells. It offers me no benefit at all if I'm unfortunate enough to be grappled or targetted by a fireball or squad of archers. But haste does? It might aid greater forms of movement (which is fine), but that's still a very limited and circumstantial advantage. You're not looking at the differences properly, you claim 3.5 has all these benefits but you miss that 3.0 haste had none of these. I don't see the problem with the fact that your wizard is rarely going to want the benefit of an extra attack in any round where a full attack action is taken. I don't see this as a problem even where many players won't ever want to take a full attack action because it means having to be exposed to one in return. It does suggest to me that there are a dearth of spells that can be used more than once in a round -- a lot of the complaints about scorching ray would be silenced if one could not use more than one ray in a round without resorting to a full attack action. (I'm not saying that's necessary. I am just giving it as an example of the sort of thing that would have combined nicely with haste 3.5, especially for people who still find scorching ray excessive. Of course, if it was changed that way, your scorching ray plus haste combo becomes a lot more effective for anyone with the sneak attck class feature, which might be a fair trade-off in balance considerations.) The only spell that might gain anything from the extra attack option is chill touch, but that seems to depend on rules interpretations. I know that Skip Williams has come out against the idea of being able to use that spell effect more than once in a round and I know that I disagree with him, since a wizard with a touch spell that never does more than 1d6 damage per strike ought to be able to get a few breaks for being able to use it more than once. (Even if this would combine well with spectral hand, so what? It still wouldn't make chill touch the spell of choice to combine with spectral hand.) I don't understand what you're refering too here. Scoaching Ray has nothing to do with 3.0 haste at all. If you're refering to 3.5's extra attack, then it has no benefit to a Wizard or anyone who isn't attacking. If you're saying its better than 3.0's extra partial - then you're missing that 3.5 fixed nothing on a whole. Oh, no... don't you dare try to blame this change on problems people have always maintained existed for the sorcerer. If the alteration of one spell alone could so upset a class, then there was obviously something wrong with both the class and the spell. I was saying that this spell and its extra casting ability benefited Sorcs more because they had no way of generating quickened spells (and certainly no way of ever casting 3 spells in a round). Now that its gone, people complain about the Sorc even more. This is because the spell wasn't that overpowered because its applications weren't that great. Most certainly, whatever they've done in 3.5 has not eliviated any problems. Almost always meaningless by the time you acquired it, since you were already capable of casting teleport at this point, not to mention lesser restoration. And if you used the 3rd level spell to effect only the wizard, how often was fatigue a meaningful effect? ("Oh, no! My wizard has a -3 penalty on Strength and Dexterity! I guess I should stay away from the front line in melee! Oh, wait...") Every side effect I've seen added to haste was either trivially bypassed or excessive enough to make the spell something you'd likely see used only by NPCs. (Aging effects, for example -- if you weren't playing an undead, you hardly dared to use this spell for long.) It was an idea, and it also means you can't charge or run during combat, which might have more impact on your Fighters or summoned creatures or mounts, etc. Your counter statement isn't entirely meaningful, because it assumes a group can and will cast teleport/LR or whatever after every battle where they cast haste - depending on which version you use, then it would certainly be a noteable penalty. Especially if it still applies after being dispelled. No, the main issue is that a blind dog with two legs missing would have made 3.0 haste too powerful. And what does this mean? Anything at all? The main issue is that 3.0 haste was better than 3.5 haste - then the changes to haste make the spell pointless and nowhere near the power levels it should be. Its randomly useful, but mostly outperformed. It could've been done much better and that is inescapable fact.
Flying_Nimrod_3 11-29-04, 08:40 AM	I'm going to regret the arguments spawned... The thing I see is, haste was primarily used as a combat spell. Combat spells used in conjunction with haste used to consist of fireballs, lightnings bolts... damage spells. Having two spells per turn from a single wizard, both with the possibilities of large amounts of hurt involved, was unbalancing compared to, say, the fighter getting another hit in with his great sword. This way, it becomes an enhance spell for the other characters rather than an extra opportunity per round to do an additional 30 average points of damage (DC 17 for half).
Shatteredtower 11-29-04, 09:26 AM	It doesn't retain any great usefulness, it looses out fully. Combat centric campaigns are one thing, but Undead heavy campaigns are rarer. This spell is circumstantially minimally useful to any party and barely useful at all for this combat centric party. But the fact remains that it is always useful. Always. Your party all gain the option to choose between greater mobility or a larger number of attacks. All of you. The only circumstantial thing about that is that sometimes this becomes an even bigger advantage. The other examples are circumstantial in the sense that they can be rendered useless. Actually Point 1 is very pointful, because the 3rd level version that everyone is complaining about means you have to cast it a large amounts of time to benefit the entire party if you want to get this dreaded usage out of it. Nope. One hasted sorcerer goes a long, long, far too long way. At the levels you gained it, it would benefit one character and that'd be it unless you started buffing the rest, clearing you of 3rd level spells. Or, you know, using potions -- which was such a popular tactic for non-spellcasting BBEGs in 3.0. Heck, for awhile, it was nearly always the first action of choice for villains. How could it not be? At higher levels its pointless to do such a thing unless you're a Sorc because Mass Haste covers that purpose - but then its a 6th level spell providing questionable benefits. Questionable? You've just given all of the melee types the pounce special attack and doubled the firepower of every spellcaster. How is that questionable? I put it in quotes because it may not amount to much at all, therefore benefit is questionable if you lost out on some other spells like Heroism (which ultimately grants more of what you need). Uh, right. This is like saying that the benefit of wearing pants is questionable because you could have put on shorts instead, right? Except you can't spring attack with a full attack, you can only move after a full attack, which is nowhere near the same thing and requires a large tumble check to achieve succesfully. I'll have to check the wording of Spring Attack in 3.0 when I get home, but if the wording is the same as it is in 3.5, then yes, you can indeed utilize this feat with a full attack if hasted. The "large" tumble check means little to a rogue of 5th level, and less all the time. The actual benefits are minimal, and in 3.5 the only real benefit you've gained is that it effects more people (in no great way). Again, a profound ignorance of the principle of accumulating small advantages. This isn't just one +1 bonus, it's several that stack quite nicely with nearly any other +1 (or greater) bonuses you have lying around. Every little bit helps. This speed increase (30ft) is the only benefit you'd gain over other spells that would help you in more ways (namely Heroism and level 2 buff spells). And how many people does cat's grace affect? One. The same for heroism. That's all right for the one person you've affected, but there's an expression for that: it's called putting all your eggs in one basket. And this doesn't even invalidate the benefits of haste, which happens to stack with both of the spells. But haste does? Yes, it does. It gives you and your allies a +1 bonus to AC (which heroism does not grant you) and a +1 bonus on Reflex saves (which heroism only beats for one of you -- being otherwise useless for your teammates). It might aid greater forms of movement (which is fine), but that's still a very limited and circumstantial advantage. Flying becomes less circumstantial and more essential by a certain point, so no, that one is incorrect. The others are more circumstantial, but hey, isn't it nice to know that you're prepared should the circumstances arise? You're not looking at the differences properly, you claim 3.5 has all these benefits but you miss that 3.0 haste had none of these. Eh? But you were comparing it to expeditious retreat, not 3.0 haste. Be consistent now. Both versions of haste provided these benefits, but only one version offered it to the party. Expeditious retreat, the spell you claimed was better than 3.5 haste, the spell I was addressing, does not offer even a third the number of options. I indeed see the differences quite well. People are just unhappy because one version of haste was huge and are letting comparison kill any ability whatsoever to appreciate the value of the new model. I don't understand what you're refering to here. Scoaching Ray has nothing to do with 3.0 haste at all. If you're refering to 3.5's extra attack, then it has no benefit to a Wizard or anyone who isn't attacking. What I'm saying is that an opportunity that has been missed for wizards with a full attack option is for the use of spells that could be employed with one. As written, scorching ray is not that spell, but it could have been, if it wasn't employed all as a single attack with multiple attack rolls. If said option was taken into account with more spells (with any spells), it would be useful for any version of haste. Of course, there's no reason one can't research such spells, especially if you might be able to use them with sneak attacks. I was saying that this spell and its extra casting ability benefited Sorcs more because they had no way of generating quickened spells (and certainly no way of ever casting 3 spells in a round). Now that its gone, people complain about the Sorc even more. This is because the spell wasn't that overpowered because its applications weren't that great. Most certainly, whatever they've done in 3.5 has not eliviated any problems. You're proving my point with this, you know. You state the sorcerer is crippled because one spell was changed. Then you try to claim that the spell had limited applications. I don't know how to break it to you, but spellcasting at twice your speed without having to burn four extra spell levels per spell isn't circumstantial when there were always going to be circumstances in which this was desirable. You might as well say that the applications for which you can use fingers aren't so great because they're lousy tools for walking on or pedalling a bicycle. It was an idea, and it also means you can't charge or run during combat, which might have more impact on your Fighters or summoned creatures or mounts, etc. Except that your summoned creature is generally only going to be there for one combat and the spell is easily going to last longer (5 or more rounds compared to an average of 3 per fight) than most combats anyway. What does it matter that you can't charge after the fight is over? Your counter statement isn't entirely meaningful, because it assumes a group can and will cast teleport/LR or whatever after every battle where they cast haste - depending on which version you use, then it would certainly be a noteable penalty. Especially if it still applies after being dispelled. Hmm... and yet I'm the one providing circumstantial examples, am I? And what does this mean? Anything at all? It means that you could have made 3.0 haste a 9th level spell and people still would have taken it. The main issue is that 3.0 haste was better than 3.5 haste - then the changes to haste make the spell pointless and nowhere near the power levels it should be. Its randomly useful, but mostly outperformed. He we see another case in which 3.0 haste addiction clouds any sense of perspective or judgment. Sad, really. It could've been done much better and that is inescapable fact. The word "fact" in the previous sentence is being terribly misused. Ditto for "inescapable".
Zelphi 11-29-04, 10:09 AM	But the fact remains that it is always useful. Always. Your party all gain the option to choose between greater mobility or a larger number of attacks. All of you. The only circumstantial thing about that is that sometimes this becomes an even bigger advantage. No it isn't, that's the whole point. It grants a smaller bonus than other spells. If you full attack - you don't get greater mobility, if you cast other spells, you'd benefit them better. Nope. One hasted sorcerer goes a long, long, far too long way. Which means what exactly? One hasted Sorc is only useful for as long as he can cast meaningful spells, without the mass benefit of the 6th version, you only get one benefit for one character. Or, you know, using potions -- which was such a popular tactic for non-spellcasting BBEGs in 3.0. Heck, for awhile, it was nearly always the first action of choice for villains. How could it not be? Which come in small quantities, have their own issues and still only works on the singular boost - its a good choice for one person, but not always the group. 3.5 Haste is a bad choice most of the time unless you've got a bunch of other spells to stack it with, which might mean something if you could actually cast them in time. Questionable? You've just given all of the melee types the pounce special attack and doubled the firepower of every spellcaster. How is that questionable? Pounce gives a full attack on a charge, its not the same thing, and again - you've only given one party memeber these benefits until you cast Mass Haste. Beyond that its always useful to each party member, but its still not that powerful. Its power is the questionable factor. Uh, right. This is like saying that the benefit of wearing pants is questionable because you could have put on shorts instead, right? Same, you may never get that much milleage out of it, or you might get a good bonus - questionable or variable - whichever. I'll have to check the wording of Spring Attack in 3.0 when I get home, but if the wording is the same as it is in 3.5, then yes, you can indeed utilize this feat with a full attack if hasted. Except you have to use one attack, you have to use the attack action basically, not the full atack. Believe me I tried in 3.0 and 3.5 to do many things with spring attack and the most I got was spring attacking (or other) as part of a readied attack). The "large" tumble check means little to a rogue of 5th level, and less all the time. But much to the full plated Fighter or Barbarian who doesn't have a chance but gets more out of it... though only at higher levels when the Full attack option means more. Again, a profound ignorance of the principle of accumulating small advantages. This isn't just one +1 bonus, it's several that stack quite nicely with nearly any other +1 (or greater) bonuses you have lying around. Every little bit helps. Which is a nice point, except as a third level spell it pales in comparison to others. At lower levels its a waste of a 3rd level spell to get these small bonuses - and at higher levels its a waste of a 3rd level spell when you need to cast a bunch of much better spells instead. And how many people does cat's grace affect? One. The same for heroism. That's all right for the one person you've affected, but there's an expression for that: it's called putting all your eggs in one basket. Quite a few if you get the later on mass buffs, but they weren't the spells I was talking about. For the most part - other spells benefit others better than haste ever will, and yes they would stack, but that's just more time casting spells and not really adding much (because 3.5 haste is a waste of time). Then you've got the fact that each specific spell benefits one more than haste ever would, and that tactic is nowhere near overloading one - because you use lesser spells to buff more effectively each individual. And this doesn't even invalidate the benefits of haste, which happens to stack with both of the spells. But it does de-value its worth in casting. For certain set-ups - it might be the more efficient choice, like if you're a Wizard without the other buffing spells, but even then you could probably do more with another spell (like any in existance). Yes, it does. It gives you and your allies a +1 bonus to AC (which heroism does not grant you) and a +1 bonus on Reflex saves (which heroism only beats for one of you -- being otherwise useless for your teammates). Which assumes they need such benefits, or couldn't benefit better in other ways or from other better spells. Flying becomes less circumstantial and more essential by a certain point, so no, that one is incorrect. The others are more circumstantial, but hey, isn't it nice to know that you're prepared should the circumstances arise? And haste doesn't help too much in that reguard because its applied benefits (for a single 3rd level spell) don't contribute that much over other spells of similar or even lower level. Eh? But you were comparing it to expeditious retreat, not 3.0 haste. Be consistent now. No I was reffering to your statements about speed increases, if that's all you need then you might as well cast that spell, the point being that other spells confer better precision benefits over 3.5 haste. Both versions of haste provided these benefits, but only one version offered it to the party. Expeditious retreat, the spell you claimed was better than 3.5 haste, the spell I was addressing, does not offer even a third the number of options. Inaccurate, as I was reffering to the spells on offer in general. I indeed see the differences quite well. People are just unhappy because one version of haste was huge and are letting comparison kill any ability whatsoever to appreciate the value of the new model. The real issue is that 3.5 haste isn't that good, 3.0 haste is irrelevent, all we have to deal with is the 3.5 revision - which is a poor spell to cast in most situations. What I'm saying is that an opportunity that has been missed for wizards with a full attack option is for the use of spells that could be employed with one. As written, scorching ray is not that spell, but it could have been, if it wasn't employed all as a single attack with multiple attack rolls. If said option was taken into account with more spells (with any spells), it would be useful for any version of haste. Of course, there's no reason one can't research such spells, especially if you might be able to use them with sneak attacks. Which is true, not overly pointful but true. You're proving my point with this, you know. You state the sorcerer is crippled because one spell was changed. Then you try to claim that the spell had limited applications. I'm fine with the 3.5 sorc, I'm talking about others who complain. Sorcs loose a big ability that is more meaningful to them than it is to other casters. 3.5 haste could've retained some of this benefit to Sorcs, without loosing it outright. I don't know how to break it to you, but spellcasting at twice your speed without having to burn four extra spell levels per spell isn't circumstantial when there were always going to be circumstances in which this was desirable. You might as well say that the applications for which you can use fingers aren't so great because they're lousy tools for walking on or pedalling a bicycle. It is circumstantial because it assumes they can make use of this specific benefit of an extra partial action. If you have no suitable spells to cast - it is going to be wasted because you can't do anything else. This situation is more likely to occur with Haste because you're casting 1-2 more spells per round than normal. Except that your summoned creature is generally only going to be there for one combat and the spell is easily going to last longer (5 or more rounds compared to an average of 3 per fight) than most combats anyway. What does it matter that you can't charge after the fight is over? Which means nothing if it expires during combat, it does mean something if you need to run away however and can't get out with some other spell. With 3.5 haste you can potentially do more damage with this restriction. Also, you assume it is cast on summoned creatures which means it has even less overall benefit. Generally this could make a party think twice before automatically casting this spell. Hmm... and yet I'm the one providing circumstantial examples, am I? I'm not providing any examples, I'm simply stating that Fatigue can still be a large penalty and that your option won't always be an option. It means that you could have made 3.0 haste a 9th level spell and people still would have taken it. Well that would certainly depend on who you're talking about. But either way, its power is irrelvent when 3.5 haste is the issue. He we see another case in which 3.0 haste addiction clouds any sense of perspective or judgment. Sad, really. Eh? Wild speculation, insults and generalisation. 3.0 Haste is powerful, that doesn't stop 3.5 haste being crap. The word "fact" in the previous sentence is being terribly misused. Ditto for "inescapable". Actually, no - proper use. You can make 3.5 haste a more valuable and better spell for a 3rd level casting. Its value is very limited, it is now a better choice for one time casters and it looses a vast number of related benefits that 3.0 haste had. I'm not saying it should have all the same benefits, but I'm saying it should be better, not only that, but whatever "overpowred" aspects 3.0 haste had - could easily be resolved in far simpler ways.
CaoSlayer 11-29-04, 10:11 AM	ummm, people it is still arging about this? tell me, which level should be a spell that grants the feat two weapon fighting to everyone in the party? and now if that spell didnt gave a -2 penalty to every attack but a +1 to hit? and now if instead of doing the extra attack with a weak weapon and 1/2 your str. you would be able to use it with your main weapon? and if also stacked with two weapon fighting? and if also granted expeditious retreat to everybody? and if also grants +1 to ref. save and AC? 3.5 haste it is everything but weak, in second edition, mass haste (level 6)worked like this one and still I loved it (of course, extra attacks was rarer in second edition)
Zelphi 11-29-04, 10:23 AM	It doesn't work like that at all. An extra attack on a full attack isn't that useful if you can't get into position. It isn't that useful if that doesn't work to your tactics. I didn't notice it applied to every weapon you were holding - which does make it better for those with multiple weapons... like multi headed hydras. But that doesn't stop it from being circumstantially a poor choice for a mass spell at 3rd. As I said, it is better for a one of casting with a very large group of people who get to full attack, but that doesn't stop the fact that it could've been remade better with more generally useful benefits. I guess ultimately it might be a reasonable one off spell for Wizards, and travel domain Clerics, that summon lots, but other than that its a complete waste. Guess what? That means it could've been done better.
DungeonMaster 11-29-04, 10:32 AM	Sigh... where to start. Oh, well it contradicts your experience, well, it must be wrong then. As a scientist yeah generally if something contradicts my own experience and all the experiments I perform regularly never yeild the result other people are telling me is true - yep I must conclude it must be wrong. Pot, have you met mr. Kettle? Seriously, has your opinion changed about anything in light of a discussion on one of these boards? :rolleyes: Of course rather than discuss the issue at hand why not elucidate your ignorance of the many discussions I've had on these boards. I've notably had a discussion with Sensei Gith about 3.5 DR where he conclusively proved to me that 3.5 DR does not need to suffer from a golfbag syndrome. Intellectual excercises are completely valid forms of discussion here. You continually claim never to play 3.5, but seem to be very up on the 3.5 rules. Should we dismiss your arguments because they haven't been field tested? No perhaps you should argue against them rather than more ad-hominem attacks? That does not mean they weren't listening or that their experiences don't hold weight. I think many of their experiences hold absolutely no weight whatsoever and I hold them in utter contempt. One "prominent" fool gives his PCs a feat every level for instance. The fact that the 3.5 PHB did specifically everything contrary/arse-backwards to what I would have done in an update is for me proof that whatever the hell they're playing is completely unlike what I play. Likewise I never once saw a call for shapechange to have Su abilities, righteous might to be more beefed up and core metamagic rods. In fact the list of things that were done in 3.5 that I never ever saw anyone complain about on the boards far outweighs the list of things that were complained about. How many people complained about haste = tons. How many people complained about the cover rules = ?!?. I deride the affirmation that people are either "listening" or acting upon what they hear rather than merely doing as they see fit. I have yet to have a group that uses blink extensively, and the enemies do. It is not a big thing. 3.0 haste, on the other hand, is vital for you to use more than the other side (yes gleaned from game play). You can talk all you want about other ways to get cheap multiple spells per round in 3.5, that does not make this spell balanced. So you've used blink extensively? I'm rather shocked that having 50% of the PC attacks miss/not work is so dissimilar from having double the attacks? That needs some explanation. Surely going from a 1-1 to a 1/2-4/5 ratio of attacks and spells connecting has significant impact on the game? The concept of multiple spells in a round exist in either edition. You're admiting to the same lack of "balance" nothing more. The flavor is another thing - and I wholeheartedly agree that the flavor should be more akin to the previous editions. However this is to my knowledge and extensive analysis the only spell in 3.5 that went back towards something like the previous editions and all the rest are a steaming pile of crap with little to no reference to anything at all. Dissolution of symbol, horrid wilting at a d6, enlarge/reduce, darkness, polymorph at level 5, the list is enormous. In fact this is my single largest gripe with 3.5 - the hubris involved in the "design" (rape) of the spell system.
Nithendil 11-29-04, 10:40 AM	Guess what? That means it could've been done better. Better? 3.0 haste = horrendously overpowered 3.5 haste = still overpowered, but not as much as 3.0 If it did anymore it would be even more of a broken spell. Why not give +4 to all stats to everyone while you are at it? This spell would be balanced if it affected only one person. As it is, it's the best spell at level 3 for a party that isn't all wizards and sorcerers.
DungeonMaster 11-29-04, 10:49 AM	Wasn't 3.0 a little overpowering anyways? 3.5 has balanced it all. THAT made haste overpowering... Er... no. In 3.5 you have the billion damage hulking hurler who can destroy the planets in one blow and the apostle of peace who can kill hextor as a free action. 3.5 balance attrocities are even worse than 3rd edition. Anyhow, that's another topic for another thread.
Zelphi 11-29-04, 10:56 AM	Better? 3.0 haste = horrendously overpowered 3.5 haste = still overpowered, but not as much as 3.0 If it did anymore it would be even more of a broken spell. Why not give +4 to all stats to everyone while you are at it? This spell would be balanced if it affected only one person. As it is, it's the best spell at level 3 for a party that isn't all wizards and sorcerers. Its nowhere near overpowred, in most circumstances its actually a poor choice for a 3rd level spell. More imeadiately is the issue with the nature of the casting and its suitability. Before it was a good high level spell for sorcs - because they could use it to buff whoever needed it whenever... and Wizzies just used Mass. Now its a poor choice for any Sorc or Bard, and a good-ish choice for Mass Conjuring Wizards/Travel Domain Clerics. On a side note. Sensei Gith? DR? Well it might be interesting, but there's noway it could ever be anything but a crappy change. It wasn't my topic on the subject was it?
DungeonMaster 11-29-04, 11:14 AM	Thank you solbergb for remaining reasonable in discussion. It's hard to come by at times. Lesser rod of quicken 35000gp Cash at level 5: 9000gp An analysis of the the cost of the rods per level is something I'm willing to discuss. It's clear that the rods are too expensive at level 5 to use effectively. It's also however clear that haste at level 5 is too expensive to use. Number of 3rd level spells per day at level 5 for a wizard: 1. 2 if you have 18 int. So... going to really burn them up with that um, single fireball? If you spend ALL your cash, you can have this by level 9 (as a PC, as an NPC it is even higher)....and it STILL doesn't do anything but level 1-3 spells. By level 9 the metamagic rods become possible in a big way. The feat craft rod automatically halves their cost and the lesser maximize rod is the best for the money - by far and outweighs haste. A wizard with 20 int (reasonable for this level) has 4 3rd level spells, 3 4th and 2 5th level spells. If he plans on using haste for 4 encounters in that day (standard) he has no 3rd level slots left. So he will cast 5 spells in that day that are above 3rd level. If he is using haste to cast those spells then he is literally blowing his entire allotment in 2 .5 rounds. A 3.5 wizard has clearly more than enough money to buy one metamagic rod of maximize, if not a meta rod of quicken. Let's say he's keen on the quicken spell. He's then getting 3 rounds where he can belt out the same number of spells as the 3rd edition wizard. If he's smart he will empower 3rd level spells and effectively get the exact same effect as the 3rd edition wizard. But he has all his 3rd level slots remaining. If he's really smart he'll get three rods of maximize spell and simply maximize his entire arsenal of 3rd, 4th and 5th level spells. Quicken any spell up to level 9? 170000gp Cash at level 17? 340000 At level 17, the other extreme haste is plentiful. There's little question that if the wizard really wants to he can use it almost every encounter. Likewise gold is plentiful and so is XP. That's really only 85 000 GP because crafting magic items is now a prerogative. He can easily afford two such rods but that's really a waste and will just stage his rods with numerous lesser rods for quickened empowered maximized fireballs and lightning bolts, probably a plain rod of quicken and maximize and likely a handful of useful extend/empower rods. The advantage of haste isn't lost - but it's difficult to combat all the metamagic feats when you've only effectively got the quicken feat and the other guy can cast things like maximized delayed blast fireballs. I don't think the rods do much to replace Haste 3.0, so the contention that they make the situation "exactly the same" is kind of silly. Hopefully the above analysis proves something to you. The situations are not "identical" but the power level is in fact clearly in the hands of the metamagic rod weilder. At 20th level you've made incremental increase in your spells per day but dramatic increase in your wealth. The rods become dominant and the games devolve. That's why people baned them in 3rd edition when they were 10 times as expensive as in 3.5. That's really all the time I have today for this thread.
solbergb 11-29-04, 01:34 PM	Thank you solbergb for remaining reasonable in discussion. It's hard to come by at times. I try to stick to the facts and state when something is my opinion. Thank you solbergb for remaining reasonable in An analysis of the the cost of the rods per level is something I'm willing to discuss. It's clear that the rods are too expensive at level 5 to use effectively. It's also however clear that haste at level 5 is too expensive to use. Number of 3rd level spells per day at level 5 for a wizard: 1. 2 if you have 18 int. So... going to really burn them up with that um, single fireball? Nitpick...16 int, which most wizards have at level 5 unless they started with 14 in their primary spellcasting attribute....so they get two spells. In my adventuring with level 5 wizards (have done several nasty adventures in the last six months with three separate wizard players...RPGA LG leads to a divirsity of table mixes and styles)) the typical spell choices for the two level 3 spells at level 5 are "Fireball" and "Haste". The former is a good tool for a large number of weak enemies, or Leader+Minions. The latter is good for the single "BBEG" (a L5 wizard is far better off buffing fighters than trying to do direct damage, fighters are very strong in levels 4-6 and giving them 1.5-2x as many attacks, mobility, stacking AC and hit bonus is a good thing...meanwhile the Priest is casting "Prayer" for more hit and damage bonuses). Both combined are good for the really deadly encounter, where the BBEG alone is as dangerous as the party, and the minions need to be cleared fast. (order depends on whether the minions start clumped or clump up to attack the front line) L5 wizards lean heavily on their L2 spells...between L2 and L3 they have 5 spells+2 if they're specialists, that's enough for two combats, especially since most have a magic missile and grease racked too. Favored spells in my circles are glitterdust and web, mostly glitterdust. Grease still sees a lot of use in the L5 range. By the third fight of the day they're starting to get tapped, so they'll conserve their booms for the serious threats and let the fighters do the heavy lifting with maybe a single spell support on the easier encounters. Thing is...it is still a very favored spell at level 5. By level 9 the metamagic rods become possible in a big way. The feat craft rod automatically halves their cost and the lesser maximize rod is the best for the money - by far and outweighs haste. So what you're saying is even spending a feat, they still can't afford quicken spell via rods. This is not strengthening your argument. Craft rod isn't a popular feat in my circles. Around level 9 is when empower or craft wonderous usually gets squeezed in. The level 10 metamagic feat can't be assumed, because most wizards are PRCing. A wizard with 20 int (reasonable for this level) has 4 3rd level spells, 3 4th and 2 5th level spells. Yup..about the same as having 2 3rd level, 3 2nd level and 4 1st level at level 5. These are the heavy lifting spells, the ones he'll use most of the time. Lower level spells are now relegated to buffing and utility and divination, generally. Using 3 of those 4 spells on Haste isn't a bad deal. It is the equivalent of racking 2 magic missiles and a grease at level 5. At level 9, the fighter types (even the mutts who mixed in 3/4 BAB classes, and warrior clerics, rogues and monks) are hitting their stride, all doing 2 attacks but feeling the pain of the -5 to hit on the second attack. Druids are wildshaping large and their companions are big and they're mixing in animal growth. Haste almost doubles the damage output of manufactured weapons even though it only adds a third attack (between the bonus to hit, the fullbab extra attack, they'll usually hit twice instead of once). The output isn't as dramatic on animals with multiple attacks, but it can make a big difference with your giant crocodile. If he plans on using haste for 4 encounters in that day (standard) he has no 3rd level slots left. So he will cast 5 spells in that day that are above 3rd level. If he is using haste to cast those spells then he is literally blowing his entire allotment in 2 .5 rounds. Oh, sorry we're talking 3.0 haste. If he uses a 3.0 haste per combat he's got no 3rd level spells. He does however have enough level 4-5 and level 1-2 spells to cast one level 4-5 and one level 1-2 spell every combat round, essentially doubling his high level spell slots without taking the quicken spell feat. Plus have a few slots left over for utility. All you need is a wand of something generically useful like magic missile L9 or a few low level pearls of power to make full use of those partial actions (restoring the low level spells used). And of course your specialist mage has an extra 3rd, 4th and 5th level spell he can unload in the haste rounds too. A wizard will normally want a wand or some pearls of power anyway, so it isn't like he's warping his usuall equipment here. Plus a SORCERER can use 3.0 haste and do the same thing, and that level 9 sorcerer has 6 4th level slots, 3 3rd level slots, 7 2nd level slots and 7 1st level slots to unload after casting four hastes. A 3.5 wizard has clearly more than enough money to buy one metamagic rod of maximize, if not a meta rod of quicken. Let's say he's keen on the quicken spell. A "maximize my biggest spell" rod is still pretty expensive. At level 9 a lesser rod is affordable without spending a feat, but it is still a big chunk of your cash. He's then getting 3 rounds where he can belt out the same number of spells as the 3rd edition wizard. If he's smart he will empower 3rd level spells and effectively get the exact same effect as the 3rd edition wizard. But he has all his 3rd level slots remaining. If he's really smart he'll get three rods of maximize spell and simply maximize his entire arsenal of 3rd, 4th and 5th level spells. Three rods of maximize is one rod of lesser, 2 rods of medium. Check your cash figures on those, you will find it isn't as cheap as you think. That's 128000gp, 64000+feat+a big chunk of xp and downtime if you craft it yourself. Too much for level 9, sorry. Also you seem to think a maximized spell = casting 2 spells. That's not even quite true of the direct damage spells like fireball or searing ray. It REALLY isn't true of the other spells. With 3.0 haste, I can cast Evards and Stinking cloud in one round. Anyone nauseated can no longer make grapple checks to escape. Anyone grappled will have to make saves till he is nauseated. With 3.0 haste I can cast mind fog followed by hold monster or fear. With 3.0 haste I can exhaust anyone by hitting him with a second ray of exhaustion after the first one. And before you cry "spell slots" I cry "sorcerer" or "wand" or "scroll". There are a ton of combinations that are a lot nastier than just two damage spells. At level 5, you probably don't have enough spell slots to make the best use of 3.0 haste unless you have a wand, crafted some scrolls or are a sorcerer (although a specialist wizard could often fit it in). By level 6, it is worth making room for (you've got 12 slots other than haste, 15 if you are a specialist, plus any scrolls or other consumables you;ve made). The level 6 sorcerer pretty much always took 3.0 haste because it let him unload his 16 remaining spell slots at twice the rate. It was priceless. At level 17, the other extreme haste is plentiful. There's little question that if the wizard really wants to he can use it almost every encounter. Likewise gold is plentiful and so is XP. That's really only 85 000 GP because crafting magic items is now a prerogative. He can easily afford two such rods but that's really a waste and will just stage his rods with numerous lesser rods for quickened empowered maximized fireballs and lightning bolts, probably a plain rod of quicken and maximize and likely a handful of useful extend/empower rods. Ok first of all, each rod needs a hand to weild. Each rod needs an action to draw. You can only use one rod per spell, says so right in the rod description. You can't mix and match rods on a single spell, and swapping between them will cost you move actions at a minimum, and that assumes you drop the expensive rod to pull another one, rather than put it away nicely. There are some tricks around this (unseen servant can be helpful if you're willing to have items unattended briefly) but they aren't 100% reliable. Second of all, lets examine your premise. 1 feat spent plus xp and a lot of downtime to get: 85000gp for a greater wand of quicken 75500gp for two normal wands of quicken 35000gp for two lesser wands of quicken. That's a crapload of cash for a 17th level caster. "easily afford" 2 rods...last I heard spending half your cash isn't "easy". It is a significant opportunity cost you could spend on other things. You can't quicken an empowered/maximized fireball (that's a level 8 slot by the way) without a greater rod or something like sudden empower and sudden maximize. A lesser rod doesn't cut it....unless your GM isn't considering the spell slot used when considering what the rod can affect. You are saying that spending a feat and half your cash for something that works poorly about as well as ONE 3.0 haste spell is the same? I just don't see it. The advantage of haste isn't lost - but it's difficult to combat all the metamagic feats when you've only effectively got the quicken feat and the other guy can cast things like maximized delayed blast fireballs. Ok...lets see. I take 3.0 haste and spend my level 17 cash normally and refrain from any magic items not in the 3.0 DMG. Just for grins lets say I spend on quicken spell where you get craft rod. You spend hundreds of thousands of 160000 on metamagic rods and don't spend 3.0 haste. Lets say for sake of argument we have 2 level 9 spell slots, 3 level 8 slots, 4 level 7 slots....we'll use wizards not sorcerers. Add in another 17000 cash if you want to go 12 rounds (4 full combats of 3 rounds each). Note that it is ALWAYS worthwhile to use your second action hasting the cleric, since his extra high level spell cast will make up for the one you didn't cast, plus it provides a good use for 3rd level slots that otherwise wouldn't be used. After round 1, the cleric is unloading his spells at 2x the rate as well. There is no spell level 3-9 that provides as much bang for the buck as that (it's a free level 4-9 cleric spell every round), so haste will get cast before any other "big" spell. round 1 I cast quickened haste,normal Haste on cleric, L9 spell round 1 you cast a quickened level 9 spell and a level 9 spell Round 2 I cast L8 spell, L9 spell Round 2 you cast quickened level 8 spell and level 8 spell Round 3 I cast 2 level 8 spells Round 3 you cast quickened level 7 spell and level 8 spell 2nd combat or round 4 Round 4 I cast quickened haste, normal haste on cleric, L6 spell Round 4 Normal Rod#1 you cast quickened level 6 spell and level 7 spell Round 5 I cast 2 level 6 spells Round 5 you cast quickened level 6 spell and level 7 spell Round 6 I cast 2 level 6 spells Round 6 you cast quickened level 6 spell and level 6 spell 3rd combat or round 7 Round 7, I cast quickened haste, normal haste on cleric, L5 spell Round 7, Normal Rod#2, cast quickened 5 and level 5 Round 8 cast 2 level 5 spells Round 8 cast quickened 5 and level 5 Round 9 Cast 2 level 5 spells Round 9 Cast quickened 4 and level 4 4th combat or round 10 Round 10 I cast quickened haste, haste on cleric, Level 4 spell Round 10 lesser metamagic rod Quickened 3, level 4 Round 11 Cast 2 level 4 spells Round 11 Quickened 3, level 4 Round 12 Cast 2 level 4 spells Round 12 quickened 3, level 4 Note...had the wizard with 3.0 haste invested some of his 177000 cash into a staff, he'd be firing level 5+ spells at full caster level/penetration should he deem his level 4 spells unworthy. Or he could buy a relatively cheap level 4 wand (ice storm maybe, or dimension door for mobility) and start dipping into it for any battle that lasts more than 3 rounds, or any day with more than 12 rounds of combat. Note also in a longer fight (instead of 4 short fights) he can use those haste and quickened hastes on the fighters or secondary spellcasters too, with useful effects...they're not wasted slots. Plus note..the CLERIC is doubling his actions too in every combat, without spending an action or a penny. The edge is even larger for a specialist caster (more high level spell slots to unload). For a sorcerer his unload is Contingency "I say BEQUICK and haste is cast on me" instead of "quickened haste", he hastes cleric with his L3 slots and the rest of the combat rounds go like this (and note that if the battle just drags on rather than 4 separate 3 round fights, he has even more actions and can use L6 spells instead of "Ctg haste,haste cleric). He does need to use a spell known on contingency and haste, doesn't need to use any feats or cash. R1: Ctg Haste, Haste Cleric, L8 R2: L8, L8 R3: L8, L7 R4: Ctg Haste, Haste Cleric, L7 R5: L7 L7 R6: L7 L7 R7: Ctg Haste, Haste Cleric, L6 R8: L6 L6 R9: L5 L5 R10: Ctg Haste, Haste Cleric, L5 R11: L5 L5 R12: L5 L5 Hopefully the above analysis proves something to you. The situations are not "identical" but the power level is in fact clearly in the hands of the metamagic rod weilder. At 20th level you've made incremental increase in your spells per day but dramatic increase in your wealth. The rods become dominant and the games devolve. That's why people baned them in 3rd edition when they were 10 times as expensive as in 3.5.. Doesn't prove a thing except that 3.0 haste at level 17 can at least as well as 170000gp of cash for 12 combat rounds (and better if he uses a level 3 slot to quicken the cleric every fight...note that casting this is MORE effective than using a level 9 slot because the cleric will cast a second level 9 spell to make up for the spent action). When one spell requires half your cash AND a feat (or all of your cash without a feat) to duplicate it is probably not ok. And that's just solo. That extra round buffing the other primary spellcaster doubles the effect. Furthermore this comparison doesn't include the +4 AC bonus or the +30 speed bonus that 3.0 haste provided. That would cost even more cash to duplicate. Actions are precious. Things that give actions should have fairly high opportunity cost. The quicken rods suck vast quantities of cash out of you. Quicken Spell ties up higher level spell slots. Sudden Quicken takes all your feats to get into. 3.0 haste costs....375gp at the local scroll merchant, half that if you scribe it yourself, nothing if you know it but a level 3 spell slot.
Archtyrant Terevoth 11-29-04, 01:40 PM	No but you've got one less fireball to throw. No one's arguing you're locked into casting your 4th fireball - just that you might not have a 4th fireball if you've got 4 encounters per day and each encounter you are using that 3rd level slot. The metarods only cost gold, not slots. Right you're paying a 3rd level slot extra for haste, and that's it. The problem is that a 3rd level slots value is essentially nil for a 20th level wizard. So haste simply cannot work at high levels. It worked for levels 5-7 only beacuse 3rd level slots were actually rare then, but as soon as you could afford to burn 3rd level slots regularly haste broke down. There are no facts - people often buy into the "party line" and just blither from there. There are plenty of facts. I can state that every single game of 3.0 I played in, with different people, always entailed haste being the #1 wizard spell. And when I DMed and made NPCs, when I gave them haste they were many times more effective. And my assessment isn't alone. Many other players shared the same experiences. You'd look on the min/max boards and every single wizard or sorcerer had haste, every warrior had boots of speed or something similar to haste them. If you wanted to be optimized, you had to use haste, it was really that simple and the facts showed that. I have yet to see someone prove haste is balanced by running a party of wizards, where only one wizard is allowed to have haste effects, and the rest must go through a campaign unhasted. Nobody tries stuff like that, because the answer is obvious. 90% of the 3.5 changes likewise aren't related to any game experience beyond perhaps the skewed perceptions of those who wrote it. If they had been listening there would be no core metamagic rods. Perhaps, but haste isn't part of that 90%. Do the same thing with blink. Have every creature and NPC in the game use blink liberally - all your targeted spells and attacks fail with a 50% miss chance unless they have someway of seeing into the ethereal, your area spells do nothing but half damage. Just about everything can walk through walls but you can't. You always lose your dex bonus and blindfighting won't help you and make sure the PCs never take any countermeasures. Then come back and say it's not broken. So you're looking at a spell which reduces your speed, gives you a 20% failure chance on your attacks, reduces your sight range to 60' and costs you an action to cast. Instead of enhancing your offensive power, it actually decreases it. And 50% miss chance is hardly invulnerable, not when you're working off wizard hp. So you've spent one round, and done nothing to your enemies. There may be times when haste is that good, but I certainly would discourage people from casting it first in every single combat. There are plenty of situations where blink isn't worth it over fireball, and some where casting nothing would be better than casting blink (like if your foes are ranged fighters). Blink is hardly a must take. With haste on the other hand, you've cast haste, thereby giving you more offensive power and you get another action, like casting a fireball. So you do what you normally could have done in a round plus you get hasted as a bonus. Oh and in addition you gain a +4 to your AC too (thats a 20% miss chance right there). All without a single drawback, you aren't even paying an action to cast it. That's what a must take spell looks like. If I was a PC wizard, I'll take haste over blink any day. They're wasting an action to cast it, I'm wasting nothing. If my opponents use blink liberally and I can't use it, so what? The biggest potential abuse of blink is using it to walk throuh walls and bypass sections of the dungeon that the DM doesn't want you to, but that's a non-combat use. As a combat spell, blink is totally inferior to haste.
Llathos 11-29-04, 03:13 PM	The simple fact of the matter is designers want to have more actions in one round and they've had to invent all sorts of silly names like "swift" and "immediate" in 3.5 to describe what was already clearly described. It's silly really. Color me retarded, but can you explain this? I'm as of now totally unaware of any action called "immediate" or "swift". Yet, I saw someone else post them on another thread. Care to explain? Is there a joke I'm missing, or is this new material I don't have, or am I blind and not seeing it in my books?
solbergb 11-29-04, 03:29 PM	-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The short form is: Feather Fall is a Core Rules Immediate action. If it works like feather fall does, it is Immediate. (free action but blocks any other immediate or swift that round, can be done when it is not your turn) Quicken Spell is a Core Rules Swift action. If it works like a quickened spell does it is Swift. (free action but blocks any other immediate or swift action that round, can only be done when it is your turn) All of the Swift and Immediate actions work like the Core Feather Fall and Quicken Spell "funny kind of free action". So if you understand how those work mechanically, you'll get how these two action types work. The only change in CA is it clarified that Immediate actions can't be done while flatfooted. Note that feather fall will still normally work out of combat because most of the time you fall you are the one acting, so by definition you can't be flatfooted. Only if someone has the jump on you and by definition "outreflexed" you can you not use an immediate action. You never could use a quickened spell when it wasn't your turn, so the restriction on swift didn't change anything.
Willie the Duck 11-29-04, 08:20 PM	Sigh... where to start. I think that's how all of us feel. As a scientist yeah generally if something contradicts my own experience and all the experiments I perform regularly never yeild the result other people are telling me is true - yep I must conclude it must be wrong. So, your annecdotal evidence is more significant than theirs, no matter how many of them there are, or how much their experiences match each other? No possibility that you are the outlyer? Given that your campaigns and groups are all going to be somewhat similar, are you sure it isn't the way they are set up that makes 3.0 haste less powerful in them? It's happened to me. For the first 1-2 years of 3rd edition, people kept talking about how direct damage spells had dropped in usefulness. I thought they were nuts. Mages in my groups still used fireballs and such every which way from sunday and never used buffs or save-or-die. Turns out that was because said mages hadn't adapted to the new system, and were making suboptimal choices. We had just adapted to the wizard not being able to contribute as much, instead of coming up with the spell combos that let him do so. No perhaps you should argue against them rather than more ad-hominem attacks? oh my bloody mother trucking God! Are you oblivious to the number of ad hominem attacks you've made against the designers of 3.5 in this thread alone?! I think many of their experiences hold absolutely no weight whatsoever and I hold them in utter contempt. One "prominent" fool gives his PCs a feat every level for instance. Which would certainly change the balance of said game. But I'll bet this fool also played in other people's campaigns where this didn't happen, and talk with other gamers, and have workshops with other writes working on the mechanics, and hopefully also run campaigns where this didn't occur. The fact that the 3.5 PHB did specifically everything contrary/arse-backwards to what I would have done in an update is for me proof that whatever the hell they're playing is completely unlike what I play. I can say that I didn't like HOW they changed something, but admit that the old situation needed changing. I can say, "I don't think Bulls strenght should be 1min/level, but admit is was too good at 1hr/lvl." Maybe 3.5 haste isn't the correct replacement for 3.0 haste, but that doesn't mean 3.0 haste wasn't too good for 3rd level. Likewise I never once saw a call for shapechange to have Su abilities, righteous might to be more beefed up and core metamagic rods. In fact the list of things that were done in 3.5 that I never ever saw anyone complain about on the boards far outweighs the list of things that were complained about. I do remember some discussions about not being able to turn into a dragon and breath fire. Other than that, I agree. These are all choices they made that I disagree with (along with gnome bards and darkness spell that can illuminate. That said, they did do alot of stuff that was asked for (reduced bag of rats abuse, less powerful time stop, more powerful bards and rangers), you can't ignore those. How many people complained about haste = tons. How many people complained about the cover rules = ?!?. I deride the affirmation that people are either "listening" or acting upon what they hear rather than merely doing as they see fit. You see in the middle of that? yep, people WERE complaining about haste. Were they wrong? They might have nerfed it too much, dragging in metamagic rods that could do the same thing might be a foolish idea, but the poor fix doesn't change that a problem existed. So you've used blink extensively? I'm rather shocked that having 50% of the PC attacks miss/not work is so dissimilar from having double the attacks? That needs some explanation. Surely going from a 1-1 to a 1/2-4/5 ratio of attacks and spells connecting has significant impact on the game? It has some impact to be sure, but not overpowered impact. Predominantly because of one factor I dislike about D&D: offense is so much better than defense. Let's say two parties are fighting each other. You cast blink on your mage. Now he doesn't get hit 50% of the time (or a little less because anyone with ghost touch weapons or magic missile are now going to focus on him), but misses 20% of the time. Well great, his survivability goes up for 1 rnd/level. Of course he's contributing less to the victory of his party. The mage on the other side is busy casting his spells to boost his allies or take out the opposition. His side thus has an offensive advantage, and they make short(er) work of the opposition. The blinking mage finally becomes fully there when his spell ends, only to have the rest of his side slaughtered and all of them focusing on him. [/QUOTE]The concept of multiple spells in a round exist in either edition. You're admiting to the same lack of "balance" nothing more. [/QUOTE] Exactly my point. an extra spell per round (especially one where you don't have to prep a spell 4 levels lower) is such an amazingly powerful ability, everyone will take it all the time. Was 3.0 haste a bad idea? yes. Was 3.5 metamagic rods a mistake? yes. The two do not cancel each other out, because they aren't just competing with each other, but also all other builds out there. To the guy wanting to play a competitive fighter into high levels, or the sorcerer that doesn't choose haste and spends his cash on non-rods, it doesn't matter which method is used, they are both overpowered. The flavor is another thing - and I wholeheartedly agree that the flavor should be more akin to the previous editions. However this is to my knowledge and extensive analysis the only spell in 3.5 that went back towards something like the previous editions and all the rest are a steaming pile of crap with little to no reference to anything at all. Dissolution of symbol, horrid wilting at a d6, enlarge/reduce, darkness, polymorph at level 5, the list is enormous. In fact this is my single largest gripe with 3.5 - the hubris involved in the "design" (rape) of the spell system. Well, we agree on alot of these, but the fact that you generalize it into "3.5 sucks" seems so overblown to the proportion of the sin. And that it (in my opinion) blinds you to the flaws that DID exist in 3.0 saddens me.
Scion of Coldshard 11-29-04, 08:26 PM	On the other thread I posted this: My groups have always used it as starting at the beginning of the turn after you cast it (for the extra partial action). Now, something else to consider is that we have 'never' found haste to be overpowering. So perhaps all of those who feel haste is too strong is because they are chooseing to use haste in an unbalancing way. If we simply change the 3.0 haste to definately only start its partial actions on the next turn you get then perhaps most everyone would agree that it is fine as a 3rd level spell. (the only reason I have to doubt this is because there is so much haste hate out there.. but again, I have never seen it be a problem in any games I have been in.) and really, I think it still holds true. Still, for this topic 3.0 haste and 3.5 haste are simply different spells. They should have different names even. They dont really do much of what the other did except in fairly minor ways. The only possible overbearing part of 3.0 haste was the boost to AC. Of course without that the spell doesnt even do anything until round 3 anyway (when the caster casts on himself). How many people like useing spells which only start to work 2 rounds after being cast? Melfs acid arrow can do a lot of damage, as can heat metal, but they take a lot of time. Generally it is simply better to use something else. In this case, and a few above, there are many times when it is simply better for the caster to use some other spell than haste (in either version). Personally, I have both spells in my game. They are each good for different things and I have never seen haste 3.0 to be unbalancing. My guess is that the main point people dont like is when the spell gives you a partial action right away. Well, simply take the other interpretation. Especially if you find one of the two to be too powerful. Have a good time with your discussion all ;)
bitnine 11-29-04, 10:47 PM	Really, I always liked 3.0 haste for under-EL encounters at mid and high levels. Haste up to ping out with multiple low level spells instead of big ticket items, since it's cheap to have a stock of (1st level in particular) pearls of power and refresh. The dual Magic Missile is a real handy spell - or set thereof, and a bargain at 2 1st level slots.
Gruffmug 11-30-04, 12:26 AM	The new thing I have seen is blink and transdeminsional spell. Evil I say, Once in an ambush the mage rope tricked an was blasting away from his extrademinsional window. transdimensional spell in the right hands can be broken Gruffmug
DungeonMaster 12-01-04, 12:13 PM	Wow. Get overrun by work and three pages fly by. Amazing. Anyhow, I'll try to answer everyone's comments. Major point #1: You can't quicken an empowered/maximized fireball (that's a level 8 slot by the way) without a greater rod or something like sudden empower and sudden maximize. A lesser rod doesn't cut it....unless your GM isn't considering the spell slot used when considering what the rod can affect. That's incorrect. There's no way to interpret the metamagic rod as affecting the spell slot - it specifically works on a 3rd level spell and an empowered maximized fireball is a 3rd level spell . A lesser rod does cut it - in fact the lesser rod is the best choice until much higher levels because it's cheap and efficient. By your own admission the wizard can rely on a high level spell + a low level spell and so the difference is nill. Major point #2: We're talking theoretically. In game and from game to game everything can be different. I've never ever seen a sorceror pick hast as his first 3rd level spell - ever. You've never seen anyone craft most of thier gear worth in magic items. Remains that we can talk about these extreme cases. Don't tell me "you can't have X rods" when I have enough cash by the standard rules I do have the ability to do it and I won't tell you your sorceror can't commit suicide and take haste as his first 3rd level spell. You clearly don't think my analysis is perfectly reasonable and I clearly don't think yours is but we can both agree on "what's possible" by the rules and reality will probably lie somewhere off to the right field of our extreme cases. The latter (haste) is good for the single "BBEG" (a L5 wizard is far better off buffing fighters than trying to do direct damage, fighters are very strong in levels 4-6 and giving them 1.5-2x as many attacks, mobility, stacking AC and hit bonus is a good thing...meanwhile the Priest is casting "Prayer" for more hit and damage bonuses). My experience is completely contrary. A level 5 wizard will do 17.5 damage on average with a fireball and that's both effective and useful at clearing minions as it is pounding the main ennemy. Likewise a single concentrated spell like a melf's acid arrow extended from a metamagic rod of extend spell which is very cheap. Or you could just extend it and with your wealth of 9000 GP afford a metamagic rod of empower spell and then get off three empowered extended acid arrows. Lv 5 wizards in my experience lean on all their spells. So do level 20 wizards. It's not question that when you're level 5 and the opponents are level 5 they're going to be hitting you with fireballs and lightning bolts while you're casting magic missile. The buff wizard is a competent wizard, I've played one myself and seen a number played - but he more often then not gets derided by party members for a lack of true power. You might call it the culture of the fireball and magic missile but seriously, that's what a lot of people expect and when your buffs fall short you get criticised for "not doing anything". So what you're saying is even spending a feat, they still can't afford quicken spell via rods. This is not strengthening your argument. You're making mistakes now. One can easily have a lesser meta rod of quicken at 9th level. The average wealth for this level is 36 000 GP. The crafting cost of a rod is 17 500 GP. You could have a lesser quicken and two lesser maximize (14 000 GP) easily within cash limits of a 9th level character and have money for scrolls, a cheap wand and other trinkets. Craft rod isn't a popular feat in my circles. Around level 9 is when empower or craft wonderous usually gets squeezed in. The level 10 metamagic feat can't be assumed, because most wizards are PRCing. Well I don't play with PrC and I'm sure if you start droping metarods in your games they will become very popular very fast - especially if you follow the rules for them. At level 9, the fighter types (even the mutts who mixed in 3/4 BAB classes, and warrior clerics, rogues and monks) are hitting their stride, all doing 2 attacks but feeling the pain of the -5 to hit on the second attack. Druids are wildshaping large and their companions are big and they're mixing in animal growth. Haste almost doubles the damage output of manufactured weapons even though it only adds a third attack (between the bonus to hit, the fullbab extra attack, they'll usually hit twice instead of once). And the wizard isn't casting an empowered maximized fireball with a quickened empowered fireball why? Seriously, if spell slots don't matter and rest is a plenty then this is the simple situation metamagic rods lends itself too. 3rd edition haste will look like a pile of drek in no time flat once the rods come to the fore. At 9th level the best you can do in 3rd edition: empowered fireball + empowered fireball + quickened magic missile requireing 1 3rd level slot and 3 5th level slots. At 9th level the best you can do in 3.5 edition: maximized empowered fireball + quickened empowered fireball requiring 2 5th level slots and two metamagic rods total crafting cost well within your range. Oh, sorry we're talking 3.0 haste. If he uses a 3.0 haste per combat he's got no 3rd level spells. He does however have enough level 4-5 and level 1-2 spells to cast one level 4-5 and one level 1-2 spell every combat round, essentially doubling his high level spell slots without taking the quicken spell feat. Plus have a few slots left over for utility. All you need is a wand of something generically useful like magic missile L9 or a few low level pearls of power to make full use of those partial actions (restoring the low level spells used). And of course your specialist mage has an extra 3rd, 4th and 5th level spell he can unload in the haste rounds too. A wizard will normally want a wand or some pearls of power anyway, so it isn't like he's warping his usuall equipment here. Wand of haste 5625 GP crafted - 50 charges. Rod of lesser maximize 7000 GP crafted - permanent. Rod of lesser quicken 17 500 GP crafted - permanent. Is 12 000 GP really that big a difference for a non-permanant item? Pearl of power 3rd level spell 9000 GP - can't craft until 17th level. You're not wining any GP count from my perspective. A "maximize my biggest spell" rod is still pretty expensive. At level 9 a lesser rod is affordable without spending a feat, but it is still a big chunk of your cash. No it isn't. It's very nearly the same price as a wand of haste except it's permanent . With 3.0 haste, I can cast Evards and Stinking cloud in one round. Anyone nauseated can no longer make grapple checks to escape. Anyone grappled will have to make saves till he is nauseated. You can do the exact same thing with a 3.5 rod of lesser quicken except it's even better because you don't need to spend a slot or wait a round either to get the spell combo off. The metamagic rod of quicken is specifically always better for spell combos - not haste. With 3.0 haste I can cast mind fog followed by hold monster or fear. With 3.0 haste I can exhaust anyone by hitting him with a second ray of exhaustion after the first one. And before you cry "spell slots" I cry "sorcerer" or "wand" or "scroll". There are a ton of combinations that are a lot nastier than just two damage spells. There's no ray of exhaustion in 3rd edition. I will cry spell slots and I will cry wand and scroll because beleive it or not you're crying "cash" a lot and the more I point to your spell resources the more it becomes obvious that two spells a round using 2 slots is more expensive than one big spell using one low level slot. The level 6 sorcerer pretty much always took 3.0 haste because it let him unload his 16 remaining spell slots at twice the rate. It was priceless. Again, for emphasis, I've never ever seen this before in my life. Claiming the rods are difficult to use is again, incorrect. Anyone with the will do so can do so easily. Polymorph, alter self, unseen servant, or just plain tethering the rods to your cloak - not a problem. That's like me saying the haste AC bonus is a dodge bonus and you're going to lose it sometimes. It might be true - but it's damn rare it's going to fail you. 1 feat spent plus xp and a lot of downtime to get 85000gp for a greater wand of quicken 75500gp for two normal wands of quicken 35000gp for two lesser wands of quicken. That's a crapload of cash for a 17th level caster. "easily afford" 2 rods...last I heard spending half your cash isn't "easy". It is a significant opportunity cost you could spend on other things. You know, that's not even the selection I'de personally take as a munchkin - I'de go with one greater rod of quicken one normal and one lesser. Then I'de load up on maximize, extend and other rods. That's barely a third of my cash spent on quickening - which is useful but not necessarily as useful as getting of maximized empowered delayed blast fireballs. You are saying that spending a feat and half your cash for something that works poorly about as well as ONE 3.0 haste spell is the same? I just don't see it. Actually the rods work much much better than a 3rd edition haste spell - particularly for spell combos. See above. Note that it is ALWAYS worthwhile to use your second action hasting the cleric, since his extra high level spell cast will make up for the one you didn't cast, plus it provides a good use for 3rd level slots that otherwise wouldn't be used. After round 1, the cleric is unloading his spells at 2x the rate as well. There is no spell level 3-9 that provides as much bang for the buck as that (it's a free level 4-9 cleric spell every round), so haste will get cast before any other "big" spell. Note that most monsters will have you dead/dying if you spend the first round of combat doing nothing. Lich casts horrid wilting - haste haste - lich casts horrid wilting - *party death*. Please. round 1 I cast quickened haste,normal Haste on cleric, L9 spell round 1 you cast a quickened level 9 spell and a level 9 spell Round 2 I cast L8 spell, L9 spell Round 2 you cast quickened level 8 spell and level 8 spell Round 3 I cast 2 level 8 spells Round 3 you cast quickened level 7 spell and level 8 spell You can't cast quickened 9th level spells in 3rd edition the best you can get is a quickened 5th for a 9th level slot. So in 3.5 this becomes? round 1 maximized 9th level spell + quickened 9th level spell by wizard and cleric and druid. round 2 maximized 9th level spell + quickened 9th level spell by wizard and cleric and druid. ... This is better how? They don't need to rely on mr. arcane to get their spells off in one go - they just need rods themselves. It all hits your monster so much faster with the rods. The rest made no sense to me because of the above. Actions are precious. Things that give actions should have fairly high opportunity cost. The quicken rods suck vast quantities of cash out of you. Quicken Spell ties up higher level spell slots. Sudden Quicken takes all your feats to get into. 3.0 haste costs....375gp at the local scroll merchant, half that if you scribe it yourself, nothing if you know it but a level 3 spell slot. Actions are precious but they're not that precious. More often than not forknowledge is the key to victory - not actions. Should divination be nerfed then? Reality is that nothing has changed in 3.5. The metamagic rod is the key to more actions, it's expensive but the breath of actions one can take with metamagic rods is very much larger than 3rd edition haste ever allowed for. Extended time stop anyone? Maximized empowered delayed blast fireball? Anyhow, this one reply took 2 hours to write which is really far too much time for me to be spending on the boards.
CaoSlayer 12-01-04, 12:58 PM	It doesn't work like that at all. An extra attack on a full attack isn't that useful if you can't get into position. It isn't that useful if that doesn't work to your tactics. I didn't notice it applied to every weapon you were holding - which does make it better for those with multiple weapons... like multi headed hydras. But that doesn't stop it from being circumstantially a poor choice for a mass spell at 3rd. As I said, it is better for a one of casting with a very large group of people who get to full attack, but that doesn't stop the fact that it could've been remade better with more generally useful benefits. I guess ultimately it might be a reasonable one off spell for Wizards, and travel domain Clerics, that summon lots, but other than that its a complete waste. Guess what? That means it could've been done better. not, I didnt meant that, I meant that if haste grants one extra attack and TWF grants one extra attack, then you will have two extra attacks vs one without haste and without TWF... conditional? which condition? for a 4 party men it is still worth because surelly two of them will try to full attack, let´s analize every character archtype: Melee two weapon fighting: you get an extra attack with your better weapon, you can get closer to the enemy faster so you can then start to deal full attack sooner, with the bonus, you only have a -1 penalty to every attack instead the normal -2. melee two handed weapon: look above... if you have good attack bonuses... you can exchange the +1 to hit, toward a +2 to damage without a penalty, that means, free weapon spec. gollem wannabe man (20-15 movement): you get more than doubled your speed so you get denied the mayor disavantage of medium-heavy armor. weakling (non-light armor, poor hit dice): you can run for 30x4 = 120 extra feets, +1 AC helps, +1 ref it is good against damage/area spells archer: with rapid shot this is like the TWF guy, with many shoot, you can move more that round and get lesser penalty sneak attacker: with +30 movement you can make C movements for flanking fast without AoO or tumble, once the enemy is flanked, the +1 to hit it is good because rogues poor BAB and the extra attack can means one extra sneak attack for great damage summoner; animal companion;leadership: most summons, animal companions only have one attack, this make them attack twice and better. trip-disarm master: one extra disarm-trip and an useful +1 So in little words, unless someone just stay in place without doing a single attack roll (a metamagic sorcerer), this feat it is useful...
solbergb 12-01-04, 03:21 PM	Major point #1: That's incorrect. There's no way to interpret the metamagic rod as affecting the spell slot - it specifically works on a 3rd level spell and an empowered maximized fireball is a 3rd level spell . A lesser rod does cut it - in fact the lesser rod is the best choice until much higher levels because it's cheap and efficient. By your own admission the wizard can rely on a high level spell + a low level spell and so the difference is nill. Actually you're wrong there. The standard interpretation is that it operates on the casting spell slot not the operating spell level, and this interpretation is at least embraced by the 14000 people who play Living Greyhawk, if not in your campaign. You have to look at all the rules, not one line in isolation. emphasis mine to make the point: "Effects of Metamagic Feats on a Spell: In all ways, a metamagic spell OPERATES AT its original spell level, even though it is PREPARED AND CAST as a higher-level spell." "Lesser and Greater Metamagic Rods: Normal metamagic rods can be used with spells of 6th level or lower. Lesser rods can be used with spells of 3rd level or lower, while greater rods can be used with spells of 9th level or lower." So are we talking about the PREPARED AND CAST spell level, as I contend, or the OPERATES AT spell level, as you contend? Look at the descriptions. They all have this form: "Metamagic, <metamagic> The wielder can CAST up to three spells per day that are <metamagicked> as though using the <metamagic> feat. The rods apply when you CAST the spell...which means the spell level they are talking about is the PREPARE AND CAST spell level. Where is your rules support for your point of view? Because if you assume you can use a lesser rod on a spell sitting in a 7th level slot, it is no WONDER you think metamagic rods are cheap and available. as an aside, this logic is used for all the charged items too, it is consistent: "Magic Items and Metamagic Spells: With the right item creation feat, you can store a metamagic version of a spell in a scroll, potion, or wand. Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell’s higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat). " You clearly don't think my analysis is perfectly reasonable and I clearly don't think yours is but we can both agree on "what's possible" by the rules and reality will probably lie somewhere off to the right field of our extreme cases. My experience is completely contrary. A level 5 wizard will do 17.5 damage on average with a fireball and that's both effective and useful at clearing minions as it is pounding the main ennemy. Likewise a single concentrated spell like a melf's acid arrow extended from a metamagic rod of extend spell which is very cheap. Or you could just extend it and with your wealth of 9000 GP afford a metamagic rod of empower spell and then get off three empowered extended acid arrows. Can we say for the sake of argument that a haste spell will boost the melee combatants at level 5 by about 17.5 points/round? (and that the tendency to make reflex saves is canceled by the tendency of melee combatants to miss from time to time). (17.5 is conservative, many fighters can do that by themselves in one swing...I'm assuming one nonoptomized warrior type who doubles his swings and one archer who gets an extra shot. Assume the fighter ran up while you were casting 3.5 haste). If the target is 8 CR1 guys with 9 or less hp, the fireball is better If the target is 4 ogres, it's wash (fireball will wound ogres enough that melee types can clean up one a round, haste will boost melee types enough to kill one undamaged ogre a round) If the target is 2 trolls, the haste is better (by round 2 the fighters will have caught up with the area damage, by round 3-5 the extra damage is considerable) If the target is 1 BBEG, the fireball is wasted, but haste is a really good buy. Which is why most L5 wizards rack one fireball, one 3.5 haste in my experience. It is a good spell but not a nobrainer. Extended acid arrow is never better than 3.5 haste..it only does 5hp/round for 4 rounds, haste does conservatively 17.5/round for 5 rounds. In 3.0, the L5 wizard probably won't rack haste, but by L6 he will. The sorcerer is likely to at L6 and certainly will by L7. (former problem is slots, latter is spells known). Because round 1 he still casts that fireball, but round 2 he gets to cast two more followup spells. The buff wizard is a competent wizard, I've played one myself and seen a number played - but he more often then not gets derided by party members for a lack of true power. You might call it the culture of the fireball and magic missile but seriously, that's what a lot of people expect and when your buffs fall short you get criticised for "not doing anything". Blaster arcanists and buff arcanists aren't considered the most powerful where I play. The most powerful are those with a mix of "save or XX" and battlefield control, because monsters in 3.5 have a lot of hitpoints and it is usually better to remove some from the battlefield temporarily while the party concentrates on the others. Wounding all of them isn't very helpful, they're all dishing out damage at the full rate. Only if they actually are weak enough to DIE from the area spell do the blaster spells really shine. Two save or die spells cast in succession drastically increase your chance of removing 1/4 to 100% of the enemy. Two complementary battlefield control spells can remove as many of the enemy as you want, with little chance they'll extricate themselves (try getting out of a stinking cloud+web or evards sometime...it sucks) You're making mistakes now. One can easily have a lesser meta rod of quicken at 9th level. The average wealth for this level is 36 000 GP. The crafting cost of a rod is 17 500 GP. You could have a lesser quicken and two lesser maximize (14 000 GP) easily within cash limits of a 9th level character and have money for scrolls, a cheap wand and other trinkets. Yes you can, but you can't do your 5th level spells with it nor your 4th level spells unless you take the strange "rods require the OPERATING spell level not the CASTING spell level" interpretation you seem to favor. Meanwhile in 3.0 I can have boots of speed for 8k (4k crafted if I do it at level 10) which gives me 10 rounds of "quickening" with no need for hands free, spells known or anything else. (wizards really have no need for the other boot options..levitate, fly, etc can all be easily done if you have free actions from a haste first...) And the wizard isn't casting an empowered maximized fireball with a quickened empowered fireball why? Cost? But you can do a maximized fireball and a normal fireball if that's your thing. Assuming you are ok with dropping an expensive rod. It isn't a bad combo. But I'd rather have 3.0 boots of speed and cast my Evards and Stinking Cloud, or my Mind Fog and Hold Monster. Wand of haste 5625 GP crafted - 50 charges. Rod of lesser maximize 7000 GP crafted - permanent. Rod of lesser quicken 17 500 GP crafted - permanent. Is 12 000 GP really that big a difference for a non-permanant item? Pearl of power 3rd level spell 9000 GP - can't craft until 17th level. You're not wining any GP count from my perspective. Boots of speed - 4k crafted, permanent Spell slot - free if you're a sorcerer, essentially free after level 10 if you are a wizard. Spell known free if a wiz, a nobrainer from level 7+ if you are a sorc. Claiming the rods are difficult to use is again, incorrect. Anyone with the will do so can do so easily. Polymorph, alter self, unseen servant, or just plain tethering the rods to your cloak - not a problem. That's like me saying the haste AC bonus is a dodge bonus and you're going to lose it sometimes. It might be true - but it's damn rare it's going to fail you. Alter self has no forms with multiple hands on the humanoid monster manual list (only choice for core races, which is what we're talking about here, core 3.0 vs 3.5 rules) Polymorph self in 3.5 can do it, but as a minute/level buff, you are probably wasting a combat action to manage your rods. Not normally an optimal choice. Unseen servant is only marginally better than dropping it. (servant commanded with a move action at some point to pick up anything you drop and put it in your belt) You still have to hold still, and it is still unattended while the servant is manipulating it. One readied action and your nice rod is gone. Tethering it with ropes is pretty much begging enemy fighters to try a snatch or sunder as it dangles banging on your shins. If you are known to be metarod-happy, and they are as effective as you seem to think they are, then people will try to remove or destroy them. Boots of speed or a spell cast take no hands and the boots can't be snatched without pinning you first (in which case you are in trouble anyway). You can also move between spells without moving away from your rod, and you can move at double speed, which means the enemy is far less likely to get in your face. You know, that's not even the selection I'de personally take as a munchkin - I'de go with one greater rod of quicken one normal and one lesser. Then I'de load up on maximize, extend and other rods. That's barely a third of my cash spent on quickening - which is useful but not necessarily as useful as getting of maximized empowered delayed blast fireballs. Ok...I can agree with this. One greater, one normal, one lesser and some other rods, mostly lesser I'd assume. That was the logic I was using in my prior comparison. Minimum 170,000 of your cash spent. Instead of 8k for boots or free with the right spell mix. Note that most monsters will have you dead/dying if you spend the first round of combat doing nothing. Lich casts horrid wilting - haste haste - lich casts horrid wilting - *party death*. Please. Lich puts us back into the L17 range right? Contingency haste me, quicken haste cleric, cast 2 L9 spells Cleric casts 2 L9 spells Where's my problem again? The power of 3.0 haste is it has almost zero opportunity cost over not having it. You can't cast quickened 9th level spells in 3rd edition the best you can get is a quickened 5th for a 9th level slot. So in 3.5 this becomes? round 1 maximized 9th level spell + quickened 9th level spell by wizard and cleric and druid. round 2 maximized 9th level spell + quickened 9th level spell by wizard and cleric and druid. This is better how? Ok. Equip my guys with boots of speed, assume they have quicken spell (quite reasonable by level 17) Wizard click heels, quicken haste companion, cast 2xL9 spells, move Cleric click heels, cast 2xL9, quicken L5 (one of these is domain), move Druid click heels, cast 2xL9, quicken animal growth, move animal companion partial charges, then full attacks. Between the animal companion and the quickened cleric spell and the fact that my party is now scattered with a tank in the face of the enemy....I'd say advantage my 3.0 team. Maximize away, your area spells mean nothing to me. Your guys are still standing together dropping and picking up rods, and your animal companion got no full attack. They also have 300,000 more cash EACH in equipment (market value). That's enough to buy a +6 enhancer and +5 book (inherent bonus) for their primary attribute, +6 enhancer and +4 book (inherent bonus) for their constitution, even if the two enhancer slots conflict. Advantage? +5-6 to all my spell DC's, more spell slots and a whopping +85 hitpoints each. Actions are precious but they're not that precious. More often than not forknowledge is the key to victory - not actions. Should divination be nerfed then? Foreknowledge saves actions. That's why it is valuable. It also means the guys with prepared spells have a better mix. But foreknowledge without sufficient "oomph" doesn't get the job done. Actions are force multipliers, they're important. Doubling the actions of any spellcaster for long enough to cast 20 spells with 8k in cash outlay is insane. Allowing all fighters a full attack+charge for 8k outlay is also insane. Doing it with spell slots ups the opportunity cost a little, but not for a prepared party going in with foreknowledge (haste everybody, teleport in.....it'll last long enough) Reality is that nothing has changed in 3.5. The metamagic rod is the key to more actions, it's expensive but the breath of actions one can take with metamagic rods is very much larger than 3rd edition haste ever allowed for. Extended time stop anyone? Maximized empowered delayed blast fireball? Reality is that they vastly increased the opportunity cost of the "3.0 haste" powerplay and made it impossible to combine with quickened spells. Reality is that a maximized empowered delayed blast fireball isn't actually as dangerous as a high DC Weird, or even a widened acid fog most of the time. Extending time stop was ruled by the designers as illegal as that spell is considered instant (everyone freezes and is invulnerable to spells while you take 2-5 "apparant" actions) but it is easy to see how by rules as written extend might appear to work. YMMV. Your group has latched onto the rods because you made them cheaper than they actually are (see point #1)..and doing so will in fact unbalance them by making them available sooner in comparison to other choices...but they STILL aren't anywhere near as cheap as simple 3.0 boots of speed. Your group also seems to fight a lot of lowish hp weak enemies that die to your first area spell salvo+melee followup, which is why the damage spells seem so strong. Most of D&D experience is in two categories: 1. 1-4 monsters each at least as tough as the average party member (= you need MANY MANY area spells to bring them down, divide and conquer via save or XXX/battlefield control is better) 2. long complex running battles (typical old-school module) where you hit a static location and the enemy responds with more and more force till you must retreat. The problem there is that the hp spells often just wound the enemy (who retreats and heals while a fresh wave charges), they don't take away attacks unless they kill something and they don't really help when it is time to wall off the pursuit and exit. Plus mobility is at a premium, people who can't move between actions need to be either full-attacking melee tanks or otherwise nearly invulnerable to counterattack. 3. (and this does color my PoV) - I play in one campaign where downtime is very rare and not all items can be freely bought (tribal and fallen empire environment...not much civilization and many threats). I play in Living Greyhawk which has plenty of downtime but not always free access to buy whatever you want..and has a lot of reactive encounters (you might know ahead of time that you are going to be in a fight maybe 1 in 3 encounters) and those encouters tend to be CR+3 for a 4-6 person party. Clearly our experiences are different, but if you discount 150,000 per character difference in cash at level 17 as meaningless, your worldview is VERY strange to me. Yes, you can catch up to what could be done in 3.0 at level 6 by level 20 or so without denying yourself primary stat and constitution boosts and whatever other normal toys you should have. At levels below 20, the cost to get the rods to duplicate the boots of haste option is a good portion of your resources and under no circumstances can you add a quickened action AS WELL. (many lower level spells are pretty good....witness my use of animal growth for the Druid...on a wiz a quickened Evards is nice and scales with level, and on a cleric there are a lot of good party buffs that remain good even 4 levels down...and there is always the option to heal etc) I'm ok with epic characters or near-epic doing what 3.0 haste could do, especially with a significant cash outlay. The inability to mix with quicken is canceled by the ability to mix in a second rod (if you are willing to juggle them)...it's about the same but that takes even MORE cash. I will concede that another metamagic enhancement is roughly equal to getting a spell+quickened spell of 4 levels less. in power.
bitnine 12-01-04, 03:30 PM	There's no way to interpret the metamagic rod as affecting the spell slot - it specifically works on a 3rd level spell and an empowered maximized fireball is a 3rd level spell.Wow. Can I also get a wand of empowered fireballs on the cheap?
DungeonMaster 12-01-04, 04:51 PM	Wow. Can I also get a wand of empowered fireballs on the cheap? Nope, and that's a good example because there's specific inclusion in the rules for it: DMG p.241 "placing it within the item at the higher metamagic level ". It's still a 3rd level spell and does nothing to someone protected by a globe of invulnerability. There's no such inclusion for the rods. You can house-rule them to be less powerful but that's not the way they are written.
bitnine 12-01-04, 05:11 PM	Nope, and that's a good example because there's specific inclusion in the rules for it: DMG p.241 "placing it within the item at the higher metamagic level ".I gotcha. If they spell it out in one area, but do not include that same text in others (like determining cost), they must be showing the only areas where such applies.
DungeonMaster 12-01-04, 05:34 PM	Actually you're wrong there. The standard interpretation is that it operates on the casting spell slot not the operating spell level, and this interpretation is at least embraced by the 14000 people who play Living Greyhawk, if not in your campaign. You have to look at all the rules, not one line in isolation. No, you're emphatically wrong. I don't know who plays living Greyhawk but those aren't the rules as written. Emphasis mine to make the point: "Effects of Metamagic Feats on a Spell: In all ways, a metamagic spell OPERATES AT its original spell level , even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell." Further quote from the PHB: "The cost of doing so, however, is that in preparing the spell, she must use up a spell slot one level higher than the spell actually is. If she prepares charm person as a silent spell, it takes up one of her 2nd-level slots. It is still, however, only a 1st level spell. "Lesser and Greater Metamagic Rods: Normal metamagic rods can be used with spells of 6th level or lower. Lesser rods can be used with spells of 3rd level or lower, while greater rods can be used with spells of 9th level or lower." You are most emphatically wrong in your application of the rules. Because if you assume you can use a lesser rod on a spell sitting in a 7th level slot, it is no WONDER you think metamagic rods are cheap and available. You can. That's the point. as an aside, this logic is used for all the charged items too, it is consistent: "Magic Items and Metamagic Spells: With the right item creation feat, you can store a metamagic version of a spell in a scroll, potion, or wand. Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell’s higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat). " The rod is not a charged item. It has uses per day but those aren't stored spells. Big difference. Can we say for the sake of argument that a haste spell will boost the melee combatants at level 5 by about 17.5 points/round? Yes. Can we say that it won't allow for 17.5 vs. all ennemies? Can we safely assume fireball is the single most often taken and used 3rd level spell? If the target is 1 BBEG, the fireball is wasted, but haste is a really good buy. No. Certainly not at level 10 where it's 10d6 vs. magic missile or equivalent spells that don't scale quickly. Extended acid arrow is never better than 3.5 haste..it only does 5hp/round for 4 rounds, haste does conservatively 17.5/round for 5 rounds. Fwah. No I'de never say never. I put you at 500 ft from the guy casting extended acid arrows and your 3.5 haste spell isn't going to do much for your melee guys. Blaster arcanists and buff arcanists aren't considered the most powerful where I play. Only if they actually are weak enough to DIE from the area spell do the blaster spells really shine. Blasing has been a part of D&D and will remain. The evoker is often called for on the battlefield. Very often. Maybe as you say it's just my gaming groups but this has remained the same through all editions I've ever played in. Cost? But you can do a maximized fireball and a normal fireball if that's your thing. Assuming you are ok with dropping an expensive rod. It isn't a bad combo. But I'd rather have 3.0 boots of speed and cast my Evards and Stinking Cloud, or my Mind Fog and Hold Monster. I would rather have the rods so that I can do all of the above and more and in the same round rather than having to wait. Boots of speed - 4k crafted, permanent Standard action activation for 10 rounds vs. quickened action no activation + maximize. Deal. Keep the boots. Alter self has no forms with multiple hands on the humanoid monster manual list (only choice for core races, which is what we're talking about here, core 3.0 vs 3.5 rules) Please. It's not going to dampen my spirits to summon an unseen servant. This is getting silly. Tethering it with ropes is pretty much begging enemy fighters to try a snatch or sunder as it dangles banging on your shins. If you are known to be metarod-happy, and they are as effective as you seem to think they are, then people will try to remove or destroy them. So since you're boots of speed happy people are going to try and cut off your feet at the ankles? This IS silly. Contingency haste me, quicken haste cleric, cast 2 L9 spells Cleric casts 2 L9 spells. Yep, I can see a contingency haste spell every round of every day. :rolleyes: Sure add contingency to my list. No difference. Where's my problem again? The power of 3.0 haste is it has almost zero opportunity cost over not having it. Except you havn't been able to prove 3.5 has anything better - in fact the metamagic rods are looking better and better. Between the animal companion and the quickened cleric spell and the fact that my party is now scattered with a tank in the face of the enemy....I'd say advantage my 3.0 team. Maximize away, your area spells mean nothing to me. Your guys are still standing together dropping and picking up rods, and your animal companion got no full attack. Oh lord. .. no. You're not going to ask me to compare actual groups are you? You think that move action is that important? Puh-lease. So if your wizard loses initiative I take it any one of my non-haste people are going to kill you with their rods in one shot right? Sounds like a good deal to me. How about as my first action while you're busy hasting yourself I'll cast maximized energy drain from my metamagic rod of maximize then a maximized enervation through my metamagic rod of quicken. Feel a little lower in levels? This is silly and degenerating rapidly. Clearly if you're arguing that the move action is critical I've proved my point and the metamagic rods trump. Foreknowledge saves actions. That's why it is valuable. It also means the guys with prepared spells have a better mix. No. Foreknowledge means you know what's coming and can prepare . There's nothing like preparation compared to no preparation - the contrast can be staggering. Doubling the actions of any spellcaster for long enough to cast 20 spells with 8k in cash outlay is insane. But7k for maximizing and breaking the metacap you're currently allowed to cast isn't. Sure. Ok. You're wrong by my mark but that I must say has to be your opinion. Allowing all fighters a full attack+charge for 8k outlay is also insane. So 3.5 druids doing it for free is reasonable? How about 3.5 psichic warriors? Or a fighter than takes one level of it just to pounce? Insane? Please. (haste everybody, teleport in.....it'll last long enough) Slow. Ooops. Crap. Uh oh. Reality is that a maximized empowered delayed blast fireball isn't actually as dangerous as a high DC Weird, or even a widened acid fog most of the time. No widen in 3rd. Likewise Weird is mind affecting and a fear effect so paladins can make or break that just by standing near by. No, I'll take the save for half 135 damage fireball that only takes up an 8th level slot thankyou. You'll also have to make a fort-save DC 15 or die from massive damage as an extra kick. Extending time stop was ruled by the designers as illegal as that spell is considered instant (everyone freezes and is invulnerable to spells while you take 2-5 "apparant" actions) but it is easy to see how by rules as written extend might appear to work. Please. Sure. They saw their error. Where is this out of curiosity? Most of D&D experience is in two categories: That's um, 3 and I don't agree with the categorisation. The DMG has lists for CR encounters that span any number of foes from 1-24 easily. I'll conceed that your group runs things very differently than my group and that your experiences are very different and perhaps 3rd edition haste with the net interpretation was too much. I'm just lost - aside from your misreading of the metarod functions - as to how 3.5 is any better for you.
DungeonMaster 12-01-04, 06:12 PM	I gotcha. If they spell it out in one area, but do not include that same text in others (like determining cost), they must be showing the only areas where such applies. No that's not what I'm suggesting. That's Houserules. Houserules can be good, so can DM interpretation. I'm suggesting that the greater rod of quicken would have absolutely no purpose if I needed a 10th level slot to ever use one. It is not based off of slot level. It's specifically spell level.
solbergb 12-01-04, 06:20 PM	Since you ignored the rules again about the difference between OPERATES AS and CAST AND PREPARE and the CAST wording I fail to see how a meaningful discussion is possible. (the PHB wording about charm person in no way contradicts my interpretation, since it is talking about the operating level, how the spell behaves after it is cast. Meanwhile your quote ignores the rules under the metamagic rods themselves) You quoted the exact same text but continue to ignore the magic item ruling. Metamagic spells are CAST at the higher spell level. Metamagic rods let you CAST spells with the metamagic feat, operating at the time you CAST the spell. Therefore the slot limitation must be the CAST AND PREPARE spell level not the OPERATING spell level. Since the mechanics you are playing under is sufficiently different from mine that there is no point discussing it. In my world, the metamagic rods can only approach doing what the 3.0 haste could do in near-epic levels and with significant resource expenditure. In your world, it starts happening around level 10 (still 4 levels later than 3.0 haste, and with still significant resources spent, but whatever). So your world is overrun with metamagic rods. Most 3.5 worlds don't have this problem, because the rods are costed appropriately for the spell levels they affect. This difference is why nobody else on this thread is agreeing with you that the rods are "the same" as 3.0 haste, even if we allow that a feat to craft them is "Free" as is the downtime, xp and cash required. Most 3.0 worlds have haste as the single largest "have/have not" consideration if spellcasters are involved in the combat, and it gets even worse if you allow splatbooks in and apply either mass haste or chained haste. Haste on contingency, BTW, is a 3.0 tactic only, since contingency doesn't work on mass spells. But it is a legal one. So is quickened haste. *shrug*. It is possible to have no opportunity cost for haste compared to not casting it in 3.0. (cleric and wiz can cast a spell each, or wiz can haste both and cler can cast 2 spells...same. Wiz later does the same thing only with contingency and quickened haste. It's even better with a sorcerer). In 3.5 there is ALWAYS an opportunity cost. There is a gold cost, a feat cost and move actions to get the rods in hand. We disagree on how LARGE the opportunity cost is, but things are not equal unless the costs are equal, and no matter how you slice it, 3.0 haste is cheaper than 3.5 metamagic rods for similar effects. I do think your campaign experience is also coloring your views. Long range spells are terrific on a large open plain. Area spells are terrific versus large groups of weak enemies in small areas. Other situations require other tactics than "blast blast blast". Situations which doubling the damage dealt doesn't equal victory can still be enhanced by 3.0 haste, it is much harder to have the right metamagic rod for each situation. 3.0 haste allows "quickened spell, spell, move , spell" for as many turns as you have levels. Your approach is "rod in hand, cast, drop rod, draw rod cast" every round, which fixes you into a 5' square and doesn't have the option of the third spell. I know which option I'd rather have. I think I know why you don't think anyone needs mobility...your characters don't move because all they do is cast spells and juggle wands. *shrug* I am certain that objectively a level 3 spell slot and known is nothing compared to the cost of a feat+half your cash up to level 17....and it is cheaper than the quarter or so of your cash that your pricing scheme indicates too. Edit - time stop being instant is in the 3.0 FAQ, page 61...someone wanted to make it persistent. The wording on the spell with respect to duration is identical in 3.0 and 3.5, so I think it is safe to say the intent didn't change. Could be you could use a metamagic rod of empower or maximize though to ensure more rounds since duration is a variable.....but as the cost to do that is still in 6 figures of cash vs a level 3 spell slot...no change in the basic argument.
pyk 12-02-04, 08:18 AM	Since you ignored the rules again about the difference between OPERATES AS and CAST AND PREPARE and the CAST wording I fail to see how a meaningful discussion is possible. (the PHB wording about charm person in no way contradicts my interpretation, since it is talking about the operating level, how the spell behaves after it is cast. Meanwhile your quote ignores the rules under the metamagic rods themselves) One point of contention, and perhaps you may explain the emphasized bit: Metamagic Rods: Metamagic rods hold the essence of a metamagic feat but do not change the spell slot of the altered spell. All the rods described here are use-activated (but casting spells in a threatened area still draws an attack of opportunity). A caster may only use one metamagic rod on any given spell, but it is permissible to combine a rod with metamagic feats possessed by the rod’s wielder. In this case, only the feats possessed by the wielder adjust the spell slot of the spell being cast. Possession of a metamagic rod does not confer the associated feat on the owner, only the ability to use the given feat a specified number of times per day. A sorcerer still must take a full-round action when using a metamagic rod, just as if using a metamagic feat he possesses. Lesser and Greater Metamagic Rods: Normal metamagic rods can be used with spells of 6th level or lower. Lesser rods can be used with spells of 3rd level or lower, while greater rods can be used with spells of 9th level or lower. Now, as to your contention that the spell slots are what's important, the problem I see is with the metamagic feats themselves: EMPOWER SPELL [METAMAGIC] Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half. Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables. An empowered spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell’s actual level. Every metamagic feat describes the same part - it uses the spell level to determine the use of the feat. With one glaring exception: HEIGHTEN SPELL [METAMAGIC] Benefit: A heightened spell has a higher spell level than normal (up to a maximum of 9th level). Unlike other metamagic feats, Heighten Spell actually increases the effective level of the spell that it modifies. All effects dependent on spell level (such as saving throw DCs and ability to penetrate a lesser globe of invulnerability) are calculated according to the heightened level. The heightened spell is as difficult to prepare and cast as a spell of its effective level. This is the only metamagic feat that changes the spell level of the spell it modifies. Now, how many spell levels does a spell have? Does a spell's slot count as a spell level, or does the metamagic feat (therefore the metamagic rod) use the actual spell level, as written? Or, do the metamagic rods use an entirely different mechanic from the feats they are designed from, which contradicts the rest of the rulebook? For instance, the ring of evasion acts just like the class ability evasion, yet the rods of metamagic do not act the same as the metamagic feats? The rulings from the RPGA do not really count - they are not even using the actual item creation rules, as they believe these are too powerful. So, I count the RPGA as making a houserule of the metamagic rods, if this is how they use them.
DungeonMaster 12-02-04, 09:56 AM	Since you ignored the rules again about the difference between OPERATES AS and CAST AND PREPARE and the CAST wording I fail to see how a meaningful discussion is possible. No I haven't - it's you that's ignoring the blantant obvious analysis of myself and pyk. The word "operate" specifically means how it interacts with everything else in the game. It has the non-metamagic DC, the non-metamagic spell level - as specifically illustrated by the heighten metamagic feat - and is in all ways shape and form a spell of the non-metamagic enhanced level. You quoted the exact same text but continue to ignore the magic item ruling. Metamagic spells are CAST at the higher spell level. Metamagic rods let you CAST spells with the metamagic feat, operating at the time you CAST the spell. No, that's not correct. The magic item creation rules have nothing to do with it because these aren't stored spells. The rods do not say "can only be used with spells cast of 6th level or lower" they specifically say for instance: "Normal metamagic rods can be used with spells of 6th level or lower" Not spells "cast at 6th level or lower". You're making things up. It would be better balanced in that circumstance, I must agree, but that's not the case. So why is it that I can accept your interpretation of the 3rd edition haste spell but you can't accept the way I (and everyone else) see metamagic rods as working? Most 3.5 worlds don't have this problem, because the rods are costed appropriately for the spell levels they affect. This difference is why nobody else on this thread is agreeing with you that the rods are "the same" as 3.0 haste, even if we allow that a feat to craft them is "Free" as is the downtime, xp and cash required. You're making crass generalisation - if you go to the character optimisation boards I can guarantee you'll find worlds overflowing with metamagic rods. Most 3.0 worlds have haste as the single largest "have/have not" consideration if spellcasters are involved in the combat, and it gets even worse if you allow splatbooks in and apply either mass haste or chained haste. That's of course yet another crass generalisation. I can ask you to go to a character optimisation game and you'll find likewise uber broken uses of 3.5 metamagic rods and 3.5 non-core feats and even core 3.5 stuff like the 3.5 wish spell that are absolutely and totally broken in the same way as haste was and much much worse. We disagree on how LARGE the opportunity cost is, but things are not equal unless the costs are equal, and no matter how you slice it, 3.0 haste is cheaper than 3.5 metamagic rods for similar effects. It is cheaper than the quicken rod for similar effect but no amount of 3.0 haste will allow you to cast a maximized energy drain. The rods allow you ALL of the feats - haste allows you one of them for cheaper - but there is still cost. And I agree with the cost of a 3rd level spell to get two spells off in a round. It's fair - particularly to the sorcerors while the rods are not because a sorceror can't use a quicken rod. Situations which doubling the damage dealt doesn't equal victory can still be enhanced by 3.0 haste, it is much harder to have the right metamagic rod for each situation. :thinks: Why does having 3rd edition haste vs. having all the metamagic feats in rod form make 3rd edition haste more versatile? No, really, exactly what are you saying? That I can't make better use of quicken + empower + enlarge + extend + widen + maximize vs. a high level quicken? 3.0 haste allows "quickened spell, spell, move , spell" for as many turns as you have levels. Your approach is "rod in hand, cast, drop rod, draw rod cast" every round, which fixes you into a 5' square and doesn't have the option of the third spell. Or it could be: Giant charges you - you're threatened and must disengage or combat cast. Nothing changes with the rods. You can honestly if you really want to have a 3rd spell - only as a wizard and 4 levels lower than my maximized whatever spell. I'll take a maximized empowered fireball + a quickened empowered fireball at level 9 over 2 empowered fireballs and a magic missile any day of the week. time stop being instant is in the 3.0 FAQ, page 61... So we're referencing the FAQ created before 3.5 that they should have perhaps considered including in 3.5 to attempt to prove 3.5 is balanced again? Maybe I'll set aside some time today to answer everyone else I promised to answer but I'm unfortunately really busy.
Archtyrant Terevoth 12-02-04, 10:39 AM	On to metamagic rods... Generally whenever someone comes up wtih a "killer combo" using metamagic rods, it's just not so great in the first place, or it's based around an already broken spell. Even if you do accept the interpretation that you can apply normal metamagic feats to something and then use a rod to cast it based on its original level, without the metamagic slot increase, it still doesn't make much difference. Mainly you're going to be using this on direct damage spells. Empower, Maximize + a quicken rod. And I say, so what? Direct damage has never ruled the day at high levels anyway. Paying two feats and an 8th level slot is fine for a spell that deals 90 fire damage (save for half), with a DC based on a 3rd level spell. You can throw those all day. If you really want powerful combos you still need the greater rods so you can maximize spells better than pure direct damage. And when you've got rods like that, they will be sundered, you can make sure of that. It is painfully easy to sunder a MM rod, and with a wizard's opposed attack roll being so low, you'd better guard it with your life if you want to keep it. I've played with metamagic rods in my games for a while, both in the hands of NPCs and PCs, and I've come to the conclusion that they're not broken. I have yet to see the truly abusive stuff that metamagic rods can supposedly bring. With 3.0 haste, the abuse was immediately obvious.
Zelphi 12-02-04, 10:55 AM	As far as I know, my Sorc can triple empower a fireball upto 9th and then use a Lesser Meta Rod of Max whilst still protecting myself with a lesser globe. Because they all work on the spells level, and metamagic doesn't change that - otherwise it'd increase the DC as well. As for the past comment. You said at least two, well I'd say around 1 might get a benefit when they full attack, but they'd be better off overall with spells like Heroism, Blink, +2 stats and the like and the Haste - would - add to that, but that's an awful lot of better spells to cast for someone who has so limited slots at the appropriate level. None of this still escapes that the spells could've been revised better than they were.
DungeonMaster 12-02-04, 12:53 PM	Right you're paying a 3rd level slot extra for haste, and that's it. The problem is that a 3rd level slots value is essentially nil for a 20th level wizard. So haste simply cannot work at high levels. It worked for levels 5-7 only beacuse 3rd level slots were actually rare then, but as soon as you could afford to burn 3rd level slots regularly haste broke down. But your highest level slots will always be precious. Even a 20th level wizard doesn't use his 9th level slots with reckless abandon. But the 20th level wizard clearly has enough money to afford as many rods as he so pleases. The rods break down high level combat just as fast or at best delay the game to the point where they are a trivial expense. You're looking at a resource - 3rd level slots and I'm looking at another resource - GP. When either are plentiful the rods or haste will "break" the game by your token. But the rods offer much more potential than just quickening so the rods are by definition more powerful. There are plenty of facts. I can state that every single game of 3.0 I played in, with different people, always entailed haste being the #1 wizard spell. And when I DMed and made NPCs, when I gave them haste they were many times more effective. That isn't a fact. It's perhaps your perception because truthfully you should be seing the same thing with your NPCs and metamagic rods. How can you explain the discrepancy? If you want to be optimized in 3.5 you need metamagic rods - or similar non-core mechanic such as divine metamagic, even then preferably coupled to metamagic rods. This comes up in every spellcaster build on the char opt boards every time. I have yet to see someone prove haste is balanced by running a party of wizards, where only one wizard is allowed to have haste effects, and the rest must go through a campaign unhasted. Nobody tries stuff like that, because the answer is obvious. Do the same with the rods. Or fission. Or whatever non-core mechanic you prefer that does the same thing, there are plenty. So you're looking at a spell which reduces your speed, gives you a 20% failure chance on your attacks, reduces your sight range to 60' and costs you an action to cast. Instead of enhancing your offensive power, it actually decreases it. And 50% miss chance is hardly invulnerable, not when you're working off wizard hp. There are plenty of situations where blink isn't worth it over fireball, and some where casting nothing would be better than casting blink (like if your foes are ranged fighters). It gives you +2 to hit AND your target loses their dex bonus which can be large or very significant. It gives you 50% miss chance on physical attack, less falling damage, ability to walk through walls, 1/2 damage from area effects, 50% miss chance on targeted spells. I think the number of situations where the advantages of blink outweigh it's disadvantages are immense. Blink is hardly a must take. I disagree. you aren't even paying an action to cast it. Again, some disagreement exists. But using your interpretation - sure, I can see that. If my opponents use blink liberally and I can't use it, so what? Well I cast blink you cast haste I cast slow? You cast?
DungeonMaster 12-02-04, 01:07 PM	Generally whenever someone comes up wtih a "killer combo" using metamagic rods, it's just not so great in the first place, or it's based around an already broken spell. What the heck kind of statement is this? The metamagic rods invariably make your spells better so how can it not be "so good" in the first place? I'll extend or maximize my time stop then drop empowered maximized cloudkill then maximized empowered incindiary cloud then empowered maximized evard's black tentacles, then empowered maximized extended ice storm then maximized empowered firewall, an empowered maximized acid fog then a few maximized delayed blast fireballs just for good measure and maybe some quickened spells in their too like a stinking cloud. I'll finish off with a cute little dimensional lock and a windowless forcecage then sit back and watch you roast, freeze, poison, melt, vomit and not be able to teleport out either. Mainly you're going to be using this on direct damage spells. Empower, Maximize + a quicken rod. And I say, so what? Direct damage has never ruled the day at high levels anyway. No, you have the full flexibility to use the maximize rod to maximize cloudkill instead of your empowered fireball. Direct damage rules when saves are high - that's the point of save for half. It's very effective at high levels while you need a weakness to target or a spell like limited wish to go first before you target a save. And when you've got rods like that, they will be sundered, you can make sure of that. It is painfully easy to sunder a MM rod, and with a wizard's opposed attack roll being so low, you'd better guard it with your life if you want to keep it. Whatever. That's like me saying "and when you are hasted - you will be slowed." I've played with metamagic rods in my games for a while, both in the hands of NPCs and PCs, and I've come to the conclusion that they're not broken. I have yet to see the truly abusive stuff that metamagic rods can supposedly bring. With 3.0 haste, the abuse was immediately obvious. No, sorry. You can't see anything more abusive about haste over metamagic rods at higher levels. It's impossible. You must be bias or your players are not using them or you have some sort of houserule in place. You can't compare quicken to quicken + all the other metamagic feats.
salamander 12-02-04, 01:09 PM	Maybe I missed it in those 7 pages' worth of posts, but why would other things being as broken as (or even more than) Haste 3.0 make the latter not broken? Broken is broken.
solbergb 12-02-04, 01:23 PM	No I haven't - it's you that's ignoring the blantant obvious analysis of myself and pyk. The word "operate" specifically means how it interacts with everything else in the game. It has the non-metamagic DC, the non-metamagic spell level - as specifically illustrated by the heighten metamagic feat - and is in all ways shape and form a spell of the non-metamagic enhanced level. Except that it takes a higher level slot to CAST. No, that's not correct. The magic item creation rules have nothing to do with it because these aren't stored spells. The rods do not say "can only be used with spells cast of 6th level or lower" they specifically say for instance: "Normal metamagic rods can be used with spells of 6th level or lower" Not spells "cast at 6th level or lower". You're making things up. It would be better balanced in that circumstance, I must agree, but that's not the case. I'm not making things up. Each and every rod has the word "Cast" in it. One more time, from the actual description of the rods: Metamagic, Empower: The wielder can CAST up to three spells per day that are empowered as though using the Empower Spell feat. Metamagic, Enlarge: The wielder can CAST up to three spells per day that are enlarged as though using the Enlarge Spell feat. Metamagic, Extend: The wielder can CAST up to three spells per day that are extended as though using the Extend Spell feat. Metamagic, Maximize: The wielder can CAST up to three spells per day that are maximized as though using the Maximize Spell feat. Metamagic, Quicken: The wielder can CAST up to three spells per day that are quickened as though using the Quicken Spell feat. Metamagic, Silent: The wielder can CAST up to three spells per day without verbal components as though using the Silent Spell feat. and again from the rules on metamagic: In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and CAST as a higher-level spell. A metamagiced spell is CAST as a higher level spell. Rods let you CAST a spell of either level 1-3, 4-6 or 7-9 depending on the power. In other respects EXCEPT preparation and casting, you are correct, it is a lower level spell. But for the rods, it is the casting level that matters, because the rods are use activated at the time of casting. To the other poster - you can't multiply empower anymore, no metamagic feat in 3.5 can be applied more than once. That is a change from 3.0. So why is it that I can accept your interpretation of the 3rd edition haste spell but you can't accept the way I (and everyone else) see metamagic rods as working? You have chosen an interpretation that overbalances the rods and that contradicts the text of the actual item. I don't know who your everyone else is...the argument I'm using is one that the GM's of a large shared campaign (14k people) and the community of 100 or so people who discuss rules interpretations for all the grey areas that come up in play have accepted. (in this campaign, the person running the game doesn't have the freedom of a normal DM to make a ruling and have it stick beyond his table). The campaign is forced to use core rules, FAQ and erratta and enforce them as close to the letter and spirit of the rules as they can, because the campaign is associated with and supported to a limited extent by WOTC. In a normal campaign, rules discussions like this don't matter, because the DM will just decide what he likes and go with it. Only a handful of really problematic things are ruled on by the campaign DM's...most other things are "there are 3 schools of thought, any of them fit the rules as written". This is one case though where the consensus was overwhelmingly in favor of the PoV I expressed, and for the reasons I stated...and since the alternate view introduces severe balance problems around level 10 in any campaign following the DMG cash guidelines, the campaign DM's officially endorsed the PoV as well. This might not be the consensus of this particular set of message boards. But for the most part, browsing around on this thread anyway, I'm not seeing much other support than you saying that metamagic rods = 3.0 haste. That is why you find them problematic. That is why I can't accept your interpretation and why the campaigns I play in don't find the rods to be an issue. They're useful to expand capabilities of spellcasters at epic levels with cash instead of feats. At lower levels each gp you spend on rods directly takes away from your attributes and saving throws and other miscellaneous things you need to survive and thrive. At near epic or epic levels these things are all bought, and now the rods really come into their own. You're making crass generalisation - if you go to the character optimisation boards I can guarantee you'll find worlds overflowing with metamagic rods. Actually I don't remember a single mention of the rods on the CO board, and I've been scanning it for about a year now. That board is all about spell, feat, class and PRC combinations. Magic items only enter if they can be combined with something else to break a build (eg Thought Bottle thought experiments). That's of course yet another crass generalisation. I can ask you to go to a character optimisation game and you'll find likewise uber broken uses of 3.5 metamagic rods and 3.5 non-core feats and even core 3.5 stuff like the 3.5 wish spell that are absolutely and totally broken in the same way as haste was and much much worse. The feats and other stuff yeah. WOTC screwed up with the improvised weapon table in CW...it was geometric till the top tier then they made it linear, which is why the Hulking Hurler build is broken (had they continued the geometric trend, the most uber broken Hurler build would only be hurling small buildings for 16d6 of damage or so). Just because they introduce new stupid stuff, doesn't mean it wasn't a good call to fix an old stupid thing. Even the dumber spells such as Quill Blast are broken sometimes, but not as universally useful and low opportunity cost as 3.0 haste. :thinks: Why does having 3rd edition haste vs. having all the metamagic feats in rod form make 3rd edition haste more versatile? No, really, exactly what are you saying? That I can't make better use of quicken + empower + enlarge + extend + widen + maximize vs. a high level quicken? I'm saying that starting from level 5, a single spell provided a big force multiplier to any party that had it. The new situation means that with a wad of cash at relatively high levels you can use rods as a force multiplier. The two things aren't the same. You contend that rods are broken when you can have a quiverful of them and apply ONE extra metamagic feat to any spell you can already cast. I contend...perhaps this is so when you meet those conditions, but the conditions aren't as easy as you say they are, and fall into near-epic or epic terrain, not the mid-levels. Haste's problem started in the LOW levels and scaled nicely with level, even having opportunity cost drop away as the 3rd level slot became more worthless or easier to cast without an action (contingency, quicken or outside of core but inside WOTC stuff...chain spell, imbue familiar with spell ability, cleric domains that granted haste, etc) Or it could be: Giant charges you - you're threatened and must disengage or combat cast. Nothing changes with the rods. You can honestly if you really want to have a 3rd spell - only as a wizard and 4 levels lower than my maximized whatever spell. I'll take a maximized empowered fireball + a quickened empowered fireball at level 9 over 2 empowered fireballs and a magic missile any day of the week. Ok here's the deal. We have one guy getting extra actions via haste, the other via rod manipulation. Round 1, rod manipulator guy stays still, casts 2 spells (one with extra metamagic) Giant charges him Round 1, haste guy moves 60' away from giant (while casting haste+1-2 spells) Giant can't charge him (either due to distance or terrain blocking charge lane) Round 2, rod manipulator guy stays still and casts defensively 2 spells, one with extra metamagic giant full attacks him round 2 Haste guy moves 60' further from giant (while casting 2-3 spells) Giant STILL can't charge him. At best he might move+attack Mobility without detracting from your offense is always an advantage. The rod manipulator may get more bang with his quicken spell and his extra-metamagicked spell over 2 spells+quicken-L4 spell. He certainly is risking more hits than the mobile guy. So we're referencing the FAQ created before 3.5 that they should have perhaps considered including in 3.5 to attempt to prove 3.5 is balanced again? I don't disagree with this statement, but in the absence of other clarifications, with a spell that didn't change between the editions I think it is safe to say that the old FAQ entry on Time Stop still holds in the new edition. As it is not eratta (the "actions" in time stop aren't defined anywhere, so the interpretation is up to the GM..it would be nice if they'd defined it but it isn't in error), WOTC doesn't have to change anything. FAQ = "here's what we were thinking when we wrote the text that is confusing you", as are the various rules of the game articles, sage advice, etc.
Heron_Marked_Blade 12-02-04, 08:41 PM	DungeonMaster, it is clear that (in every situation you create in which metamagic rods emulate 3.0 Haste) even though the rods may emulate 3.0 Haste they still require an incredibly higher expenditure of resources (a feat at the least) than a simple 3rd level spell AND a questionable interpretation of the rods' uses. I've contended this in other threads: WotC made a mistake in 3.0 AND in 3.5 in using "spell level" to sometimes refer to "spell level" and sometimes refer to "spell slot". I cannot, in my time on the boards, recall seeing that "everyone" interprets the rods as you do. In fact, when every DM I've encountered actually looked at the problem and realized that "spell level" sometimes refers to slots and sometimes refers to level, and then looked at the metamagic rods and made a decision as to which one the "spell level" in their description was referring to, 100% of them determined that the rods refer to spell slot. In the same way that item creation is based off of "spell level" (i.e. spell slot, or we'd have Wands of Maximized Fireball). Period. There is certainly precedent for interpreting "spell level" as "spell slot," and it doesn't take a genius to realize that the Metamagic Rods are as broken as 3.0 Haste if interpreted the other way. Which is what you've managed to prove to us. Except that I still haven't come across anyone (except you and now maybe Pyk) who contend that a Lesser Rod of Maximize can function on a Maximized Empowered Silent Fireball. Could you list some names of individuals who comprise this "everyone" you're talking about? Or some links to definitive threads proving that metamagic rods are interpreted the way you suggest they are?
smrtgmp 12-02-04, 09:11 PM	Why does anybody even bother arguing with Dungeon Master when it comes to anything 3.0 being broken? You know what his response will be. You must be bias Ok, now this is just funny. Where do you get off calling anybody biased?
Zelphi 12-03-04, 07:54 AM	Maybe I missed it in those 7 pages' worth of posts, but why would other things being as broken as (or even more than) Haste 3.0 make the latter not broken? Broken is broken. You know I've been saying this for a while as well. 3.0 haste is irrelevent because 3.5 is just rubbish. This applies to SmrtGmp as well, however you read it - none of it stops 3.5 haste being crud amidst other related issues. The "Cast" aspect of those rods doesn't stop the fact that it "operates" on spells of a particular level. Nore does it escape the fact that those spells are cast as spells of their own level. By their own description, each metamagic feat only makes a spell use a higher level slot, it does not use a higher level slot to cast, it uses a higher level slot to be cast from. Or some links to definitive threads proving that metamagic rods are interpreted the way you suggest they are? Can you do the same? Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal. This does not change the level of the spell, so the DC for saving throws against it does not go up. Clear distinction between slots and spell level. Can't apply the same twice? Damn stupid 3.5
CaoSlayer 12-03-04, 08:15 AM	As for the past comment. You said at least two, well I'd say around 1 might get a benefit when they full attack, but they'd be better off overall with spells like Heroism, Blink, +2 stats and the like and the Haste - would - add to that, but that's an awful lot of better spells to cast for someone who has so limited slots at the appropriate level. let me see... all those spells are single targered while haste affects everybody in the party... Heroism have troubles stacking with other spells like the bard´s songs... an bonus to attack it is useless to a sorcerer-caster in general and for a fighter type, an extra attack it is far superior to everything that this spell gives (well, the saves throws are nice, but at level 5 when a sorc. learns this, this spell simply doubles the chances to hit and can double the damage done). the stat boosters spells dont stack with magical items and giving someone +2 to hit and +2 to damage or iniciative and reflex saves isnt near as good as the extra attack or movement... blink it is personal only and make your attack worse... it is a full defense spell (I have to say it, a great defense spell) not an ofensive or defensive (you can use it as expeditious retreat or as an attack boost) one like haste. of course, there are better spells out here... but this is just the best mass buffer spell at level 3 in the player handbook, isnt a must take, but if you wants your sorcerer/wizard/bard to make the party´s tanks fight way better and you wants to be far away from enemies this is the spell to take.
pyk 12-03-04, 08:54 AM	I've contended this in other threads: WotC made a mistake in 3.0 AND in 3.5 in using "spell level" to sometimes refer to "spell level" and sometimes refer to "spell slot". :rant: Agreed. It would have really been quite useful to make a distinction between them at every reference. I cannot, in my time on the boards, recall seeing that "everyone" interprets the rods as you do. In fact, when every DM I've encountered actually looked at the problem and realized that "spell level" sometimes refers to slots and sometimes refers to level, and then looked at the metamagic rods and made a decision as to which one the "spell level" in their description was referring to, 100% of them determined that the rods refer to spell slot. But, put this into proper context, as well. I'm sure those DMs were also coloring their decision based on how the rods could break a game? I agree, in order to make the rods not quite so powerful, using the spell slot to see if the rods can affect the spell is reasonable. :thinks: I just don't see how a "Metamagic Rod" could be viewed on its own to be different from a "Metamagic Feat" that the rod was designed from. In the same way that item creation is based off of "spell level" (i.e. spell slot, or we'd have Wands of Maximized Fireball). Period. Okay, based on the rules: Magic Items and Metamagic Spells: With the right item creation feat, you can store a metamagic version of a spell in a scroll, potion, or wand. Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell’s higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat). A character doesn’t need the metamagic feat to activate an item storing a metamagic version of a spell. Now, I do not see rods included in this. :noway: And, I also do not see the rods mentioning "storing" the metamagic feat, either. :lightbulb However, I do see how this rule could be applied to the rods. At the same time, this would then be in direct opposition to the metamagic feat rules on applying to the spells. :blink: So, for that opposition to have merit, it should explicitly state this, and it does not. There is certainly precedent for interpreting "spell level" as "spell slot," and it doesn't take a genius to realize that the Metamagic Rods are as broken as 3.0 Haste if interpreted the other way. And to imagine most of the threads I've seen on metamagic rods are about how sorcerers get screwed by them. :smirk: Before you get your knickers in a twist, I don't look at every thread. Only the ones that pique my interest, which is a very small number, so I don't know about any other discussions. :surrender Which is what you've managed to prove to us. Except that I still haven't come across anyone (except you and now maybe Pyk) who contend that a Lesser Rod of Maximize can function on a Maximized Empowered Silent Fireball. Could you list some names of individuals who comprise this "everyone" you're talking about? Or some links to definitive threads proving that metamagic rods are interpreted the way you suggest they are? Honestly, you have not proven that the metamagic rods should be applied to the spells at the prepared level, but you have given me pause to reflect that maybe it should, just to avoid trouble with them. :tiphat: I'm not making things up. Each and every rod has the word "Cast" in it. One more time, from the actual description of the rods: Metamagic, Empower: The wielder can CAST up to three spells per day that are empowered as though using the Empower Spell feat. Metamagic, Enlarge: The wielder can CAST up to three spells per day that are enlarged as though using the Enlarge Spell feat. Metamagic, Extend: The wielder can CAST up to three spells per day that are extended as though using the Extend Spell feat. Metamagic, Maximize: The wielder can CAST up to three spells per day that are maximized as though using the Maximize Spell feat. Metamagic, Quicken: The wielder can CAST up to three spells per day that are quickened as though using the Quicken Spell feat. Metamagic, Silent: The wielder can CAST up to three spells per day without verbal components as though using the Silent Spell feat. and again from the rules on metamagic: In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and CAST as a higher-level spell. And, also from the rules on metamagic: Multiple Metamagic Feats on a Spell: A spellcaster can apply multiple metamagic feats to a single spell. Changes to its level are cumulative. You can’t apply the same metamagic feat more than once to a single spell. And, every single metamagic feat says the same thing (except heighten): EMPOWER SPELL [METAMAGIC] An empowered spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell’s actual level. ENLARGE SPELL [METAMAGIC] An enlarged spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell’s actual level. EXTEND SPELL [METAMAGIC] An extended spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell’s actual level. MAXIMIZE SPELL [METAMAGIC] A maximized spell uses up a spell slot three levels higher than the spell’s actual level. QUICKEN SPELL [METAMAGIC] A quickened spell uses up a spell slot four levels higher than the spell’s actual level. SILENT SPELL [METAMAGIC] A silent spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell’s actual level. STILL SPELL [METAMAGIC] A stilled spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell’s actual level. WIDEN SPELL [METAMAGIC] A widened spell uses up a spell slot three levels higher than the spell’s actual level. I just would like to know where the specific rule that breaks this rule stems from? :waits: The descriptions of the rods themselves even point to the feat descriptions to determine how they should be used: Metamagic, Empower: as though using the Empower Spell feat. Metamagic, Enlarge: as though using the Enlarge Spell feat. Metamagic, Extend: as though using the Extend Spell feat. Metamagic, Maximize: as though using the Maximize Spell feat. Metamagic, Quicken: as though using the Quicken Spell feat. Metamagic, Silent: as though using the Silent Spell feat. Just show the section of the rules that states the rods should change the way the feats work. :waits: Oh, and I don't think your making it up, you're just using someone's houserule (which the RPGA is quite reasonable to use) until I see the rules that says the rods change the way the feats work. Show me this and I'll gladly :pile: the bandwagon.
Nithendil 12-03-04, 09:17 AM	Zelphi, you must play with some awfully bad casters. IMO, any caster worth their robes in an archtypical party isn’t flinging fireballs everywhere, but using battle-field control to impair the movement of enemies, disable enemies, and buffing their allies. Heroism doesn’t stack with bless or bard song, and with bless haste grants what heroism gives but to EVERYONE, dispel magic is good if you’re fighting mages, hold person, stinking cloud, and suggestion are too situational, summon monster is good, displacement is good for the tank, slow is essentially the same thing as haste but requires a save, ray of exhaustion and deep slumber are so-so, blink sucks unless you’re the BBEG (yah, lets make our fighter do less damage!), major image for most purposes acts like silent image, and the rest are too situational or mostly for utility. So the only really viable, everyday combat spells I see at this level are haste, summon monster III, dispel magic, and displacement. Those are all good spells, and if you have smart casters (controlling the battlefield, summoning to assure flank) haste is an excellent spell for the archetypical party. If the battlefield is under control, the fighter and rogue can get a decent amount of those full attacks in.
Zelphi 12-03-04, 09:20 AM	let me see... all those spells are single targered while haste affects everybody in the party... Which isn't that much of a point when you consider the individual greater combined benefits and overall use of each spell. Heroism have troubles stacking with other spells like the bard´s songs... an bonus to attack it is useless to a sorcerer-caster in general and for a fighter type, an extra attack it is far superior to everything that this spell gives (well, the saves throws are nice, but at level 5 when a sorc. learns this, this spell simply doubles the chances to hit and can double the damage done). No it stacks well with most other spells and not with one other class feature you may not have access to anyway. And its still only an extra attack - when you use a full attack action - which every Fighter may not make. Heroism benefits every attack they make with every weapon in every way whatever attack they make and it gives massive overall bonuses over haste which may not be of that much benefit - and its a better choice than haste for more groups, especially for higher level Sorcs or Bards. the stat boosters spells dont stack with magical items and giving someone +2 to hit and +2 to damage or iniciative and reflex saves isnt near as good as the extra attack or movement... blink it is personal only and make your attack worse... it is a full defense spell (I have to say it, a great defense spell) not an ofensive or defensive (you can use it as expeditious retreat or as an attack boost) one like haste. They do however stack with Heroism quite well and can be specifically targeted and cost less to cast (wands). The extra attack and movement are still a very circumstansial bonus and certainly nowhere near as good as what blink can offer to a character who might desperately need it. of course, there are better spells out here... but this is just the best mass buffer spell at level 3 in the player handbook, isnt a must take, but if you wants your sorcerer/wizard/bard to make the party´s tanks fight way better and you wants to be far away from enemies this is the spell to take. Well that's not true, and none of this escapes the fact that 3.5 Haste can be done better and without loosing 6th improved haste.
Shatteredtower 12-03-04, 09:23 AM	None of this still escapes that the spells could've been revised better than they were. Still making this empty claim? It means as much as saying fireball should simply be a save or die (and lose all your equipment) spell, which would likewise be so much better than it is now. It certainly makes sense to make such a change to exposure to an incendiary explosion, after all. You've as much as admitted that 3.0 haste gave fighters better than a pounce (and failed to appreciate the fact that Spring Attack can be used with 3.0 haste), suggested a "balancing" mechanism that won't work on undead creatures, displayed an inability to count by virtue of claiming that a series of +1 bonuses to a group of four (or more, which is an option, not a core requirement for the spell to work well) is worth less than one or two less stackable bonuses on a single character, dismissed the worth of one 3rd level spell as too time consuming and expensive to cast compared to having to cast four or more 2nd level buff spells (displaying a profound inability to measure time) while ignoring the popular scry-and-die approach to major encounters, and shown appalling short-sightedness in dismissing a spell for offering some flexibility in what it offers you over no flexibility whatsoever. And let's not use words like "generalizations" and "rubbish" at the same time, all right? Sad...
CaoSlayer 12-03-04, 09:29 AM	example then of a better level 3, mass buffer... --- and the fight advantage of heroism it is just a +2 to hit while haste it is a +1 to hit and +1 to AC... without counting the extra attack or extra movement that also involves fighting (I said it, can be used for getting at full attack sooner or flanking without troubles). The only advantage of heroism it is the duration... only it is worth as bard and that it is because counts as a level 2 spell... and curiously the advantage at fight it is nullified by improved courage +2 or greater.
Naeron 12-03-04, 10:26 AM	As far as I know, my Sorc can triple empower a fireball upto 9th and then use a Lesser Meta Rod of Max whilst still protecting myself with a lesser globe. Because they all work on the spells level, and metamagic doesn't change that - otherwise it'd increase the DC as well. Not in 3.5 you can't. Look at the start of SRD- Feats.rtfMultiple Metamagic Feats on a Spell: A spellcaster can apply multiple metamagic feats to a single spell. Changes to its level are cumulative. You can’t apply the same metamagic feat more than once to a single spell. I will agree that you can use a lesser metamagic rod of empower and a lesser metamagic rod of quicken on a fireball cast as a 3rd level spell (except that you would also need eschew materials or more than 2 hands). However if you prepare an Empowered Fireball thats a 5th level slot and it is cast as a 5th level spell and when it come down to it it IS a 5th level spell that operates as a 3rd level spell. A lesser metamagic rod will not work on such a spell. Thats what the text means as far as my reading goes.
Zelphi 12-03-04, 11:10 AM	Still making this empty claim? It means as much as saying fireball should simply be a save or die (and lose all your equipment) spell, which would likewise be so much better than it is now. It certainly makes sense to make such a change to exposure to an incendiary explosion, after all. Right lets look at what it's done. Its now completey better for preperation casters because it is now a mass buff that you'd only want to cast once - this isn't better overall as the old spell was better cast mass (except for the 6th version). Its now circumstantially a very poor choice for a 3rd level spell - which isn't an improvement to a spell, but an overnerf. The old spell benefited practically everyone in existance, and having trouble with it is still not a garunteed thing (I and others never have). You've as much as admitted that 3.0 haste gave fighters better than a pounce (and failed to appreciate the fact that Spring Attack can be used with 3.0 haste) Except it can't, there's no way it can, and it certainly couldn't be in 3.5. This is not a benefit of the feat, its not even a usage if you have spring attack already (which it does enhance the use of, but actually wastes actions in 3.0). 3.5 haste can help with spring attacks, but 3.0 haste just means you waste actions trying. As for pounce - it doesn't really grant pounce, only a virtual similar method, but this isn't an issue because you may not want to make a full attack (like maybe you prefer to spring attack or play defensively). This is still a non issue. suggested a "balancing" mechanism that won't work on undead creatures, displayed an inability to count by virtue of claiming that a series of +1 bonuses to a group of four (or more, which is an option, not a core requirement for the spell to work well) is worth less than one or two less stackable bonuses on a single character, dismissed the worth of one 3rd level spell as too time consuming and expensive to cast compared to having to cast four or more 2nd level buff spells (displaying a profound inability to measure time) while ignoring the popular scry-and-die approach to major encounters, and shown appalling short-sightedness in dismissing a spell for offering some flexibility in what it offers you over no flexibility whatsoever. The undead issue is so minor, and not entirely valid to PC usage Liches and Vampires might use it, that's about it. Its still a penalty and it was a comment on an old version that had a penalty - I asked what happened to it? Seeing as I haven't posted an alternative - this is an irrelevent attack. The +1 is still outclassed - it is not always a good option to have such a subjectively useless bonus when you consider that to get any further (significant) benefit you have to mass cast other spells. With the other spells you only need to cast one or two on one person and have them perform better. Then other spells from other casters will buff you further, incase you haven't noticed - plenty of other caster can cast different buff spells at the same time and you then again a better net benefit on the one who needs it. [/quote] For sake of arguement - lets assume - as 3.5 haste except +2 attack, reflex and dodge AC instead of the +1s 1 extra attack in a full attack that does not stack with speed (similar but different wording to avoid 12 headed hydras making 24 attacks). fatigued when the spells effect ends (by dispel or duration expiration) then we'll have improved haste at 6th single target same duration but +4 dodge AC, +2 attack and reflex +1 attack with full attack (as above) or you can instanaeously cast a spell with a 1 round casting time, this counts against the number of spells you can cast quickened (usually 1) and leaves you with a full round action still to take. Not countered by slow - leaves fatigued as haste. Can still only have one haste effect active at a time, though this version overides standard haste benefits And let's not use words like "generalizations" and "rubbish" at the same time, all right? Sad... And when did I say that? Three seperate things 3.0 haste being overpowered 3.5 haste being poorly designed 3.5 meta rods being crud.
Zelphi 12-03-04, 11:18 AM	example then of a better level 3, mass buffer... --- and the fight advantage of heroism it is just a +2 to hit while haste it is a +1 to hit and +1 to AC... without counting the extra attack or extra movement that also involves fighting (I said it, can be used for getting at full attack sooner or flanking without troubles). The only advantage of heroism it is the duration... only it is worth as bard and that it is because counts as a level 2 spell... and curiously the advantage at fight it is nullified by improved courage +2 or greater. No, its try to move next to them and get the full attack in next round(if you're an archer or thrower- it is nice if you have the ammo and targets). You're wasting time and not playing to tactics, it simply doesn't help that many people. Well it might help more people - there are times when I've liked it, but those times are a massive rarity that has to be built towards. Well anyway, see my alternative - there are many ways 3.5 haste could be made to be better. The bonus from saves is more useful to fighters, but the +2 adds up when you consider it applies to attacks and damage.
CaoSlayer 12-03-04, 11:41 AM	The bonus from saves is more useful to fighters, but the +2 adds up when you consider it applies to attacks and damage. Heroism Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting] Level: Brd 2, Sor/Wiz 3 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Creature touched Duration: 10 min./level Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless) This spell imbues a single creature with great bravery and morale in battle. The target gains a +2 morale bonus on attack rolls, saves, and skill checks. no bonus to damage, just to hit and so, it is equivalent to the +1 to hit and +1 to AC of haste... and the +2 to all saves it is nice, but +30 movement or an extra good attack it is better IMO... and still afects EVERYBODY. about tactics, +30 movement allows a great wide of tactics, by example when fighting against an archer or a wizard you can surround the enemy pretty nicely with 6 extra squares of movement whatever you are so you can negate their classical 5 feet step for advoiding any AoO... or the archer with shoot in the run feat being able to move close to the enemy, shoot with manyshots getting the bonuses of point black shot and haste and then moving back way away from the enemy charge distance. Or allows a cleric to heal better dont having to be close to the fight when required. haste it is a more tactical spell than heroism.. and you havent told us yet a better mass buffer spell at level 3 :rolleyes:
Zelphi 12-03-04, 11:42 AM	Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal. This does not change the level of the spell, so the DC for saving throws against it does not go up. Much like the way you can use higher level slots to prepare or cast lower level spells, but with no added effect. A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell. Metamagic Rods: Metamagic rods hold the essence of a metamagic feat but do not change the spell slot of the altered spell. All the rods described here are use-activated (but casting spells in a threatened area still draws an attack of opportunity). A caster may only use one metamagic rod on any given spell, but it is permissible to combine a rod with metamagic feats possessed by the rod’s wielder. In this case, only the feats possessed by the wielder adjust the spell slot of the spell being cast. So still no change to the increase of a level, with a further afirmation that metamagic requires higher level slots to cast with, but does not change the level of a spell. Lesser and Greater Metamagic Rods: Normal metamagic rods can be used with spells of 6th level or lower. Lesser rods can be used with spells of 3rd level or lower, while greater rods can be used with spells of 9th level or lower. Note the use of "Used with spells of xth level or lower". Refering to spells, not spells prepared at level. Otherwise it would say "Spells that occupy slots of", or make some exception for metamagic feats, which it didn't. In the description of the rods. Metamagic, Empower: The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are empowered as though using the Empower Spell feat. Which means when they cast upto three spells, they're cast as though the spell had the given metamagic applied. This still has no exception to the way the rod opperates on spells - by using spells of a certain level. Empowered Fireball is still a 3rd level spells, as per every metamagic description in existance. It is prepared with higher level slots, but that's irrelevent to the level of the spell.
Zelphi 12-03-04, 11:55 AM	Heroism Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting] Level: Brd 2, Sor/Wiz 3 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Creature touched Duration: 10 min./level Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless) This spell imbues a single creature with great bravery and morale in battle. The target gains a +2 morale bonus on attack rolls, saves, and skill checks. no bonus to damage, just to hit and so, it is equivalent to the +1 to hit and +1 to AC of haste... and the +2 to all saves it is nice, but +30 movement or an extra good attack it is better IMO... and still afects EVERYBODY. about tactics, +30 movement allows a great wide of tactics, by example when fighting against an archer or a wizard you can surround the enemy pretty nicely with 6 extra squares of movement whatever you are so you can negate their classical 5 feet step for advoiding any AoO... or the archer with shoot in the run feat being able to move close to the enemy, shoot with manyshots getting the bonuses of point black shot and haste and then moving back way away from the enemy charge distance. Or allows a cleric to heal better dont having to be close to the fight when required. haste it is a more tactical spell than heroism.. and you havent told us yet a better mass buffer spell at level 3 :rolleyes: Your right, i'm mistaken on this account. That said, haste isn't thouroughly useful and the bonus is still minimal at many levels. It does stack nicely, but that's only useful if you've got the spells to match with it (to provide a real benefit). I never said Heroism was a better mass buffer, I said it was a more pointful spell to cast on any idividual than Haste at its level. Multishoting with shot on the run assumes you have those feats, and the +1 to attack hardly compensates or makes those options good (because Multishot is a poor choice anyway). You've also found a tactical use against a solo archer who'd screw you over with either of fly or blink. How do clerics heal better? They can't cast on the run (though it would be nice). Those are touch spells so no, still in to combat at some point. As for tactically better? No its circumstantially tactically useful if you can rely on it being there, otherwise it does significantly less than other better spells would do in combination. Other spells are more commonly useful and provide better direct benefits to practically everyone. Its an issue I face with Fighters, Rage is generally more useful to any party than someone who plays a support role with a variety of attack forms. Haste has to be adapted into a party, Heroism, Exp Ret, Animals Stat and many other spells benefit in more specific ways.
CaoSlayer 12-03-04, 12:11 PM	Multishoting with shot on the run assumes you have those feats, and the +1 to attack hardly compensates or makes those options good (because Multishot is a poor choice anyway). You've also found a tactical use against a solo archer who'd screw you over with either of fly or blink. How do clerics heal better? They can't cast on the run (though it would be nice). Those are touch spells so no, still in to combat at some point. As for tactically better? No its circumstantially tactically useful if you can rely on it being there, otherwise it does significantly less than other better spells would do in combination. Other spells are more commonly useful and provide better direct benefits to practically everyone. Its an issue I face with Fighters, Rage is generally more useful to any party than someone who plays a support role with a variety of attack forms. Haste has to be adapted into a party, Heroism, Exp Ret, Animals Stat and many other spells benefit in more specific ways. I dont know how blink stops haste... the enemy will be still surounded, of course will have a 50% hit protection... but if you surounds him with the party´s fighter, cleric and rogue (in the classical rpg party) that means 3 more attacks for hitting him. about a flying oponent still will cause an AoO if leaves the area as he moved away and now everybody can shoot him with his preffered ranged weapon one more time, being this specially useful at fighter types who cant fly or dispell magic. of course, anyone with half a brain can make tactics from the thin air with this build. Rage have the trouble of being a rage (d'oh!) so disallows you to use potions wands or activate your boots of flying if the enemy archer casts fly :rolleyes:, also affects only one target per 3 levels and the -2 AC it is painful... note that while haste just improves everyone in a way or other, rage have penalties... haste in a wizard/sorcerer will make him harder to hit, a rage will make him totally useless (no spells while rage) and easier to hit (-2 AC). my point about haste it is that gives benefits in every fight whichever it is the party, because gives attack power and defense power so it is a great all-general spell.
Nithendil 12-03-04, 12:28 PM	Heroism Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting] Level: Brd 2, Sor/Wiz 3 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Creature touched Duration: 10 min./level Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless) This spell imbues a single creature with great bravery and morale in battle. The target gains a +2 morale bonus on attack rolls, saves, and skill checks. This should be a 2nd level spell IMO. It's essentially a slightly improved bless (which is essentially a free cleric spell if you have a god wand (aka cure light wounds), but only works on one person. If it was an insight bonus, or worked on everyone in the party, I might see it being 3rd level, and more useful, but if you have bless up than this spell is essentially a waste. I wouldn't even bother scribing this in my spellbook. Do you realize that if you empower bless into a 3rd level slot, you essentially have this spell, but on everyone in the party? (edit: forgot that empower only works on variable effects, but the point remains).
solbergb 12-03-04, 01:05 PM	The main use for heroism actually is the skill check bonus. Greater Heroism is even better, but single target and shorter duration. It's inspire competence in a bottle, with an attack and save advantage to boot. Haste fills a different function. It is strictly a combat spell. And it stacks with heroism, should heroism be running. The other 3rd level spell that is comparable to haste is Rage. Like haste it provides two stackable benefits (str and con instead of bonus to hit and ac, which is really nice when combined with people who do strength feats). Unlike haste it has significant downsides (ac lowered, spellcasting and many skills unable to be used) and doesn't provide the mobility or extra attack. You see Haste used more than Rage, but both together work pretty well if you're careful who you target with the rage. As an aside to the rest of the above. I'm amused that the counterargument to my "rods" ruling involved chopping the word "Cast" out of the description and again not addressing the difference between operate as instead of cast in the metamagic rules description. The rods don't know your level 7 spell has other metamagic applied...they just know they're being applied to a level 7 spell as it is being cast. I suspect you guys who rule this way have problems understanding how heighten spell works with metamagic too. *shrug*.
Scion of Coldshard 12-03-04, 01:22 PM	or the archer with shoot in the run feat being able to move close to the enemy, shoot with manyshots Assuming that you mean the feats 'shot on the run' and 'manyshot' then there is a problem: they do not work together. Shot on the run allows for a single attack action, whereas manyshot requires a standard action to be used. Not compatable.
solbergb 12-03-04, 01:22 PM	:And, also from the rules on metamagic: Multiple Metamagic Feats on a Spell: A spellcaster can apply multiple metamagic feats to a single spell. Changes to its level are cumulative. You can’t apply the same metamagic feat more than once to a single spell. And, every single metamagic feat says the same thing (except heighten): Just show the section of the rules that states the rods should change the way the feats work. :waits: Oh, and I don't think your making it up, you're just using someone's houserule (which the RPGA is quite reasonable to use) until I see the rules that says the rods change the way the feats work. Show me this and I'll gladly :pile: the bandwagon. Your entire post failed to address the main thrust of the argument...but you quote text supporting the argument. Metamagic affects the level you PREPARE and CAST the spell, and these changes are CUMULATIVE. That means it doesn't matter what order you metamagic. If I heighten an empowered fireball by 2 levels (so it has DC 15+attribute, like a 5th level spell and punches through globes of invuln) the spell is a 7th level spell to CAST. If I heighten+2 a fireball and then empower it, still a 7th level spell to cast. Only if you mix in a rod does the casting level drop, because that's what rods do...add a feat without adding casting level/slot increase. Should I wish to use a metamagic rod on this heightened empowered fireball, the metamagic rod has to be able to operate on a 7th level spell. The rod can't tell the difference between a delayed blast fireball and a heightened empowered one. But it can maximize either...IF it is a greater rod. Or to put it another way. All of the following are equivalent in effect and outcome....but the rods mean different spell slots are used in each case. empowered fireball with maximize rod (L5 spell to prepare and cast) maximized fireball with empower rod (L6 spell to prepare and cast) empowered maximized fireball (L8 spell to prepare and cast) The rules are consistent....adding more metamagic raises casting level, unless rods are used (and one-and-only-one rod may be used per spell). Rods can operate on a spell that is cast within its level range. This is 100% internally consistent with the ruleset. Your insistance on ignoring the casting rules of metamagic is why you have come to the conclusion that a lesser rod can work on any spell that has a crapload of metamagic added, as long as the base spell is level 1-3. Someone else asked for a link to where the "slot" ruling is used. Here's the LG ruling (link to original message board source for subscribers is present on this site as well). http://www.theocracyofthepale.com/gamerules/circle_rulings.html#rods
CaoSlayer 12-03-04, 01:40 PM	Assuming that you mean the feats 'shot on the run' and 'manyshot' then there is a problem: they do not work together. Shot on the run allows for a single attack action, whereas manyshot requires a standard action to be used. Not compatable. eeeh,since manyshot it is an attack action that just requires a standar action I cant see why not. do you have any official FAQ about the theme?
Quixon 12-03-04, 01:46 PM	eeeh,since manyshot it is an attack action that just requires a standar action I cant see why not. do you have any official FAQ about the theme? 3.5 FAQ Specifically says they can't be used together I believe.
Scion of Coldshard 12-03-04, 01:55 PM	3.5 FAQ Specifically says they can't be used together I believe. It does, although it shouldnt be necissary. A standard action can be used to make an attack action but an attack action cannot be used to make a standard action. There really just isnt any overlap.
CaoSlayer 12-03-04, 01:58 PM	still sounds weird to me... and have ruined one of the best combinations out here. :(
Heron_Marked_Blade 12-03-04, 08:28 PM	Note the use of "Used with spells of xth level or lower". Refering to spells, not spells prepared at level. Otherwise it would say "Spells that occupy slots of", or make some exception for metamagic feats, which it didn't. In the description of the rods. Incorrect. What we have here is the exact wording used to describe Wand-making:WANDS A wand is a thin baton that contains a single spell of 4th level or lower. And we both know that you can't put a spell in a wand that takes up a higher level slot than 4th, regardless of the spell's "level" -- the level limit includes metamagic adjustments. That's exactly the situation we have with the metamagic rods. Like I said, there is very clear precedent for rods to be limited by "spell level" (i.e. the "spell slot" meaning of that phrase).
Willie the Duck 12-03-04, 11:34 PM	Maybe I missed it in those 7 pages' worth of posts, but why would other things being as broken as (or even more than) Haste 3.0 make the latter not broken? Broken is broken. I'm not sure. I've been making the same point for 7 pages, but some people think it isn't an important point. Apparently to them, the fact that 3.0 has an overpowered ability in a 3rd level spell and 3.5 has it in an underpriced rod makes them balance out (or in a bizaare twist of logic, makes 3.5 uber), completely ignoring the fact that BOTH make anyone without this ability (say non casters, or anyone that doesn't want to make this type of build) underpowered.
Nithendil 12-04-04, 12:37 AM	The main use for heroism actually is the skill check bonus. You can do the same thing with a 2nd level spell (bulls strength, etc).
Shatteredtower 12-04-04, 03:20 AM	On Spring Attack and Pounce Except it can't, there's no way it can, and it certainly couldn't be in 3.5. If this is addressing the issue of pounce, it is superior to that special attack in 3.0, because pounce requires a charge. With 3.0 haste, you only need a normal move as your bonus action, then a full attack, then a 5' step. Now let's take this to Spring Attack. All Spring Attack requires is that you move before and after you attack. It does not specify that a full attack is not an option -- normally, it wouldn't have to. But add haste 3.0 and you have that option suddenly, even if you perform the full move, full attack, 5' step option above. How does this beat an opponent? 1. If your opponent comes to you, said foe gets one attack. You can respond by stepping one square to to either 'side' of him, make your full attack, and then pull back your full movement, because Spring Attack simply requires that you take at least a 5 ft. step before and after the attack. 2. If you go to your opponent, you get the full attack and a 5 ft step retreat. Now your opponent must either step up and commit to a full attack or retreat. The latter scores points for you, because you dished it out and took nothing in return. In the former case, though, you get to make a second full attack in round two, then retreat before your foe can do the same. Readied actions help outset this problem a little bit, but your hasted springer is still outstripping foes for full attack routines. 3. Spring Attack vs. Spring Attack is also a no-win for the unhasted, as one the unhasted only get to pull even if their base speed is higher than their enemy's. It's still a penalty and it was a comment on an old version that had a penalty - I asked what happened to it? Seeing as I haven't posted an alternative - this is an irrelevent attack. The old version had a penalty already -- it aged the recipient. This didn't just mean nothing to undead. It meant the spell was better for standard NPC encounters, since many standard NPCs only needed it for that one encounter (not being anticipated to last beyond that). The +1 is still outclassed - it is not always a good option to have such a subjectively useless bonus when you consider that to get any further (significant) benefit you have to mass cast other spells. A buffet for one is not a better deal than a small cheeseburger and small soft drink for the entire family. It's really not that hard to figure this out. The fact remains that if you've got time for the horde-a-buffs to the party approach, you have time to add haste and bless, and if you don't, you're better off with two spells that hit everyone even if they don't hit anyone for as much as you might otherwise hit one or two recipients that round. No argument on the metamagic rods. You may as well introduce swords that pack Weapon Specialization and do the Great Cleaving for you and be done with it. Of course, the thing with a metamagic rod is that you only got to use it on three spells per day. How many spells, scrolls, and wands could you use thus with haste 3.0? Does fly beat haste? Not in an equal weapon comparison -- the ranged archer is losing out against a group's higher rate of fire, with roughly equal speed. Does blink beat haste? I will not argue that it is more useful on the spell's single recipient than haste 3.5 would be if the wizard was on a solo mission, but blink carries its own liabilities and doesn't help your allies avoid getting mowed down in the meantime. Once they're out of the picture, the benefits of blink start to pale, and they didn't have even a tiny attack or AC bonus to help them avoid that in the meantime.
bitnine 12-04-04, 03:45 AM	Apparently to them, the fact that 3.0 has an overpowered ability in a 3rd level spell and 3.5 has it in an underpriced rod makes them balance out (or in a bizaare twist of logic, makes 3.5 uber), completely ignoring the fact that BOTH make anyone without this ability (say non casters, or anyone that doesn't want to make this type of build) underpowered.But - but - if my friend Billy the psion is doing it with his mind schism and Joe the item crafter cranks out metamagic rods too that's just gotta mean that it's okay for me too! Right? Come oooooooooon!
Archtyrant Terevoth 12-04-04, 05:11 AM	Well I cast blink you cast haste I cast slow? You cast? Wrong. You cast blink (assuming you win init). I cast haste, then I ready an action to disrupt your spellcasting with a magic missile. You cast slow, which you'll have to try to cast through the readied magic missile attack. If you succeed on your concentration check, you'll have dispelled my haste, and I cast it again and ready another MM. If not, I get two actions and blast you with two magic missile spells whcih should finish you off. In either case you're fighting a losing battle and blink hasn't helped you at all. If you lose initiatve on the other hand, well then you don't even really get to do much of anything, because I'm hasted and I've got a readied action to screw up your spell. What the heck kind of statement is this? The metamagic rods invariably make your spells better so how can it not be "so good" in the first place? I'll extend or maximize my time stop then drop empowered maximized cloudkill then maximized empowered incindiary cloud then empowered maximized evard's black tentacles, then empowered maximized extended ice storm then maximized empowered firewall, an empowered maximized acid fog then a few maximized delayed blast fireballs just for good measure and maybe some quickened spells in their too like a stinking cloud. I'll finish off with a cute little dimensional lock and a windowless forcecage then sit back and watch you roast, freeze, poison, melt, vomit and not be able to teleport out either. This is a problem with time stop actually, not metamagic rods. This is what happens when you allow extra actions. time stop like haste 3.0 allows extra actions, and thus you get killer combos like that. Not because of metamagic rods, but because you're abusing time stop. I don't dispute time stop can be used to perpetuate broken combos. Extra action spells are very open to abuse. This explains why I'm against 3.0 haste. It also explains why fission, schism, time stop and every other power in existance that grants extra actions have been super powerful. No, you have the full flexibility to use the maximize rod to maximize cloudkill instead of your empowered fireball. Direct damage rules when saves are high - that's the point of save for half. It's very effective at high levels while you need a weakness to target or a spell like limited wish to go first before you target a save. So you maximize cloudkill. Big deal. I don't really consider it a great combo to maximize a single 1d4 roll. You're dealing 4 instead of the average 2.5... so what? I just don't see what's so great about it. And I'm not saying direct damage sucks completely, I'm just saying it never broke the game. Nor does using a metamagic rod on it. Find me a direct damage spell that is broken by metamagic rods and then we'll talk. The fact is that if your best example of how metamagic rods are broke involves spells that grant extra actions, then I think you've proved my point that 3.0 haste is way more dangerous than metamagic rods could ever be. Metamagic rods aren't broken, extra actions are. Whatever. That's like me saying "and when you are hasted - you will be slowed." Not at all. You get slowed after you've been hasted you really don't care. You just cast it again. You get a greater quicken rod sundered, that's a great deal of your character wealth that just went down the drain in the easily sunderable rod. This isn't an effect that lasts one battle, this is a lingering loss of a prized magical item that you'll never ever use again. Big difference.
Zelphi 12-04-04, 05:35 AM	Incorrect. What we have here is the exact wording used to describe Wand-making: And we both know that you can't put a spell in a wand that takes up a higher level slot than 4th, regardless of the spell's "level" -- the level limit includes metamagic adjustments. That's exactly the situation we have with the metamagic rods. Like I said, there is very clear precedent for rods to be limited by "spell level" (i.e. the "spell slot" meaning of that phrase). None of this stops the spell being of a particular level. They work on the level of the spell themselves. There is nothing in the core material that says you can't store a spell of level 5th or greater, but that's irrelevent because the cap is on a spell being cast of 4th or lower. There is actually no line that says you can't have a wand of heighten charm person at 9th, except to cast such a spell you'd need a 9th level slot. This is a comletely different thing. Meta Rods work on the spells of level, not at its prepared level. On another issue While blinking, you can step through (but not see through) solid objects. For each 5 feet of solid material you walk through, there is a 50% chance that you become material. If this occurs, you are shunted off to the nearest open space and take 1d6 points of damage per 5 feet so traveled. You can move at only three-quarters speed (because movement on the Ethereal Plane is at half speed, and you spend about half your time there and half your time material.) I'd agree that Heroism isn't the best 3rd level spell for a Wizard, Sorcs and Bards however.
Gemstone 12-04-04, 08:11 AM	Why not make the Haste spell grant you another free action for casting a quicken spell?
solbergb 12-04-04, 10:15 AM	The main use for heroism is actually the skill bonus. You can do the same thing with a 2nd level spell (bulls strength, etc). No...you can do MORE with BOTH spells. The heroism stacks. It is one of the few spells that directly affects a skill (at least at lower levels). There are times where you need every single plus you can manage. Together, attribute enhancers, Guidance and Heroism add +5 to a roll. Separately, only +1-2. At higher levels the skill bonus is still useful, the attribute enhancement not...because the higher level guys wear magic items that do enhancement bonuses to attributes routinely.
GreenDay 12-04-04, 05:29 PM	Yes, why has haste been ruined? All right, you dont get such a big bonus to AC but why is it not an extra partial action anymore? The spell has become useless in my eyes... I know, or hope, that there is a reason for making haste suck, but I cannot figure it out... Same with making undeads to a template and lower it's CR, but that's another issue... I do not think it has been ruined. I think the first kind of Haste gave to much power to the people who cast it. The new kind of Haste is still very useful. It is hard to give up powerful spells, I know. But the new Haste is better for DnD.
DungeonMaster 12-05-04, 11:18 AM	Except that I still haven't come across anyone (except you and now maybe Pyk) who contend that a Lesser Rod of Maximize can function on a Maximized Empowered Silent Fireball. Could you list some names of individuals who comprise this "everyone" you're talking about? Or some links to definitive threads proving that metamagic rods are interpreted the way you suggest they are? That's an outright lie Heron, and not becoming of you. Unless you've merely honestly forgotten (which is possible) you clearly have read the following thread dated 10-17-04: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=323887&highlight=metamagic+rods And if you havn't read the other threads that link off of that one then I suggest you do. The consensus from both Custserv, tarkin, myself, kSquared and many others is that spell level is what it affected. I've also checked up on living greyhawk and I can't find any mention on either the LG board of metamagic rods or in the LG houserules sections off of their main board. I'm curious how solberg defends the idea that 14 000 people play with your interpretation of the metamagic rods. Anyhow, I'm so busy of late I can't claim I'll be able to reply to everyone's comments in the coming few days. I'll try and set aside some time but we'll just have to see. The real questions are now: Is the commonly accepted internet interpretation of 3rd edition haste an equal balance quandry vs. the commonly accepted internet interpretation of 3.5 metamagic rods? Are the other interpretations likewise on an equal balance footing? My reply to the first is: The rods are better than 3rd edition haste, particularly in the end game. My reply to the second is: They can both be very powerful with the rods wining out in the end game again. You can't compare just quicken (even a lot of it) to quicken+maximize+extend+etc...
d_nychus 12-05-04, 12:14 PM	I still see no reason that metamagic rods are included in this discussion, anyways. Despite the rule confusion, 3.5 metamagic rods have almost minimal impact in the game because of their price and limitied useage, while 3.0 haste dominated every single 3.0 game I ever played because of the free actions for a cheap, low-level spell. 3.5 haste was balanced back to a good party buff for a 3rd level spell, like it was in 2e. I have yet to see anyone use metamagic rods in my campaign, and in other campaigns that I play in, they are used infrequently at best. I have NEVER seen any evidence that shows the "brokeness" of 3.5 metamagic rods, and, in fact, I consider them a little subpar in realm of magic items. Useful upon occasion, but still not normally worth the gold cost, even if you do make it yourself. Quickened metamagic rods are far too expensive and limited in use, and cannot even compare to 3.0 haste in effectiveness. Even if you do apply the clearly bad ruling that feat metamagics are ignored for the purposes of metamagic rods, I still cannot see how they greatly affect the game. So you might be able to spend a few feats, a high level spell slot or slots, and a modertately priced magic item to eek out a few additional effective spell levels up to three times a day. More times per day if you are willing to buy more than one metamagic rod instead of something useful. Umm, yay. Go you. By the time that becomes workable, there are so many better options for you to do that the effects of this combo are ignoreable at best, and laughable at worst. 3.0 haste caused so much havoc that even my own group asked me to nerf it. 99% of the time, the very first action any character did in my 3.0 campaign was activate haste in some form, once the spell became commonly available. Every encounter seemed to center around who got off haste first. To me, that is all the evidence in playtesting I need to know that spell was bad news for the game. 3.5 haste is actually used fairly frequently in my game, though mostly because the party is very heavy on melee characters and archers. In other campaigns, it is about as useful as a normal 3rd level spell, and given about as much consideration as most other balanced of that level.
Archtyrant Terevoth 12-05-04, 12:58 PM	My reply to the first is: The rods are better than 3rd edition haste, particularly in the end game. My reply to the second is: They can both be very powerful with the rods wining out in the end game again. You can't compare just quicken (even a lot of it) to quicken+maximize+extend+etc... But haste isn't quicken, and metamagic rods aren't quicken+maximize+extend. That's an oversimplification. Haste is an extra spell per round. And that's different from quickening, because haste doesn't negate your ability to quicken something else. So now your capped at 2 normal spells and 1 quickened spell instead of 1 normal spell and 1 quickened spell. And that's the danger of extra actions. Two meteor swarms + a quickened cone of cold is a more dangerous direct damage combo than any metamagic rods could produce. Metamagic rods work within the framework of the current round system. They aren't maximize + empower+ quicken. First you can only use one of those at a time on any given spell and second you've got to pay for each rod. And I'll still point out that I have yet to see the big metamagic rod abuses, so why don't you point one out to me? Thus far you've mentioned: -time stop (effective but based on a spell similar to 3.0 haste) I point to time stop as being the broken part. -maximized cloudkill (go ahead and cast these all day, they aren't broken) -maximized fireball (again go ahead and cast these all day long)
pyk 12-05-04, 01:07 PM	As an aside to the rest of the above. I'm amused that the counterargument to my "rods" ruling involved chopping the word "Cast" out of the description and again not addressing the difference between operate as instead of cast in the metamagic rules description. The rods don't know your level 7 spell has other metamagic applied...they just know they're being applied to a level 7 spell as it is being cast. Wow, no, I'm not ignoring the word "CAST" from metamagic feats, I'm simply applying ALL the rules from metamagic feats, and not ignoring some because the group I play with houseruled it so. I suspect you guys who rule this way have problems understanding how heighten spell works with metamagic too. *shrug*. I would say you should let us know how you interpret it. Because if it's the same as you interpret the metamagic rods, there may be some problems there. Your entire post failed to address the main thrust of the argument...but you quote text supporting the argument. Metamagic affects the level you PREPARE and CAST the spell, and these changes are CUMULATIVE. That means it doesn't matter what order you metamagic. If I heighten an empowered fireball by 2 levels (so it has DC 15+attribute, like a 5th level spell and punches through globes of invuln) the spell is a 7th level spell to CAST. If I heighten+2 a fireball and then empower it, still a 7th level spell to cast. Only if you mix in a rod does the casting level drop, because that's what rods do...add a feat without adding casting level/slot increase. So, if it does not matter what order one applies the metamagic, show why the rods must be applied last and how their application of metamagic is different from the feats themselves - you know, the rods apply the metamagic feats "as the feats themselves". Therefore: empowered fireball with a rod of maximize: L5 to prepare and cast (requires lesser rod of maximize). maximized fireball with a rod of empower: L6 spell to prepare and cast (requires lesser rod of empower) quickened fireball with any metamagic rod: L7 spell to prepare and cast (requires lesser rod of whatever) The only difference in the above, is: heightened [+2] fireball with any metamagic rod: L5 spell to prepare and cast (requires normal metamagic rod) Should I wish to use a metamagic rod on this heightened empowered fireball, the metamagic rod has to be able to operate on a 7th level spell. The rod can't tell the difference between a delayed blast fireball and a heightened empowered one. But it can maximize either...IF it is a greater rod. Right, it cannot tell the difference between a delayed blast fireball and a heightened [+4] fireball because they are the same spell level. A delayed blast fireball and a heightened [+2] empowered fireball, on the other hand, are two different spell levels, yet use the same slot level. Otherwise, how does a globe of invulnerability tell the difference between a quickened fireball and a delayed blast fireball - they are CAST as the same level spell, as you keep using the word. It does not matter what order the metamagic feats are applied. Or to put it another way. All of the following are equivalent in effect and outcome....but the rods mean different spell slots are used in each case. empowered fireball with maximize rod (L5 spell to prepare and cast) maximized fireball with empower rod (L6 spell to prepare and cast) empowered maximized fireball (L8 spell to prepare and cast) The rules are consistent....adding more metamagic raises casting level, unless rods are used (and one-and-only-one rod may be used per spell). Rods can operate on a spell that is cast within its level range. This is 100% internally consistent with the ruleset. This makes the entire section on metamagic rules inconsistent with the rods. Metamagic works on the "actual spell level". Your insistance on ignoring the casting rules of metamagic is why you have come to the conclusion that a lesser rod can work on any spell that has a crapload of metamagic added, as long as the base spell is level 1-3. Your insistance on ignoring the casting rules of metamagic is why you have come to the conclusion the rods work differently from the metamagic feats themselves. Metamagic is applied to the "actual spell level" NOT the "spell level plus other metamagic adjustments". Someone else asked for a link to where the "slot" ruling is used. Here's the LG ruling (link to original message board source for subscribers is present on this site as well). And as I said, Living Greyhawk is free to houserule the rods anyway they wish. Just as they have houseruled how item creation works. Just as they have houseruled how Incorrect. What we have here is the exact wording used to describe Wand-making:WANDS A wand is a thin baton that contains a single spell of 4th level or lower. And we both know that you can't put a spell in a wand that takes up a higher level slot than 4th, regardless of the spell's "level" -- the level limit includes metamagic adjustments. That's exactly the situation we have with the metamagic rods. Like I said, there is very clear precedent for rods to be limited by "spell level" (i.e. the "spell slot" meaning of that phrase). And if this were true, then one would not need to go to the FEATS section to read the following section for clarification of the wands (and scrolls, and potions): Magic Items and Metamagic Spells: With the right item creation feat, you can store a metamagic version of a spell in a scroll, potion, or wand. Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell’s higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat). A character doesn’t need the metamagic feat to activate an item storing a metamagic version of a spell.
Heron_Marked_Blade 12-05-04, 04:22 PM	That's an outright lie Heron, and not becoming of you. Unless you've merely honestly forgotten (which is possible) you clearly have read the following thread dated 10-17-04: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=323887&highlight=metamagic+rodsI do remember that thread up to my post, but this is the first time I've read the posts following mine (including the CustServ response). I will contend that the CS response is incorrect. And it won't be the first time they've been wrong, either. And if you havn't read the other threads that link off of that one then I suggest you do. The consensus from both Custserv, tarkin, myself, kSquared and many others is that spell level is what it affected. What gets me is that you're so adamant that metamagic rods are broken, yet you insist on using the interpretation that makes them broken. There is precedent for interpreting them as affecting "spell level" (as in "spell slot level"), yet you won't use it. Is it because if you do, then you will have one less 3.5 issue to feel justified in hating 3.5 for? If that's the case, I'd encourage you not to worry. I'm sure you'll find plenty more to hate.... ;) Incidentally, interpreting the rods the way you do means that you can place an Empowered Maximized Scorching Ray into a spell storing weapon.Spell Storing: A spell storing weapon allows a spellcaster to store a single targeted spell of up to 3rd level in the weapon. I'm away from my computer right now, but I believe that issue has been laid to rest, and the answer was "NO. Bad. Stay in your corner." :cheer: I'll get back to you on that (or if anyone else would like to address this question?). The rods are better than 3rd edition haste, particularly in the end game. As Archtyrant pointed out, you're talking about two very different effects here. Comparing the ability to gain an extra spell each round to the ability to apply metamagic to a spell for free is comparing apples to oranges. It's in no way an exact comparison, and I'm not sure why you brought it up unless you're arguing that the ability to apply metamagic for free 3/day can also be broken. But that requires that you accept 3.0 Haste as being broken, and I'm not sure you've done that....
Seeker95 12-05-04, 04:34 PM	What gets me is that you're (re: DungeonMaster] so adamant that metamagic rods are broken, yet you insist on using the interpretation that makes them broken.Not quite. His adamance has nothing to do with metamagic rods, interpretations, or any other specific detail. It is merely an opportunity for DungeonMaster to attack 3.5. It is worth noting that DungeonMaster has not gone to such twisting (and selected omission) of words regarding any element of 3.0 since the release of 3.5. At least none that a Search of his posts can detect. If metamagic rods existed in 3.0 with the exact same language, his interpretation would be much more forgiving. Disclaimer: I actually agree with his assessment of the impact of metamagic rods in this case, but there are many instances in which DungeonMaster makes it very difficult to agree with him. It's a lot like crediting historical tyrants with the occasional good idea. The sum total of his motive and method eliminates any credibility that might be granted to his point.
d_nychus 12-05-04, 04:50 PM	And if this were true, then one would not need to go to the FEATS section to read the following section for clarification of the wands (and scrolls, and potions): Oddly enough, the evidence that you cite as debunking the precedent actually USES that precedent. Magic Items and Metamagic Spells: With the right item creation feat, you can store a metamagic version of a spell in a scroll, potion, or wand. Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell’s higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat). A character doesn’t need the metamagic feat to activate an item storing a metamagic version of a spell. Yeah, it is a pretty dumb mistake for WotC to repeatedly use 'spell level' in cases where they mean 'slot level,' but it certainly does exist without a shadow of a doubt. The metamagic rods are just another occurance of this mistake.
DungeonMaster 12-05-04, 06:59 PM	Here is a casual perusal of statements I have made only in the past couple months regarding 3rd edition: So drink up! Revel in the mediocrity of the new edition. Here's your PrC: you're special now. Here's your new feat: you're special now. Really what you're buying are "labeled mechanics". It has a stupid snazzy name "Earth's X" but reality is more often then not it's nothing but the name that makes it "feel" it belongs in the book. You could almost invariably justify the mechanic with another label "Frost's X" or "Ice's X" or "Shivering X". Yes D&D is now a mixed bag of crap. I find even "normal" PrC beyond stupid, things like the halfling outrider and the blighter let alone the moronic things recently published. The feel of previous editions is gone, completely and utterly. The statement that what differientiates you from the other character is "the mechanics" is precisely the cancer that plagues this edition. Whatever happened to the wizard known throughout the realm for polymorphing people into frogs? No no no - you're not a somebody unless you're a wiz8/archmage3/loremaster4. What no template? Oh you need a template. Otherwise you're like any other wizard that polymorphs things into frogs. Oh and frogs - no no no! That's been done to death, make it ooze or something different. There's nothing more pathetic than reducing dungeons and dragons to the abilities you have on your character sheet. It's no longer the quest for the holy grail that's important - it's whether or not you're an anthropomorphic squid tiefling fighter4/soc6. People nowadays speak in terms of "builds" rather than acheivements. It's fundamentally sad to see D&D reduced to this. I actually incidentally detest the 3rd edition mechanic of race-class-PrC. I want restricted races, I want anti-magic dwarves and I want flavor dammit. If flavor means "arbitrary restrictions" to some it means "restrictions based on tradition" to me. I don't mind bending the rule for someone who really really wants a dwarf wizard - it can be great fun to play. I just want the rule in place. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=333524&page=2&pp=50&highlight=Is+wotc+doing+a+good+job http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=340134&page=3&pp=50 http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=336818&page=2 Now I'de like to have a single quote from either Seeker95 or D_nychus that disparages in any way shape or form 3.5 specifically. Just one will do - but if you're capable of providing more then please do so. I'm flat out exhausted trying to molify the near religious 3.5 zeal from certain individuals that yes, I do at times appear extreme in my own convictions but from my vantage point my extreme is much less than the 3.5 zealots. And spell slots and level are clearly defined in the frigging PHB - there's not a drop of confusion surrounding it, not one. A spell storing item that stores a 3rd level spell can store an empowered maximized silent still X. That is STILL nothing more than a 3rd level spell . p.148 of the PHB details what a spell slot is. p.241 of the DMG has this specific wording on "creating magic items": "Using metamagic feats a caster can put spells in at a higher level than normal. For example a caster could heighten a spell's level to increase it's effectiveness, or quicken a spell to allow it to be used as a free action, placing it within an item at the higher metamagic level . Not higher spell level without heighten. This is 100% clear.
DungeonMaster 12-05-04, 07:16 PM	What gets me is that you're so adamant that metamagic rods are broken, yet you insist on using the interpretation that makes them broken. There is precedent for interpreting them as affecting "spell level" (as in "spell slot level"), yet you won't use it. There is no precedent. What precedent are you talking about? It's not even an interpretation. Not even close. I'm calling it an interpretation but it flies flagrantly in the face of the enire difference between a metamagic spell and a normal spell, the purpose of the heighten feat and the concept of spell level. There is a paradox for haste not giving you an immediate partial action do you talk about it? Let me refresh, haste: "On his turn, the subject may take an extra partial action, either before or after his regular action". Evard's black tentacles: These attacks take place on your turn . The Evard's black tentacles paradox: If a wizard casts EVBT then moves into them (they don't attack till next round) who goes first? The tentacles or the wizard? Is the wizard alive or dead? The situation is undetermined - the only way to resolve it is to say that the words "on your turn" mean the exact moment when you get a turn. That means the tentacles go first - at the exact moment the wizard receives his turn. So myself and others have used "haste" granting you the extra partial action not immediately during the turn you cast the spell but only when you actually receive a turn. If you cast it on an ally they get in when they receive a turn - which could be in the same round. In 4 seperate games with 4 seperate DMs myself not included I had never seen haste interpreted the way people on these boards do. Not once. My luck? My area? My friends? Who knows. The only time I ever saw this was when I joined the boards. Is it because if you do, then you will have one less 3.5 issue to feel justified in hating 3.5 for? If that's the case, I'd encourage you not to worry. I'm sure you'll find plenty more to hate.... ;) Oh please, I don't give a flying banana about metamagic rods. It's the inherent stupidity in the 3.5 spell system like wishing for a ring of three wishes being legitimate. Incidentally, interpreting the rods the way you do means that you can place an Empowered Maximized Scorching Ray into a spell storing weapon. You can. and I'm not sure why you brought it up unless you're arguing that the ability to apply metamagic for free 3/day can also be broken. I'm not, in fact I'm arguing that if you play 3.5 you've got the exact same mechanic built into the game . There is no reason besides the particular circumstances of your game to think they're any different because in the absolute they are NOT. You, for instance, ban metamagic rods or simply keep your players ignorant of them. That's not to say the game is "better off". I
RayOMan 12-05-04, 07:23 PM	I probably wouldn't even take it as a 3.5 caster. This is the whole point of depowering it. In 3.0 EVERY caster would take it. Why not? Great boost to AC. Cast an extra spell in a round. I pulled out, as a DM, an Improved Invisible wizard with haste. The players said, damn but didn't ***** too much because the party sorcerer took Glitterdust. When 3.5 came out and I said we were going to be converting over they *****ed because they couldn't use haste like I did. I said, "That spell was horibbley overpowered and I won't use that spell like that against you guys again." We haven't played DnD since but that is because I got burnt out running it for the last 3 years or so.
DungeonMaster 12-05-04, 07:28 PM	But haste isn't quicken, and metamagic rods aren't quicken+maximize+extend. That's an oversimplification. Haste is an extra spell per round. That's not an oversimplification? How is haste a "guaranteed" extra spell per round? What about nausea, stunning, not having the right spell memorized, having a monster breathing down your neck, continual damage, etc...? No. If you're allowed to oversimplify the haste spell I'm allowed to oversimplify the rods. The rods are essentially quicken+maximize+extend+enlarge+empower. All you need is the cash and in the worst case 9th level. Two meteor swarms + a quickened cone of cold is a more dangerous direct damage combo than any metamagic rods could produce. Like a maximized meteor swarm and a quickened meteor swarm? So 3 9th level slots vs. 2? You're weren't serious were you? You could also shapechange into a choker instead of pointless cone of cold quicken using up a 9th level slot and read a scroll of meteor swarm or activate a staff for yet another blast. First you can only use one of those at a time on any given spell and second you've got to pay for each rod. So? big metamagic rod abuses, so why don't you point one out to me? Thus far you've mentioned: You've yet to show me a single instance of 3rd edition haste "abuse" . The rods will always be able to do more than haste.
DungeonMaster 12-05-04, 07:41 PM	I still see no reason that metamagic rods are included in this discussion, anyways. Because you can replicate 3rd edition haste - at least for the 2 spells part? Despite the rule confusion, 3.5 metamagic rods have almost minimal impact in the game because of their price and limitied useage, while 3.0 haste dominated every single 3.0 game I ever played because of the free actions for a cheap, low-level spell. What "limited useage? What the heck do you mean? You can make them at level 9? 7000 GP maximize. 14 000 GP quicken. You never craft items in your games? Never hand out treasure? Sounds pretty high level for a 3rd level spell to be "cheap and low level"... 3.5 haste was balanced back to a good party buff for a 3rd level spell, like it was in 2e. :rofl: :rofl: Oh sometimes you crack me up D. 3.5 haste has nothing on 2nd edition haste. 2nd edition haste doubled your attacks. Your fighters became slaughtering machines - literally. There was no concept of a "full attack" you always got them whether you moved 5 feet or 10 miles or charged. The only parallel between the two is that 3.5 haste targets an area and to my knowledge this is the only change in 3.5 that made anything look like 2E. I have yet to see anyone use metamagic rods in my campaign, and in other campaigns that I play in, they are used infrequently at best. I have NEVER seen any evidence that shows the "brokeness" of 3.5 metamagic rods, and, in fact, I consider them a little subpar in realm of magic items. Useful upon occasion, but still not normally worth the gold cost, even if you do make it yourself. Quickened metamagic rods are far too expensive and limited in use, and cannot even compare to 3.0 haste in effectiveness. Those are your experiences, I have to say I can't argue with them. I am totally mistified at how you cannot see the quicken rods in every game if you had haste junkies in previous games. Different groups? Different attitudes? More times per day if you are willing to buy more than one metamagic rod instead of something useful. Umm, yay. Go you. By the time that becomes workable, there are so many better options for you to do that the effects of this combo are ignoreable at best, and laughable at worst. This is again, totally mystifying. Why take metamagic feats? I guess they're pointless. Who would want them? Maximize or quicken your highest level slot - beyond the metamagic you can cast - who would want that? :rolleyes: Wow. I spent a whole hour and I have managed to answer only the posts that have occured since when I posted last. Sigh. Maybe some other time this week.
salamander 12-05-04, 07:51 PM	[in reply to: I still see no reason that metamagic rods are included in this discussion, anyways.] Because you can replicate 3rd edition haste - at least for the 2 spells part? Doesn't matter one bit. The existence of metarods doesn't make 3.0 Haste any less overpowered. The rods are bad apples as well. You can't justify crap with more crap.
Archtyrant Terevoth 12-05-04, 11:24 PM	You could also shapechange into a choker instead of pointless cone of cold quicken using up a 9th level slot and read a scroll of meteor swarm or activate a staff for yet another blast. Yeah, another way to get extra actions, gee isn't that what 3.0 haste does? Glad to see that you agree that extra action granting effects are broken. You've yet to show me a single instance of 3rd edition haste "abuse" . The rods will always be able to do more than haste. Uhhh... basically anything you use it for. The very fact that you can cast a haste spell, get a normal spell for free and cast a quickened spell is powerful enough. And keep in mind this doesn't take all of your character wealth either. This takes well... no gold at all, nor is there any risk to the strategy. Greater metamagic rods eat up a significant amount of your character wealth. Sure, you can cast a quickened and maximized meteor swarm in the same round, wtih two greater rods of different types, that's a lot of money. What happened to your rings of protection, your bracers of armor and well pretty much the rest of your magical items? And what happens when someone sunders one of your rods? You've just lost a huge portion of your character power. You fear nothing with haste... you pay nothing... and it's more versatile. Three spells per round versus 2 spells.
DungeonMaster 12-07-04, 11:58 AM	Doesn't matter one bit. The existence of metarods doesn't make 3.0 Haste any less overpowered. The rods are bad apples as well. You can't justify crap with more crap. But then I'll ask you this question: If I'm designing a turn based combat system and I want to include more actions into my turn based combat system which is better that it comes from: a spell named "haste" or something named "a metamagic rod of quickening". Personally from a flavor perspective I prefer that it come from the haste spell. It makes "sense" that it should come from such a source. We disagree as to what is sufficient resource drain (maybe add a year of lifetime like in 2nd edition or replace that with XP as 3rd edition has done?) but can we agree that from a design percpective "haste" should offer more actions?
DungeonMaster 12-07-04, 12:08 PM	Yeah, another way to get extra actions, gee isn't that what 3.0 haste does? Glad to see that you agree that extra action granting effects are broken. I havn't agreed that more actions - more magic actions specifically is "broken". You clearly think so, but I don't. Uhhh... basically anything you use it for. Like? C'mon you gotta have some sort of killer combo or something that has you really perturbed because just getting 1 more spell off isn't the end of the world you know? It's like me criticising that a fighter can get more attacks? Why don't you pick on the 3.5 druid's wildshape? (or do you?) The very fact that you can cast a haste spell, get a normal spell for free and cast a quickened spell is powerful enough. And keep in mind this doesn't take all of your character wealth either. This takes well... no gold at all, nor is there any risk to the strategy. Quicken, as has been amply demonstrated in my games is completely worthless. I've never seen a more useless feat in my life. +4 spell levels is crushing. You're comparing a ray of frost to a wall of fire. Or a meteor swarm to a cone of cold. It's so bad a deal that no one in their right mind should take it. The "3 spells vs. 2" analogy glosses over this simple fact. That 3rd spell is so beyond expensive in terms of spell slots that it's literally pointless. Greater metamagic rods eat up a significant amount of your character wealth. Sure, you can cast a quickened and maximized meteor swarm in the same round, wtih two greater rods of different types, that's a lot of money. What happened to your rings of protection, your bracers of armor and well pretty much the rest of your magical items? And what happens when someone sunders one of your rods? You've just lost a huge portion of your character power. You can still have ample money and afford metamagic rods. You're not convincing me that at the high levels of the game you're not able to afford it all because I know for a fact that 760 000 GP can go a long long way. Sundering is again countered by "what happens when you're slowed"? You can fix magic items too. I'm still waiting for Seeker and D to reply to my query. I'm very curious in fact .
salamander 12-07-04, 12:21 PM	But then I'll ask you this question: If I'm designing a turn based combat system and I want to include more actions into my turn based combat system which is better that it comes from: a spell named "haste" or something named "a metamagic rod of quickening". Personally from a flavor perspective I prefer that it come from the haste spell. The rod doesn't include more actions, it turns actions that take time into free actions that don't. Aside from that, flavor is just that - I could come up with any number of mechanics that do this sort of thing, from Time Stop like effects over Temporal Acceleration to something Flurry- or Rage-like. What I'd consider better depends entirely on my personal taste. I'd be the first to admit that my personal preferences don't constitute much of an argument (de coloris et gustibus non disputandum est, and all that). It makes "sense" that it should come from such a source. We disagree as to what is sufficient resource drain (maybe add a year of lifetime like in 2nd edition or replace that with XP as 3rd edition has done?) but can we agree that from a design percpective "haste" should offer more actions? Could? Sure. Should? Nope. Certainly not in the way it did in 3.0, even if that's a consequence of the disparity between magic and non-magic actions when it comes to their impact.
bitnine 12-07-04, 01:32 PM	Personally from a flavor perspective I prefer that it come from the haste spell. I agree completely. If there's a hideously broken game mechanic, I really would rather it be from a third level spell lasting rounds/level per casting instead of a magical item usable 3/day costing from 35k-170k. Although... Maybe we could get the best of both worlds and make quickening metamagic rods cast 3.0 haste 3/day! Just think of what a giant step up that would be. Those rods would become categorically more powerful, and turn out to be quite the buy. With Christmas coming close, it's a no-brainer that these would make excellent stocking stuffers!
GreenDay 12-07-04, 02:59 PM	Bitnine is very funny. :rofl:
DungeonMaster 12-07-04, 03:51 PM	So it's as I suspected... couldn't find a single one? Not one disparaging comment against 3.5 among your 11+ posts per day ... that's a sad statement, really it is. Here's the definition from dictionary.com of zealot: 1. One who is zealous, especially excessively so. 2. A fanatically committed person. Agreeing with you publicly is as stupid as making positive comments about the medical findings gained in the torture research done in the Soviet Gulags under Stalin. It's odd that you would attribute such vehemence towards me as to associate me with a Tyrannical murderer when all I've done is criticise a game system. It's odd that there are no similar comparisons to Hitler, Mussolini, the apocalypse or whatever else coming from me? For all my "bile" and "pomposity". I've got a strong opinion, yes, and I back it up with arguments, yes, and I'm a highly critical person. But I clearly from the above quotes don't suspend judgment or critical thinking for a moment related to 3rd edition. Some few people don't realise exactly how fanatical they've become.
d_nychus 12-07-04, 04:05 PM	Because you can replicate 3rd edition haste - at least for the 2 spells part? Not even remotely. You mean that a quickened rod also gives a +4 to AC, can allow you to move faster or drink a potion, or use a scroll instead of casting a spell, and lasts the entire combat? Oh, and is available for free to every full spell caster by at least 6th level? What "limited useage? What the heck do you mean? 3 times per day, and only for a select group of spells per rod. 3 times per day versus every round of every encounter every day with every spell you can cast. Which one is more powerful? You can make them at level 9? 7000 GP maximize. 14 000 GP quicken. You never craft items in your games? Never hand out treasure? Still costs money, or a feat, XP, and about half as much money. 3.0 haste only cost a 3rd level slot. Sounds pretty high level for a 3rd level spell to be "cheap and low level"... Around 8th level, in my experience. From then on, 3.0 haste is a given in every single encounter. :rofl: :rofl: Oh sometimes you crack me up D. 3.5 haste has nothing on 2nd edition haste. 2nd edition haste doubled your attacks. Your fighters became slaughtering machines - literally. There was no concept of a "full attack" you always got them whether you moved 5 feet or 10 miles or charged. The only parallel between the two is that 3.5 haste targets an area and to my knowledge this is the only change in 3.5 that made anything look like 2E. Still a lot closer than 3.0 haste was. And it impacts the game about as much. Those are your experiences, I have to say I can't argue with them. I am totally mistified at how you cannot see the quicken rods in every game if you had haste junkies in previous games. Different groups? Different attitudes? Mostly the same groups, though people come and go often, this being a college town. few people I know consider metamagic rods to be worth the price, especially since you can only use each one three times per day. I actually sat down yesterday with the guy who plays the current wizard in my game, and asked if he wanted a metamagic rod. His response was that he would rather spend money on defensive items or really potent wands or staves for more spells per day. Casting two spells per round is really great, but when it is only 3 times per day per investment, the glamor really fades fast. Most players I know would rather wait until Epic level play before spending gold and feats to dish out multiple spells per round, when such investments become cost effective. This is again, totally mystifying. Why take metamagic feats? I guess they're pointless. Who would want them? As written, yes, I totally agree with that. Maximize or quicken your highest level slot - beyond the metamagic you can cast - who would want that? :rolleyes: Someone who thinks they are worth the price and limitation, obviously. As of right now, I know very few who do.
DungeonMaster 12-07-04, 04:09 PM	Yes bitnine is funny. Probably the funniest poster on the boards aside from perhaps Oberoni. But I don't often agree with them. Unless it's satanic dinosaurs. ;) If there's a hideously broken game mechanic, I really would rather it be from a third level spell lasting rounds/level per casting instead of a magical item usable 3/day costing from 35k-170k. The point was to speak in abstract terms. Shouldn't a "haste" effect make you act more often per round? I still don't see what's so "broken" with the underlying mechanic of being able to act more than once in a turn based system before the next. The surprise round is specifically an example of getting more "actions" and it happens with regular frequency but not once have I seen "surprise rounds are broken". A phase spider will often surprise - hit - win initiative - hit + flee to the ethereal. Are they broken? What about the choker? Why do dragons have quickened spell like abilities? Why do certain 3.5 demons/devils have them? Why do non-core psionics have so many examples (lion's charge, schism, fission)? Clearly many people don't think it's "broken". So why is it the people who claim it is can't come up with relevant examples?
d_nychus 12-07-04, 04:28 PM	So it's as I suspected... couldn't find a single one? Not one disparaging comment against 3.5 among your 11+ posts per day ... that's a sad statement, really it is. Here's some. 3.5 fighter still sucks at higher levels, even though it's a "fine" class according to WotC R&D. 3.5 sorcerer still cannot lay a finger on the wizard's omnispell-ness. Craft (alchemy) should merely get a bonus for spellcasting, instead of being only limited to spellcasters. Sheild is near worthless as written. Blight IS worthless as written. Crawling is poorly implemented. 3.5 products seem perpetually riddled with poor editting mistakes and sloppy copy-and-paste jobs. Epic feats and abilities seem to be wildly nerfed or boosted without reason or rhyme. The grey elf is unbalanced for PCs, as is the kobold, though each at completely opposite spectrums. Grappling rules for monsters are a mess that seriously need to be streamlined. Some few people don't realise exactly how fanatical they've become. The irony.
d_nychus 12-07-04, 05:10 PM	Yes bitnine is funny. Probably the funniest poster on the boards aside from perhaps Oberoni. But I don't often agree with them. Unless it's satanic dinosaurs. ;) The point was to speak in abstract terms. Shouldn't a "haste" effect make you act more often per round? I still don't see what's so "broken" with the underlying mechanic of being able to act more than once in a turn based system before the next. The surprise round is specifically an example of getting more "actions" and it happens with regular frequency but not once have I seen "surprise rounds are broken". A phase spider will often surprise - hit - win initiative - hit + flee to the ethereal. Are they broken? What about the choker? Why do dragons have quickened spell like abilities? Why do certain 3.5 demons/devils have them? Why do non-core psionics have so many examples (lion's charge, schism, fission)? Clearly many people don't think it's "broken". So why is it the people who claim it is can't come up with relevant examples? Okay, so you listed a few examples where characters can get additional actions once or twice an encounter under certain circumstances that cannot always be controlled or are otherwise limited in how often they can come into play. And in those situations, additional actions tend to be pretty powerful. 3.0 haste gives additional actions consistantly for every encounter without any special circumstances or limitations. In effect, it changes the entire dynamic of the game to the point that it must be assumed to be in play in order to run the game successfully, even when it rationally should not be. If another character does not have 3.0 haste in some effect, he is drastically behind everyone else. 3.5 shapechange with the choker can only occur at higher levels, when, frankly, effects of that magnitude are a little more acceptable. As such, I will say 3.0 haste would not be broken, if only it were a much higher level effect. A 9th level spells seems a lot more reasonable than a 3rd level one for such a powerful effect.
GreenDay 12-07-04, 05:19 PM	Clearly many people don't think it's "broken". So why is it the people who claim it is can't come up with relevant examples? I think you are confusing everyones dislike for Haste with extra actions on somebodys turn. People keep saying Haste gives lots of extra actions --and not just for casting spells-- for basically for free and you keep saying you get extra actions from metamagicrods so its not so bad. Do you understand that original Haste gives much more extra actions at much less cost then metamagic rods do? Many people see Haste as giving to many, so --Haste-- is broken. Other gear gives extra actions to but in a very limited way. It is fun talking iwth you all. :D
solbergb 12-07-04, 07:11 PM	Here's some. <snip 3.5 gripes> . I've got a few myself. increasing a size category gives a monster +3 to hit, +4-6 damage on every primary attack, +2 damage on every secondary attack, +3 to grapple check, +hit dice in hitpoints, +1 fort save...all for the low low cost of +1 CR Constrict as written applies even when not grappling for damage. Complete Arcane gave out more new cleric and druid spells than bard spells. Sorcerers still too similar to wizards in mechanics. (I like sorcerers even as written, but I'd prefer eschew materials and perhaps bonus silent and still spell feats as you level up to familiar progression as much more fitting in their flavor...and UMD instead of bluff) Improved Grab, Constrict, Improved Grapple, Rake and Rend are quite complicated and effects sometimes vary from monster to monster (especially rake and rend). They didn't specify which skills were "take 10 allowed" and "take 20 allowed" as they did in other products. Arcane PRC requirements are almost entirely based on feats and skills, with too little emphasis on spells known. Still no consistent pricing or construction rules on magic items that don't just cast a spell another way. Sloppy editing in a lot of the 3.5 splatbooks. Quill Blast is very very broken. Spikes is a little broken, or a lot broken if people ignore the Brambles rules about only applying to weapons with wooden striking surfaces....instead of "wooden striking surface" why not "wooden bludgeoning weapon" (spikes on a club or nunchucks is bad enough. spikes on a lance is very very bad) So much that is wrong with 3.5 is not the rules as intended but the lack of precision in wording. It's understandable in a normal campaign when one DM just makes a ruling and that's it. It is a lot harder to deal with in a shared campaign where each ambiguity causes changes when different people run the table. I've got issues with 3.5 yes, but not with 3.5 haste or 3.5 metamagic rods. They seem to pretty much work as intended.
bitnine 12-07-04, 07:24 PM	Do you understand that original Haste gives much more extra actions at much less cost then metamagic rods do? Many people see Haste as giving to many, so --Haste-- is broken. Other gear gives extra actions to but in a very limited way.Heh, I was going to point out that 3.0 haste is far superior to each of the abilities that were listed as examples, both in benefit provided, and in most all cases with far less cost.
Quixon 12-07-04, 09:06 PM	Let me refresh, haste: "On his turn, the subject may take an extra partial action, either before or after his regular action". Evard's black tentacles: These attacks take place on your turn . The Evard's black tentacles paradox: If a wizard casts EVBT then moves into them (they don't attack till next round) who goes first? The tentacles or the wizard? Is the wizard alive or dead? The situation is undetermined - the only way to resolve it is to say that the words "on your turn" mean the exact moment when you get a turn. That means the tentacles go first - at the exact moment the wizard receives his turn. So myself and others have used "haste" granting you the extra partial action not immediately during the turn you cast the spell but only when you actually receive a turn. If you cast it on an ally they get in when they receive a turn - which could be in the same round. In 4 seperate games with 4 seperate DMs myself not included I had never seen haste interpreted the way people on these boards do. Not once. My luck? My area? My friends? Who knows. The only time I ever saw this was when I joined the boards. I am sorry Dungeonmaster but I can't see how you can interpret 3.0 Haste that way... It may be the people you play with or yes your area because every single person in my area had it give the extra action the same round it was cast and most of them don't come to these boards(that I know of). Do you just penalize (a definte nerf)Haste or all spells? You are basically saying you cast the spell one round but you don't get the benefit until your next turn and if you apply that to all spells you really screw casters over...Do you not get the +4 AC until next turn as well? becuase if they are not hasted until their next action they shouldn't get that until then either. I don't have access to my books at the moment but I thought the Sage answered this as well that you get the extra action immediately as well. Your version of 3.0 Haste, while still powerful has been nerfed a little, not a lot but still a little bit.
Archtyrant Terevoth 12-07-04, 11:06 PM	The point was to speak in abstract terms. Shouldn't a "haste" effect make you act more often per round? Abstractly, yes. However, mechanically that's just too powerful an effect. Pretty much in any game, unless extra turns are spread around equally, they're just not balanceable. You can pick pretty much any game you want, from conventional board games like chess or checkers to CCGs like M:tG to RPGs. Extra actions are insanely powerful. They work in games like Monopoly because everyone has equal access to them, but when one side has them and one does not, they're too powerful. I still don't see what's so "broken" with the underlying mechanic of being able to act more than once in a turn based system before the next. It's a doubling of offensive power, and a doubling of versatility. If 30 damage is balanced, then 60 is overpowered, plain and simple. The surprise round is specifically an example of getting more "actions" and it happens with regular frequency but not once have I seen "surprise rounds are broken". Surprise rounds aren't meant to be balanced. Surprise roudns are supposed to give a definite advantage to the ambushers. If you've been surprised, you're supposed to be screwed. What about the choker? Monsters can have extra actions because their power is fixed. You'll never meet a choker who can't do that, so there's no question of overpowered versus underpowered. When the choker is given his CR it's with the haste already factored in. With wizards, their CRs aren't with haste already factored in. You've got hasted wizards and unhasted wizards. You've got hasted fighters and unhasted fighters, and that just can't work. 30 damage for an unhasted guy can't be balanced at the same time as 60 damage for that same guy. Why do non-core psionics have so many examples (lion's charge, schism, fission)? Lion's charge isn't a true extra action, schism and fission... well apparently people don't learn, that's all I have to say. Extra actions are tempting because as you said, it's logical for haste effects to do that. It sounds nice and simple... and that's what leads people to do stuff like that. Clearly many people don't think it's "broken". So why is it the people who claim it is can't come up with relevant examples? It's not hard, I've already came up with a lot of examples, including that whole blink versus haste thing. If you think throwing one fireball per turn is balanced, then how can throwing two fireballs per turn be balanced? No other buff spell in the game doubles your offensive output like that.
Willie the Duck 12-07-04, 11:33 PM	But then I'll ask you this question: If I'm designing a turn based combat system and I want to include more actions into my turn based combat system which is better that it comes from: a spell named "haste" or something named "a metamagic rod of quickening". Personally from a flavor perspective I prefer that it come from the haste spell. Interesting, I'd prefer neither existed and another spell known as "haste" come in that offered people greater speed, avoiding blows from slower attackers, and maybe a more controlled extra action for the martial types. Hmmm. remove meta rods from 3.5 or import 3.5 haste into core 3.0 and what do you have? Huzzah! success! (admittedly, I'd give the extra attack even if they didn't make a full attack, but hey). It makes "sense" that it should come from such a source. We disagree as to what is sufficient resource drain (maybe add a year of lifetime like in 2nd edition or replace that with XP as 3rd edition has done?) but can we agree that from a design percpective "haste" should offer more actions? Adding a cost is tantamount to saying the current arrangements are unteniable. Sounds like an acceptance that both current alternatives (3.0 haste and 3.5 meta rods) are broken. Is that true? IF that's the case, you may have to turn in your title of captain of outspokenness. (aging penalties seem to have been abandoned in 3e, based on the fact that aging doesn't seem to be a big factor when you can go from level 1 to 20 in 1-2 game years).
Willie the Duck 12-07-04, 11:40 PM	Abstractly, yes. However, mechanically that's just too powerful an effect. Pretty much in any game, unless extra turns are spread around equally, they're just not balanceable. You can pick pretty much any game you want, from conventional board games like chess or checkers to CCGs like M:tG to RPGs. Extra actions are insanely powerful. They work in games like Monopoly because everyone has equal access to them, but when one side has them and one does not, they're too powerful. especially since no one gets to act in between the extra actions. Instead of relying on a single effect before someone gets to retaliate, you get to set them up for the sucker punch, and then let them have it before they have a chance to respond. This lets you pull all sorts of sick effects like putting a gas or evocation wall effect around someone, and then sealing them in a force cage, or hitting them with a saving throw penalty spell, and then sicking a save-or-die on them before they can dispell it. Just a buff-dispel before the disintegrate will take the enemy spellcaster out of commision before they can do a thing about it.
Scion of Coldshard 12-08-04, 01:32 PM	I will state again, although it is likely a waste of bandwidth to do so yet again, that my group and quite a few groups I have been around, played with, and chatted with use 3.0 haste and have no issues with it. We all use the, in my opinion correct, interpretation that the bonus action is not gained until the start of your next turn. This is not to say that the spell is not in effect, simply that you havent started your turn with it so you havent had enough time to get that extra partial action just yet. Again though, if one interpretation is breaking your game, and the other people tell you is benign then which do you think you should be useing? Complaining when it is obvious that what you are doing is the wrong way to go just doesnt make any sense. Haste 3.0 is fine, when used properly. The +4 ac might be a bit much, but my guess is that it is added in because otherwise the spell doesnt really do anything until the third turn, and for a short term buff and battles that only last 4 - 6 rounds anyway that is a pretty big hit.
Heron_Marked_Blade 12-08-04, 02:05 PM	This is not to say that the spell is not in effect, simply that you havent started your turn with it so you havent had enough time to get that extra partial action just yet.The problem with this is that as per the RAW, a spell that has an effect that begins at a time other than the turn you cast it either: (A) states this clearly in the text, or (B) has longer than a standard action casting time (like the Summon spells). Again though, if one interpretation is breaking your game, and the other people tell you is benign then which do you think you should be useing? Complaining when it is obvious that what you are doing is the wrong way to go just doesnt make any sense.Exactly the question I asked DungeonMaster about the metamagic rods. Haven't heard back from him yet, so I can't tell you what the normal answer to this question is. ;) Haste 3.0 is fine, when used properly. The +4 ac might be a bit much, but my guess is that it is added in because otherwise the spell doesnt really do anything until the third turn, and for a short term buff and battles that only last 4 - 6 rounds anyway that is a pretty big hit.Really, the problem with the spell isn't whether it affects that first round or not. The problem with the spell is that it grants an extra action. The 100% best use of this action is to cast a spell with it. How many spellcasters do you know who cast 3.0 Haste and then don't use that extra action to cast an additional spell? How can an extra single attack from a fighter compare to this? It assumes that a single attack from a fighter is equal to a single spell from a spellcaster, and that's an inherently false assumption. Bottom line is, a spell that grants an extra action should be much higher than 3rd level. I'd take 3.0 Haste over a large number of higher level spells -- why? Because I get an extra spellcasting per round for free. And that's more than worth it, even if casting 3.0 Haste is my only action for the round as you suggest (and it isn't).
Scion of Coldshard 12-08-04, 02:53 PM	The problem with this is that as per the RAW, a spell that has an effect that begins at a time other than the turn you cast it either: (A) states this clearly in the text, or (B) has longer than a standard action casting time (like the Summon spells). This is not a problem. The spell itself talks about when you recieve it and in the case of haste you do gain all of its benefits immediately, however you did not start your turn with it so the partial action is not gained. You do gain the +4 AC bonus, and you do have the ability to get an extra partial action, as soon as your next turn starts whenever that might be. The benefits are gained immediately, but they are not all immediately applicable. Big difference, and one that apparently makes or breaks the spell. If you go with the gaining the partial action at the, in my opinion, proper time then there is no problem. So, again in my opinion, the only logical course would be to get it at the time that does not cause problems. To do otherwise just doesnt make sense. Especially as one can say that either works depending on which way you interpret the line. Choose the better one. The problem with the spell is that it grants an extra action. The 100% best use of this action is to cast a spell with it. How many spellcasters do you know who cast 3.0 Haste and then don't use that extra action to cast an additional spell? I disagree with pretty much everything here. The extra action is not a problem, there are many other things that have similar effects, especially in 3.5. The extra action is not a really major issue, it can be balanced or not depending on what the immediate situation is. As I have been playing 3rd since before it was officially released, and have seen levels of play all over, and have not had a problem with it in a variety of groups, in my experience there is no issue here. In some groups it is apparently broken. But then in some groups wizards are broken, or fighters are broken, or rogues are broken, or bards are broken, etc.. a lot of that comes down to play style and how certain things are interpreted. If one interprets haste in the way that seems much more correct to me, both from a raw point of view and a playability point of view, then there has been no problem. As for who benefits most, that depends on the circumstances entirely. I'd have to say though that it tends to help out whoever can get the most use out of either a partial action or full round action. Fighter types can use it to partial charge and full attack, this is a pretty good boon. Archer types could get off 2 manyshots in the same round. Caster types can use more than one spell in a round. Not a big deal though, I was in parties where it was never cast even a single time, there was always some more pressing need (since, the spell doesnt actually grant a bonus action until the third round, sometimes people need something a bit more immediate than that). Imagine a scenario useing save or dies and the two casters. Caster 1: Round 1: Save or die (%chance) Round 2: Save or die (%chance) Round 3: Save or die (%chance) Caster 2: Round 1: Haste Round 2: Save or die (%chance), Save or die (%chance) Round 3: Save or die (%chance), Save or die (%chance) Who is better off? It really depends on the circumstances. At round 2 the second caster is down by a spell whereas the first caster might have taken out the big bad in the first round saving other party resources in the process. At round three the second caster is ahead by a single spell cast, but has cast 2 total more spells than the other guy, cutting into his long term effectiveness. There is a lot of give and take there, and it has a lot of subtlety to it. Burning out fast is not always the best way to go and sometimes it isnt even as effective in the short term (as I have just shown in a very simple example). Now, it is a nice, versitile spell that can help anyone. The same cannot be said for every buff. It is short term, requires an action to cast, and grants some nice bonuses. Perhaps the +4 to ac is too high, but that is really the only problem. There are drawbacks associated with it, ignoring them and only concentrating on any and all benefits just isnt useful, with those sort of tinted glasses even toughness can be overpowered.
bitnine 12-08-04, 03:23 PM	Caster 1: Round 1: Save or die (%chance) Round 2: Save or die (%chance) Round 3: Save or die (%chance) Caster 2: Round 1: Haste Round 2: Save or die (%chance), Save or die (%chance) Round 3: Save or die (%chance), Save or die (%chance)I think someone else made the point that these spells can be a little less effective than being able to double up on certain spell combinations - just removing th e delay is powerful, as such: (even given the assumption that for some reason the benefit of haste is delayed) Caster 1: Round 1: acid fog *or* limited wish (decrease save) Round 2: forcecage *or* disintegrate Caster 2: Round 1: haste Ruond 2: acid fog, forcecage *or* limited wish, disintegrate
Aracor 12-08-04, 03:33 PM	Except that it says the partial action can be taken before or after your normal actions. If it's after, it says nothing about it not occuring at the turn that it's cast. ~Aracor
salamander 12-08-04, 03:47 PM	The extra action is not a problem, there are many other things that have similar effects, especially in 3.5. Really? *Many*? That give an extra partial action, no limitations on what you can do with it? I really don't see all that many.
archcomponent 12-08-04, 04:13 PM	Isn't this sad? The defenders of 3.0 haste must realize that at some level how broken it is. They're fighting so hard for this "interpretation" of the ad-hoc nerf to 3.0 haste that it doesn't kick in until the next turn because it makes it just a little easier to pretend that the spell isn't laughable as written. So now it's come to gibbering, swearing that haste takes a while to kick in and wildly pointing to surprise rounds and chokers and the mess of metamagic rods, and secretly hoping that throwing enough additonal side arguments in the air will keep people from taking a good hard look at the spell and its implications. For such a basic design concept for turn-based RPGs I don't know what's so hard to grasp. There's a reason that celerity was redesigned - or even before that it was made to cost more for its activation. Hell, there's a reason why only one esper gave a bonus to quickness when you levelled up.
Heron_Marked_Blade 12-08-04, 04:50 PM	This is not a problem. The spell itself talks about when you recieve it and in the case of haste you do gain all of its benefits immediately, however you did not start your turn with it so the partial action is not gained. You do gain the +4 AC bonus, and you do have the ability to get an extra partial action, as soon as your next turn starts whenever that might be.I agree with Aracor's response to this. Let me expand on it a little. 3.0 Haste description from the 3.0 Player's Handbook On his turn, the subject may take an extra partial action, either before or after his regular action. He gains a +4 haste bonus to AC. He loses this bonus whenever he would lose a dodge bonus. He can jump one and a half times as far as normal. This increase counts as an enhancement bonus. Nowhere in this spell does it say you can't take the action in the same round you cast the spell. "On his turn" is there simply to tell you that you can't take the partial action during someone else's turn -- it has to be during your regular turn. Your interpretation of "on his turn" as indicating that it must be at the beginning of your next turn is refuted by the text "either before or after his regular action" (such as....casting a spell?). Don't you think that if you received one bonus on the same turn you cast it, but didn't receive another bonus until a later turn, the text would be clear on it? That there would be some errata out on it? No other spell, to my knowledge, functions the way you describe this one as functioning. And if you can find one that does, please compare the text of both spells and see if that other spell uses these exact words. If it doesn't, chances are pretty good that this spell isn't supposed to function like that.
Scion of Coldshard 12-08-04, 07:34 PM	isnt it sad that the haste detractors want it to be broken so badly that they will go to any lengths? even choosing to use it in a fashion that is obviously not the correct one? They will fight tooth and nail to say it is broken and make any and all assumptions that prove that case, no matter how little sense they make. Really people, if you found the spell broken when useing it one way, and others have found that it is fine useing it the other way, why go out of your way to use it the broken way only to then have to go through the trouble of throwing it out of your game? That is simply complete lunacy. As for the other though: just because you have the benefit right now doesnt mean you actually gain anything from it yet.Each of your turns you get an extra partial action. However, your turn is already in full swing at this point and so you do not gain the partial action this turn. Just like how if you just cast a spell to give your attack rolls a bonus that doesnt mean you suddenly get an attack, you have to wait until it is the proper time. Doing otherwise simply causes issues such as the one that several people here are having, and all basically just to get themselves frustrated it seems. Very unfortunate. come on people, just use it right and get over it.
DungeonMaster 12-08-04, 07:40 PM	Exactly the question I asked DungeonMaster about the metamagic rods. Haven't heard back from him yet, so I can't tell you what the normal answer to this question is. ;) That's probably got something to do with me being only able to post every once and a while because I'm reorganising the data acquisition system for an experiment and helping students 95% of the rest of my waking hours and when I do get to post there are so many posts in between that I can barely reply to them. On your question: interpretation is fine, it doesn't go against a rule. A houserule specifically goes against a rule. There's no real room for interpretation with the metamagic rods. I'm all for houserules AND interpretation in favor of game balance - don't get me wrong for a minute. But if you say "haste is broken with X interpretation" I'll say metamagic rods are "broken with Y interpretation" and we're nowhere. If you say "matamagic rods are fine with X interpretation" and I say "haste is fine with Y interpretation" and we can agree then we're making progress.
DungeonMaster 12-08-04, 07:43 PM	3.5 fighter still sucks at higher levels, even though it's a "fine" class according to WotC R&D. *snip* Grappling rules for monsters are a mess that seriously need to be streamlined. Not arguing that's not your opinion - it's whether you profess that opinion online, i.e. quotes, links akin to what I've posted in my defence. The irony. Hello pot, my name is kettle? C'mon.
archcomponent 12-08-04, 07:45 PM	But if you say "haste is broken with X interpretation" I'll say metamagic rods are "broken with Y interpretation" and we're nowhere.What? We agree that both are broken? I say we're done - not nowhere.
DungeonMaster 12-08-04, 07:55 PM	3.0 haste gives additional actions consistantly for every encounter without any special circumstances or limitations. In effect, it changes the entire dynamic of the game to the point that it must be assumed to be in play in order to run the game successfully, even when it rationally should not be. If another character does not have 3.0 haste in some effect, he is drastically behind everyone else Sometimes I wonder what game you're playing. What level are you talking about where "hase is consistently used without special circumstances or limitations"? Didn't you read that spell breakdown back there? By 9th level assuming 4 encounters per day and a haste spell for each (and just for yourself, not allies) you have as a plain wizard 2.5 rounds worth of "haste" per day of your best spells? Then it's back to magic missiles and acid arrows. 3.5 shapechange with the choker can only occur at higher levels, when, frankly, effects of that magnitude are a little more acceptable. This again begs the question: what the heck level range are you playing? 9-16? Everything's kosher beyond 16 and no one cares about anything before 10? I don't get it. Having choker haste form for 2+ hours a day that you can morph into a dragon and breath (and your familiar can too...) is "ok" but lord forbid you be able to do something like that for 1round/level a level or two earlier? As such, I will say 3.0 haste would not be broken, if only it were a much higher level effect. A 9th level spells seems a lot more reasonable than a 3rd level one for such a powerful effect. If you're ok with shapechange into a choker (and a dragon, and a balor and a...) then it's got to be lower than 9th.
DungeonMaster 12-08-04, 08:17 PM	Abstractly, yes. However, mechanically that's just too powerful an effect. Pretty much in any game, unless extra turns are spread around equally, they're just not balanceable. The fact of the matter is every game has them. And people keep playing, and it's by and large fair as long as you have few extra actions. 1 more action is powerful, but not that powerful. It doesn't matter when you've only got fire spells and you're hasted and fighting a pitfiend. If the dragon's going to breath on you and protection from elements will mean you're alive - not haste. Anyhow, I've no MTG experience but I've played a large number of board games and a RPGs. I would put you in the "one action per turn that's it that's all" camp. It's a doubling of offensive power, and a doubling of versatility. If 30 damage is balanced, then 60 is overpowered, plain and simple. Not if you can only deal 120 in a day and there's more coming at you. It's the same argument the psionics people are always touting - sure you can blow all your PP and utterly destroy something in a few massive blasts but you're a commoner for the rest of the day! It's power- no doubt about it, but it's not necessarily unbalancing to be able to do this. The entire wizard class is specifically built around having very much power but in limited bursts. You only have so many tops spells. If he gets to use only those top spells during the game - he will overpower, guaranteed. Tons of rest, ample free time makes a wizard above all other classes the most powerful. No rest, no free time makes them weak as commoners. Game balance can be struck, somewhere in between. Surprise rounds aren't meant to be balanced. Surprise roudns are supposed to give a definite advantage to the ambushers. If you've been surprised, you're supposed to be screwed. I have to disagree, I surprise my PCs just about every time. If they were screwed just about every time then I'de have some mighty unhappy PCs. Surprise is in there, in terms of the creature's skills and or other abilities such as divination and teleportation. It's part of the balance equation. Monsters can have extra actions because their power is fixed. You'll never meet a choker who can't do that, so there's no question of overpowered versus underpowered. When the choker is given his CR it's with the haste already factored in. With wizards, their CRs aren't with haste already factored in. You've got hasted wizards and unhasted wizards. You've got hasted fighters and unhasted fighters, and that just can't work. 30 damage for an unhasted guy can't be balanced at the same time as 60 damage for that same guy. Sure you can. 40% summoning chance ring a bell? Is a demon that succeeds in it's summon really CR +2? Or is it factored in? It gets twice the actions, twice the spells and heck twice the hp! If you think throwing one fireball per turn is balanced, then how can throwing two fireballs per turn be balanced? No other buff spell in the game doubles your offensive output like that. What about mass haste at level 7? or timestop at level 9? What about shapechange? Or astral projection? I dunno man. Those are some pretty nasty buff spells I've listed there that really I'll memorise any day of the week above and beyond little old haste. Sounds ok to me. And it plays ok too.
DungeonMaster 12-08-04, 08:23 PM	I am sorry Dungeonmaster but I can't see how you can interpret 3.0 Haste that way... Well who goes first? The tentacles or the wizard? Do you just penalize (a definte nerf)Haste or all spells? You are basically saying you cast the spell one round but you don't get the benefit until your next turn and if you apply that to all spells you really screw casters over... No, I actually give many spells a boost because historically wizards tend to die a lot in my games. There are only a very select few number of spells that have a condition "on your turn" in the game (shield and evard's black tentacles as far as I know). The things that happen "on your turn" in my game happen at the instant you acquire your turn - not at any point in your turn. It's consistent and doesn't lead to paradox. Do you not get the +4 AC until next turn as well? becuase if they are not hasted until their next action they shouldn't get that until then either. No, only the partial action has the qualifier "on his turn". The AC is a flat gain and you get it immediately upon casting the spell like any other bonus without designation.
DungeonMaster 12-08-04, 08:36 PM	I think someone else made the point that these spells can be a little less effective than being able to double up on certain spell combinations - just removing th e delay is powerful, as such: (even given the assumption that for some reason the benefit of haste is delayed) The delay is indeed a balancing factor but both editions have means of defeating it - it's a question of how deadly the delay is. Acid fog + forcecage is perfectly pointless against a devil. You need acid fog + dimensional anchor + forcecage. And even then, the thing might have resistances. How cool do you look with your memorized spell combo that's done nothing? Heck you've given it an area to retreat and heal up. The game is very complicated - I've seen so few actual combinations I can describe as "killer" that you can do with 2 spells. That nuclear timestop forcecage I stated back there for Teveroth is honestly the only combo I've come up with that has a good chunk of the MM completely outdone, and it requires 3.5 metamagic rods to beat most high level monster resistances and a whole pile of spell slots.
DungeonMaster 12-08-04, 08:47 PM	Isn't this sad? The defenders of 3.0 haste must realize that at some level how broken it is. They're fighting so hard for this "interpretation" of the ad-hoc nerf to 3.0 haste that it doesn't kick in until the next turn because it makes it just a little easier to pretend that the spell isn't laughable as written. Archcomponent I've honestly never seen haste applied the way the people here claim it to be applied. Honestly . No 3rd edition vs. 3.5 sentiment in there. All DMs, including myself, take one look at it and say "you get the extra actions the round after you've cast it - it's ridiculous to think it's fire and forget". Not even a second guess - "on your turn" means "when you get a turn" not "at any point during your turn". The last sentence would be redundant otherwise. And clearly I'm not alone. For such a basic design concept for turn-based RPGs I don't know what's so hard to grasp. There's a reason that celerity was redesigned - or even before that it was made to cost more for its activation. Hell, there's a reason why only one esper gave a bonus to quickness when you levelled up. That must be the new final fantasy. Sorry, I played it only up to FF6 and there's all sorts of things like equalizers that gave extra actions. I distinctly remember casting ultima 6 times in one round. Didn't matter because Cyan did 8 times that amount of damage with a single sword tech. C'mon people, it's one more stinking action not 10. In a game where you memorize spells before you walk out the door. There's no "save and reload" either in D&D. You die, you die. Whoopee your corpse is hasted! The giant squid still attacks 8 times with a full attack and a CR 4 young green dragon has 5 attacks and a 6d6 breath weapon as well as blindsight and nasty AC and attack rating.
GreenDay 12-08-04, 09:17 PM	All DMs, including myself, take one look at it and say "you get the extra actions the round after you've cast it - it's ridiculous to think it's fire and forget". I am sorry but this is a really big statement that is not true because my DM does not use it that way and other DMs I know dont use it that way iether. We try very hard to go by the books and like to use the adventures we buy for examples of how to play because the monsters in the books have good tactics. I think one adventure has the monsters using Haste and acting right away so I dont think waiting a turn is the right way to do it. I want to say that some people doing it differently is always ok when the play but when we talk with everyone when were not playing we should al be aproaching the rules the same. Bye!
d_nychus 12-08-04, 09:59 PM	Sometimes I wonder what game you're playing. What level are you talking about where "hase is consistently used without special circumstances or limitations"? Didn't you read that spell breakdown back there? By 9th level assuming 4 encounters per day and a haste spell for each (and just for yourself, not allies) you have as a plain wizard 2.5 rounds worth of "haste" per day of your best spells? Then it's back to magic missiles and acid arrows. ...and scrolls, and wands, and staves, and wondrous items, and a whole slew of other abilities. All of which can be just as effective as your best spells. This again begs the question: what the heck level range are you playing? 9-16? Everything's kosher beyond 16 and no one cares about anything before 10? I don't get it. More like 6-16, and it is the dominant effect of the game until Epic levels in 3.0. That's half the levels in core D&D play. At least at 16th level, other effects start catching up, or occasionally overpassing. An extra action every round is not quite as overwhelming when there are so many insanely powerful effects that can wipe out a character in the blink of an eye, and bring him back just as quickly. Having choker haste form for 2+ hours a day that you can morph into a dragon and breath (and your familiar can too...) is "ok" but lord forbid you be able to do something like that for 1round/level a level or two earlier? Exactly. An effect that powerful needs to be in the highest level slot possible to make it balanced with other powers. 3.0 haste and 3.5 shapechange are about the same in power. If you're ok with shapechange into a choker (and a dragon, and a balor and a...) then it's got to be lower than 9th. Why? The form has a ton of physical limitations, and a DM can legally rule that a choker cannot use its limbs for anything more than attacking since they are really tentacles. Not to mention any equipment that cannot be used by the choker melds into the body and becomes non-functional. Imagine a wizard suddenly losing his bracers, rings, and his staff, and can only cast spells using Still Spell and Eschew Material, but he can cast twice per round. Sounds great, eh?
d_nychus 12-08-04, 10:24 PM	Not arguing that's not your opinion - it's whether you profess that opinion online, i.e. quotes, links akin to what I've posted in my defence. Here's one I posted just today, because I don't want to track down the others. Blight (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=348502) And surely, DungeonMaster, you remember posting to me once about altering 3.5 Creeping Doom into something useful? Hello pot, my name is kettle? C'mon. There is a stoner joke in there somewhere...
Heron_Marked_Blade 12-09-04, 12:15 AM	All DMs, including myself, take one look at it and say "you get the extra actions the round after you've cast it - it's ridiculous to think it's fire and forget". Not even a second guess - "on your turn" means "when you get a turn" not "at any point during your turn". Let me run this by you for size: "All DMs, including myself, take one look at them and say "the spell level it applies to includes metamagic level increases - it's ridiculous to think a lesser rod can be used on a 9th-level spell slot". Not even a second guess - "spell level" means "level the spell is prepared at" not "the original level of the spell"." What do you think? Is this "X" interpretation or "Y" interpretation?
salamander 12-09-04, 10:11 AM	C'mon people, it's one more stinking action not 10. Nope. It's an extra action for, in most cases, every round of a combat encounter. For wizards it's essentially adding 30-50% to their effectiveness. One action is only one action, but when you only get one per round normally, that's more than a minor advantage.
Scion of Coldshard 12-09-04, 12:02 PM	In most cases? wow.. it must be nice to have such a lax dm that you always know when and where the battles are, and the opponents use no anticaster tactics, and that no one has a slow spell to use (which is argueably much, much better than haste in a great number of cases, works on many opponents, kills many actions, counters slow, etc), and the battles dont get complicated with various movements or shifts in terrain, or being low enough level that haste doesnt do anything, or being worried about needing spells later on, or.. any number of hundreds of other things. Nice buff spell? sure, in the right circumstances. But it is definately not the uberbuff that people are making it out to be.
DungeonMaster 12-09-04, 12:40 PM	Hmm... I have little time today. ...and scrolls, and wands, and staves, and wondrous items, and a whole slew of other abilities. All of which can be just as effective as your best spells. Likely not. Your best spells are always your top guns, you can't afford 4 scrolls of your highest level spell per day, every day let alone per round . More like 6-16, and it is the dominant effect of the game until Epic levels in 3.0. That's half the levels in core D&D play. Ok so how are you getting haste in every combat and actually using it at level 6? Didn't I point out you have 3 3rd level spells at this level, 4 if you're a specialist tops? So you're lobbing magic missiles when they hit you with fireballs? No. It's a great buff, but at these levels only a very specialised caster can afford to cast haste on himself every combat of every day and only specialised circumstances would allow him to be effective with it without compromising his firepower. Exactly. An effect that powerful needs to be in the highest level slot possible to make it balanced with other powers. 3.0 haste and 3.5 shapechange are about the same in power. No no no no no no no NO NO NO. 3.5 shapechange includes 3rd edition haste in it's mechanics. Haste will not allow you to turn you and your familiar into a red-dragon and breath this round, then you and your familiar into a bodak and death gaze next round, then a beholder and anti-magic cone + eye rays, then into a wraith and walk through walls and certainly not for 2+ hours. 3.5 shapechange is in another category altogether it shouldn't even be epic. It shouldn't even be. It eclipses any spell in the game hands down in terms of versatility and raw power. Despite your personal reservations and extreme hatred for haste - you've got to come to grips with the fact that timestop is 9th, mass haste is 7th and haste is 3rd. You can claim, sure it should be say 7th level, the mass version say 9th. That's fine. But not anywhere near 3.5 shapechange. Why? The form has a ton of physical limitations, and a DM can legally rule that a choker cannot use its limbs for anything more than attacking since they are really tentacles. Funny that. Wands specifically mention "in hand or what passes for a hand" so no, can't do. Not to mention any equipment that cannot be used by the choker melds into the body and becomes non-functional. Imagine a wizard suddenly losing his bracers, rings, and his staff, and can only cast spells using Still Spell and Eschew Material, but he can cast twice per round. Sounds great, eh? Ah but 3.5 has the draconomicon which states that no, you can have your cake and eat it too. You know all of this D.
salamander 12-09-04, 01:03 PM	In most cases? wow.. it must be nice to (1) have such a lax dm that you always know when and where the battles are, (2) and the opponents use no anticaster tactics, and that (3) no one has a slow spell to use (which is argueably much, much better than haste in a great number of cases, works on many opponents, kills many actions, counters slow, etc), and (4) the battles dont get complicated with various movements or shifts in terrain, or (5) being low enough level that haste doesnt do anything, or (6) being worried about needing spells later on, or.. any number of hundreds of other things. 1) Going by the (around here prevalent) interpretation that the extra action benefit kicks in immediately, it doesn't matter all that much whether you know about combat encounters on beforehand or not. Haste is cast in the first round and usually lasts an entire encounter. The only round you don't benefit from it is the surprise round *if* you're the one being surprised. 2) Which anticaster tactics would that be? Dispelling? That's more of a waste of a round for the dispeller than what he gains as an advantage by undoing an opponent's spell - if he succeeds to begin with. Grappling? How often can you grapple an opposing mage in the first round? Antimagic field? Right, that's a common occurance, I guess... 3) Slow allows a Will save. Good luck using that with any regularity against a wizard. It's short range too; most wizards will go to great lengths to avoid being so close to the fire unless they have to for their own spells. It's also a *spell* - monsters often can't cast it, and others need an arcane caster level or UMD. 4) An opponent's movements or shifts in terrain don't take away the extra action. 5) Level only changes the number of rounds that it lasts, it doesn't change the effect of Haste in any other way. And in most cases, combat doesn't last more than a handful of rounds. Hasted combat (and I mean combat in which just the wizard is hasted) often doesn't last three. 6) If you need that number of spells for an encounter, then that's what you need. Getting them off nearly twice as fast actually often lessens how many spells you need - you're shortening combat, hence reducing your opponent's actions, hence needing less spells to counter those. Any number of hundreds, hm? You've given me 6, most of which fail completely to convince me.
Scion of Coldshard 12-09-04, 01:32 PM	1) prevalent to you, irrelavent to me as it is not the way the spell is worded nor how it should be used in actual play (as the other way, as people have said in this thread, is apparently not ok for normal play). So, the first 'extra' action happens on round three. We are shaking in our boots now. Use the proper interpretation and there is no problem, use the one that you desperately want to clinge to and there is. I think I see where the problem lies. 2) Casting prevention. Dispels are also nice against people who tend to need buffs, and an area dispel is likely to get something on everyone in most parties. If you dont know how to work around casters, or your dm does not, then I can see why you would have issues with spells. 3) Slow counters and dispels any haste it hits. No save, no sr, nada. Slow also works against a large portion of opponents. Between the two slow is a 'much' stronger spell in 3.0. It made your opponents get 'less' actions rather than giving you more yes, but by giving a spellcaster more he burns through resources much faster. By taking away the opponents they cant hurt you which saves on many, many more resources without costing more of yours. 4) Obviously you and/or your group does not make use of interesting terrain. Let me tell you, when used appropriately terrain can really cause some major problems ;) 5) Levels change how long it lasts, what one can do with the action, how many spells/abilities one has of limited availability. At level 5 haste is a wasted spell when putting it on a caster because they have so few spells anyway. At higher levels there are better spells for a good number of situations, when it is appropriate the caster has to be very careful not to burn out. If the character/player is not worried about burnout then they are going to die when they are wandering around with no resources left. Simple as that. If the dm goes lax on them and lets people rest after every encounter then that is the problem, not haste. 6) You dont necissarily need that many, there are other people in the group as well strangely enough. Some spells are much more useful in certain situations than others. Burning through all of ones spells quickly can be, and typically is, a bigger burden then a boon. There are lots of others, but if these arent helpful to you then it would be worthless to spend time listing more. These should be sufficient to help show a few things that people are overlooking. If not ::shrugs:: there is no help for them at this time, maybe with more experience they shall learn. Limited resources and proper encounters in that day mean that unless a mage is very careful they will be in some massive trouble. I have seen it many times, even without the extra burnout of haste, so with it there will be that much more of a risk. Risk vs reward. One has to wait for this spell to kick in (if anyone wishes to keep with it starting right away and basically not costing an action then dont bother to respond to any of my posts, thinking in that manner already states that you do not wish for the spell to be not broken and only want to complain about it) and then one has to worry about useing up too many resources. Of course, in that first round whatever other spell one may have been able to cast might've solved the problem or fixed it faster to begin with. More risk vs reward. Short term buff with an easy, and very powerful, counter. Slow is a spell that many will have able to cast just because it is so powerful in so many circumstances, not only to counter haste. Unlike, say, see invis which only helps to counter invis and does nothing else. So, there are counters, antitactics, work arounds, worries of burnout, and numberous other things that help to keep this spell balanced. If the dm wishes to ignore them that is the problem, if people choose to ignore antitactics then they will have problems with nearly every aspect of the game from sneak attack to grapplers to anyone with a specialty.
d_nychus 12-09-04, 02:25 PM	Likely not. Your best spells are always your top guns, you can't afford 4 scrolls of your highest level spell per day, every day let alone per round . Why not? Scrolls are pretty cheap to pump out. A better buy would be a rechargeable staff at higher levels. Think of it this way. Your "cheap" quickened metamagic rods cost as much as 45-90 scrolls of the appropriate levels. Even going by the very heavy 4 scrolls per encounter, that means for the cost of one metamagic rods, I would not have to cast a single combat spell for at least one full level, and perhaps two or more. Ok so how are you getting haste in every combat and actually using it at level 6? Didn't I point out you have 3 3rd level spells at this level, 4 if you're a specialist tops? ...plus spell storing, plus scrolls, plus wands, plus staves, plus magic items... So you're lobbing magic missiles when they hit you with fireballs? No. Well, if that magic missile were a quickened magic missile after a couple of spell of the appropriate level, like after two shouts, or cone of colds, or maybe an actual good combination or spells, then yes. It's a great buff, but at these levels only a very specialised caster can afford to cast haste on himself every combat of every day and only specialised circumstances would allow him to be effective with it without compromising his firepower. That's news to my gaming group. They did it all the time, without fail. Like I said, every enounter past 6th level was a race for haste. No no no no no no no NO NO NO. 3.5 shapechange includes 3rd edition haste in it's mechanics. Haste will not allow you to turn you and your familiar into a red-dragon and breath this round, then you and your familiar into a bodak and death gaze next round, then a beholder and anti-magic cone + eye rays, then into a wraith and walk through walls and certainly not for 2+ hours. You're right. 3.0 haste allows you to get off enough effects at levels lower than 16 to equal to those attacks. And then past 16, it allows you to double those attacks. 3.5 shapechange is in another category altogether it shouldn't even be epic. It shouldn't even be. It eclipses any spell in the game hands down in terms of versatility and raw power. Definately not in raw power, but versitility, yes, it is quite nice for utility purposes. The problem with using it in combat is that you can only turn yourself into something of a much lower CR than you are, which means your abilities are roughly subpar to what is normally needed to face the current challenge. Sure, certain forms are very effective against certain opponents, but that is one of those situational effects. Despite your personal reservations and extreme hatred for haste - What hatred? I just think it was a bad game mechanic that needed to be fixed. Having personal emotion over something as trivial as a game is really petty. you've got to come to grips with the fact that timestop is 9th, mass haste is 7th and haste is 3rd. In 3.0, sure. You can claim, sure it should be say 7th level, the mass version say 9th. That's fine. But not anywhere near 3.5 shapechange. I consider having an extra standard action each round to be something more in line with a 9th level spell. And 3.5 shapechange really seems appropriate for a 9th level spell as well. Funny that. Wands specifically mention "in hand or what passes for a hand" so no, can't do. So are you going to argue that a dire wolf can weild a wand in his teeth next? I mean, a mouth can pass for a hand, can't it? How about a squid and its tentacles? Ah but 3.5 has the draconomicon which states that no, you can have your cake and eat it too. You know all of this D. Specifically, the Draconomicon states that a dragon can use certain magic items, and even then, things like weapons and armor are not included because the dragon's body cannot accomodate them properly without them being specifically designed. Even if you take that text outside of its direct meaning and apply it to other creatures, the choker does not really have hands, but tentacles. I easily see precedent for not allowing certain items to be used while in choker form. So, you might be able to get your frosting, or those cute little sugar letters that spell "HaPp7 B1rtHd4Y" on top, but not the whole cake.
Seeker95 12-09-04, 02:42 PM	Thank the gods there is 3.5 haste, so we don't have to worry about all the bass-ackwards attempts to make 3.0 haste sound less powerful than it is. Those attempting to downplay the effect of 3.0 haste sound like my two-year old daughter trying to justify why she should be allowed to eat chocolate cake for breakfast.
Scion of Coldshard 12-09-04, 02:50 PM	Those who choose to ignore all costs and only focus on the benefits are worse than such petulant children. The game is about risks and benefits, costs and gains. If you ignore half of the equation then anything can look powerful. Even toughness can look overpowered through properly rose colored glasses. Strangely, my current dm feels that 3.5 haste is much too strong and has disallowed it from his game. 3.0 haste he has seen and knows its benefits and its costs, 3.5 haste he feels gives the whole party too much too easily. If you dont like 3.0 haste that is fine, but if you dont like it for poor reasons then expect to have people argue with your limited view. Think of the costs and the benefits, just like everything else in d&d, otherwise your games will have problems all over the place with just about everything. Yet again, the example of the specialist comes to mind.
solbergb 12-09-04, 03:13 PM	Those who choose to ignore all costs and only focus on the benefits are worse than such petulant children. The game is about risks and benefits, costs and gains. If you ignore half of the equation then anything can look powerful. I find this statement especially ironic when you consider the past posts that demonstrate that to duplicate 3.0 haste in 3.5 you have to spend hundreds of thousands of gold pieces on metamagic rods, plus give up the mobility and AC advantages, plus you have to be a character who racks at least some of his spells "prepared" not "spontaneous". The cost of a 3rd level slot and spells known/spellbook for 3rd level spell is trivial compared to the cost to do the equivalent in 3.5. By the time you can come up with the cash to do it in 3.5 without crippling the rest of your equipment, you can already cast 9th level spells. Which is why we think 3.0 haste is overpowered and was correctly reduced to what it always used to be ...a fighter and mobility buff for the whole party, not a free pass for every spellcaster to unload spells at twice the rate. Doubling your spell output is the realm of near-epic or epic spellcasters and takes a significant investement in either cash or epic feats to do. That seems appropriate to me...you pay the cost, you get the reward. A 3rd level slot is nothing. It's about as meaningful to a spellcaster as the mighty composite bow is to a melee fighter...something you want to have around but it won't bother you much if you don't have it most of the time....and while it is more important at lower levels it isn't THAT important, nor all that expensive to get via consumables for when you need the slot for something else. If there was a 375gp consumable a fighter could use to cram two full attacks and a move into one round that consumed one standard action to activate and lasted a whole combat...it would get used a lot. If a feat could duplicate this consumable by level 6 (1/day at 6, 2/day at 8, 3/day at 10, 4/day at 12 perhaps) every fighter would have that feat. A top tier spell to a spellcaster is what a full attack is to a fighter. The balancing factor is that a fighter can never run out of full attacks, a spellcaster can run out of spells, especially his top tier spells.
GreenDay 12-09-04, 03:24 PM	I have borrowed my DMs adventure Bastion of Borken Souls and it has a monster that uses Haste and acts right after it in its tactics paragraph. Since the Bastion adventure is made by Wizards I think that the right way to use Haste is the same turn that you get to cast it. Bit I also think everyone saying everyone else are babies for how they use Haste when they play is silly. Having fun is not silly.
Scion of Coldshard 12-09-04, 03:25 PM	I find this statement especially ironic when you consider a part of the conversation that I took no part in? Yeah, that is really ironic :rolleyes: I think that you are looking for a completely different word here.
Scion of Coldshard 12-09-04, 03:27 PM	I have borrowed my DMs adventure Bastion of Borken Souls and it has a monster that uses Haste and acts right after it in its tactics paragraph. Since the Bastion adventure is made by Wizards I think that the right way to use Haste is the same turn that you get to cast it. And wizards never makes mistakes, ever ;) Especially not in creatures writeups.
Heron_Marked_Blade 12-09-04, 04:16 PM	And wizards never makes mistakes, ever ;) Especially not in creatures writeups. So you're basically saying here that nothing will convince you that you're wrong. Way to go. There really isn't any point in my continuing a conversation with you. I will say this in parting. Until it's errated, the above example in BoBS proves that 3.0 Haste grants an extra action in the same round the spell is cast. Until you can provide an example of a published 3.0 source showing the action to be granted the round after you cast the spell, your position is untenable. Finally, let me add this to the discussion. The WotC Gamestoppers articles are a "monthly column that looks at various confusing and complicated parts of the Dungeons & Dragons combat system that have the potential to stop your game in its tracks while the DM scrambles to look up rules." They are written using 3.0 rules. Part Nine (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/gs/20020519a) covers an encounter in which Nebin uses the Haste spell. We pick it up at the beginning of Nebin's turn... DM: Right! You're up, Nebin! PC (Nebin): I cast haste on myself, and then I cast displacement with my hasted action. I'm not going up against that guy without some defenses! Who knows what tricks a goblin with spell resistance might have up his sleeve? DM: So now it's the goblin's turn. <snip> I guess they got it wrong there too? :rolleyes: Your "interpretation," Scion, is clearly a houserule.
Heron_Marked_Blade 12-09-04, 04:24 PM	Oh, and check out the Revision Spotlight article in Dragon #307 (p. 62) for the game designer's explanation of why they changed 3.0 Haste. Those of us posting here clearly aren't the only ones who see the spell as overpowered.
Scion of Coldshard 12-09-04, 04:33 PM	::sighs:: yet again, you dont understand. It doesnt matter how many times it is explained to you, you just dont care. The obvious balance comments do not help some people, the raw being laid out does not do anything for a few, even saying that it works fine in a certain way apparently does nothing for them. Hopeless. For those who like to play it the way it should be played go for it, for those who like to complain about haste being broken because they are useing it in a poor fashion that is your own deal. But you shouldnt complain about it being overpowered when there is an obvious way to do it that follows the raw. Also, about those examples, they are fairly unimportant. It is one mistake given by one of the designers that was taken and run with. Sortof like some of the rules of the game articles are doing with other parts of the raw. They are human and will make mistakes and there are tons of mistakes that are blatant that are not being corrected in the faq nor the errata. Sometimes you have to follow the raw even when some of the people who wrote it state the opposite, it is easier to ignore them when it is so blatantly wrong, by the raw. You have one guy who makes mistakes quite often stating that haste works a certain way, another book which works off of that poor choice, and then you state that it should work that way? No, I'll play by the raw thanks. I dont need to use some guys bad calls and poor judgment. In addition to that, there were many changes in 3.5 which made the system worse or 'fixed' problems that were not there. So, just because haste was changed proves roughly nothing.
Heron_Marked_Blade 12-09-04, 04:51 PM	:uh-huh: I'm so glad we have you here to guide us in the path of Truth, Scion! It's so helpful to know that you understand what the game designers meant to do originally, before they were confused by reading the manuscripts over and over and were misled by a silly mistake and continued that mistake through source after source, editor after editor, FAQ after FAQ, and three years of playtesting 3.0 during which a simple errata would have fixed the whole problem. How wonderful that we can bask in the wisdom of your words, and rest assured in the knowledge that you know The Truth! How can we go wrong with you here to guide us??! :nonono: Please. Get over yourself, dude. From 2000-2003, not a single change was made to the way 3.0 Haste worked. Every published Wizards example (unless you can find one that didn't) showed that the extra action was granted in the round the spell was cast. Ever think that maybe you're wrong? I think it often. You find a houseruled 3.0 Haste to not be overpowered. Fine. But it's a houserule. I know it. Every other poster on here who hasn't backed himself into a corner on this issue and can't get up the guts to say he's wrong knows it. And deep down, you know it too.
Scion of Coldshard 12-09-04, 04:59 PM	So, let me get this straight. You think that the partial action immediately is too strong, and you also know that the raw supports not doing it that way, and yet you will still follow blindly a guy who has been blatantly wrong in the past? Heron_marked_blade is officially off of my list of people who might have a clue about the rules. I am sure that is unimportant to him though, probably as much as his opinion is unimportant to me. Really, come on now. If there is that much of a problem the way you insist is correct, and yet the other way works just fine, then it is time for you to change what you are doing. Easy as that.
Heron_Marked_Blade 12-09-04, 05:09 PM	So, let me get this straight. You think that the partial action immediately is too strong, and you also know that the raw supports not doing it that way, and yet you will still follow blindly a guy who has been blatantly wrong in the past? Oh no. I find your houseruled Haste only slightly less broken in practice and just as broken mechanically as it ever was. But your argument that the RAW supports your interpretation is as wrong-headed an argument as any I've seen in a long time, and makes me wonder if you really know what "RAW" means. Where is the official quote supporting you? Where are the official examples supporting you? "On your turn" -- when, exactly, on my turn? Why doesn't it say "At the beginning of your next turn"? When I cast a spell, is my turn officially over? If not, and it's still my turn, then the spell functions as written -- I get a partial action. Period. Heron_marked_blade is officially off of my list of people who might have a clue about the rules. I am sure that is unimportant to him though, probably as much as his opinion is unimportant to me. :rolleyes: Ouch. Since my interpretation of 3.0 Haste (one that is clearly shared by a great many people and the people who wrote the 3.0 rulebooks) plainly shows that I don't know how the game works and have NO clue about "the rules." I'd stop now, if I were you. But if I were you, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place, would we. Really, come on now. If there is that much of a problem the way you insist is correct, and yet the other way works just fine, then it is time for you to change what you are doing. Easy as that. Trust me, I'm still saying that your way doesn't work "just fine." But you have to realize that your interpretation is not the official, RAW, interpretation. You're houseruling the spell, and it's time you admit it. Go ahead. Start with the first word: "I'm." That wasn't so bad, was it? The second: "Houseruling." The most difficult word to say, I know. It has a lot of negative connotations around here, and will not be easy for someone who prides himself on his "RAW" ability to say. But it must be done. Be strong! The third one is much easier: "It." There you are! You did it! Have a cookie. :cookie:
solbergb 12-09-04, 05:34 PM	a part of the conversation that I took no part in? Yeah, that is really ironic :rolleyes: I think that you are looking for a completely different word here. Nope, ironic was the correct word. As Dungeonmaster demonstrated you can approximate the effect of 3.0 haste with respect to spellcasters in 3.5 should you invest sufficient feats and cash in doing so and should you be a prepared spellcaster, not a spontaneous one. The difference is what it costs you, and when you can do it. (no agreement on that because of other rules etc but the difference in opinion was the degree of the 3.5 cost, not that there was a cost). You claimed we were all silly for not considering the cost. *shrug*. In this discussion, cost/benefit of 3.0 haste vs other alternatives has been done rather to death. What makes it ironic is that you step in and claim it is the 3.5 apologists who aren't thinking about costs and benefits: If you dont like 3.0 haste that is fine, but if you dont like it for poor reasons then expect to have people argue with your limited view. Think of the costs and the benefits, just like everything else in d&d, otherwise your games will have problems all over the place with just about everything. I don't consider it a "poor reason" or "limited view" to dislike a spell because it duplicates what in 3.5 takes hundreds of thousands of gp to duplicate. I don't consider it a "poor reason" or "limited view" to dislike a spell which has such a benefit and almost no opportunity cost. (even if it gets cancelled by slow, I cost the enemy caster an action, so it isn't entirely wasted, and most likely worst that happens is the spell slot since I DO get that extra action THIS ROUND at most 3.0 tables) There is an opportunity cost to 3.0 haste (the action, the chance of being counterspelled or ready-action dispelled). It is slight. There is a resource cost (the spell slot or 375gp for a scroll). It is slight. There is a rather large benefit. One that in the 3.5 rebalancing requires near-epic levels of equipment, 9th level spells or epic feats+lots of spellcraft to simulate....and even with the simulation doesn't give you extra movement speed, extra AC or in some cases an extra move action (you generally need to use up your move action to swap rods around if you are using cash to simulate 3.0 haste) The burden is on you to show that we're not thinking clearly, that we are doing a poor job of cost/benefit analysis here. What amazes me is that such an imbalance isn't obvious to everyone. And yet, it appears that it is not obvious, in spite of all the bandwith spent on this topic. At this point I'm in the discussion primarily for amusement value. Nobody shows any sign of changing their opinions, no matter how much we talk.
alric_gaidin 12-09-04, 05:35 PM	*whistle* Ookay! We have an illegal use of terminology on Scion of Coldshard: 'RAW' does not mean what he thinks it means. We also have an illegal use of sarcasm on Heron_Marked_Blade: his casting Scion in the role of a Prophet is way too improbable for believability. We also have a penalty on Scion of Coldshard for illegal application of IQ to keyboard. That's a five point INT penalty to all readers. Those penalties offset. Replay posts #291-294! :cheer:
salamander 12-09-04, 06:22 PM	1) prevalent to you, irrelavent to me as it is not the way the spell is worded nor how it should be used in actual play (as the other way, as people have said in this thread, is apparently not ok for normal play). So, the first 'extra' action happens on round three. We are shaking in our boots now. Use the proper interpretation and there is no problem, use the one that you desperately want to clinge to and there is. I think I see where the problem lies. 2) Casting prevention. Dispels are also nice against people who tend to need buffs, and an area dispel is likely to get something on everyone in most parties. If you dont know how to work around casters, or your dm does not, then I can see why you would have issues with spells. 3) Slow counters and dispels any haste it hits. No save, no sr, nada. Slow also works against a large portion of opponents. Between the two slow is a 'much' stronger spell in 3.0. It made your opponents get 'less' actions rather than giving you more yes, but by giving a spellcaster more he burns through resources much faster. By taking away the opponents they cant hurt you which saves on many, many more resources without costing more of yours. 4) Obviously you and/or your group does not make use of interesting terrain. Let me tell you, when used appropriately terrain can really cause some major problems ;) 5) Levels change how long it lasts, what one can do with the action, how many spells/abilities one has of limited availability. At level 5 haste is a wasted spell when putting it on a caster because they have so few spells anyway. At higher levels there are better spells for a good number of situations, when it is appropriate the caster has to be very careful not to burn out. If the character/player is not worried about burnout then they are going to die when they are wandering around with no resources left. Simple as that. If the dm goes lax on them and lets people rest after every encounter then that is the problem, not haste. 6) You dont necissarily need that many, there are other people in the group as well strangely enough. Some spells are much more useful in certain situations than others. Burning through all of ones spells quickly can be, and typically is, a bigger burden then a boon. There are lots of others, but if these arent helpful to you then it would be worthless to spend time listing more. These should be sufficient to help show a few things that people are overlooking. If not ::shrugs:: there is no help for them at this time, maybe with more experience they shall learn. Limited resources and proper encounters in that day mean that unless a mage is very careful they will be in some massive trouble. I have seen it many times, even without the extra burnout of haste, so with it there will be that much more of a risk. Risk vs reward. One has to wait for this spell to kick in (if anyone wishes to keep with it starting right away and basically not costing an action then dont bother to respond to any of my posts, thinking in that manner already states that you do not wish for the spell to be not broken and only want to complain about it) and then one has to worry about useing up too many resources. Of course, in that first round whatever other spell one may have been able to cast might've solved the problem or fixed it faster to begin with. More risk vs reward. Short term buff with an easy, and very powerful, counter. Slow is a spell that many will have able to cast just because it is so powerful in so many circumstances, not only to counter haste. Unlike, say, see invis which only helps to counter invis and does nothing else. So, there are counters, antitactics, work arounds, worries of burnout, and numberous other things that help to keep this spell balanced. If the dm wishes to ignore them that is the problem, if people choose to ignore antitactics then they will have problems with nearly every aspect of the game from sneak attack to grapplers to anyone with a specialty.1) Round three? Whatever happened in round two then? 2) Dispels are more often than not a waste of time. You're not really attacking anyone with them, you're only weakening your opponents (correction: trying to - success is far from guaranteed). Unless you need to do so do be able to do anything to them in the first place, you're almost invariably better off taking care of business. Either go for the save or die or for the massive damage (which, if you use the optional rule, is a save or die as well). 3) Read your spells again: Slow allows a save. To counter Haste, that save still has to fail. 4) I *am* letting you tell me. Please do so, instead of making vague allusions. 5) Ridiculous. The only reason why Haste would not be worth it is is you'd only need a single spell to win the encounter anyway. Under any other circumstance, being able to cast the necessary spells faster is a huge benefit. Getting to make more actions faster is an immeasurable advantage. 6) You failed to see my point: if I need three prepped spells to win an encounter, I'm better off if I can cast those in two rounds than in three. Either way, I'm using three prepped spells, but I suffer one less round of attacks, spells or whatever is thrown at me when hasted, and thanks to the AC increase I'm less likely to even take damage during those two rounds as well. Haste is a typical spell for a wand. As long as you take care not to use more spells than needed, using Haste doesn't lead to burnout at all. My or your interpretation of when you get the extra action benefit doesn't matter: it's what the designers intended that matters. Unless you have proof that your way is the right way, you have no argument to limit the discussion to your POV only. If a single spell would've solved the encounter, it should hardly even count as a challenge. Slow allows a save. When used as a counter, it still offers that save.
smrtgmp 12-09-04, 07:57 PM	Heron, you crack me up. Cheers. :pint: Disclaimer: the following may have already been adressed. I dont have the energy to wade through each of the above posts. That being said: It was claimed above (I believe by DungeonMaster) that you can use metamagic rods to cast a maximised-empowered-quickened whatever. The fact of the matter is that you can only apply one metamagic rod to any given spell. Metamagic Rods: Metamagic rods hold the essence of a metamagic feat but do not change the spell slot of the altered spell. All the rods described here are use-activated (but casting spells in a threatened area still draws an attack of opportunity). A caster may only use one metamagic rod on any given spell, but it is permissible to combine a rod with metamagic feats possessed by the rod’s wielder. In this case, only the feats possessed by the wielder adjust the spell slot of the spell being cast. emphasis mine
DungeonMaster 12-09-04, 08:06 PM	Wow. This is degenerating fast. Let's all take a deep breath. 1) Round three? Whatever happened in round two then? All scion is saying is that in round 2 you havn't begun to see the impact of haste yet. Essentially the guy without hast has hit you twice and you've hit back twice. By round 3 he's hit you 3 times and you've hit him 4, so you're starting to win out in 3+ rounds. It's very fair, trust me - it doesn't trivialise the spell, it's still potent but very very fair. 2) Dispels are more often than not a waste of time. No, no it isn't. If your caster levels are equal then dispel is very good even if they have only 2 buffs running. If they have more than that you're dropping a lot of their defences. It's often hard to punch through magical defenses, particularly in caster vs. caster combat. Dropping defences then hitting there is a tried tested and true tactic. 3) Read your spells again: Slow allows a save. To counter Haste, that save still has to fail. No it doesn't. Slow dispels and counters haste. It is specifically not the case of an "overlapping effect" like polymorphing an already polymorphed creature. It negates any haste effect, outright. No caster level check, nothing, not even SR. Haste is a typical spell for a wand. As long as you take care not to use more spells than needed, using Haste doesn't lead to burnout at all. That wand costs as much as a lesser rod of maximize. If you're using it 4+ times per day by the time things turn around for the next wand I've got another lesser rod. My or your interpretation of when you get the extra action benefit doesn't matter: it's what the designers intended that matters. No, no it isn't. Monte Cook has already told everyone that 3.5 was in the works - if they wanted to fix things in earnest why not do it in an errata? They'll make you buy another book instead. In fact I left the boards for close to two years, returning only about a year ago. When I left (after a valiant few skirmishes in the 2nd edition vs. 3rd edition war) no one even talked about "haste" or this or that interpretation of it. I don't know when this "net" interpretation showed up but I can guarantee there was nill will to set things aright.
DungeonMaster 12-09-04, 08:10 PM	It was claimed above (I believe by DungeonMaster) that you can use metamagic rods to cast a maximised-empowered-quickened whatever. The fact of the matter is that you can only apply one metamagic rod to any given spell emphasis mine No, no that's well known. I can read you know? The problem some people have been wrestling with here is that it functions off of "spell level" and so they get mad when I say I can cast a quickened empowered fireball with a lesser rod of quickening. Despite numerous attempts to contort and twist things the empowered fireball is still only a 3rd level spell and the lesser rod should work on it. We've even got custserv replies on this one. It's odd in fact that people won't accept the custserv or "official" ruling on this but they'll appeal to "official" rulings on haste. Really odd that.
DungeonMaster 12-09-04, 08:34 PM	Not that Scion isn't defending himself admirably but I'de rather prefer that people not ignore my own arguments. "On your turn" -- when, exactly, on my turn? Why doesn't it say "At the beginning of your next turn"? It's exactly the point where you acquire your turn. Interpreting it as a duration leads to paradox: Evard's black tentacles attacks anything within reach, including the caster. The attacks occur "On your turn". So if I cast EBT and move into the tentacles who goes first? If you interpret "on your turn" as a duration you get a paradox, the situation is undetermined, the wizard may live or die. If you interpret it as a precise moment in time you get no paradox the tentacles go immediately before the wizard gets to act, upon his receiving his turn. Trust me, I'm still saying that your way doesn't work "just fine." But you have to realize that your interpretation is not the official, RAW, interpretation. You're houseruling the spell, and it's time you admit it. RAW is "rules as written" as far as I can tell. But these are words, and words in sentances can lead to varying interpretations. It isn't a houserule. A houserule explicitely contradicts the rules. An interpretation works with them and offers no contradictions. Saying you can't cast an empowered fireball through a lesser metamagic rod is a houserule. The metamagic rod doesn't say "you cast the spell through it". It says you get to apply the matamagic feat on a 3rd level spell. There's a difference. You're proning a houserule for metamagic rods and Scion and myself are proning an interpretation of haste.
Seeker95 12-09-04, 08:35 PM	The problem some people have been wrestling with here is that it functions off of "spell level" and so they get mad when I say I can cast a quickened empowered fireball with a lesser rod of quickening. Despite numerous attempts to contort and twist things the empowered fireball is still only a 3rd level spell and the lesser rod should work on it. We've even got custserv replies on this one. I know this will come back to haunt me, but DungeonMaster is right on this. However, it has nothing to do with haste, 3.0 or 3.5 Whether metmagic rods are broken (I think they are) is immaterial to whether 3.0 haste was broken. And on whatever point Scion is trying to make, he's wrong as soon as he tries to present his interpretation as fact. It is a decent house rule, but a house rule nonetheless.
DungeonMaster 12-09-04, 08:49 PM	That's fine Seeker, I've agreed with you in the past and vice-versa. There's no reason we have to butt heads on every issue. That would be unreasonable in fact. I don't to be honest care how metamagic rods are used. In the end analysis as soon as resources are plentiful you will have plenty plenty of quickened things (and maximized, and extended...). So really we're talking about some sort of restricted level range and particular paramaters of a campaign that make one or the other overpowered. It's trivial really. They're one and the same whether people like it or not. Now, however you still havn't replied back with a quote of yours disparaging 3.5 previous to our conversation here. I've actually taken 10 minutes of my time to search D_nychus and yes, I do beleive I've found one post where he claims "3.5 creeping doom is a poor spell", not without saying 3rd edition creeping doom is insane of course, but it's getting close to showing some sort of objectivity and I'm satisfied and will not further prod him. But I've searched your impressive posts and I can't find hide nor tail of a disparaging comment against 3.5.
Seeker95 12-09-04, 09:13 PM	Now, however you still havn't replied back with a quote of yours disparaging 3.5 previous to our conversation here. I doubt you would be able to find one. That is probably the most notable difference between us. There are elements of the rules in 3.5 that I disagree with. But my disagreement with a specific mechanic is not a reflection of my view of the edition. Nor does my appreciation of the edition as a whole prevent me from disagreeing with specific mechanics. There were elements in 3.0 with which I disagreed as well. And although I confess that I prefer 3.5 to 3.0, I do not disparage 3.0 in sharing my appreciation for 3.5 nor my disagreement with specific mechanics of 3.0. I do not equate my view of the parts with my view of the whole. If I did, there is not a country I could live in, a school I could attend, a television show I could enjoy, or a person I could respect.
DungeonMaster 12-09-04, 09:20 PM	And 3.5 shapechange really seems appropriate for a 9th level spell as well. Funny you mention that, you might also realise that just about every week there's some poor soul that walks into these forums and bemoans what 3.5 shapechange has done to his game? Oh look! There's one now! http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=348564 I don't really know why I should even continue with a balance discussion with you because, frankly, we've both been down that route and your concept of "balance" doesn't jive with mine (or from present observation most anyone else's for that matter). When you start saying stuff like "an extra standard action should be 9th level" and "shapechange is appropriate for 9th level" I just can't possibly agree. You have a very, very distorted perception of what an action is worth. Think of it this way. Your "cheap" quickened metamagic rods cost as much as 45-90 scrolls of the appropriate levels. No. Not even close. A wand of 3rd level spells is half the price of the rod and getting off empowered fireballs through scrolls is going to cost you the proverbial arm and a leg. Let's also not ignore the low DC's and caster level checks on these my friend. You're not looking anywhere near as peachy as my man the maximize rod or the quicken rod. Well, if that magic missile were a quickened magic missile after a couple of spell of the appropriate level, like after two shouts, or cone of colds, or maybe an actual good combination or spells, then yes. Two cones of cold at 6th level? Loss of context yes? Even in your context no? That's news to my gaming group. They did it all the time, without fail. Like I said, every enounter past 6th level was a race for haste. Ok, time to put money where the mouth is. Draw me up a sample "haste happy" party, 6th level. Standard wealth, PHB races, standard gold. No half charged wands. Go nuts otherwise. We can run them through a "standard" set of EL encounters. 4 characters, fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric. Crafters can craft as much as they want out of their wealth. You get 2 spells for free per level as PHB and any others you have to pay for a scroll and scribing costs at 200 GP per page per spell level per PHB. Definately not in raw power, but versitility, yes, it is quite nice for utility purposes. The problem with using it in combat is that you can only turn yourself into something of a much lower CR than you are, which means your abilities are roughly subpar to what is normally needed to face the current challenge. Sure, certain forms are very effective against certain opponents, but that is one of those situational effects. What the heck are you talking about? It's based on HD and caster level? I can use a bead of karma and shapechange into a titan or a balor or a pitfiend at level 17? Are you sure we're talking about the same game here? At all? How exactly situational is "me and my familiar turn into dragons and breath on the bastards - no SR because it's SU and we pick a different element every round for the next 2 hours"? If that doesn't work let's go abyssal greater basilisk. :looloo: So are you going to argue that a dire wolf can weild a wand in his teeth next? I mean, a mouth can pass for a hand, can't it? How about a squid and its tentacles? That's the text, sorry you don't like it but a wand can be used by a tentacle, deal with it. We're not here to argue what you like or don't like. Even if you take that text outside of its direct meaning and apply it to other creatures, the choker does not really have hands, but tentacles. No, it specifically has fingers. In fact the description is I quote: "Its hands and feet have spiny pads that help the choker grip almost any surface". Please, it can't hold onto the rod but can grip any surface? What kind of "precedent" are you setting? The "I ignore certain lines" precedent? That one will get you far. I'm all for denying magic item use in shapechanged or polymorphed form - but let's not kid anyone here that the choker isn't capable of weilding a scroll because it "doesn't have hands". Really, the disbeleif has stretched too far I heard a snap.
salamander 12-09-04, 09:43 PM	1) All scion is saying is that in round 2 you havn't begun to see the impact of haste yet. Essentially the guy without hast has hit you twice and you've hit back twice. By round 3 he's hit you 3 times and you've hit him 4, so you're starting to win out in 3+ rounds. It's very fair, trust me - it doesn't trivialise the spell, it's still potent but very very fair. 2) No, no it isn't. If your caster levels are equal then dispel is very good even if they have only 2 buffs running. If they have more than that you're dropping a lot of their defences. It's often hard to punch through magical defenses, particularly in caster vs. caster combat. Dropping defences then hitting there is a tried tested and true tactic. 3) No it doesn't. Slow dispels and counters haste. It is specifically not the case of an "overlapping effect" like polymorphing an already polymorphed creature. It negates any haste effect, outright. No caster level check, nothing, not even SR. 4) That wand costs as much as a lesser rod of maximize. If you're using it 4+ times per day by the time things turn around for the next wand I've got another lesser rod. 5) No, no it isn't. Monte Cook has already told everyone that 3.5 was in the works - if they wanted to fix things in earnest why not do it in an errata? They'll make you buy another book instead. In fact I left the boards for close to two years, returning only about a year ago. When I left (after a valiant few skirmishes in the 2nd edition vs. 3rd edition war) no one even talked about "haste" or this or that interpretation of it. I don't know when this "net" interpretation showed up but I can guarantee there was nill will to set things aright.1) That's disregarding the benefit of being able to chain spells and the fact that you've buffed up your AC. Furthermore, not every combat encounter involves spellcasters in both sides - it's not always a spell tradeoff. And obviously, as soon as you gain surprise this isn't even an issue. 2) And while you're dropping their defenses they're attacking you straight on. Nine times out of ten a much better strategy. It's not because you're undoing several spells of theirs with a single one of your own that you're always on to a good deal. Besides, if they're überbuffed when combat starts, they mostly came prepared and ready - in that case my priority would be to get the hell out of Dodge instead of trying to catch up with a much better prepared opponent. 3) And nothing says that when doing so the Will save or spell reduction are suddenly not a factor anymore. Or is this another blindingly obvious rule that everyone I know somehow managed to misinterpret in the same way? Of course it's not an overlapping effect, but I don't see any rules pointing out that when not having overlapping effects, spells get to ignore saves. 4) So? For the boost it gives me I don't mind buying or crafting an expensive wand every now and then. It's not like I can't prep a couple of Hastes just because I already have a wand. Since Slow is such a common antibuff, it should make sense to keep some Hastes in stock just in case, right? I don't even need to use Haste *every* encounter. Besides, 3 wands should keep me going for 4 levels at least. 5) Keeping edition/revision preferences out of it for a moment (I really don't see a reason to bring those up and muddy the issue), my point was simple: my interpretation doesn't matter, yours doesn't matter, the only one that matters is the correct one - and that's the one that corresponds with what the designers originally had in mind. You have no proof that yours is correct, I have no proof that mine is correct. Consequently, there's no point in pretending either of us does and simply throwing out whatever argument the other side has based on that.
DungeonMaster 12-09-04, 10:24 PM	1) That's disregarding the benefit of being able to chain spells and the fact that you've buffed up your AC. So again, what chain of spells are we talking about here? I've asked this something like 10 times now and I never get more than "acid + forcecage" which is well, not that impressive actually. It has to be my "crazy" experience of PCs going into monster lairs and getting surprised and not vice-versa. Maybe we are playing different games... Mine's called "you go to the monsters". 2) And while you're dropping their defenses they're attacking you straight on. Nine times out of ten a much better strategy. Er, no? That's a real generalisation there. I cast spell turning and spell resistance. Want to tango without dispel? You're going to require some pretty specific magic or I'll take the upper hand really really quickly. Anyhow. This looks fruitless. I can agree to disagree on this point. 3) And nothing says that when doing so the Will save or spell reduction are suddenly not a factor anymore. Or is this another blindingly obvious rule that everyone I know somehow managed to misinterpret in the same way? Of course it's not an overlapping effect, but I don't see any rules pointing out that when not having overlapping effects, spells get to ignore saves. Try the PHB p.154 spells with opposite effects: "Some spells negate or counter each other completely. For example a slow spell negates a haste spell and vice versa. This is a special effect that is noted in the spell's description." Under Slow p.253 of the PHB "Slow counters and dispels haste but does otherwise affect magically speeded or slowed creatures". Out of curiosity how did you interpret it? Since when does dispelling something have a save or SR? 4) So? For the boost it gives me I don't mind buying or crafting an expensive wand every now and then. Besides, 3 wands should keep me going for 4 levels at least. :rofl: ok. Sure. Can I craft my metamagic rods then without fear or people saying "you can't do that" "that costs money" "that can be sundered" etc..? Rods for wands? Deal? :P 5) Keeping edition/revision preferences out of it for a moment (I really don't see a reason to bring those up and muddy the issue), my point was simple: my interpretation doesn't matter, yours doesn't matter, the only one that matters is the correct one - and that's the one that corresponds with what the designers originally had in mind. You have no proof that yours is correct, I have no proof that mine is correct. Consequently, there's no point in pretending either of us does and simply throwing out whatever argument the other side has based on that. I'm not good at mindreading. Did Jonathan Tweet write that one you're speaking of? Or someone else? Likewise it's nice to think of a vow of poverty cleric that can't use a holy symbol lest he break his vow. True, by the rules, but dumb, and not intended. Yet supported by the FAQ.
salamander 12-10-04, 07:30 AM	1) So again, what chain of spells are we talking about here? I've asked this something like 10 times now and I never get more than "acid + forcecage" which is well, not that impressive actually. It has to be my "crazy" experience of PCs going into monster lairs and getting surprised and not vice-versa. Maybe we are playing different games... Mine's called "you go to the monsters". 2) Er, no? That's a real generalisation there. I cast spell turning and spell resistance. Want to tango without dispel? You're going to require some pretty specific magic or I'll take the upper hand really really quickly. Anyhow. This looks fruitless. I can agree to disagree on this point. 3) Try the PHB p.154 spells with opposite effects: "Some spells negate or counter each other completely. For example a slow spell negates a haste spell and vice versa. This is a special effect that is noted in the spell's description." Under Slow p.253 of the PHB "Slow counters and dispels haste but does otherwise affect magically speeded or slowed creatures". Out of curiosity how did you interpret it? Since when does dispelling something have a save or SR? 4) :rofl: ok. Sure. Can I craft my metamagic rods then without fear or people saying "you can't do that" "that costs money" "that can be sundered" etc..? Rods for wands? Deal? :P 5) I'm not good at mindreading. Did Jonathan Tweet write that one you're speaking of? Or someone else? Likewise it's nice to think of a vow of poverty cleric that can't use a holy symbol lest he break his vow. True, by the rules, but dumb, and not intended. Yet supported by the FAQ.1) Anything that reduces a save + save or die. 2) Who says I don't have pretty specific magic? It's called spell selection. You pick a number of spells that don't offer spell resistance because you know you'll meet opponents with spell resistance at some point. Besides, you cast ST and SR? Spending two in-combat rounds, or prepping up? If the former, you'll be two rounds behind everyone else doing something proactive. If the latter, I'm screwed anyway: going up unprepared against a fully prepared wizard is always a losing proposition. Any feverish attempts at dispelling will just be too little, too late. And if you cast both, you're either a Clr with the Magic domain or your using items and UMD. I didn't think you'd be so keen on wasting money on that, given your remark about wands of Haste. 3) Read those lines. Try to find the sentence that says the spells when used as such are in any way changed. 'Slow counters': see the rules on counterspelling. You can use Slow to counterspel Haste, instead of needing Haste prepped. Of course, you actually have to counterspel for that. I don't recall many instances of that ever being a sound strategy. 'Slow dispels': Either it works like a Dispel Magic (basically replacing it for this particular instance), in which case you would get neither a save nor SR, but then you'd have to use the dispel mechanic and make a check; or it simply undoes the effect of Haste when cast succesfully. The latter makes much more sense. However, nothing says that suddenly the save or sr part of the spell goes away. You still cast Slow, and it still offers a save. If an exception was made, Id assume that'd be mentioned specifically. It isn't. 4) If it's a wand of 3.0 Haste, sure. I'd much rather have that than any comparably priced rod. Sure, it's money spent on something that won't last. Doesn't mean it's not very well spent. 5) Try to actually see the point I'm making: you have no proof of your interpretation being valid. Neither do I have proof for my interpretation. The only logical next step is to accept that either can be the valid one, so neither can be dismissed out of hand. I'm no mindreader either. That's the point.
d_nychus 12-10-04, 10:19 AM	Funny you mention that, you might also realise that just about every week there's some poor soul that walks into these forums and bemoans what 3.5 shapechange has done to his game? Oh look! There's one now! http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=348564 That's a fine thread about someone who doesn't know how gestalt is supposed to work. The entire "problem" is that this guy put his gestalt PCs against something that would be a difficult challenge for a normal group, and they breezed like through it--like you are supposed to with gestalt. I don't really know why I should even continue with a balance discussion with you because, frankly, we've both been down that route and your concept of "balance" doesn't jive with mine (or from present observation most anyone else's for that matter). Fine by me. Irrational personal hatred of player desired changes to a gaming system doesn't jive with me, either. When you start saying stuff like "an extra standard action should be 9th level" and "shapechange is appropriate for 9th level" I just can't possibly agree. You have a very, very distorted perception of what an action is worth. Not according to the bulk of players, posters, and WotC R&D. Remember, haste, among a great many other things, were changed because of player feedback and in-house testing. No. Not even close. A wand of 3rd level spells is half the price of the rod and getting off empowered fireballs through scrolls is going to cost you the proverbial arm and a leg. Let's also not ignore the low DC's and caster level checks on these my friend. You're not looking anywhere near as peachy as my man the maximize rod or the quicken rod. But you have many more effective spells per day, which you said is the main drawback for using the 'haste junkie' tactic. Even if they are slighly weaker, the sheer number you can get off in one encounter makes a huge difference. And, again, the maximize and quickened rods only come into play 3 times per day. On rough average, that would be 3 rounds out of 20 for combat encounters (barring important and boss fights, of course). Two cones of cold at 6th level? Loss of context yes? Even in your context no? I doubt at 6th level, but I stated 6-16th level. So, yes, totally in context. Ok, time to put money where the mouth is. Draw me up a sample "haste happy" party, 6th level. Standard wealth, PHB races, standard gold. No half charged wands. Go nuts otherwise. We can run them through a "standard" set of EL encounters. 4 characters, fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric. Crafters can craft as much as they want out of their wealth. You get 2 spells for free per level as PHB and any others you have to pay for a scroll and scribing costs at 200 GP per page per spell level per PHB. Open the 3.0 DMG. Use the NPCs of 6th level. Give one group access to haste, and don't let the other group have it. Have them face something easy at 6th level (a hydra), something tougher at 6th level (annis hag with followers), something very tough at 6th level (Juvenile red dragon), and then have them face each other. I bet the haste party will do slightly better. Then, if you want to really see what I mean, try the same thing with 10th and 16th level parties, and see haste own the battlefield. What the heck are you talking about? It's based on HD and caster level? I can use a bead of karma and shapechange into a titan or a balor or a pitfiend at level 17? Are you sure we're talking about the same game here? At all? Yup. One thing I have made my mind up in talking to you with 3.5 that I think needs to change is the beads of karma. I consider that to be a broken item. How exactly situational is "me and my familiar turn into dragons and breath on the bastards - no SR because it's SU and we pick a different element every round for the next 2 hours"? If that doesn't work let's go abyssal greater basilisk. :looloo: You mean aside from the weak damage? You can do an average 44 points of damage with a save for half by using this one round, or deal 112 with no save? Or the weak saves? A save or die as a 9th level spell has a minimum DC of 23, though more realistically, DC 28-30, while abyssal basilisk has a DC of 21. And, in case you haven't noticed, SR really is not that huge of a factor. Most creatures only require a roll of 11 or greater to get past SR, and given a few "cheapie" magic items or a feat, that roll can quickly become assured. That's the text, sorry you don't like it but a wand can be used by a tentacle, deal with it. We're not here to argue what you like or don't like. Care to tell me where in the rules is says that? Or can my wildshaped druid start holding 8 wands when he turns into an octopus? And the fighter can start to wield his greatsword when he gets polymorhped into a dire tiger? How about the rogue being able to use his dagger when he is turned into a thrush to do some scouting? No, it specifically has fingers. In fact the description is I quote: "Its hands and feet have spiny pads that help the choker grip almost any surface". That's good, if you ignore the sentence that starts the paragraph. "A choker's skull, spine, and rib cage are bony, but its limbs are really tentacles with multiple knobby joints of cartilage." Please, it can't hold onto the rod but can grip any surface? What kind of "precedent" are you setting? The "I ignore certain lines" precedent? That one will get you far. Dragons cannot use weapons and armor, even though they can use other magic items. It stands to reason other creatures might not be able to use other items, depending upon their form. And the rules are vague at this point, as well. I see no reason let tentacles wield weapons and rods and whatever, as you say HAS to be done. Show me in the rules that it HAS to be done, or is it up to DM discretion about what can and cannot be used? I'm all for denying magic item use in shapechanged or polymorphed form - but let's not kid anyone here that the choker isn't capable of weilding a scroll because it "doesn't have hands". Really, the disbeleif has stretched too far I heard a snap. You might want to get that looked at, then.
bitnine 12-10-04, 10:37 AM	Funny you mention that, you might also realise that just about every week there's some poor soul that walks into these forums and bemoans what 3.5 shapechange has done to his game? Oh look! There's one now!Hm...? You really think that's a good example for the differences of 3.5 shapechange? It's a thread where a DM is claiming to have problems with his players using shapechange as a buff spell. They aren't even utilizing the part of the spell that changed. I don't care for either shapechange all too much (and why the 3.5 version went to include those powers is certainly beyond me), but that's just a very poor example for the topic.
solbergb 12-10-04, 01:07 PM	So again, what chain of spells are we talking about here? I've asked this something like 10 times now and I never get more than "acid + forcecage" which is well, not that impressive actually. It has to be my "crazy" experience of PCs going into monster lairs and getting surprised and not vice-versa. Maybe we are playing different games... Mine's called "you go to the monsters". I listed a few. Here is a small list off the top of my head that benefit from being able to cast two spells before an enemy can react. truestrike+ray spell see invis+glitterdust any flame spell+pyrotechnics leomund hut followed by globe of invuln. Unless they spellcraft your chanting they will not know you are now immune to L1-4 spells, as one spell masks the visual effects of the other. evards+stinking cloud (if you nauseate, you can't escape tentacles, if you are in tentacles and cloud, 1/4 move even if not grappled and probably have to save again vs nauseate) Evards+any solid fog variant. Forget leaving, you're gonna experience whatever nastiness is in there, you move 5' per round with 2 move actions because of the solid fog speed reduction and the evards half speed. mind fog+any will save spell dimensional anchor+force capture spell (ottiluke's sphere, forcecage, bigby grasping hand, etc) dispel magic+spell of your choice hampered by an enemy buff. limited wish+any save or XXX spell any spell+dimension door to safety afterwards otto irresistable dance+reflex save spell save or XXX followed by save or XXX if the first one fails. Geometrically more likely to succeed plus you can target a second person if the first one gets lucky. Two walls of force (or other similar barrier spell) are far more likely to trap an enemy than one. Disintegrate enemy wall of force AND follow up with another attack.
DungeonMaster 12-10-04, 09:30 PM	The entire "problem" is that this guy put his gestalt PCs against something that would be a difficult challenge for a normal group, and they breezed like through it--like you are supposed to with gestalt. Funny how up until then no problem? Anyhow, there are enough wonky 3.5 mechanics being thrown around there to shake a stick at let alone a finger. Not according to the bulk of players, posters, and WotC R&D. Remember, haste, among a great many other things, were changed because of player feedback and in-house testing. Oh please. They frigging took the 3.5 dwarf "can carry any load without encumbrance" from Steve Jackson's Munchkin PHB for crying out loud. Player feedback my rear end. In house testing without any actual playtester credits = not really testing anything. We all know it was a sloppy job, let's get over it and hope the next one's better. Open the 3.0 DMG. Use the NPCs of 6th level. Give one group access to haste, and don't let the other group have it. Have them face something easy at 6th level (a hydra), something tougher at 6th level (annis hag with followers), something very tough at 6th level (Juvenile red dragon), and then have them face each other. I bet the haste party will do slightly better. Then, if you want to really see what I mean, try the same thing with 10th and 16th level parties, and see haste own the battlefield. NPCs don't have PC wealth. I did it anyways and the party with blink won out. Because the fighter didn't get rended by the annis hag, one of her attacks missed as a result of the 50% miss on the blink spell. In fact in both cases casting "haste" was worse for the party compared to casting "fireball" which actually hurt the ennemies or blink which protected the tank. Now do you want to show me your 6th level haste happy party or not? Dominant effect you say, let's go. I've done this before we can use an online roller and have all the rolls out in the clear. One thing I have made my mind up in talking to you with 3.5 that I think needs to change is the beads of karma. I consider that to be a broken item. And orange ioun stones. And PrC with spell power. And death's knell. And ... whoa. Changing a lot there aren't we? Maybe the original spell was broken not the mechanics? Crazy concept? You mean aside from the weak damage? You can do an average 44 points of damage with a save for half by using this one round, or deal 112 with no save? Or the weak saves? A save or die as a 9th level spell has a minimum DC of 23, though more realistically, DC 28-30, while abyssal basilisk has a DC of 21. What weak damage are you talking about? mature adult red dragon (25 HD using errata no less) does 14d10 fire damage per breath weapon = 77 average damage. You + your familiar = 154 save for half DC:28. Pardon? What about TWO DC 21 gaze-attacks because it's you and your familiar? To everything within 60 feet? No cap? Seems like "2 save or dies = broken" but for shapechange "2 save or dies + mobility+flexibility+ability scores+creature type and immunities" isn't broken. I don't know how you can say that with even a drip of objectivity. And, in case you haven't noticed, SR really is not that huge of a factor. Most creatures only require a roll of 11 or greater to get past SR, and given a few "cheapie" magic items or a feat, that roll can quickly become assured. Ok, so two spells per round is broken but a roll requiring an 11 or more is "not a huge factor"? Doesn't 11 or more mean 50% chance of well, nothing? What the heck kind of an analysis is this? Care to tell me where in the rules is says that? SRD: To activate a wand, a character must hold it in hand (or whatever passes for a hand, for nonhumanoid creatures) Or can my wildshaped druid start holding 8 wands when he turns into an octopus? Probably. Hey the 3.5 design team thinks "grunting and snorting" your spells while wildshaped is "fine" they even made a feat for it. You have heard of natural spell right? That's good, if you ignore the sentence that starts the paragraph. "A choker's skull, spine, and rib cage are bony, but its limbs are really tentacles with multiple knobby joints of cartilage." It says HANDS. H-A-N-D-S . You're selectively reading the description of the creature and are being intellectually dishonest . It cannot "not have hands" if it is being specifically refered to as having HANDS . It speaks undercommon and has hands. Really, it's amazing that you'de even begin to argue something so painfully bloody obvious .
DungeonMaster 12-10-04, 09:42 PM	Hm...? You really think that's a good example for the differences of 3.5 shapechange? No, it's not a cookie cutter example, that's for sure. The thing I note is that he got miffed when the titan form came around and wasn't over irritated by the war troll (which is already quite impressive). Really it's the hp change from normal to titan (219->429) and the SR and the DR which are all supernatural that I think tipped the DM's frustration level. But I'll agree, not a perfect example because these guys aren't even trying to abuse the spell.
DungeonMaster 12-10-04, 10:02 PM	2) Who says I don't have pretty specific magic? It's called spell selection. You pick a number of spells that don't offer spell resistance because you know you'll meet opponents with spell resistance at some point. Besides, you cast ST and SR? Spending two in-combat rounds, or prepping up? If the former, you'll be two rounds behind everyone else doing something proactive. If the latter, I'm screwed anyway: going up unprepared against a fully prepared wizard is always a losing proposition. Any feverish attempts at dispelling will just be too little, too late. Ok. We are playing different games. We have to be. Last I checked the "get out of dodge" option isn't always available and the "I have the right spell prepared" option happens with even lesser frequency, spell selection or no spell selection. If you've never dispelled anything in combat, I don't know what to say. It's tantamount to wizard 101 to me. I mean I hate a good chunk of "Tome and blood" but there's something to be said about "no spellcaster can do without dispel magic" on p.6 of that book. There are just so many situations where if you don't dispel - you die, horribly, that I can't really understand what you're doing. 3) Read those lines. Try to find the sentence that says the spells when used as such are in any way changed. 'Slow dispels': Either it works like a Dispel Magic (basically replacing it for this particular instance), in which case you would get neither a save nor SR, but then you'd have to use the dispel mechanic and make a check; or it simply undoes the effect of Haste when cast succesfully. The latter makes much more sense. However, nothing says that suddenly the save or sr part of the spell goes away. You still cast Slow, and it still offers a save. If an exception was made, Id assume that'd be mentioned specifically. It isn't. Don't you think that placing a line at the bottom of the spell specifically mentioning it "dispels" haste isn't well, specific mention? It doesn't "undo" the effects of haste when successfully cast. It negates a haste spell. Outright, right there on p.154 - "for example a slow spell negates a haste spell". The "latter" as you say makes no sense. There would be no reason to point this out, no point to spells "that negate or counter each other completely". What part of "negate or counter each other completely " is being misunderstood? 5) Try to actually see the point I'm making: you have no proof of your interpretation being valid. Neither do I have proof for my interpretation. The only logical next step is to accept that either can be the valid one, so neither can be dismissed out of hand. I'm no mindreader either. That's the point. I'm understand your point, it's a simple appeal to published works. The DMG says on p.9 "a rule found in a rulebook overrules one found in published adventures". I'm arguing that the interpretation leads to the EBT paradox within the core rules and so that interpretation has to go.
Heron_Marked_Blade 12-10-04, 10:06 PM	Might I ask what your purpose with all of your anti-3.5 vituperation is, DungeonMaster? :ahem: Are you really hoping to change peoples' minds and have them go back to 3.0? Do you really think that highly of your opinion that you must convey your hatred of 3.5 to every reader in 98% of your posts? Is it so important to "right this wrong" that you can't let people have fun with the new version? If individual players/DMs find something they don't like about 3.5, they houserule it, just as they did in 3.0. Problem solved. And fine, we get it -- you don't like what was done to 3.0. Deal With It. I really doubt you're going to get a personal apology from WotC and the design team because you don't like what they did to "your" game. After all, you're "Yet another DM never downgrading to 3.5," so how do the changes affect you at all? Go play your 3.0 game and cast blink to your heart's content. But for someone who is "never downgrading," you do seem to have "playtested" all of the changes an awful lot in order to be as much of an authority on 3.5 as you seem to be.... Returning to the original topic.... (Let's not degenerate this thread into yet another "Everything 3.5 is ridiculous and stupid and poopy!" -- "No it isn't!" -- "Yes it is, because :pbbbtt:" -- "Well 3.0 was :censored:" thread....) :yuck: We need less of :fight!: and more of :pint:.....
DungeonMaster 12-10-04, 10:40 PM	Here is a small list off the top of my head that benefit from being able to cast two spells before an enemy can react. Unfortunately some of these don't work, and none of them illustrate why two spells "before the enemy can react" is of any consequence. Evard's black tentacles don't actually attack until the round after you cast them so that turns off of skippy in a hurry. see invis+glitterdust: Why? If you're casting see invisibility it's likely you're, you know, already unaware? If you do know it's general direction then why not glitterdust twice? The see invis cone is only 60 feet so you can do two 10 foot radius glitterdusts instead? truestrike+ray spell: So we're trying to hit a pathetic low AC with overkill? yes it's useful in some rare circumstances at high levels, but way overkill 90% of the time. any flame spell+pyrotechnics: Why not just use a flaming sphere? You can move the flaming sphere as a move action and cast pyrotechnics right on the target area you want? It's not like haste is really adding anything at all here that can't be done without. mind fog+any will save spell: So if they're affected they're screwed for 2d6 rounds, why can't I wait? otto irresistable dance+reflex save spell: Same. limited wish+any save or XXX spell: Ditto, it's their next save so what's the problem? All of these are "shooting goldfish in a barrel" scenarios - unless there's an immediate way they can outright kill you in the next round you've gained really, nothing. Well +4 AC but that's really it. dimensional anchor+force capture spell: Again, what's the benefit? dispel magic+spell of your choice hampered by an enemy buff: There's no "arcane sight" in 3rd edition so you're going to have to hope for a spell signature to be sure. This is however the best of the lot you've put forward because there's a tangible reality that they're going to bring the defence back up and you're going to be worthless. any spell+dimension door to safety afterwards: If you need to d.door you're likely in a very ugly bind, like grappled. Otherwise d.door won't make you much safer than a target on the not-so-far-off horizon. save or XXX followed by save or XXX if the first one fails. Geometrically more likely to succeed plus you can target a second person if the first one gets lucky: So again, how is this a "killer combo" that benefits from the specific inability for your opponent to react? Two walls of force (or other similar barrier spell) are far more likely to trap an enemy than one: What? Since when? I kinda thought most barrier/entrapment spells were designed to you know, entrap and barrier things. Not do that job half-way and quit. If I drop a wall of force hemisphere on you putting another one on top of it isn't going to hamper you any more than the first. Disintegrate enemy wall of force AND follow up with another attack. leomund hut followed by globe of invuln. :rofl: You're serious? These are probably bottom of the barrel.
DungeonMaster 12-10-04, 11:09 PM	As it was written, 3.0 haste was incredibly broken. Three spells per round (standard action + partial action + Quickened spell)? Please. Well it typically it starts by being irritated with comments like the above, as though 3.5 doesn't have similar mechanics. Don't you remember it was your specific comments I replied to on p.1 of this thread? As for changing minds, not in the least. Play munchkin for all I care and have fun with it (it's a great game incidentally). You can have fun with 3.5, a lot of fun. You can even prefer 3.5. I don't care and honestly, all the better for you. Putting ill informed and misguided criticism of 3rd edition in it's place is exactly what I do. Would you prefer that in my sig? Why do I do it? Because I remained silent on a lot of issues in the past and guess what - I'm not being silent anymore. 3.5 land is far from perfect. Like really really far, a step backwards kinda far. If the problems aren't discussed then how can we hope for better 4th edition? (Well you can't go that much further wrong than 3.5 but anyhow...) This case is rather particular because I don't think there should be some sort of arbitrary "you can only get one standard action EVER" rule in D&D. That's not good game design - clearly some people think differently. But I happen to think a turn based combat where you can face 3 times the number of opponents or opponents with better abilities doesn't necessarily mean you getting more actions throws the game off. As long as it's a reasonably small number of actions. I mean there's no fun in stamping out (or even responding to) mindless fanboys. But crushing a real opponent's will with an indestructible wall of logic is everything an evil mastermind like myself who plans to subvert the agenda of the 3.5... :evillaugh oh wait, did I say that outloud again? some of the above is light hearted sarcasm...
Heron_Marked_Blade 12-10-04, 11:45 PM	3.5 land is far from perfect.I actually agree with you here. But is 3.5 closer to my idea of a "perfect" game than 3.0? Without a doubt. And changing the 3rd-level 3.0 Haste spell is only a part of that. It isn't just the spells (some of which I agree need fixing)--spells don't make the game (or break it, in my campaigns, thanks to the most Core rule of all: Rule Zero). Viewing 3.0 vs. 3.5 as a difference in spell mechanics (or the inclusion of metamagic rods as Core) is silly, and really short-circuits any reasonable discussion of the two versions. I like the 3.5 changes to the classes. I like the changes to facing. I like the changes to item creation. I like the changes to the feats and skills. YMMV, of course, and it clearly does. But from the number of different responses on this thread to the Haste issue, it seems you're the minority here. ;) In retrospect, please continue to do what it is you do. If you suddenly stopped ranting against 3.5, I think the boards would stop functioning. As a pillar of the community, your disappearance or wholesale change in modus operandi would shake things up too much for my comfort. It's nice to know there's one member here I can count on. :D If the problems aren't discussed then how can we hope for better 4th edition?Here's an idea. What if you started offering some constructive advice in addition to your criticism? What if you started "discussing" the problem instead of just ranting about how 3.5 screwed the pooch? (I.e. What have you said needs to be done to the problems you point out other than change it back to 3.0?) How should 4.0 look? It clearly can't look like 3.0 (we already have that)--if you aren't suggesting we revert to 3.0 (and I'm not saying you aren't, I would just hope that you don't see 3.0 as the "perfect" game that you come across as seeing it as) then what are you suggesting? Have I missed it somewhere in the last 10 pages? indestructible wall of logic :rofl: some of the above is light hearted sarcasm... Please tell me it wasn't the "indestructible wall of logic" part.... ;)
Demon Gnome 12-11-04, 01:23 AM	I've seen the suggestion made of returning 3.0 Haste to 3.5 as Improved Haste, probably as a 5th or 6th level spell. That seems fairly reasonable to me. Just have a higher level version grant the choker ability, "Quickness"
Nyferto 12-11-04, 09:32 AM	Whilst I won't get involved in this long debate (3.5 haste is a very strange spell). I would like to say that Rule Zero isn't an excuse for poor design because it effects core issues and Rule Zero's aren't standard. It also negates any complaints about 3.0 haste.
zudbash 12-11-04, 09:58 AM	NPCs don't have PC wealth. I did it anyways and the party with blink won out. Because the fighter didn't get rended by the annis hag, one of her attacks missed as a result of the 50% miss on the blink spell. In fact in both cases casting "haste" was worse for the party compared to casting "fireball" which actually hurt the ennemies or blink which protected the tank. As has been pointed out before on this thread, Blink (in any edition) is a personal range spell. You can't cast it on the tank. For this reason, in many cases Displacement is a better choice. In previous posts you have indicated that you prefer 3.5 Blink over 3.5 Haste. Here has been my experience. I am currently playing a 7th level bard/3rd level dragon disciple in 3.5. So for my most recent three character levels I have had only two 3rd level spells known to pick from--Blink and Haste. Although initially I thought Blink would prove to be more useful, my experience over three levels has been that there are more situations that Haste is more useful. I am happy to have both spells, but I use Haste more. I realize that you don't play 3.5, but maybe your opinion of 3.5 Haste would be more favorable if you playtested it.
bitnine 12-11-04, 11:33 AM	As has been pointed out before on this thread, Blink (in any edition) is a personal range spell.That's what makes casting it on the fighter such a great tactic. They'll never see it coming!
Heron_Marked_Blade 12-11-04, 11:40 AM	That's what makes casting it on the fighter such a great tactic. They'll never see it coming! :rofl: Literally!* For those of you who, like me, didn't get it the first time.... :embarrass
DungeonMaster 12-11-04, 12:26 PM	It's amazing that someone who has not ever posted a critical comment on 3.5 is quite so quick to level accusations and labels upon others. In fact posts and opinions that are entirely positive are demonstrative of a singular zeal, the lack of a critical process functioning in the mind. It is in truth the absence of an opinion that is professed and any sort of ad-hominem leveled against one who has already demonstrated a level of moderation in opinion is doubly reflected back upon oneself in the vacous nature of this zealotry. The opinions professed by one such as this are by definition: worthless. Garbage. Poison. Normally one would expect such an individual to merely hang their head in shame and back down or perhaps offer evidence of an actual thought process beyond the scripted single minded approbation. But instead, alas, the individual is unable to come to terms with its fanatacism and merely jeers frothing at the mouth from the sidelines of any sort of actual argument even when offered the opportunity for some form of intellectual redemption. You have my pity.
Heron_Marked_Blade 12-11-04, 12:46 PM	"Blink as good as Haste" debate = :ghosted: Unless there's anything else to add?* :tissue: *Such as the standard Fighter build having five levels of Wizard, or a high Charisma + maximum cross-class ranks in Use Magic Device + a wand of Blink, perhaps....
DungeonMaster 12-11-04, 12:54 PM	Viewing 3.0 vs. 3.5 as a difference in spell mechanics (or the inclusion of metamagic rods as Core) is silly, and really short-circuits any reasonable discussion of the two versions. Half of the PHB is spells. Half. By page number alone p.159 to 274 or 42%. D&D is defined by it's magic system. As soon as the magic system is fouled with you get a really angry Dungeon Master. I don't like square horses. I don't like not being able to overrun as part of a charge. I don't like not being able to ready a charge. I don't like the 3.5 druid'o'doom the 3.5 wildrogue. I don't like that spellfocus was made utterly useless. I don't like the fact that whirlwind was nerfed when great cleave is the culprit in any sort of munchyness. In fact I can probably list the number of things 3.5 did right on a single page of paper. All the things it could have done right - from the benign stupidity of not getting bonus 0th level spells from high intelligence to actually balancing clerical domains and powers and taking out their arcane punch would probably cover a good thick stack. Here's an idea. What if you started offering some constructive advice in addition to your criticism? How should 4.0 look? I'm actually compiling a nice long list. It's not done yet but you can expect it in the near future, perhaps after christmas if I have time. It clearly can't look like 3.0 (we already have that)--if you aren't suggesting we revert to 3.0 (and I'm not saying you aren't, I would just hope that you don't see 3.0 as the "perfect" game that you come across as seeing it as) then what are you suggesting? Have I missed it somewhere in the last 10 pages? You're not reading the thread. You've missed the whole part where I challenged Seeker and D to provide evidence of a critical opinion. In that post I showed many of my negative criticisms of 3rd edition, I've described it as mediocrity, flavorless and a whole host of negative adjectives. 4th edition should not have it's basis in 3.5, anymore than 3rd edition taking its basis from "2.5" "skills and powers" and such. And my mistake. I did cast blink on the fighter, make it displacement - nothing from the rolls changes in fact.
Aracor 12-11-04, 01:52 PM	I don't like square horses. I don't like not being able to overrun as part of a charge. I don't like not being able to ready a charge. I actually like these facing rules better. It never made sense to me that long creature wasn't able to turn normally because they were a 2 by 1 square. Horses can turn and wheel rather well, and to do that they need the space. I'll agree that not being able to overrun as part of a charge seems rather stupid. I disapproved of that ruling when I saw it, and I've actually house-ruled it out in my games simply because I agree that it makes charging rather sad. It also doesn't make any sense that a running horse isn't capable of plowing someone over if they don't get out of the way. As for being able to ready a charge, I seem to recall a big long thread about whether or not that was allowed, and there never was an agreement. I see no problem with it. I don't like the 3.5 druid'o'doom the 3.5 wildrogue. I don't like that spellfocus was made utterly useless. I don't like the fact that whirlwind was nerfed when great cleave is the culprit in any sort of munchyness. The 3.5 druid IS powerful, but I don't think it's overpowered. I assume the 3.5 wildrogue you're referring to is the ranger. And I have to admit that I disagree with you here as well. I like the 3.5 ranger much better than the 3.0 one. Yes, they can hide in plain sight at very high levels. But I see no problem with a woodsman being good at stealth. Overall, I think they have much more flavor, and favored enemy isn't almost worthless. Now there's a reason to take more than one level of ranger for two-weapon fighting. I agree that spell focus being cut in half was overkill in the nerf direction, but I think you might even agree that in 3.0 Faerun saves got way too crazy in the other direction. Especially since a dwarven barbarian/fighter who focused entirely on his fortitude save would still fail against a powerful wizard's 9th level death effect more than half the time. Killing spell power IMHO would have taken care of that without killing spell focus. If they were really determined, they should have just removed greater spell focus. Whirlwind I never really saw in action in either edition, other than on the boards with people talking about the bag of rats trick to break things horribly. So I honestly can't say I have an opinion on that one. Obviously a lot of this is a matter of opinion, but so long as you have a DM who follows common sense rather than the precise letter of the rules, I see a lot fewer problems in 3.5 than I do in 3.0. Will you at least admit that 3.0 harm was broken, and the higher-level the moreso? I'm trying to see if you're convinced that 3.0 is the holy grail of perfection and they took it away in 3.5, or if you'll actually admit that 3.0 had problems as well. ~Aracor
Seeker95 12-11-04, 04:30 PM	It's amazing that someone who has not ever posted a critical comment on 3.5 is quite so quick to level accusations and labels upon others.That you I refuse to demonstrate editionism is a positive characteristic. That I can express dis-satisfaction with a single mechanic without branding the entire edition as bad is reasonable. That you have a problem with either of these is pathetic. In fact posts and opinions that are entirely positive are demonstrative of a singular zeal, the lack of a critical process functioning in the mind.You mean it is the sign of an unreasonable mind to express positive comments? I have shared my dis-satisfaction with specific mechanics of 3.5 since its release. But I am not inclined to brand the entire revision a failure simply because I disagree with a mechanic here and there. It is in truth the absence of an opinion that is professed and any sort of ad-hominem leveled against one who has already demonstrated a level of moderation in opinion is doubly reflected back upon oneself in the vacous nature of this zealotry. The opinions professed by one such as this are by definition: worthless. Garbage. Poison. Normally one would expect such an individual to merely hang their head in shame and back down or perhaps offer evidence of an actual thought process beyond the scripted single minded approbation. But instead, alas, the individual is unable to come to terms with its fanatacism and merely jeers frothing at the mouth from the sidelines of any sort of actual argument even when offered the opportunity for some form of intellectual redemption. You have my pity.:rofl: Save your pity. You're a 3.5 bigot, called to the carpet as a 3.5 bigot, and trying hard to deflect the acknowledgement of your bigotry by accusing those who would not share your bigotry as a zealot. Nobody is insisting that you play 3.5 But I am confident that many would appreciate it if you would take your 3.5 bigotry away from here. Don't like it? Don't play it, but shut your trap. Hiding behind the claims of "ad hominem attacks" is silly. These are not ad hominem. These are direct accusations. You're a bigot. Your bigotry leads you to reject anything positive said about 3.5 and to coat any comments you may make about specific 3.5 mechanics with the bile of your bigotry as if a half dozen mechanics are somehow reason to discard the entire edition. If the rest of us followed your lead, we would have rejected D&D as soon as 3.0 hit the stands. It has enough broken mechanics to qualify for the same status you afford 3.5 many times over. But we didn't reject it. We embraced it. We loved it. And when 3.5 improved upon the foundation laid by 3.0, we embraced that as well. Zealotry? No. But equally so, we do not find ourselves compelled to tolerate, much less embrace, the bigotry you have embodied.
WizO_Catoblepas 12-11-04, 06:50 PM	Ok everyone, let's keep the posts to the topic of 3.5 haste, not other guests. Otherwise, you may find yourself getting an Official Warn and the thread will have to be closed. Fair warning.
salamander 12-11-04, 09:17 PM	1) Ok. We are playing different games. We have to be. Last I checked the "get out of dodge" option isn't always available and the "I have the right spell prepared" option happens with even lesser frequency, spell selection or no spell selection. If you've never dispelled anything in combat, I don't know what to say. It's tantamount to wizard 101 to me. I mean I hate a good chunk of "Tome and blood" but there's something to be said about "no spellcaster can do without dispel magic" on p.6 of that book. There are just so many situations where if you don't dispel - you die, horribly, that I can't really understand what you're doing. 2) Don't you think that placing a line at the bottom of the spell specifically mentioning it "dispels" haste isn't well, specific mention? It doesn't "undo" the effects of haste when successfully cast. It negates a haste spell. Outright, right there on p.154 - "for example a slow spell negates a haste spell". The "latter" as you say makes no sense. There would be no reason to point this out, no point to spells "that negate or counter each other completely". What part of "negate or counter each other completely " is being misunderstood? 3) I'm understand your point, it's a simple appeal to published works. The DMG says on p.9 "a rule found in a rulebook overrules one found in published adventures". I'm arguing that the interpretation leads to the EBT paradox within the core rules and so that interpretation has to go. 1) *shrug* There are always exceptional circumstances possible, and not everyone always gets to use optimal tactics (or even always chooses to use optimal tactics). I actually use Dispel Magic a lot - but hardly ever in combat. 2) Again I ask: where does it say that the spell is changed so that, for this purpose, it doesn't offer a save nor spell reduction? Yes, it negates Haste. Yes, it dispels and counters Haste. No, it doesn't say that when doing so the save and the spell reduction get to be ignored. You're not casting Dispel Magic, which doesn't offer either. You're not counterspelling, which doesn't allow a save or spell reduction. You're casting Slow. Slow, as written, offers a save and spell reduction. You've quoted what the spell description says several times now. You still haven't quoted anything that says that the spell, for this purpose, doesn't offer the save or spell reduction the spell description says it does. 3) Whatever do these published adventures have to do with this? Whether they are in conflict with either of our interpretations is moot since, as you say, the core rules overrule adventure material. That doesn't say anything about either of our interpretations since they're both based solely on those core rules. What's this EBT paradox anyway?
solbergb 12-11-04, 11:41 PM	Unfortunately some of these don't work, and none of them illustrate why two spells "before the enemy can react" is of any consequence. Evard's black tentacles don't actually attack until the round after you cast them so that turns off of skippy in a hurry. Actually they grab the first round. They just don't squeeze. But regardless, even in your style of play, the solid fog means you are stuck in the area for the grapple, where without it you would not be. see invis+glitterdust: Why? If you're casting see invisibility it's likely you're, you know, already unaware? If you do know it's general direction then why not glitterdust twice? The see invis cone is only 60 feet so you can do two 10 foot radius glitterdusts instead? Actually, if the enemy has improved invis and zaps you then moves, you do NOT know where he is. That is the big weakness of glitterdust. Haste bypasses is. truestrike+ray spell: So we're trying to hit a pathetic low AC with overkill? yes it's useful in some rare circumstances at high levels, but way overkill 90% of the time. No we're eliminating concealment based miss chances with truestrike, usually. Plus possibly -8 for cover+in melee without having to spend feats. any flame spell+pyrotechnics: Why not just use a flaming sphere? You can move the flaming sphere as a move action and cast pyrotechnics right on the target area you want? It's not like haste is really adding anything at all here that can't be done without. Because flaming sphere has to be already cast for you to pyrotechnic it. Instead you can fireball everyone, then blind them from the stuff you set on fire. Or whatever. mind fog+any will save spell: So if they're affected they're screwed for 2d6 rounds, why can't I wait? otto irresistable dance+reflex save spell: Same. limited wish+any save or XXX spell: Ditto, it's their next save so what's the problem? The problem is...they get to DO something before you FINISH them. Like kill you. Or your friends. Or remove the negative effect somehow. Or teleport home. Getting to eliminate someone this round is better than setting him up for next round. Back to back actions are powerful. All of these are "shooting goldfish in a barrel" scenarios - unless there's an immediate way they can outright kill you in the next round you've gained really, nothing. Well +4 AC but that's really it. They only have to be able to kill somebody OR undo the setup spell OR move/hide/whatever so you can't do the followup. dimensional anchor+force capture spell: Again, what's the benefit? Um...no ability to teleport out, no ability to move out. Astral plane spells get you out of force effects. Dim anchor isn't a big deal if you can move around on the prime material. Both together = you are out of the fight as surely as you are if you are dead. any spell+dimension door to safety afterwards: If you need to d.door you're likely in a very ugly bind, like grappled. Otherwise d.door won't make you much safer than a target on the not-so-far-off horizon. Sure it will. Distance eliminates whole categories of attacks. Melee, "close" attacks, heck often even "medium" attacks. Whereas you got to use your close range stoppers and got to avoid the counter attack. save or XXX followed by save or XXX if the first one fails. Geometrically more likely to succeed plus you can target a second person if the first one gets lucky: So again, how is this a "killer combo" that benefits from the specific inability for your opponent to react? The fact that before he got to kill you, you forced a second saving throw, which means he's done if he fails. Some spells end combats on one save. The chance of failing saves goes up the more often you have to roll that d20. Two walls of force (or other similar barrier spell) are far more likely to trap an enemy than one: What? Since when? I kinda thought most barrier/entrapment spells were designed to you know, entrap and barrier things. Not do that job half-way and quit. If I drop a wall of force hemisphere on you putting another one on top of it isn't going to hamper you any more than the first. Hemisphere isn't an option in 3.5. But since we're talking 3.0 haste your argument is justified. In 3.5, many of the wall spells are incapable of fully enclosing an enemy on their own. Disintegrate enemy wall of force AND follow up with another attack. leomund hut followed by globe of invuln. :rofl: You're serious? These are probably bottom of the barrel. [/QUOTE] Um...in 3.0 we had disintigrate vs wall of force wars (which leads to haste vs slow wars) when sorcerers were on both sides. The side with more got to hurt the other side. *shrug*. Doesn't come up much in 3.5, since both haste and wall of force got nerfed. If you mock Leom hut + globe invuln you haven't seen what it can do when up against massed enemy casters with mid-level spell-like or casting abilities. Unlike all other miss chance stuff, nothing lets you see through leomund's hut, not even true seeing. It is opaque on the outside, not opaque on the inside and it is really there, not an illusion. So the natural response is area attacks. Which also do nothing. But they can't tell it is doing nothing. Meanwhile you're free to blast away. It's situational yeah. But if you know your enemy, it can be very powerful. I don't understand. What world do you live in that giving the enemy free shots at you is desirable? Even if it is not life and death, dropping him this round and not next round means less healing/recovery spells and resources used to undo whatever awful things he did in that extra round he had between the limited wish and the finger of death. How are these all silly? Most of these are far better than maximizing a damage spell.
Shatteredtower 12-12-04, 09:01 AM	So the natural response is area attacks. Which also do nothing. But they can't tell it is doing nothing. Meanwhile you're free to blast away. :rofl: I like the summary. After looking at the metamagic 3.5 rod of quickening vs. 3.0 haste comparisons, I still see the spell winning out. A minor rod is too expensive an item for a character of less than 10th level (sure, you could technically afford one at 9th at the recommended treasure level, but you can no longer afford more than it would cost to be the worst bracers of armor). The rod only quickens spells of 3rd level or less a few times a day -- the spell "quickens" those 4th and 5th level spells as well (and you get an AC bonus). Come 12th level, you can upgrade that beauty to a normal rod (but you're still woefully underequipped in most other ways), which is fine for 12th level, but haste lets you "quicken" your 7th level spells when you hit 13th and 14th level. You can finally pull the greater rod in at 15th level, and maybe you'll have enough left over to afford a few adequate protective devices. Now you can finally match haste, right? Well, no, not really. The rod quickens spells -- unless you're a spontaneous caster. The spell effectively "quickens" spells, scrolls, and other magic items. It quickens spell-like abilities. It even allows you to cast a spell and deliver a coup de grace in the same round. Admittedly that is mostly inconsequential, but don't write the idea off completely. Don't write off the fact that you'd still have another 170,000 gp worth of goods to play with if you're using 3.0 haste instead of a greater rod of quickening either. (Before anyone points out that you don't have to pay the listed value for rods you craft yourself, I refer you to the sentence above the DMG's Character Wealth by Level table: "No adventure meant for 7th level characters, for example, will require or assume that the party possesses a magic item that costs 20,000 gp. Contrary as it sounds, game balance for recommended wealth is based around the idea that those who craft items have less money to spare than those who don't, which suggests that a DM should be given less treasure to a group with item creation feats. I can't see this idea sitting well with people at all...) Are the rods broken? Maybe. I know I don't allow them in my game, so if I tried to claim they weren't, people would have ever right to show me doubt. But is a rod that costs half your recommended wealth at 17th level as broken as a spell that you've possibly been able to cast for 12 levels by now, that could do everything the rod could do and more? On the basis of that comparison, I don't think so. If I don't trust the rod, why would I trust the spell that performs the same task more easily? Would I enjoy playing a game with both the rods and 3.0 haste? Probably not, but the spell still seems like the more abusable of the two options by a good margin.
bitnine 12-12-04, 09:04 AM	The problem is...they get to DO something before you FINISH them. Like kill you. Or your friends. Or remove the negative effect somehow. Or teleport home.Pshaw! If my character got zapped with a save-killer, he wouldn't think about dispelling the effect or getting out of range for the follow up. I'd just go about my business as usual, then die. (In all seriousness, if it were my current wizard character who ID'd such a spell, I'd more likely consider casting a low level buff on myself and refuse to voluntarily make the harmless save.) minor rod is too expensive an item for a character of less than 10th level (sure, you could technically afford one at 9th at the recommended treasure level, but you can no longer afford more than it would cost to be the worst bracers of armor).Heh, something did strike me. Were I in a game that used Dungeonmaster's interpretation of 3.0 haste, I'd go with Boots of Speed. Free action haste, then delay or ready an action to go right after my turn finishes. Boom, on my turn, two spells with no delay. Also works with quickened haste, but boots come into play sooner. [Edit: Hell, if the haste spell handed out partial actions and it was triggered when my turn arrived, I'd delay a little bit every turn to get two partial actions instead of one. /Edit]
Tony111 12-12-04, 09:11 PM	Dear Dungeon Master: Part of your defense of 3.0 haste depends on enforcing the 4 encounters per day assumed in the DMG. Since the party can dimension door, rope trick, magnificent mansion, teleport, and plane shift their way to safety from anywhere, how do you design plots where nearly every day requires 4 encounters with almost no chance of resting before the 4 encounters are finished? I can think of only 2 plots myself where this is possible: 1. Strick time limit. (The princess is dying in 24 hours. Come back with the life fruit before then or she is toast.) 2. Huge, undispellable dimensional locked areas and/or huge undispellable forbiddances. Besides reusing these two plots hooks over and over to balance haste 3.0 by forcing the 4 encounters per day, how do you continue to come up with interesting plots and still maintain the forced 4 encoutners per day? I am honestly curious. Tony
DungeonMaster 12-13-04, 03:35 PM	There are a few more simple considerations but you've already hit those 2 on the head. I use forbiddance fields sparsely, you have to be going to a very special location like a very high level wizard's tower to feel the effects of a forbiddance field or a high level cleric. Only very exceptionally do I invoke the clause that areas of strong physical energies prevents you from teleporting (a volcano, crushing depths of the ocean are a few) or that the material component for plane-shift is hard to come by. #1 the ennemies are themselves not stupid. The villain, should you use villains, should not let the PCs rest if he's attacked. If he has access to divinations, specifically commune and contact other plane, he should be able to zero in on their plans if not location. At low levels scrying. At the highest levels discern location is an extremely powerful spell and screen forces the players actually going there (or sending a minion). Almost all the powerful high level creatures can cast powerful and hindering spells. Powerful evil outsiders like the balor can unhallow the ground they walk upon and dimensionally lock the area around it. Balors can use symbol at will and chasing one down a corridor of its lair basically requires an antimagic field or you're in for more than you ever bargained for. Titans are 20th level clerics/wizards on top of being able to astrally project themselves as a spell like ability. A lone titan can rather quickly (and frighteningly) tear down just about any defenses in a PC's stronghold by standing just a few feet outside of it's own forbidanced olympian lair and astrally projecting itself. #2: In my opinion and experience the "dungeon crawl" paradigm breaks down at high levels. If the goal is obvious - i.e. go to this room, get this item, do this. The players will be able to do it very efficiently. They've spent many many levels strugling with simple things like pits, chasms, locked doors, magic seals, and other impediments including guardians, that their characters are essentially designed to circumvent all of these with ease. A high level challenge has to be almost by definition abstract or something their spells just can't fix. Throwing the "bigger meaner monster" as the epic level handbook (very very poorly written) suggests just isn't going to phase them. And combat takes hours and hours with each character making on the order of 10 rolls a round. Save, SR, %miss chance, 4+ attacks, etc... If you don't want to constantly pull out the "big guns" of forbiddance, screen and antimagic, because like myself you don't think this sort of magic becomes dull and contrived real fast, you need a "non standard" challenge. By non-standard I mean for instance: make a small country win a war against a much larger nation without actually showing your own intervention. It's more circumstance, and using your abilites within the circumstances that make a high level challenge. Anyhow, I never ever "force" 4 encounters per day. Sometimes there are as few as 1, other times there are as many as 20. It's an average, and not one that applies to high level characters in the first place as per DMG. The thing is that if you don't ever have more than 1 or two encounters per day your warriors are going to look like chumps - literally, they kill golems and that's about it. It's not a question of haste or metamagic rods - which are even better with few encounters per day, it's that the wizard class is designed with intent of limited resources in terms of spell slots. You shouldn't be able to meteor swarm every encounter. Once and a while, yes, but not every last encounter. You have to be forced to rely on your other lower level magic. I might have time to reply to (some) of the other posts later.
solbergb 12-13-04, 05:48 PM	Nice post DM. I agree 100% with your analysis of high level play and the appropriate way to run it. Bad guys (the smart ones) will use all the same resources players will have. Which means you are actually more likely to be ambushed out of nowhere as a high level party than a low level one. True safety requires powerful high level screening magic, and disengaging requires defeating the counter to the typical escape paths (teleport, plane shift etc), which can range from the usual suspects (dimensional lock, etc) to a simple counterspell from a minion who doesn't have anything better to do than prevent escapes. (counterspell can include readied actions to disrupt). Many high level monsters can plane travel themselves...it isn't that different from the low levels where fly will let you evade many encounters but not that dragon...plane shift/tp may let you disengage from many encounters, but not that Balor. Oddly enough, sometimes the best way to escape at high levels is to run away really fast in the material plane. Going back to basics as it were. But getting disengaged and staying disengaged are two different things...a low level ork tribe may have an expert tracker. A high level evil empire will have discern location et-all, commune, heck even miracle/wish if they are really angry.
Lilt 12-13-04, 09:55 PM	I find 3.5 haste to be incredibly useful. The argument that 3.5 haste is pointless as it can only be used on a full attack strikes me as completely wrong. I see multiple full attacks executed every combat in the games that I play in, and find it hard to believe that anything else is the norm. If you really believe that full attacks are all that rare, then perhaps you should head allong to the Character Optimisation boards and tell them that they're wrong to try and keep the BAB of level 20 fighter or gish builds at 16 or above, as they're never going to execute a full attack. Is probably of little direct use to a pure spellcaster. Once you get past the glory of direct use (like fireball) and actually weigh the benefits it actually becomes a very effective spell. In the campaign I'm playing in, the bard was acused of being somewhat ineffective. His primary activities in combat were to cast Harmony (if he could) and start to sing, then shoot the enemy from range with a bow for moderately low damage. His response to this accusation was to propose some sample combats where the difference in damage done between him not singing and him singing was counted. If people hit within a margin of 2, all of the damage they did was dedicated to his total. Each time they hit, the 2 extra damage done thanks to the bard was accredited to the bard's total. After a number of encounters (I believe there were about 5) the damage total for the bard was the second out of 4, being larger than that of the Wizard or Ranger, yet smaller than that of the Cleric. Moral: Boosting the party may be as effective a use for one round's activities as actually fighting, maybe even more-so.
solbergb 12-14-04, 12:27 PM	Yeah, that's a tradeoff my illusionist has to make a lot. We have been in a state where we buff, have a terrifying 10 minutes or so of constant running battles, then disengage for a couple levels now. I have to carefully weigh the mass damage spells vs the battlefield control spells vs making the fighter types more effective. Our party has 2 paladins, one barbarian/cleric, one animal companion "mount" of the primary paladin and one rogue. We are in a campaign where we're much lower on party treasure than DMG typical, mostly due to lack of downtime. Level 1 spells are mostly enlarge (for 2 best fighters) and reduce (for rogue and wizard) plus 1 utility spell L2 fight between defensive buffs and battlefield control spells like web and glitterdust. Lately battlefield control has been winning. L3, the greater magic weapon buffs have totally taken over my spell mix. At level 13, the +2 to hit and damage on each fighter type is worth its weight in gold. A full rack of fireballs or empowered magic missile wouldn't begin to compare with the damage benefits of casting GMW on all the weapons, even if I had time to cast the spells. If I had Haste I'd use it. I do have Rage, but the players roleplayed it far too well last time I cast it, to the point where teamwork broke down as people charged around. Enraging fearless paladins and already raging barbarians just doesn't work as well as you'd think. L4, empowered searing rays still hold off other party buffs, plus some "sleep safe" spells such as detect scrying and leomund's shelter L5 slots are mine, I don't have any useful party buffs and do have many useful mage spells, including the two teleport spells required to disengage. L6 have been taken over by Greater Heroism. +4 to hit and saves again over the course of the battle is SO much better than anything else I can cast it isn't funny. Plus the temp hp are nice and immunity to fear on the barb and the rogue are also nice (we had far too many assaults screwed up by one or the other rolling a "1" on a fear save). L7 again has a conflict between one more Greater Heroism (I have TWO more fighter types who could benefit greatly) and the flexibility limited wish provides. (plus empowered shadow evocation or greater shadow conjuration outside of the illusion slot both have attractive points). Mostly my "boom" has been reduced to 2nd, 4th and 5th level spells, where I have no useful "fighter buffs". When we're not in "running fight" mode, the spell mix shifts a lot. But boy...I'd sure like to have 3.5 haste with this party. Every extra attack from it that hits, every attack that hits by 1, every time mobility lets us avoid a hit or dish out a hit gets tallied to the total. Sadly the NPC mages in this campaign are mostly specialists, and the only one I know who is interested in Haste is only 4th level :( So unless I give up a 7th or 8th level spell when I level, I'll have to do without until we're done with this adventure and I can encourage him to go out adventuring so he can trade with me :D
salamander 12-14-04, 02:05 PM	There's always spell research. Sure, that's not really an option in the middle of an adventure. And it costs a lot. But nothing says that has to be limited to entirely new, original spells. The DMG only mentions the mechanic for original spells, but it wouldn't make any sense to disallow researching a spell simply on the grounds that someone else thought of it before. A lot of the wizard players I know use it every now and then to add a spell they really want and don't have other access to to their spellbook. And unless you do it for your highest spell levels, the cost isn't all that prohibitive (3K to research Haste when you're 12th+ level? That's pocket change). The research time and access to a lab, library and whatnot are the only real obstacle.
solbergb 12-14-04, 03:07 PM	Yes, spell reasearch would be an ok option if I actually had downtime. This character unfortunately is also a crafter, so what happens is we come in for the winter, and she spends several months spending all of the party's cash making stuff for herself and them, horse-trading spells with other mages and generally causing shortages in spellbook ink all across the continent. Then I go off on another adventure that involves several levels away from civilization and downtime. It's easier to convince that level 4 NPC mage to go out and kill some bandits or something while I'm in a crafting frenzy than doing spell research myself. But the fact remains...haste would be lovely for this character, and she misses it almost as much as she missed having magic missile for levels 1-9.
salamander 12-14-04, 05:19 PM	It's easier to convince that level 4 NPC mage to go out and kill some bandits or something while I'm in a crafting frenzy than doing spell research myself. Sorry, that makes no sense to me. What do you do, tell him he should go out and kill some bandits so he'll miraculously acquire a spell and that he has to pick Haste? It's not quite up there, but that does feel a bit too much like metagaming to me. If your char wants Haste that much, can't find anyone to teach him immediately but has the time and resources to do the research, why would he spend that time crafting in hopes of someone else finding that spell in the meantime, with no indication whatsoever that that might be a possibility?
solbergb 12-14-04, 06:30 PM	He'll learn haste because he is a transmutation geek that likes to engage in melee with a spiked chain in addition to being a 4th level mage. And he'll learn it because I will trade him the other spells he wants to know from my spellbook (such as greater magic weapon) if he learns it instead of the stuff I already know. And he'll learn it because I crafted his magic spiked chain for him when he asked. And he'll learn it because our characters are friends and battle comrades (we adventured back when we were both lower level...I just advanced faster), and because my (13th level) spellbook is open to to my friends. And he'll learn it because haste is a useful spell to wizards who play with the style that he has.... It's not metagaming because the reason he WILL learn Haste is the same reason none of the other NPC wizards I've encountered know it. The spell is interesting to him, and I have most of the other 3rd level spells that interest him in my spellbook for trade. So all I really need is to encourage him to level up a bit while I'm in town available to trade :) Why spend my precious cash and limited downtime doing spell research (and in our group 3k is a lot, it's an armor upgrade or magic weapon upgrade for one of our fighters) when an NPC that I've done favors for and who thinks of himself as an adventurer will likely have the same spell if he got off his behind? He might not do it...that's roleplay. But I have very good reason to believe he'd WANT to adventure get 3rd level spells, get his L5 feat (probably craft arms and armor, which means my character probably taught him the feat since I've yet to hear of anyone else in the area alive who can make magic weapons) and get Haste so he can hit people twice with his chain every round. So it is a pretty safe bet, if he doesn't get killed trying. Each campaign is different. In Living Greyhawk I'd wander over to the local scroll shop, plunk down 375gp for a scroll of haste, buy some spell ink and scribe it into my spellbook between each episodic adventure, if I couldn't find some other friendly PC wizard to trade with. Access to spells is highly campaign dependent.
salamander 12-14-04, 07:58 PM	To each his own, but simply acting on the knowledge that adventuring (and gaining experience) is the fastest way to acquire new spells *is*, to an extent anyway, metagaming. Adventuring shouldn't be the quickest way to learn spells, diligent study should be. The only reason that it's the other way around is to make adventuring mechanically more attractive than plain studying for player characters. Spells come from the study time between adventures, yet if you'd only study and not adventure you wouldn't get spells... ;)
solbergb 12-15-04, 03:01 PM	The metarule for D&D leveling is (where level = gain power/skill) "You can level very slowly through practice and study" "You can level very quickly by taking risks and challenging yourself." In 1st edition leveled people were very rare, everyone else had to be L0 commoners who sometimes became the equivalent of, say, a L4 fighter by 30 years of constant soldiering or whatever. In 3rd edition, everyone gets levels. Why is one inkeeper a L10 commoner and another a L5 commoner? Not just age. That L10 commoner probably took some risks, unless he's a dwarf or elf and very old. I can list a half dozen incharacter campaign reasons for why this mechanic might exist in a way that makes sense to characters, but the fact is, characters in a game are not going to ignore the fact that Fred the Apprentice or Mary the Trainee Warrior go off into the Dragon Lands and come back a year later with mastery of 6th circle spells or the ability to shoot into a grapple and never miss the intended target. The stay-at-home NPC's are making a safety versus power choice. Some NPC's are adventurers, if perhaps not as good at finding trouble as the PC's. Encouraging them to adventure makes sense. The NPC who'd rather wait 10 years to go from 1st level spells to 2nd level spells will only adventure if the consequences of not doing so are greater...as in his home is attacked by raiders and his family is in danger and he uses his talents to fight them off...and gets a surge of power perhaps, cutting 5 years off his study time to get to 2nd level spells. Unless your campaign indicates that only PC's can advance rapidly through taking risks, some NPC's will go that route. My friendly L4 transmuter is an adventurer. He just isn't as good at it as the PC party is...and his companions are somewhat more inept. But they're capable of level-appropriate challenges...which our party isn't doing because we are out saving the world from bigger threats.
salamander 12-15-04, 03:06 PM	I can list a half dozen incharacter campaign reasons for why this mechanic might exist in a way that makes sense to characters... Would you? :)
solbergb 12-15-04, 03:42 PM	Sure, but I think I'll do it in another forum than "magic and spells". I'll post something over in the Characters and Classes forum, since leveling is a character mechanic.