Post/Author/DateTime	Post
WunderGoat 12-16-04, 03:21 AM	I really started playing DnD with 3rd ed, and still prefer some of those rules to the 3.5 rules, though there were many great canges. In particular I liked the changes to the damage reduction system and the fixing of such spells as haste, shield, and harm. However, I chose to keep the old cover and concealment system as I found more freedom in it. Given this, there are a few things that I wonder about changing. -Lightning Bolt: One of my favorite spells from 3.0, due to its flexibility and ease of use, I found it much better than fireball in everything but range and pure nukeage. I was heartbroken to find its range killed in 3.5, and while it is still a good spell, losing medium range for a 120 ft. set range makes it harder/more dangerous to use (a horseman in range can easily close the gap and lance you rather easily). I think that the range was changed due to the relatively huge area affected by a bolt, but I don't think a line is that overpowered. I was wondering what your opinons are on the matter. -Haste: That partial action was the most useful thing ever, and most definaly was overpowered. However, I was toying with the idea of creating a greater haste that would effectively be the old haste, perhaps in the range of levels 5-7. I know it would still be very useful for a wizard or fighter type, even if the extra action could not be used to cast spells. Should this spell be made? -Crit Threat Stacking: I think that Imp. Crit. and keen should stack. The primary abuse of this in my eyes was with vorpal, which has been nerfed independantly. I don't really see much wrong with a weapon like a rapier having a threat range of 12-20, as you still need to hit on the confirm roll. Thus far I have been allowing this in my campaigns, but then again I punish what I see to be rules abuse severely and subscribe to the belief that monsters and NPCs should be min/maxed as a PC generaly is. Do you think that this is overpowered? As an afterthought I decided to post a house rule I've been using for review. I'd post it in the house rules forum, but the guys in there are pretty hopeless. - Whenever an wizard or sorceror (or similar class) casts a spell, she must make a concentration check equal to 10+spell level+damage delt to her in the previous round (i.e. damage delt since her last turn). Casting defensively adds 5 to this DC. For example, a wizard takes 5 damage from an orc with an axe. The wizard then attempts to cast magic missile on the orc. The wizard takes another 3 damage in an attack of opportunity from the orc. She must now make a DC 19 concentration check (10+5+3+1=19) or lose the spell. This rule was intended to make the wizard unable to return damage, making it more frail and reliant on other party members. It also loweres the massive damage output of wizards. Divine casters need not worry aobut this, as only attacks of opportunity force concentration checks (Divine magic is more hearty than arcane, as it is the channeling of divine power, rather than trying to summon energies from nothing). Bards also are not subject to this rule because they need all the help they can get, and they are more combat orientated.
The Abominable Darkling 12-16-04, 03:39 AM	-Lightning Bolt: One of my favorite spells from 3.0... I think that the range was changed due to the relatively huge area affected by a bolt, but I don't think a line is that overpowered. I was wondering what your opinons are on the matter.I don't think the old version was overpowered. I think the rule change was made to improve consistency between various spells and abilities, not to change its power level. After all, in a dungeon setting, the two versions behave virtually identically. I was toying with the idea of creating a greater haste that would effectively be the old haste, perhaps in the range of levels 5-7. I know it would still be very useful for a wizard or fighter type, even if the extra action could not be used to cast spells. Should this spell be made?I despised the old haste mechanic. I won't allow it in my games--at any spell level. I think that Imp. Crit. and keen should stack. The primary abuse of this in my eyes was with vorpal, which has been nerfed independantly. I don't really see much wrong with a weapon like a rapier having a threat range of 12-20, as you still need to hit on the confirm roll. ... Do you think that this is overpowered?I don't think it's overpowered. Threat range stacking was removed mostly for flavour reasons. The designers wanted criticals to be "special." When players crit with 50% or more of their hits, then criticals really become sort of mundane. At the same time, you have to be careful: criticals really can get out of hand.
Nom 12-16-04, 09:04 AM	The problem with a higher powered version of haste is Quicken Spell. It costs 4 spell levels to cast a single extra spell per round. What is an appropriate level for a spell that gives you a more potent version of Quicken for a number of rounds without increasing spell level? As bizarre as it sounds, the biggest balance problem with multiple threat range increases is to 20/xlots weapons. A weapon doing 12-20/x2 is consistent - you'll threaten on most hits. In contrast, a 20/x4 weapon is already awkward from a balance perspective, as on rare occasions it will drastically alter the current situation. Increasing this to 18-20/x4 (or more) makes it more likely to do serious damage on a successful hit. However, the oddity is that a 12-20 threat range will often be larger than your to-hit, thus you won't get full benefit. In contrast, it's pretty rare for 18 to be a miss. Increased threat range gives most advantage to weapons that aren't supposed to crit lots, thus preventing stacking may be as much stylistic as balance. I don't like your house rule on Wiz/Sorc. A Wiz/Sorc in combat already has a pathetically low hp total to worry about, why double-penalise? A cleric or druid who knows what they are doing can be at least as dangerous as a Wiz or Sorc, although they do need to wait a little longer for "brute force" area attacks.
Lord Stigius 12-16-04, 11:07 AM	The old haste was good, except for one thing: allowing to cast an additional spell. That was too much. If you say you're going to give your chracter the benefits of old haste except the additional spell/round, it probably should be level 4, 5 at most. Personally, I play something like 3,25 edition, and I still use the old version - but without the benefit of an additional spell/round. I think it's OK for a level 3 spell. Lightning Bolt - there's nothing broken in the old version IMHO. Stacking criticals - YES! I could never understand why a weapon property (keen) and a character learned ability (Imp.Crit) are not meant to stack. While I know I'm risking all the bashing here, I'd say that it's just as reasonable as saying that a weapon property (masterwork) and a character learned ability (Wepon Focus) were not going to stack. The concentration checks - It's the only one I don't like here. But it's your game.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 12-16-04, 11:23 AM	Haste was a little broken in 3ed, but if you nerf it so that the wiz can't cast an extra spell a round then its all good, I guess. I never did see anything wrong with bolt. Old or new. If the wiz is staring down a fighter type on horse back with a lance, why isn't the wiz casting fly? Your house rule kinda screws wizards and sorcerers like an electric drill. Especailly with the mage slayer feats in the complete arcane.
Kainy 12-16-04, 02:44 PM	A 3e haste, with the specific exclusion for the partial action of no spellcasting, has (when I posted it to the spells/magic board) been put pretty firmly in 5th level. I'd allow it in my campaign. Lit bolt out to long range is fine by me as well. Crit stacking, also okay by me, but that's cause I don't look badly on stuff that helps melees remain effective =P Remember, a scimitar weaponmaster gets his threat range down to 10-20, which means pretty much every hit is a threat (but it's never vice versa) :P That build also dies terribly against undead, constructs, etc.
Ualaa 12-16-04, 02:56 PM	A variant on Concentration. We have two DM's in our group. I'm a player in his game, and he is a player in mine. The other DM really likes casters. In his game, taking 9 or fewer points does not force a concentration check to keep a spell, but 10 or more does. This is basically saying any spellcaster has enough training/in-born ability to overcome a slight distraction. Further, all casters are assumed to automatically cast defensively, without the need for a check. In effect, this helps lower level casters survive through their most fragile period. In higher level play, casters do not fail concentration checks when taking 9 points or less, especially not when "taking 10" if figured in. Mageslayer feat from Minature's Handbook and Complete Arcane still prevents a caster from defensively casting as does Spell Casting Harrier from Epic Level Handbook..
clarkvalentine 12-16-04, 03:13 PM	-Crit Threat Stacking: I think that Imp. Crit. and keen should stack. The primary abuse of this in my eyes was with vorpal, which has been nerfed independantly. I don't really see much wrong with a weapon like a rapier having a threat range of 12-20, as you still need to hit on the confirm roll. Thus far I have been allowing this in my campaigns, but then again I punish what I see to be rules abuse severely and subscribe to the belief that monsters and NPCs should be min/maxed as a PC generaly is. Do you think that this is overpowered? For a rapier? No. For a dual-wielding heavy/light pick? Yes, I think it is overpowered. Times 4 dmage on 18-20. Ouch. Combine that with an energy burst, and that's a darn powerful weapon right there.
Vanigo 12-16-04, 03:48 PM	As an afterthought I decided to post a house rule I've been using for review. I'd post it in the house rules forum, but the guys in there are pretty hopeless. - Whenever an wizard or sorceror (or similar class) casts a spell, she must make a concentration check equal to 10+spell level+damage delt to her in the previous round (i.e. damage delt since her last turn). Casting defensively adds 5 to this DC. For example, a wizard takes 5 damage from an orc with an axe. The wizard then attempts to cast magic missile on the orc. The wizard takes another 3 damage in an attack of opportunity from the orc. She must now make a DC 19 concentration check (10+5+3+1=19) or lose the spell. This rule was intended to make the wizard unable to return damage, making it more frail and reliant on other party members. It also loweres the massive damage output of wizards. Divine casters need not worry aobut this, as only attacks of opportunity force concentration checks (Divine magic is more hearty than arcane, as it is the channeling of divine power, rather than trying to summon energies from nothing). Bards also are not subject to this rule because they need all the help they can get, and they are more combat orientated.Hmm. Flavor-wise it works, but IMHO divine casters already have enough advantages over arcane casters. Give them an extra ability or something to compensate. Also, from a mechanical standpoint, the mechanic for contiuous damage (such as from Melf's acid arrow) has the concentration check being 10 + half the damage dealt on the last turn + spell level. Taking that as a precedent, I'd have the DC be 10+1/2 damage dealt last turn+damage dealt during casting+spell level. One more thing: How does Combat Casting interact with this house rule? I'd have it give some major resistance to this, thereby making it actually worthwhile for the first time since ever. Either that or make another feat that makes you exempt from this rule that has Combat Casting as a prerequisite.
eRaz0r 12-16-04, 04:47 PM	Yeah - I have to weigh in with those who disagree with your arcane caster nerf. My experience is that arcane casters are not inherently vastly more powerful than divine casters. If anything, it's the opposite. The big damage area spells that the arcane casters get are usually more flash than bang when compared with a decent party buff. (One fireball does an average of 3.5 damage per die, once, but a haste spell on the entire party can add an additional sneak attack, or an additional full BAB hit for each fighter, once a round for CL rounds. Compare 3.5 x CL vs Average Damage per melee combatant x CL and you'll see what I mean) Now, Clerics don't get all the best arcane spells, that's true. but consider that Clerics get decent armor, HD, BAB, and access to spells like Divine Favour, Power and Righteous Might in addition to being able to heal and buff in other ways and a smattering of area and focussed damage spells (Holy Word, Harm, Flamestrike) as well as access to their entire class spell list instantly with no spellbook vulnerability.. oh, and domains which can give them some of the best arcane spells to choose from as well as an additional spell per day without being barred from opposing schools... Oh and they get more spells per day anyway even without the Domain Spell. And spontaneous healing... I'm not even going to talk about the Druids Wild Shape Into Tank and Still Cast Some of the BEST Area Damage spells ability. Yeah I'd say I'd have to disagree with the idea that Arcane casters need a nerf.
Sildatorak 12-16-04, 06:38 PM	For a rapier? No. For a dual-wielding heavy/light pick? Yes, I think it is overpowered. Times 4 dmage on 18-20. Ouch. Combine that with an energy burst, and that's a darn powerful weapon right there. I'm a strong proponent of allowing keen and improved crit to stack. You should be exceedingly mindful of PrC's that allow characters to increase their damage multiplier, though. Yes, heavy/light pick is a brutal combination (light/light is pretty bad and more feat efficient, too). Times 4 damage an extra 10% of the time results in increased damage output against crittable foes by 15% relative to either keen or imp. crit. on its own. Energy burst is never a good idea, though...for a +2 adjustment you'll get an average of +3.5 damage on every hit and +16.5 15% of the time. That means your total average output increase for the bonus is going to be about 6 points of damage. You would get more increase to your output simply taking enhancement bonuses. Each + to hit means 5% more hits. That will up your damage output more than pretty much any other weapon ability (except perhaps blazing energy, speed, wounding, or bane in a campaign focused on a particular enemy type).
Vanigo 12-16-04, 09:15 PM	You would get more increase to your output simply taking enhancement bonuses. Each + to hit means 5% more hits. That will up your damage output more than pretty much any other weapon ability (except perhaps blazing energy, speed, wounding, or bane in a campaign focused on a particular enemy type). Well, it depends on what your attack bonus is compared to your opponent's AC. If you're only hitting on 17+, an extra +1 to hit will boost your damage output by a whopping 25%. On the other hand, if you're hitting on an 11+, you'll only get an extra 10%, so you're probably better off with flaming or something similar; 1d6 extra damage added to 1d10+14 (as an arbitrary example) is an 18% increase. It becomes less useful as your damage increases, though. There's also holy and the like, which, in addition to the extra damage, provide the important ability to penetrate DR/alignment.
eRaz0r 12-16-04, 09:34 PM	Generally speaking, unless you need the extra damage to penetrate DR, Burst doesn't really help as much as adding two elemental enhancements. i.e. For a +2 bonus, you either get One elemental Burst, OR 2 basic elemental enhancements. Since burst weapons act like their element + the burst property, you're effectively paying a +1 bonus to get a 1d10 bonus on crits only. Compare that with a 1d6 bonus for a different element for the same price and it certainly seems like you're better off with 1d6 all the time vs 1d10 only sometimes. There are only a few situations where the additional 1d10 is worth it, and those are with creatures who are resistant/invulnerable to one of your elemental enhancements and vulnerable to your burst. Over the lifetime of the weapon, you're probably better off with the two different elements than put all your eggs in one basket with one burst anyways, unless you live on the elemental planes or something.
WunderGoat 12-17-04, 04:05 AM	Thanks everyone for posting. I was surprised to get so much negativity towards the conc check, but I understand. I would like to clarify the impetus behind the creation of the rule. The DM could not understand how, if everything going on in a round is more or less simultaneous, that only damage delt during an attack of opportunity would provoke an attack of opportunity, while the three hits the wizard took earlier in the round count for nothing. At the time it seemed reasonable, especialy since the wizard would have a massive AC due to old shield (+7 AC out of a lvl 1 spell) and mage armor/items and rarely got hit. In addition, the wizard averaged better than a roll of 3 for HP the entire campaign (it went from lvl 1 to 14), so we didn't think much about it. I decided to give divine casters a break, as they rely somewhat on melee combat (touch spells and the like) and alway get treated as medkits. The rule itself has led to an interesting phenomena among my players that I like immensely. As the wizard has massive damage output and general battlefield utility, they protect the wizad at all costs. Very rarely is this rule invoked as a result, and enemy fireballs and other AoE spells are generaly the culprit. My new question is: Should divine casters be subject to this rule as well, assuming that the rule remains in place? If so, should divine casters have some sort of bonus to the check? Should combat casting be modified to the following to make it more useful? Combat Casting (revised): You gain a +4 bonus to concentration checks to cast on the defensive, while grappled or pinned, or when forced to make a check to to damage taken. Only half of the damage taken in the previous round applies to the DC for such a check. After writing this feat, I feel that requiring all dedicated casters (i.e. not pallys or rangers) to make concentration checks is a better way to go. I've actually got a PC playing a cleric right now(combat casting-equipped), and he's got a huge bonus to conc checks at level 2. I'll talk this feat over with my players tommorow and see what they think.
eRaz0r 12-17-04, 04:06 PM	If your intent on this rule, then by all means, go ahead and apply it equally to every caster... I think the rule is not great. There are plenty of ways to get a wizard to drop a spell, readying an action to strike them is a good one. Every Mage Armor and Shield they cast is one less Magic Missile or Grease and if I'm going to be smacked around and lose my spells no matter what, I might as well just concentrate on the offense and take Improved Initiative and high Dex. This would mean I get to start the damage early on the opposing mages, and damn the defense. Then it comes down to who shoots first (even more than now).
Magnus029 12-17-04, 10:00 PM	-Haste: That partial action was the most useful thing ever, and most definaly was overpowered. However, I was toying with the idea of creating a greater haste that would effectively be the old haste, perhaps in the range of levels 5-7. I know it would still be very useful for a wizard or fighter type, even if the extra action could not be used to cast spells. Should this spell be made? I felt the change was needed here, this spell had the ability to overpower a wizard. The old way it was written would allow a high level wizard to cast 3 spells in a single round, 2 normal an 1 quickened. I would not allow this spell in a campaing at any level. As writen the spell is still an excellent fighter buff, as it was intended to be -Crit Threat Stacking: I think that Imp. Crit. and keen should stack. The primary abuse of this in my eyes was with vorpal, which has been nerfed independantly. I don't really see much wrong with a weapon like a rapier having a threat range of 12-20, as you still need to hit on the confirm roll. Thus far I have been allowing this in my campaigns, but then again I punish what I see to be rules abuse severely and subscribe to the belief that monsters and NPCs should be min/maxed as a PC generaly is. Do you think that this is overpowered? I believe the stacking was overpowered and I like this fix as well. 12 - 20 crit range is insane. This rule was intended to make the wizard unable to return damage, making it more frail and reliant on other party members. It also loweres the massive damage output of wizards. Any class played properly can deal out the same amount of damage. I don't see the point of "fixing" the wizards damage output. Just my thoughts.