Haste modification
Hong Ooi
action provides very different benefits for different classes. If you're
a melee combatant, the benefit becomes relatively less important as you
gain levels, because you get more attacks anyway. OTOH, if you're a
spellcaster, the benefit becomes relatively _more_ important as you gain
levels. This is because an extra partial action effectively doubles the
number of spells you can cast per round, and the higher level you are,
the more powerful your spells get.
The following change attempts to deal with this. Warning -- if you like
playing magic users, you probably won't like this change. With that in
mind, comments would be appreciated.
Haste
[stat block remains the same]
The transmuted creature moves and acts more quickly than normal. This
extra speed has several effects:
- He gains a +4 haste bonus to AC. He loses this bonus whenever he would
lose a dodge bonus.
- His melee and ranged attacks gain a +2 haste bonus to the attack roll.
- His base movement rate is multiplied by 1.5. This counts as an
enhancement bonus.
- All spells and spell-like abilities used during the haste spell's
duration are considered to be hastened. A hastened spell is treated as
if it had the Quicken Spell feat applied to it, except that sorcerers
and bards need not take extra time to cast it, as they would with a
quickened spell. Essentially, casting a hastened spell is a free action
(unless the spell takes more than a round to cast normally -- such
spells are unaffected by the haste), and cannot be interrupted. Only one
hastened spell or ability may be cast per round.
If the hasted creature has quickened spells prepared, it can cast one
such spell as well as one hastened spell per round.
--
Hong Ooi | "Yes, I believe Hong Ooi
hong...@maths.anu.edu.au | is an Eels supporter."
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | -- M.
Canberra, Australia |
Andrew Tellez
Hong Ooi wrote:
>
> At present, Haste is a bit skewed in the way it works. The extra partial
> action provides very different benefits for different classes. If you're
> a melee combatant, the benefit becomes relatively less important as you
> gain levels, because you get more attacks anyway.
IME, the extra partial action becomes more important for melee
combatants as they advance. The difference is that the partial action
isn't an attack, it's a movement. This allows the character to move and
do a full attack, or move and do two single attacks at the base attack
bonus. (For the really desparate, it lets a character take a partial
charge and a full attack.) In a stand-up bashing, haste isn't all that
helpful, nor is is all that great for ranged enthusiasts. It's
excellent for fighters on the go, such as those kill-it-in-a-few-whacks
guys.
Hong Ooi
Mind you, an extra partial action seems uniformly very helpful for
anyone who relies on spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, or
just plain casting spells.
Andrew Tellez
Hong Ooi wrote:
>
> Mind you, an extra partial action seems uniformly very helpful for
> anyone who relies on spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, or
> just plain casting spells.
Completely true. The extra spell or ability is quite helpful, as is the
ability to make a full move and cast a spell. I just think that it's
more useful to mundanes that just a single extra attack. At least, as
long as they remember to move.
Michael Scott Brown
news:96ru9tk97qbs0dq02...@4ax.com...
> At present, Haste is a bit skewed in the way it works. The extra partial
> action provides very different benefits for different classes. If you're
> a melee combatant, the benefit becomes relatively less important as you
> gain levels, because you get more attacks anyway.
The tactical possibilities that come with being able to make two
effective attacks as well as moving are probably more important than the +1
more attack on top of a full attack benefit.
> OTOH, if you're a
> spellcaster, the benefit becomes relatively _more_ important as you gain
> levels. This is because an extra partial action effectively doubles the
> number of spells you can cast per round, and the higher level you are,
> the more powerful your spells get.
One could argue that this benefit remains constant across all power
levels since you need to use heavier mojo to make a dent in the baddies.
Personally, I'm not going to permit haste to speed up casting. The
movement bennies are already plenty for a spellcaster, and it allows him to
defend himself when confronted all the better.
-Michael
James Kiley
>The following change attempts to deal with this. Warning -- if you like
>playing magic users, you probably won't like this change. With that in
>mind, comments would be appreciated.
I /really/ like this. I may use it in my game.
jk
Michael Scott Brown
> > Personally, I'm not going to permit haste to speed up casting. The
> >movement bennies are already plenty for a spellcaster, and it allows him
to
> >defend himself when confronted all the better.
>
> Wouldn't that bring us back to the 2E situation where spellcasters
> didn't get any benefits from a haste (IIRC)?
Hogwash. *Anyone* gets movement and improved attack rate options,
spellcaster or not. Spell*casting* gets no benefit from Haste in 2E and I
feel that's the appropriate setting, both from game balance considerations
and sensibility ones (why should casting a spell which makes your body move
faster suddenly let your *mind* work twice as fast?).
-Michael
Reginald
"Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> "Hong Ooi" <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > > Personally, I'm not going to permit haste to speed up
> > > casting. The movement bennies are already plenty for a
> > > spellcaster, and it allows him to defend himself when
> > > confronted all the better.
> >
> > Wouldn't that bring us back to the 2E situation where
> > spellcasters didn't get any benefits from a haste (IIRC)?
>
> Hogwash. *Anyone* gets movement and improved attack rate
> options, spellcaster or not. Spell*casting* gets no benefit
> from Haste in 2E and I feel that's the appropriate setting,
> both from game balance considerations and sensibility ones
> (why should casting a spell which makes your body move
> faster suddenly let your *mind* work twice as fast?).
Because I hope your mind is fast enough to keep up with your body's
movement. After all, it is the brain that controls the body's action
through nerves and muscles.
Hong Ooi
<mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Hong Ooi" <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote in message
>news:r554at0tmn5pk7ii9...@4ax.com...
>
>> > Personally, I'm not going to permit haste to speed up casting. The
>> >movement bennies are already plenty for a spellcaster, and it allows him
>to
>> >defend himself when confronted all the better.
>>
>> Wouldn't that bring us back to the 2E situation where spellcasters
>> didn't get any benefits from a haste (IIRC)?
>
> Hogwash. *Anyone* gets movement and improved attack rate options,
>spellcaster or not. Spell*casting* gets no benefit from Haste in 2E
That was, of course, the intended meaning.
>and I
>feel that's the appropriate setting, both from game balance considerations
>and sensibility ones (why should casting a spell which makes your body move
>faster suddenly let your *mind* work twice as fast?).
As Reginald pointed out, the mind has to keep up with the body. Anyway,
with regard to magic, the existence of the Quicken Spell feat implies
that there exist at least _some_ ways of speeding up the casting
process. I thought this might be a way of extending some benefit to
spellcasters beyond just the better movement.
Michael Scott Brown
> As Reginald pointed out, the mind has to keep up with the body.
This isn't a good argument for "speeding up the brain" - this line of
reasoning suggests that people who can run faster than the rest of us are
therefore inherently smarter because their brains "have to keep up" . .
concentrating take as long as it does regardless of the physical speed of
the individual doing so.
> Anyway,
> with regard to magic, the existence of the Quicken Spell feat implies
> that there exist at least _some_ ways of speeding up the casting
> process. I thought this might be a way of extending some benefit to
> spellcasters beyond just the better movement.
Notice the game balance of Quicken Spell - you have to prepare *each
spell* that you wish to be able to fire off rapidly with an enormous penalty
in added levels. But simply casting *one* 3rd level spell suddenly lets you
double your casting rate for many, many spells? It's absurd. Quicken is
balanced, Hasted casting is not.
-Michael
The Fifth Llama
"Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:niQo6.19322$7Y1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
It is probably not necessary to speed up the brain. It is quite easy for
the human brain to outpace the body's mechanical ability. Initially, both
brain and body may be slow to perform some action, but the brain learns
faster and retains knowledge, where the body must be trained for longer and
will more rapidly lose mechanical skill without continued training.
One common reason that a laborer is injured after returning to work after a
long period of idleness is that the brain thinks its fine to do some task --
it remembers former capabilities -- but the body no longer has the
ability -- be it reactions, speed, strength, whatever, have atrophied much
quicker than the brain will forget.
>
>
> -Michael
>
>
Eric Christian Berg
On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> "Hong Ooi" <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:1ab6at8fon4jpa3im...@4ax.com...
>
> > As Reginald pointed out, the mind has to keep up with the body.
>
> This isn't a good argument for "speeding up the brain" - this line of
> reasoning suggests that people who can run faster than the rest of us are
> therefore inherently smarter because their brains "have to keep up" . .
> concentrating take as long as it does regardless of the physical speed of
> the individual doing so.
First off, being able to think fast doesn't mean you are smart. There are
plenty of folks with good reflexes and quick wits who won't be coming up
with the Grand Unified Theory anytime soon. On the flip side, I am pretty
sure Einstein wouldn't be a good fighter pilot.
Second, we aren't just talking about running faster, we are talking about
acting faster, and the actions taken can be something as complicated as
melee combat. If someone is able to swing faster and thus land more blows
then, hell yes, they need to be thinking faster. Similarly, if they are
moving twice as fast as anyone else, dodging obstacles, yes, they need to
be thinking faster. Et cetera and so forth.
> Notice the game balance of Quicken Spell - you have to prepare *each
> spell* that you wish to be able to fire off rapidly with an enormous penalty
> in added levels. But simply casting *one* 3rd level spell suddenly lets you
> double your casting rate for many, many spells? It's absurd. Quicken is
> balanced, Hasted casting is not.
Well, they can use the partial action only for spells with a casting time
of one action, first off. No Fire Storm, for example. Also, unlike Quicken
Spell, you have to cast the spell first, which rules out one of the perks
of Quicken Spell: having a spell you can fire off as a free action on the
fly. On the other hand, Quicken Spell isn't really efficient for use on a
whole bunch of spells. In these cases, Haste is the better choice. I don't
see any of this as unbalancing. In a lot of cases, I'd be much more
worried about the tank of a fighter getting an extra attack on me than the
wizard firing off another spell (which at least I can save against,
generally).
--
Eric Christian Berg
System Administrator (Adeptus Minor)
Amherst Systems, Inc.
A Subsidiary of Northrop Grumman Corporation
(716) 631-0088 ext. 199
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GPS d- s+:+ a- C++ ULIOS++++ P+++ L+++ E--- W++ N+
k- w M- V-- PS++ PE++ Y+ PGP- t 5 X R++ tv+ b++
DI+ D+ G e* h- r+++ y**
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Leo
rationalized based on the presumption that spell casting involves a certain
mental effort transcending the caster's physical speed. If it did not, I
would expect some sort of standard dexterity based casting time reduction.
Taking a different example, I assume that a haste spell will not let you
push a heavy weight uphill any more quickly. This is because despite your
increased speed, you still have the physical fact of the weight to contend
with. Similarly, spellcasters subject to haste might be able to speak or
gesture more quickly, but will be unable to increase the rate at which they
manipulate magical energies. Trying to rapidly cast a spell, they will
find themselves coming up against a magical "wall" that forces them to slow
down if they wish to actually cast a spell instead of doing a funny little
dance.
-L
Andrew Tellez
Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>
> "Hong Ooi" <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:1ab6at8fon4jpa3im...@4ax.com...
>
> > As Reginald pointed out, the mind has to keep up with the body.
>
> This isn't a good argument for "speeding up the brain" - this line of
> reasoning suggests that people who can run faster than the rest of us are
> therefore inherently smarter because their brains "have to keep up" . .
> concentrating take as long as it does regardless of the physical speed of
> the individual doing so.
Why does Haste work? Is it metabolic (limbs move faster), optimizing
(character makes more efficient use of time), or temporal (character
experiences more time units than others)? If it's just metabolic, then
extra casting seems inappropriate. If it's more efficient use of time,
or more time, then extra spells are justifiable. The 3E Haste is more
of a hybrid of Articus's Melee Manager and Magic Manager than a straight
upgrade of the 2E Haste.
> in added levels. But simply casting *one* 3rd level spell suddenly lets you
> double your casting rate for many, many spells? It's absurd. Quicken is
> balanced, Hasted casting is not.
I can't see the balance issue. IME Hasted spellcasters haven't been
battlefield-dominating Engines of Destruction. The largets impact is
allowing a caster a second chance against a creature's SR, or setting up
a neat combo like Harm-Death Touch. Heck, even the Time Stop chaining
Hasted sorcerers weren't that awful, at least no worse than one would
expect level 20 sorcerers to be. If anything, Haste tends to lead
spellcasters into using more spells than are wise, rather than letting
the fighters do their job.
tussock
> At present, Haste is a bit skewed in the way it works. The extra partial
> action provides very different benefits for different classes. If you're
> a melee combatant, the benefit becomes relatively less important as you
> gain levels, because you get more attacks anyway. OTOH, if you're a
> spellcaster, the benefit becomes relatively _more_ important as you gain
> levels. This is because an extra partial action effectively doubles the
> number of spells you can cast per round, and the higher level you are,
> the more powerful your spells get.
WTF? Magic swords are better for fighters than wizards 'cause they
get more attacks with them etc. There are spells which are a greater
boon to spellcasters than grunts, and ones better for grunts than
spellcasters.
Surely _one_ thing in the game that benifits casters more than
(uncreative, stand still type) fighters isn't too bad? Jeez.
PS. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
--
tussock
Still need a new .sig
Michael Scott Brown
news:3AA3E86A...@gwu.edu...
> Why does Haste work? Is it metabolic (limbs move faster), optimizing
> (character makes more efficient use of time), or temporal (character
> experiences more time units than others)? If it's just metabolic, then
> extra casting seems inappropriate.
Given the exhaustion issue, metabolic seems plain.
> > in added levels. But simply casting *one* 3rd level spell suddenly lets
you
> > double your casting rate for many, many spells? It's absurd. Quicken is
> > balanced, Hasted casting is not.
>
> I can't see the balance issue. IME Hasted spellcasters haven't been
> battlefield-dominating Engines of Destruction.
!! Then they're not making use of their ability properly. Two fireballs
per round is a monstrous increase in boom-boomage.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
news:Pine.LNX.4.32.0103051336070.18051-
> Second, we aren't just talking about running faster, we are talking about
> acting faster, and the actions taken can be something as complicated as
> melee combat. If someone is able to swing faster and thus land more blows
> then, hell yes, they need to be thinking faster.
Actually, if you're *thinking*, you're already dead in that situation.
Fightin's gotta be instinctive; tactics are contemplated well in the
background. Our minds are already much faster than our bodies already; my
imagination of hitting you with a sword well precedes the reality of its
execution, after all. Letting my body move at a pace a touch closer to the
speed of thought is still only that - a touch closer.
> > Quicken is balanced, Hasted casting is not.
>
> Well, they can use the partial action only for spells with a casting time
> of one action, first off.
That's almost every single spell in the book. This point is irrelevant!
> Also, unlike Quicken Spell, you have to cast the spell first, which rules
out one of the perks
> of Quicken Spell: having a spell you can fire off as a free action on the
> fly.
This is the only distinction - but the "need" to fire it on the fly is
absolved by the bonus partial action.
> On the other hand, Quicken Spell isn't really efficient for use on a
> whole bunch of spells. In these cases, Haste is the better choice. I don't
> see any of this as unbalancing.
Hmm. +3 levels for each spell or +3 levels for *all* spells. Someone
isn't doing his math.
The first rule of game balance warningflagness is "will someone always
choose this option over others?" - and the Haste spell arsenal meets that
critera, IMO.
> In a lot of cases, I'd be much more
> worried about the tank of a fighter getting an extra attack on me than the
> wizard firing off another spell (which at least I can save against,
> generally).
Someone *really* isn't doing his math.
-Michael
Robert Baldwin
<mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Hong Ooi" <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote in message
>news:1ab6at8fon4jpa3im...@4ax.com...
>
>> As Reginald pointed out, the mind has to keep up with the body.
>
> This isn't a good argument for "speeding up the brain" - this line of
>reasoning suggests that people who can run faster than the rest of us are
>therefore inherently smarter because their brains "have to keep up" . .
>concentrating take as long as it does regardless of the physical speed of
>the individual doing so.
Question: In the 3e model, how much of the time required for casting
a spell is just the "mechainical" parts of spell component
manipulation? As I understand it, all but a tiny part of the mental
effort went into the spell at the time it was prepared.
<snip>
> Notice the game balance of Quicken Spell - you have to prepare *each
>spell* that you wish to be able to fire off rapidly with an enormous penalty
>in added levels. But simply casting *one* 3rd level spell suddenly lets you
>double your casting rate for many, many spells? It's absurd. Quicken is
>balanced, Hasted casting is not.
I'm not claiming it's balanced, just poking around the issue of the
"why" in 3e. :-)
--
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well."
-
Remove the spam-block to reply
Andrew Tellez
Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>
> "Andrew Tellez" <no...@gwu.edu> wrote in message
> news:3AA3E86A...@gwu.edu...
> > Why does Haste work? Is it metabolic (limbs move faster), optimizing
> > (character makes more efficient use of time), or temporal (character
> > experiences more time units than others)? If it's just metabolic, then
> > extra casting seems inappropriate.
>
> Given the exhaustion issue, metabolic seems plain.
Exhaustion issue? All I have available right now is the SRD, and I
couldn't find reference to an exhaustion problem.
> > I can't see the balance issue. IME Hasted spellcasters haven't been
> > battlefield-dominating Engines of Destruction.
>
> !! Then they're not making use of their ability properly. Two fireballs
> per round is a monstrous increase in boom-boomage.
I've been using Empowered Lightning Bolts and the like. Yes, a
noticable amount of damage is done, and property values suffer when my
character stops by. But effect per time seems to favor the more melee
oriented (Ninja Man, Big Sword Man, and the druid's Menagerie of
Death). For PC spellcasters, the need to cover non-combat spells tends
to make Haste a dangerous toy in the long term.
However, even when going to full fireballage, the extra damage never
really seemed all that noticable. What was more useful was the ability
to get two attempts to break spell resistance.
Michael Scott Brown
> > Given the exhaustion issue, metabolic seems plain.
>
> Exhaustion issue? All I have available right now is the SRD, and I
> couldn't find reference to an exhaustion problem.
Various incarnations of Haste inflict stress on the body, aging in
earlier editions, in the pre-finished version of the game Haste inflicted
subdual damage, in computer versions of the game it inflicted fatigue, in
the current one . . damnn! Nothing!
<shakes head> It's these little changes that keep cropping up and biting
me in the butt.
Well, it's a Transmutation spell, so that makes it metabolic even if the
exhaustion argument putters.
> > !! Then they're not making use of their ability properly. Two
fireballs
> > per round is a monstrous increase in boom-boomage.
>
> I've been using Empowered Lightning Bolts and the like. Yes, a
> noticable amount of damage is done, and property values suffer when my
> character stops by. But effect per time seems to favor the more melee
> oriented
?? In D&D, the more damage you can dish out immediately, the less damage
you take in return. This is Important!
-Michael
Andrew Tellez
Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>
> "Andrew Tellez" <no...@gwu.edu> wrote in message
> news:3AA4FD9C...@gwu.edu...
> > > Given the exhaustion issue, metabolic seems plain.
> >
> > Exhaustion issue? All I have available right now is the SRD, and I
> > couldn't find reference to an exhaustion problem.
>
> Various incarnations of Haste inflict stress on the body, aging in
> earlier editions, in the pre-finished version of the game Haste inflicted
> subdual damage, in computer versions of the game it inflicted fatigue, in
> the current one . . damnn! Nothing!
> <shakes head> It's these little changes that keep cropping up and biting
> me in the butt.
> Well, it's a Transmutation spell, so that makes it metabolic even if the
> exhaustion argument putters.
Time Stop is also Transmutation, as is Temporal Stasis. While there is
certainly the possibility that these are metabolic as well, I believe
they can safely be considered temporal. Also, Time Stop is now a
scaled-up version of Haste, which leads me to believe that temporal
Haste is a possibility.
Mordenkainen's Lucubration is Transmutation, and is a mental effect.
Blink is, and is dimensional. Transmutation need not be metabolic.
> > I've been using Empowered Lightning Bolts and the like. Yes, a
> > noticable amount of damage is done, and property values suffer when my
> > character stops by. But effect per time seems to favor the more melee
> > oriented
>
> ?? In D&D, the more damage you can dish out immediately, the less damage
> you take in return. This is Important!
Your presumption breaks down for the Properly Defended. I don't take
damage in the first place. :) There's also the issue of things that
Empowered Lightning Bolts won't kill in two hits.
More seriously, the high-rate-of-damage advantage doesn't always apply.
Against unengaged targets, sure, a spellcaster laden with damage spells
can inflict henious injury. If the targets are engaged by Ninja Man,
Big Sword Man, and the Druid's Menagerie of Death, then spell selection
is restricted.
Michael Scott Brown
> > Well, it's a Transmutation spell, so that makes it metabolic even if
the
> > exhaustion argument putters.
>
> Time Stop is also Transmutation, as is Temporal Stasis. While there is
> certainly the possibility that these are metabolic as well, I believe
> they can safely be considered temporal. Also, Time Stop is now a
> scaled-up version of Haste, which leads me to believe that temporal
Time Stop has always been speed-up-the-dudeness more than time-space
continuum mambo for all the fancy name. I use TStasis so rarely that I'm
not versed in its details. But, the open architecture of 3E supports
either spin on things if one wants to go for it, and the arbitrary school
assignments don't help make a case either way.
> > ?? In D&D, the more damage you can dish out immediately, the less
damage
> > you take in return. This is Important!
>
> Your presumption breaks down for the Properly Defended. I don't take
> damage in the first place. :) There's also the issue of things that
> Empowered Lightning Bolts won't kill in two hits.
Two hits in one round is one hit closer to it being dead than you would
have been without haste . .
> More seriously, the high-rate-of-damage advantage doesn't always apply.
> Against unengaged targets, sure, a spellcaster laden with damage spells
> can inflict henious injury. If the targets are engaged by Ninja Man,
> Big Sword Man, and the Druid's Menagerie of Death, then spell selection
> is restricted.
In which case the twice-the-chance-to-overcome resistance option comes
into play; in either case, the Haste is a huge advantage - you're doubling
the rate at which you rack up victims, any way you cut it - which means
you're halving the rate at which you acquire ouchness.
-Michael
Andrew Tellez
Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>
> > Your presumption breaks down for the Properly Defended. I don't take
> > damage in the first place. :) There's also the issue of things that
> > Empowered Lightning Bolts won't kill in two hits.
>
> Two hits in one round is one hit closer to it being dead than you would
> have been without haste . .
True. However, there are other factors to consider, like the Next
Fight. Should I use all the power now, and rely on my pitiful hit
bonus, or let Big Ass Sword Guy handle his fair share of the whompage.
This may come down to a style thing, though. My group typically doesn't
stop to recharge when only one person needs it, so budgeting power
expenditure is important.
> > More seriously, the high-rate-of-damage advantage doesn't always apply.
> > Against unengaged targets, sure, a spellcaster laden with damage spells
> > can inflict henious injury. If the targets are engaged by Ninja Man,
> > Big Sword Man, and the Druid's Menagerie of Death, then spell selection
> > is restricted.
>
> In which case the twice-the-chance-to-overcome resistance option comes
> into play; in either case, the Haste is a huge advantage - you're doubling
> the rate at which you rack up victims, any way you cut it - which means
Indeed, Haste is a huge advantage. (It can also be a liability, if one
overuses spells and has none left.) I don't think that the degree of
advantage is huge enough to need correction, though. The mages get
their increased casting rate, Big Sword Guy gets his partial charge
followed by a full attack, and Ninja Guy does some sneak attack then
hide tricks.
Boots of Speed might need correction, though. Haste with a light switch
is fairly potent.
> you're halving the rate at which you acquire ouchness.
In general, yes. IME, damage avoidance ranks above firepower rate.
Damage is Big Sword Guy's job.
Hong Ooi
>
>More seriously, the high-rate-of-damage advantage doesn't always apply.
>Against unengaged targets, sure, a spellcaster laden with damage spells
>can inflict henious injury. If the targets are engaged by Ninja Man,
>Big Sword Man, and the Druid's Menagerie of Death, then spell selection
>is restricted.
That's when you pull out the wand of magic missile (5th caster level at
least, possibly more) and let off two charges per round, instead of one.
If there's no-one in the way, you pull out the wand of fireball instead.
Also your point about conserving spell slots for noncombat use isn't so
relevant for sorcerers, who (presumably) would be boom spell
specialists. They also have more spells slots to throw around.
Andrew Tellez
Hong Ooi wrote:
>
> That's when you pull out the wand of magic missile (5th caster level at
> least, possibly more) and let off two charges per round, instead of one.
> If there's no-one in the way, you pull out the wand of fireball instead.
Use one of my precious wands when Big Sword Guy is around? The mere
thought is making me ill.
Tiama'at
follows:
>That's when you pull out the wand of magic missile (5th caster level at
>least, possibly more) and let off two charges per round, instead of one.
>If there's no-one in the way, you pull out the wand of fireball instead.
Thast still burns through charges though. Swords, on the other hand, last
until Sundered.
>Also your point about conserving spell slots for noncombat use isn't so
>relevant for sorcerers, who (presumably) would be boom spell
>specialists. They also have more spells slots to throw around.
This is more a style thing, but I'd have to say "no" to most (n.b. "most")
people who want to play nothing but damage-spell Sorcerors. You develop
this power innately, and unless your party is full of nothing but people
who want to act like Damage (DC comics) then you going to need some
diversity in your spells, moreso because those spells you learn each level-
up is ALL you get, unlike Mr Wizard who can be Capt Fireball one day and Mr
Fix-It the next with the right books.
--
Matthew H. (Tiama'at) ~ Close the world...txEn eht nepO - SE: Lain
WS/Soc IV (H) - Carleton ~ Inherit the Earth - Hunter:the Reckoning
ICQ 12954569 ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hong Ooi
You can cast Haste on yourself, and double your firepower, or on Big
Sword Guy, giving him at most one extra attack (and some added tactical
flexibility, but the same applies to you). Assuming we're talking about
an enemy strong enough to actually make you want to cast Haste, what
would you do?
Andrew Tellez
Hong Ooi wrote:
>
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 11:09:01 -0500, Andrew Tellez <no...@gwu.edu> wrote:
>
> You can cast Haste on yourself, and double your firepower, or on Big
> Sword Guy, giving him at most one extra attack (and some added tactical
> flexibility, but the same applies to you). Assuming we're talking about
> an enemy strong enough to actually make you want to cast Haste, what
> would you do?
Use my Boots of Speed, of course. Big Sword Guy can use his if he wants
to be faster. :) I'll almost never actually cast Haste, since it cuts
into my vital supply of third level spells. Boots of Speed will be
made, of course, but I'm not going to trade Greater Magic Weapon for a
Haste spell, except possibly at lower levels, with less spells, so the
trade would be between Hase and Dispel Magic. For a sorcerer, there
might be some reason to cast it, but less justification to take it at
lower levels.
Hong Ooi
wrote:
>As the Pellis Artisan read from the skin, the story of Hong Ooi was told as
>follows:
>
>>That's when you pull out the wand of magic missile (5th caster level at
>>least, possibly more) and let off two charges per round, instead of one.
>>If there's no-one in the way, you pull out the wand of fireball instead.
>
>Thast still burns through charges though. Swords, on the other hand, last
>until Sundered.
That's true, but if you're facing something tough enough that Haste is
required, chances are you're probably not going to be holding back....
>
>>Also your point about conserving spell slots for noncombat use isn't so
>>relevant for sorcerers, who (presumably) would be boom spell
>>specialists. They also have more spells slots to throw around.
>
>This is more a style thing, but I'd have to say "no" to most (n.b. "most")
>people who want to play nothing but damage-spell Sorcerors.
? Do you mean if a player wants their sorcerer to know lots of boom
spells, you're not going to let him?
>You develop
>this power innately, and unless your party is full of nothing but people
>who want to act like Damage (DC comics) then you going to need some
>diversity in your spells, moreso because those spells you learn each level-
>up is ALL you get, unlike Mr Wizard who can be Capt Fireball one day and Mr
>Fix-It the next with the right books.
Sure, but I'm keeping in mind a few things:
- All the sorcerer really needs is a few damage spells, and they can
cast those all day long (almost).
- A sorcerer is never going to be as flexible as a wizard in terms of
spells known. I'm assuming a group will have at least one other PC
(cleric, wizard, druid) who can provide that flexibility, letting the
sorcerer concentrate on whatever they believe their task is. For most
players, I'm guessing that will involve blowing things up.
Peter Newman
> Notice the game balance of Quicken Spell - you have to prepare *each
> spell* that you wish to be able to fire off rapidly with an enormous penalty
> in added levels. But simply casting *one* 3rd level spell suddenly lets you
> double your casting rate for many, many spells? It's absurd. Quicken is
> balanced, Hasted casting is not.
I's all about the game balance consequences of a one round kill.
The standard combat techniques my 13th level Wizard uses when fighting
in a city or other location where 'Fireball' is not appropriate
is Haste, Magic Missile, Quickened Magi Missile.
The goal of Quickening a spell is to let an already Hasted
caster throw a third spell per round.
Peter Newman
Exactly. Recharging wands costs lots of money. Recharging
Big Sword Guy requires cheap Iron rations. I'm not clear
why you'd use ever use a Wand that casts a spell you can cast
useless you're really sure you'll need some other spell more.
Hong Ooi
wrote:
>At present, Haste is a bit skewed in the way it works. The extra partial
>action provides very different benefits for different classes. If you're
>a melee combatant, the benefit becomes relatively less important as you
>gain levels, because you get more attacks anyway. OTOH, if you're a
>spellcaster, the benefit becomes relatively _more_ important as you gain
>levels. This is because an extra partial action effectively doubles the
>number of spells you can cast per round, and the higher level you are,
>the more powerful your spells get.
>
>The following change attempts to deal with this. Warning -- if you like
>playing magic users, you probably won't like this change. With that in
>mind, comments would be appreciated.
[snip]
Okay, MSB has convinced me in his inimitable way :) that Haste shouldn't
act like Quicken Spell.
Here's the revised revision. Note that if you like playing magic users,
you probably STILL won't like this change.
Haste
[stat block remains the same]
The transmuted creature moves and acts more quickly than normal. This
extra speed has several effects:
- He gains a +4 haste bonus to AC. He loses this bonus whenever he would
lose a dodge bonus.
- His melee and ranged attacks gain a +6 haste bonus to the attack roll.
- He gains an extra move-equivalent action per round. This action can be
taken either before or after his normal action. He can forgo this extra
action in order to increase his movement rate; in this case, his base
movement rate is multiplied by 1.5. The extra movement counts as an
enhancement bonus.
--
Hong Ooi | "Yes, I believe Hong Ooi is a
hong...@maths.anu.edu.au | St George-Illawarra Dungeons
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | and Dragons supporter."
Canberra, Australia | -- M.
Peter Seebach
Hong Ooi <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>Here's the revised revision. Note that if you like playing magic users,
>you probably STILL won't like this change.
I still don't. Having seen the spell in use, I've noticed that, while
a hasted wizard is *amazingly* dangerous for a few rounds, he is then
pretty much defenseless. :)
>- He gains an extra move-equivalent action per round. This action can be
>taken either before or after his normal action. He can forgo this extra
>action in order to increase his movement rate; in this case, his base
>movement rate is multiplied by 1.5. The extra movement counts as an
>enhancement bonus.
Interesting. So, basically, the spell gives you most of the benefits of
expeditious retreat, and some bonuses. That's *way* too weak for a third
level spell.
It really *has* to give you an extra attack. Without the extra attack (for
fighters), it's too weak. If you allow an extra attack, there's a strong case
to be made for allowing an extra spell, but even if you don't want to, *don't*
break the extra attack.
-s
--
Copyright 2001, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Andrew Tellez
Peter Newman wrote:
>
> Andrew Tellez wrote:
>
> > Use one of my precious wands when Big Sword Guy is around? The mere
> > thought is making me ill.
>
> Exactly. Recharging wands costs lots of money.
Specifically, my money. And some XP.
> Recharging Big Sword Guy requires cheap Iron rations.
Specifically, his rations.
> I'm not clear why you'd use ever use a Wand that casts a spell you can
> cast useless you're really sure you'll need some other spell more.
Dodging people that have Readied actions to interrupt your spells.
Hong Ooi
>In article <603fatkvrlo9cibm0...@4ax.com>,
>Hong Ooi <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>>Here's the revised revision. Note that if you like playing magic users,
>>you probably STILL won't like this change.
>
>I still don't. Having seen the spell in use, I've noticed that, while
>a hasted wizard is *amazingly* dangerous for a few rounds, he is then
>pretty much defenseless. :)
Well, yes. The point of the change is to even out the benefits all
round.
>
>>- He gains an extra move-equivalent action per round. This action can be
>>taken either before or after his normal action. He can forgo this extra
>>action in order to increase his movement rate; in this case, his base
>>movement rate is multiplied by 1.5. The extra movement counts as an
>>enhancement bonus.
Maybe a better wording of that might be
"He gains an extra move-equivalent action per round. This action can be
taken either before or after his normal action. He can use this action
to move up to his normal speed."
>
>Interesting. So, basically, the spell gives you most of the benefits of
>expeditious retreat, and some bonuses. That's *way* too weak for a third
>level spell.
Note that expeditious retreat is caster only.
>
>It really *has* to give you an extra attack. Without the extra attack (for
>fighters), it's too weak. If you allow an extra attack, there's a strong case
>to be made for allowing an extra spell, but even if you don't want to, *don't*
>break the extra attack.
What, isn't a +6 to hit (and/or damage if you have Power Attack -- I've
yet to see any fighter without Power Attack) enough?
Peter Seebach
Hong Ooi <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>Well, yes. The point of the change is to even out the benefits all
>round.
Yeah, but I don't think it works very well.
>>It really *has* to give you an extra attack. Without the extra attack (for
>>fighters), it's too weak. If you allow an extra attack, there's a strong case
>>to be made for allowing an extra spell, but even if you don't want to, *don't*
>>break the extra attack.
>What, isn't a +6 to hit (and/or damage if you have Power Attack -- I've
>yet to see any fighter without Power Attack) enough?
I've only seen one fighter with Power Attack, and no, it's not enough. The
point of haste is *SPEED*, not power. Haste lets you hit two things in a
round when you could otherwise only hit one. That's what it's *FOR*. The
extra action really has to be a partial action, not just a move-equivalent,
to justify a third level slot.
The extra partial action is a very good solution. If you think the
spellcasting thing is too powerful, I'd suggest addressing that directly,
not trying to rework the rest of the spell.
e.g., you could just say "the extra partial action cannot be used for
spellcasting". Still, I don't think this is necessary; I think the
default balance is pretty good.
Hong Ooi
>In article <7p9fatcl3eookmoo3...@4ax.com>,
>Hong Ooi <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>>Well, yes. The point of the change is to even out the benefits all
>>round.
>
>Yeah, but I don't think it works very well.
I sorta guessed than Mathonwy wouldn't like it. ;)
>>What, isn't a +6 to hit (and/or damage if you have Power Attack -- I've
>>yet to see any fighter without Power Attack) enough?
>
>I've only seen one fighter with Power Attack, and no, it's not enough. The
>point of haste is *SPEED*, not power. Haste lets you hit two things in a
>round when you could otherwise only hit one.
You can do that anyway. If you have +6 BAB, take a full attack and whack
any two targets you want -- or if you have an off-hand weapon, whack any
three targets you want. And with effective movement multiplied by 1.5,
you can get across the battlefield that much quicker.
Now sure, you can't do something like hit one guy, run across the room
and hit another guy -- but you _can_ hit the one guy with a full attack
(at a +6 bonus), then run across the room to block the other guy, and
hit _him_ with another full attack next round. The loss in flexibility
should be wearable.
>That's what it's *FOR*. The
>extra action really has to be a partial action, not just a move-equivalent,
>to justify a third level slot.
We'll see.
>
>The extra partial action is a very good solution. If you think the
>spellcasting thing is too powerful, I'd suggest addressing that directly,
>not trying to rework the rest of the spell.
IMO the options available via the extra partial action are broad enough
as to make trying to restrict it unfeasible. The partial actions lets
you not only cast spells, but you can also activate spell-like
abilities, supernatural abilities, extraordinary abilities (where
applicable), and take any of the actions listed as move-equivalent.
Trying to adjudicate that would be icky.
Peter Seebach
He's retired. :)
>>I've only seen one fighter with Power Attack, and no, it's not enough. The
>>point of haste is *SPEED*, not power. Haste lets you hit two things in a
>>round when you could otherwise only hit one.
>You can do that anyway.
If you're high enough level. The point of haste is an extra *attack*.
>IMO the options available via the extra partial action are broad enough
>as to make trying to restrict it unfeasible. The partial actions lets
>you not only cast spells, but you can also activate spell-like
>abilities, supernatural abilities, extraordinary abilities (where
>applicable), and take any of the actions listed as move-equivalent.
>Trying to adjudicate that would be icky.
But that's the *point*. Compare with previous versions of haste. Haste
used to give you, in effect, a *full extra round*. Double attacks, not just
one extra. Use two wands. Charge and attack and charge and attack. Anything
but two spells.
Limiting it to only a *partial* action tones the spell down substantially,
but leaves it useful. With just a move equivalent action, I don't think it's
worth it any more. That'd be a second level spell.
Hong Ooi
>In article <dshfat0gi93ic7er4...@4ax.com>,
>Hong Ooi <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>>>I've only seen one fighter with Power Attack, and no, it's not enough. The
>>>point of haste is *SPEED*, not power. Haste lets you hit two things in a
>>>round when you could otherwise only hit one.
>
>>You can do that anyway.
>
>If you're high enough level.
If you can cast Haste, you're at least 5th level, and most likely more.
Hence the fighters in the group are probably going to have BAB +5 at a
minimum, +6 most likely, and possibly +11. If you're a high-level wizard
adventuring with a group of 1st level characters, your situation is
unusual enough that it's not really worth worrying about.
>The point of haste is an extra *attack*.
The point of haste is to move faster. Whether or not this actually
results in an extra attack is nothing more than rules manipulation. The
revised haste still makes you move faster; it still gives you added
tactical flexibility; it still greatly improves your odds of
significantly damaging the opposition. All of this is consistent with
the underlying rationale for haste.
>
>>IMO the options available via the extra partial action are broad enough
>>as to make trying to restrict it unfeasible. The partial actions lets
>>you not only cast spells, but you can also activate spell-like
>>abilities, supernatural abilities, extraordinary abilities (where
>>applicable), and take any of the actions listed as move-equivalent.
>>Trying to adjudicate that would be icky.
>
>But that's the *point*. Compare with previous versions of haste. Haste
>used to give you, in effect, a *full extra round*. Double attacks, not just
>one extra. Use two wands. Charge and attack and charge and attack. Anything
>but two spells.
IMO previous versions of haste were severely overpowered, especially
when you started getting to fighters with grand mastery, two weapons and
10+ attacks per round as a result. Its saving grace was that it also
aged its recipients a year on every casting, but that wasn't a very
workable solution. I don't think it's a coincidence that in BG2, they
changed it to give you only 1 extra attack per round, regardless of your
base.
Peter Newman
>
> Peter Newman wrote:
> >
> > Andrew Tellez wrote:
> >
> > > Use one of my precious wands when Big Sword Guy is around? The mere
> > > thought is making me ill.
> >
> > Exactly. Recharging wands costs lots of money.
>
> Specifically, my money. And some XP.
No, you hire someone else to do it, of course. In the
default D&D world magic items costing 3,000 GP's or less
are readily available. No wands cost 3,000 GP's a charge,
therefore in the default setting Wand charges are readily
available.
> > Recharging Big Sword Guy requires cheap Iron rations.
>
> Specifically, his rations.
>
> > I'm not clear why you'd use ever use a Wand that casts a spell you can
> > cast useless you're really sure you'll need some other spell more.
>
> Dodging people that have Readied actions to interrupt your spells.
If I've got the drop on them they don't get to do that in
the first round. I can't remember the last time our group
got in a combat that lasted more than the surprise round
and one combat round. Maybe four or five levels or so ago.
If they've got the drop on us they can only prove they are
hostile by attacking us. If they don't attack us, we don't
attack them (unless they're non sentient). Thus Readied actions
are rarely, if ever, used in our games.
Peter Seebach
Hong Ooi <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>If you can cast Haste, you're at least 5th level, and most likely more.
>Hence the fighters in the group are probably going to have BAB +5 at a
>minimum, +6 most likely, and possibly +11. If you're a high-level wizard
>adventuring with a group of 1st level characters, your situation is
>unusual enough that it's not really worth worrying about.
But it still doesn't really give extra attacks in your version.
>>The point of haste is an extra *attack*.
>The point of haste is to move faster.
No, to do *everything* faster. Not just movement. With your version, it's
pretty much only a tactical spell; it doesn't actually make a creature into
a combat monster.
>IMO previous versions of haste were severely overpowered, especially
>when you started getting to fighters with grand mastery, two weapons and
>10+ attacks per round as a result. Its saving grace was that it also
>aged its recipients a year on every casting, but that wasn't a very
>workable solution. I don't think it's a coincidence that in BG2, they
>changed it to give you only 1 extra attack per round, regardless of your
>base.
Yup. In other words, a partial action. I think the original may have flaws,
but that your fix is worse-balanced than the originial.
Hong Ooi
>In article <4ejfat0rbbp0taq5q...@4ax.com>,
>Hong Ooi <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>>If you can cast Haste, you're at least 5th level, and most likely more.
>>Hence the fighters in the group are probably going to have BAB +5 at a
>>minimum, +6 most likely, and possibly +11. If you're a high-level wizard
>>adventuring with a group of 1st level characters, your situation is
>>unusual enough that it's not really worth worrying about.
>
>But it still doesn't really give extra attacks in your version.
Of course it does! That's what the +6 haste bonus represents -- the
extra swings you get each round because you're moving faster. Don't tell
me you've forgotten how attack rolls in D&D are an abstraction of actual
combat?
The fact that the current haste actually labels its "extra attack" as
such is neither here nor there.
What's more, consider this:
Without haste: move 20 feet up to someone, make an attack.
With haste: move 20 feet up to someone, make a full attack.
That's one "real" extra attack if your BAB is +6, two real extra attacks
if it's +11, and three extra if it's +16. So you can most certainly get
real extra attacks even with the revised haste, whatever "real" means in
this context.
>>The point of haste is to move faster.
>
>No, to do *everything* faster. Not just movement.
And that's what the +6 bonus and extra move-equivalent action represent.
>With your version, it's
>pretty much only a tactical spell; it doesn't actually make a creature into
>a combat monster.
Well, good! It's only a 3rd level spell, after all.
>
>>IMO previous versions of haste were severely overpowered, especially
>>when you started getting to fighters with grand mastery, two weapons and
>>10+ attacks per round as a result. Its saving grace was that it also
>>aged its recipients a year on every casting, but that wasn't a very
>>workable solution. I don't think it's a coincidence that in BG2, they
>>changed it to give you only 1 extra attack per round, regardless of your
>>base.
>
>Yup. In other words, a partial action.
Given that BG2 was in that no-mans-land between 2E and 3E, and haste
fatigued you after a battle, and there were no such things as partial
actions, I don't see how this comparison is getting you very far.
>I think the original may have flaws,
>but that your fix is worse-balanced than the originial.
Well, I SAID right at the beginning that people who like playing
spellcasters wouldn't like this change.
Andrew Tellez
Peter Newman wrote:
>
> Andrew Tellez wrote:
> >
> > Peter Newman wrote:
> > >
> > > Andrew Tellez wrote:
> > >
> > > > Use one of my precious wands when Big Sword Guy is around? The mere
> > > > thought is making me ill.
> > >
> > > Exactly. Recharging wands costs lots of money.
> >
> > Specifically, my money. And some XP.
>
> No, you hire someone else to do it, of course. In the
But still my money. Though I could use magical coercion to get someone
to do it for free, but that's pretty close to just adventuring and
taking it from my enemies.
> > Dodging people that have Readied actions to interrupt your spells.
>
> If I've got the drop on them they don't get to do that in
> the first round. I can't remember the last time our group
> got in a combat that lasted more than the surprise round
> and one combat round.
Mine usually last longer. We've abandoned the idea of fights that take
20% of our resources. Opposition tends to be appropriate for whatever
they're guarding / attacking / being nefarious at, not based on our
ability to slay them.
> If they've got the drop on us they can only prove they are
> hostile by attacking us. If they don't attack us, we don't
> attack them (unless they're non sentient). Thus Readied actions
> are rarely, if ever, used in our games.
I use Readied actions moderately often, usually when there is no clear
target, or when I expect reinforcements to arrive. Why waste a spell
when Big Sword Guy and the Druid's Menagerie of Death have it covered?
However, I've seldom seen enemies Ready actions, except for that *#$#$%
Nalfeshnee who would Ready his teleport if he were attacked, thus
wasting a carefully-timed orgy of damage.
Peter Seebach
Hong Ooi <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>On 08 Mar 2001 19:20:14 GMT, se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
>>But it still doesn't really give extra attacks in your version.
>Of course it does! That's what the +6 haste bonus represents -- the
>extra swings you get each round because you're moving faster. Don't tell
>me you've forgotten how attack rolls in D&D are an abstraction of actual
>combat?
Not so much in 3E... and furthermore, if you can't split them, they aren't
"extra attacks".
>That's one "real" extra attack if your BAB is +6, two real extra attacks
>if it's +11, and three extra if it's +16. So you can most certainly get
>real extra attacks even with the revised haste, whatever "real" means in
>this context.
But 2E haste would have given you another *FULL* attack. So, 3E haste, as
written, is still plenty weakened.
>And that's what the +6 bonus and extra move-equivalent action represent.
But move-equivalent doesn't give you all your options. It really needs to
be a partial action.
>>With your version, it's
>>pretty much only a tactical spell; it doesn't actually make a creature into
>>a combat monster.
>Well, good! It's only a 3rd level spell, after all.
But it's a 3rd level spell designed to, briefly, make someone *DO* more things
in a round. Move-equivalent action doesn't let you do most things.
>Well, I SAID right at the beginning that people who like playing
>spellcasters wouldn't like this change.
Even looking at it in terms of non-spellcasters. You should be able to
fire a crossbow, zap a wand, or drink a potion with your haste action.
Basically, you should be able to *do* something, not just *prepare* for
something. Move-equivalent actions are all preparations. A spell which
only gave you an extra move-equivalent action would be weaker than haste,
and haste should give you an additional *action*.
Michael Scott Brown
> - He gains a +4 haste bonus to AC. He loses this bonus whenever he would
> lose a dodge bonus.
> - His melee and ranged attacks gain a +6 haste bonus to the attack roll.
> - He gains an extra move-equivalent action per round. This action can be
> taken either before or after his normal action. He can forgo this extra
> action in order to increase his movement rate; in this case, his base
> movement rate is multiplied by 1.5. The extra movement counts as an
> enhancement bonus.
Interesting. It's logical to model increased speed as an attack bonus;
it would surely be harder to parrry and solid blows would land more quickly,
which is exactly what an attack bonus provides . . however, +6 to attacks is
probably far too much. Compare to clerical brawn-enhancers of similar level
and you'll see whaft I mean - Prayer, the old standby (it's still 3rd,
right?) gives a whole +1 - though it's to attack, damage, saves and -1's to
the same for the foes - so one might call this a +6 bonus in total, but
you've also got AC and extra move actions as well . .
In addition, this winds up creating synergistic havoc for higher level
characters - full attacking with Haste is now 3-4 attacks at +6 to hit each
.. whereas the usual formulation just gives a single extra attack at the
base BAB, which is a little tamer.
Cutting spellcasting out of the partial actions possibilities is
probably just fine.
-Michael
E. Pluribus Unum
Peter Newman wrote:
> > Use one of my precious wands when Big Sword Guy is around? The mere
> > thought is making me ill.
>
> Exactly. Recharging wands costs lots of money.
How much money does recharging a wand cost? I can't find where the rules even
say you *can* recharge one, much less what it costs.
Peter Newman
> > > Dodging people that have Readied actions to interrupt your spells.
> >
> > If I've got the drop on them they don't get to do that in
> > the first round. I can't remember the last time our group
> > got in a combat that lasted more than the surprise round
> > and one combat round.
>
> Mine usually last longer. We've abandoned the idea of fights that take
> 20% of our resources. Opposition tends to be appropriate for whatever
> they're guarding / attacking / being nefarious at, not based on our
> ability to slay them.
I agree. However since our party is more powerful than we
realize we tend to avoid fights with monsters we could take
out in a 'fair fight' unless we set it up ahead of time to
be an unfair fight. We'd probably gain XP's faster if we
did it the other way but 1) that would be out of character
and 2) our DM gives a story award of one twentieth (5%) of
what it would take a character of average party level to
level up. If the player shows up for a (five hour) session
his character gets some XP's just for being there.
My Wizard has Greater Scrying and Teleport without Error.
When we want to kill someone, we simply Scrye on him, Teleport
without Error in while Mass Hasted and start throwing damage
at him until he dies. That's almost always on round 2. OTOH
we sometimes take damage as well. In our last stand up fight
(a beholder) my Wizard died in round one from a failed save
versus Finger of Death. The other three members of the party
still killed the beholder in a round or two, despite rolling
poorly. They Teleported home, flew to the capital city,
sweet talked a True Resurrection out of the high priestess
of the goddess of commerce (for an 8,000 GP fee, the price
included a slight mark up for urgency since my dead Wizards
familiar was going hysterical and bugging them to get me
back.) :)
> > If they've got the drop on us they can only prove they are
> > hostile by attacking us. If they don't attack us, we don't
> > attack them (unless they're non sentient). Thus Readied actions
> > are rarely, if ever, used in our games.
>
> I use Readied actions moderately often, usually when there is no clear
> target,
We usually hold action. If something happens we respond to
it on the next initiative phase. If nothing happens we refocus.
> or when I expect reinforcements to arrive.
Not a state our party is usually in. The bad guys come to
us or we come to them. Either way we're usually bunched up.
> Why waste a spell
> when Big Sword Guy and the Druid's Menagerie of Death have it covered?
By jumping in with spells the Wizard reminds the rest of the party
that he's a bad ass who they'd better not try and assassinate. Trust
is good, fear is better.
Hong Ooi
<mi...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Interesting. It's logical to model increased speed as an attack bonus;
>it would surely be harder to parrry and solid blows would land more quickly,
>which is exactly what an attack bonus provides . . however, +6 to attacks is
>probably far too much. Compare to clerical brawn-enhancers of similar level
>and you'll see whaft I mean - Prayer, the old standby (it's still 3rd,
>right?) gives a whole +1 - though it's to attack, damage, saves and -1's to
>the same for the foes - so one might call this a +6 bonus in total, but
>you've also got AC and extra move actions as well . .
Given that Seebs is arguing haste is now too wimpy, and you're arguing
it's now too powerful, I'm inclined to think I've got it about right. ;)
The +6 to attacks is to counterbalance the +4 to AC. You could make the
attack bonus +4 as well, but it seems intuitive that a combat between
two hasted combatants will be over faster than a combat that's unhasted
-- hence the attack bonus should be higher. Maybe a +2 AC bonus and +4
attack bonus instead?
Yes, prayer is still 3rd level, but in addition to providing a bonus to
all rolls, it also affects multiple targets. You don't get mass haste
until 6th level. And your enemies don't get a save against prayer's
effects.
>
> In addition, this winds up creating synergistic havoc for higher level
>characters - full attacking with Haste is now 3-4 attacks at +6 to hit each
>.. whereas the usual formulation just gives a single extra attack at the
>base BAB, which is a little tamer.
>
> Cutting spellcasting out of the partial actions possibilities is
>probably just fine.
Like I said to Seebs, I'm iffy on this idea because there are so many
possibilities when it comes to partial actions. We'll see though.
Hong Ooi
>In article <chofatc5l7oebvlha...@4ax.com>,
>Hong Ooi <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>>On 08 Mar 2001 19:20:14 GMT, se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
>>>But it still doesn't really give extra attacks in your version.
>
>>Of course it does! That's what the +6 haste bonus represents -- the
>>extra swings you get each round because you're moving faster. Don't tell
>>me you've forgotten how attack rolls in D&D are an abstraction of actual
>>combat?
>
>Not so much in 3E... and furthermore, if you can't split them, they aren't
>"extra attacks".
I sure am glad you put the "extra attacks" in quotes.
>
>>That's one "real" extra attack if your BAB is +6, two real extra attacks
>>if it's +11, and three extra if it's +16. So you can most certainly get
>>real extra attacks even with the revised haste, whatever "real" means in
>>this context.
>
>But 2E haste would have given you another *FULL* attack. So, 3E haste, as
>written, is still plenty weakened.
I don't know why you still keep coming back to 2E haste. That was
another system, a long time ago, and one that was prone to abuse.
So yes, the revised haste is weakened compared to 2E. IMO that's got
more to do with the old spell's problems than anything else. I don't
feel under any obligation to mimic rule manipulations that were
prevalent in previous versions of the game.
>
>>And that's what the +6 bonus and extra move-equivalent action represent.
>
>But move-equivalent doesn't give you all your options. It really needs to
>be a partial action.
Your opinion is noted.
>
>>>With your version, it's
>>>pretty much only a tactical spell; it doesn't actually make a creature into
>>>a combat monster.
>
>>Well, good! It's only a 3rd level spell, after all.
>
>But it's a 3rd level spell designed to, briefly, make someone *DO* more things
>in a round. Move-equivalent action doesn't let you do most things.
It lets you do enough things, IMO.
>
>>Well, I SAID right at the beginning that people who like playing
>>spellcasters wouldn't like this change.
>
>Even looking at it in terms of non-spellcasters. You should be able to
>fire a crossbow, zap a wand, or drink a potion with your haste action.
Yes, you can. You can drink a potion, move and reload your crossbow all
in the one round with an extra move-equivalent action. Next round, you
can move, fire your crossbow and draw your sword. That's better than if
you weren't hasted.
As for zapping wands and drinking potions: that's essentially a matter
of interpretation. Why should zapping a wand take less time when hasted
compared to normal? The magic is contained within the wand, essentially
pre-casted, and independent of whatever affects the user. Similarly, why
should a potion's effects take less time to work when hasted?
The point is not to prove beyond reasonable doubt that haste can't
affect these things. The point is that both views -- that such items can
be hasted, and that they can't -- are reasonably intuitive. In this
situation, it comes down to subjective preference. If you prefer the way
haste works now, you're free to continue using it.
Michael Scott Brown
> it's now too powerful, I'm inclined to think I've got it about right. ;)
Seebs is obsessed with the bonus action logic and his arguments are not,
IMO, among his most well considered.
> The +6 to attacks is to counterbalance the +4 to AC.
Erm, attacking at +6 isn't "counterbalanced" by also having a monster AC
bonus.
> You could make the attack bonus +4 as well, but it seems intuitive that a
combat between
> two hasted combatants will be over faster than a combat that's unhasted
Not sure I buy this; if both combatants are moving at equal speed then
their parries are twice as fast, too . . the advantage comes when someone is
faster than his foe. However, partial-action haste attacks also speed up
the gib rate for a pair of hasted combatants.
> -- hence the attack bonus should be higher. Maybe a +2 AC bonus and +4
> attack bonus instead?
That pulls it to a slightly saner level, IMO. +6 is biiig mojo - you'll
surely notice a trend in the bonuses provided by spells that the "ceiling"
for a given bonus or penalty is generally kept under tight rein.
> > Cutting spellcasting out of the partial actions possibilities is
> >probably just fine.
>
> Like I said to Seebs, I'm iffy on this idea because there are so many
> possibilities when it comes to partial actions. We'll see though.
?? Just ixnay the mental ones and all is well.
-Michael
Hong Ooi
<mi...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>"Hong Ooi" <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote in message
>> You could make the attack bonus +4 as well, but it seems intuitive that a
>combat between
>> two hasted combatants will be over faster than a combat that's unhasted
>
> Not sure I buy this; if both combatants are moving at equal speed then
>their parries are twice as fast, too . . the advantage comes when someone is
>faster than his foe.
Well, consider a video of a fight between two people. The video runs
for, say, 30 seconds (5 rounds) before one of them goes down. Now, play
the same scene in fast-forward. The exact same number of attacks and
parries takes place, but in a compressed time-frame.
It's the same situation with haste. If you have two hasted combatants,
on average they'll exchange the same number of blows as if they weren't
hasted, but each blow takes place in a shorter span of time, hence the
entire battle is over quicker. Hence the attack bonus should be higher
than the defense bonus, to ensure that (on average) hasted combatants
take damage more quickly and less rounds are consumed.
>However, partial-action haste attacks also speed up
>the gib rate for a pair of hasted combatants.
Yes, and giving an extra partial action _along with_ a bonus to hit
would be doubling up.
>> > Cutting spellcasting out of the partial actions possibilities is
>> >probably just fine.
>>
>> Like I said to Seebs, I'm iffy on this idea because there are so many
>> possibilities when it comes to partial actions. We'll see though.
>
> ?? Just ixnay the mental ones and all is well.
The thing is that D&D doesn't provide a fixed label for what exactly is
a mental action, and what isn't. I have what I think is a reasonable
definition of the term, and so do you, no doubt. I have no guarantee,
however, that my "reasonable definition" is the same as yours.
I'm basically trying as much as possible to avoid having to resort to
"reasonableness" when adjudicating what's hasted and what's not. That
just leads to obscure debates like "a potion isn't mental, why isn't it
hasted?" or "but it's just a wand". The move-equivalent action is an
existing, fairly fixed concept that provides most of what I want, so I
thought I'd use that.
mark edward hardwidge
> entire battle is over quicker. Hence the attack bonus should be higher
> than the defense bonus, to ensure that (on average) hasted combatants
> take damage more quickly and less rounds are consumed.
Why not just let them get a full set of attacks each half-round?
--
Mark E. Hardwidge
hard...@uiuc.edu
Peter Newman
Well from one point of view you can't recharge a Wand. However
the rules for building magic items note that you can improve
magic items. To turn a +1 Sword (cost 2,000 Gp's + the sword)
into a +2 Sword (cost 8,000 GP's + the sword) you simply pay
6,000 Gp's (8,0000 - 2,000). Using this logic you should be
able to turn a Wand of Fireballs with 1 charge (10th level caster,
worth 450 Gp's) into a Wand of Fireballs with 50 charges (10th
level caster, worth 22,500 GP's) by paying the 22,050 GP
difference in value. This may not be what they intended but
the letter of the improving magic items rules (DMG p 246 -
Adding New Abilities) seems to imply that this is possible.
If the Wand can currently shoot Fireball one time than making
it able to shoot Fireball 50 times is a new ability to me, YMMV.
Peter Newman
> As for zapping wands and drinking potions: that's essentially a matter
> of interpretation. Why should zapping a wand take less time when hasted
> compared to normal? The magic is contained within the wand, essentially
> pre-casted, and independent of whatever affects the user. Similarly, why
> should a potion's effects take less time to work when hasted?
For the same reason you could shoot a gun faster when you are
hasted. The object provides the power but the faster you can pull
the trigger, say the command word, swallow the liquid, whatever,
the faster it will take effect. OTOH if the wand is like a
grenade with a 6 second fuse then no, it probably can't be used
more than once every 6 seconds even if you're moving faster.
YMMV.
Hong Ooi
<hard...@ux13.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Hong Ooi <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>> entire battle is over quicker. Hence the attack bonus should be higher
>> than the defense bonus, to ensure that (on average) hasted combatants
>> take damage more quickly and less rounds are consumed.
>
> Why not just let them get a full set of attacks each half-round?
Ick! Do you really want to face two flurries of blows from a high-level
monk? Or a fighter with two weapons and Improved Two-Weapon Fighting?
This is a _3rd level_ spell, remember.
Andrew Tellez
Peter Newman wrote:
>
> Andrew Tellez wrote:
>
> I agree. However since our party is more powerful than we
> realize we tend to avoid fights with monsters we could take
> out in a 'fair fight' unless we set it up ahead of time to
Our style doesn't always give that luxury. The party travels
extensively, often by mundane means, and we occasionally get ambushed.
My early warning system is adequate to keep us out of most encounters,
but we occasionally run into things that aren't spotted. When not
travelling, we're usually dealing with someone else's territory and are
in a hurry, so we need to deal with encounters as they show up. We
don't yet have enough escape resources.
> My Wizard has Greater Scrying and Teleport without Error.
> When we want to kill someone, we simply Scrye on him, Teleport
> without Error in while Mass Hasted and start throwing damage
Your Wizard is a bit more potent than mine. I usually use summoned
creatures to do my dirty work. Planar Binding is very nice.
> we sometimes take damage as well. In our last stand up fight
> (a beholder) my Wizard died in round one from a failed save
I can't remember a stand up fight. We either get jumped or do the
jumping. In one instance we did both. (The enemy had sent in an attack
party of diguised fiends to get us and some others. My character was
using True Seeing to investigate something else, and spotted them.
Damage ensued. The Druid and his Menagerie went after some, the Wizard
with a Big Sword decided to melee with their leader (stop laughing), and
I got to play fire support. I think I actually took some damage in that
fight, which was unusual.)
> sweet talked a True Resurrection out of the high priestess
> of the goddess of commerce (for an 8,000 GP fee, the price
We don't know any priest that can bring back the dead, let alone any
powerful enough to do a True Resurrection. Our Druid is our best bet.
> included a slight mark up for urgency since my dead Wizards
> familiar was going hysterical and bugging them to get me
My "familiar" would have just done it himself. Then again, my
"familiar" is more properly a planar ally.
> > or when I expect reinforcements to arrive.
>
> Not a state our party is usually in. The bad guys come to
> us or we come to them. Either way we're usually bunched up.
Ours tend to arrive in waves if the creatures are smart enough and
tactically skilled. Or, like the fiends, summon more bad guys.
> > Why waste a spell
> > when Big Sword Guy and the Druid's Menagerie of Death have it covered?
>
> By jumping in with spells the Wizard reminds the rest of the party
> that he's a bad ass who they'd better not try and assassinate. Trust
> is good, fear is better.
My "familiar" is a big help in that department.
Andrew Tellez
It costs the same as making a new wand. The DM could allow one to pay a
reduced amount to add charges to a partially used wand, or give a price
break on re-wanding a stick.
Andrew Tellez
Hong Ooi wrote:
>
> pre-casted, and independent of whatever affects the user. Similarly, why
> should a potion's effects take less time to work when hasted?
True, but one should be able to chug faster when hasted, even if the
magic takes longer to kick in.
Hong Ooi
wrote:
>
>YMMV.
Exactly! Hence there's no reason why haste _has to_ improve
spellcasting.
Hong Ooi
You're correct, but that's a wrinkle I'm willing to accept to make the
spell description simpler. If it ever turns out to be important, it's
easy enough for the DM to house rule it.
Put it this way: if what you're saying is true, someone even without
haste should be able to chug two potions in one round with a full
action, although the rules technically say they can't. Same situation.
Michael Scott Brown
then
> >their parries are twice as fast, too . . the advantage comes when someone
is
> >faster than his foe.
>
> Well, consider a video of a fight between two people. The video runs
> for, say, 30 seconds (5 rounds) before one of them goes down. Now, play
> the same scene in fast-forward. The exact same number of attacks and
> parries takes place, but in a compressed time-frame.
Good point.
> > ?? Just ixnay the mental ones and all is well.
>
> The thing is that D&D doesn't provide a fixed label for what exactly is
> a mental action, and what isn't. I have what I think is a reasonable
> definition of the term, and so do you, no doubt. I have no guarantee,
> however, that my "reasonable definition" is the same as yours.
Who needs a guarantee? 'Reasonable' varies from campaign to campaign as
it is. Reasonable people will come up with similar conclusions.
> I'm basically trying as much as possible to avoid having to resort to
> "reasonableness" when adjudicating what's hasted and what's not. That
> just leads to obscure debates like "a potion isn't mental, why isn't it
> hasted?"
Why not haste the drinking of potions? I dont' see the harm in this.
> or "but it's just a wand".
The nature of their activation makes clear their relationship to speed.
-Michael
Andrew Tellez
Hong Ooi wrote:
>
> Put it this way: if what you're saying is true, someone even without
> haste should be able to chug two potions in one round with a full
> action, although the rules technically say they can't. Same situation.
True. I was planning on allowing it anyway. Since the potion
miscibility rules are gone, and since potions don't seem to have
standard sizes, there doesn't seem to be anything to stop a character
from putting two potions in the same container and downing the whole
lot. I could certainly find some way to prohibit it, but I really don't
care if the PCs want to juice up in a hurry.
Peter Seebach
Hong Ooi <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>I don't know why you still keep coming back to 2E haste. That was
>another system, a long time ago, and one that was prone to abuse.
But the haste spell in it was a good benchmark for what a spell should
do.
>So yes, the revised haste is weakened compared to 2E.
But so is the 3E one. The 3E one seems about *correctly* limited.
>>But it's a 3rd level spell designed to, briefly, make someone *DO* more things
>>in a round. Move-equivalent action doesn't let you do most things.
>It lets you do enough things, IMO.
It lets you move or prepare for an action, but it's rare to need two
move-equivalent actions in a round, so mostly, it just lets you move more.
If you're where you want to be, it's useless.
>>Even looking at it in terms of non-spellcasters. You should be able to
>>fire a crossbow, zap a wand, or drink a potion with your haste action.
>Yes, you can. You can drink a potion, move and reload your crossbow all
>in the one round with an extra move-equivalent action.
But you can't drink a potion *with a move-equivalent action*. So, if you're
doing a full-round action, Hong Haste doesn't let you drink a potion, and
regular Haste does. Regular haste strikes me as a more meaningful spell.
>Next round, you
>can move, fire your crossbow and draw your sword. That's better than if
>you weren't hasted.
Not necessarily; if you fire first, you can draw *while moving*, if you're
in a party high enough level to have haste. It's better, but it's *very*
marginal.
>As for zapping wands and drinking potions: that's essentially a matter
>of interpretation.
?
>Why should zapping a wand take less time when hasted
>compared to normal?
Because it's an *action*, and haste makes you *act* faster. Because it takes
you less time to pull the wand out and aim it. Because you can say the words
faster. Because the *other* stuff you're doing is enough faster to leave
you with extra time.
Because *haste gives you an extra action*. That's the whole point of the
spell; if you remove it, it's a stupid spell, and a waste of a 3rd level
slot.
>The magic is contained within the wand, essentially
>pre-casted, and independent of whatever affects the user. Similarly, why
>should a potion's effects take less time to work when hasted?
They don't, but it takes less time to get a potion out, open it, and drink
it.
>The point is not to prove beyond reasonable doubt that haste can't
>affect these things. The point is that both views -- that such items can
>be hasted, and that they can't -- are reasonably intuitive. In this
>situation, it comes down to subjective preference. If you prefer the way
>haste works now, you're free to continue using it.
Oh, sure. And either of us would be free to declare that haste gives you an
extra full round of activity. The question is, how does it *balance*. My
assertion is that your version of Haste is a second level spell. It's not
too powerful for second level, and it's not useful enough to be third. It's
directly *between* "normal" Haste and Expeditious Retreat.
Peter Seebach
Hong Ooi <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>Put it this way: if what you're saying is true, someone even without
>haste should be able to chug two potions in one round with a full
>action, although the rules technically say they can't. Same situation.
No. Chugging a potion is just *over* half a round. It is only if you
rule 0 haste to only give a M-E action, *and* rule 0 drinking a potion
to take only that long, that you "should" be able to drink two potions
in a round.
The rules, as written, allow you to drink two potions in a round when
hasted, and not otherwise, and are totally consistent in saying so.
Keep in mind, a "standard" action is *longer than* a move-equivalent.
(I always think of them as 55% and 45% of a round, it makes it easy
to see why you can do a move-equivalent in a standard slot, but not the
other way around.)
Hong Ooi
>
>It lets you move or prepare for an action, but it's rare to need two
>move-equivalent actions in a round, so mostly, it just lets you move more.
>If you're where you want to be, it's useless.
If you're where you want to be, you can get a full attack at +6 (or +4)
to hit, which is quite sufficient for my purposes.
I think we've been on this merry-go-round long enough. I feel the extra
move-equivalent, plus bonuses to AC and attacks, are good enough to
justify the 3rd level slot. You don't. That's fine with me; I'm not
forcing you to use this spell.
Wayne Shaw
<hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 05:27:15 -0900, Peter Newman <pne...@gci.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>YMMV.
>
>Exactly! Hence there's no reason why haste _has to_ improve
>spellcasting.
Though I'm of the opinion that your change makes it no longer adequate
for a 3rd level spell. But then, I come from an OD&D context where
Haste effected everything.
Michael Scott Brown
> But the haste spell in it was a good benchmark for what a spell should
> do.
<wince> It was generally considered a little overpowered; no spell could
turn the tide of a tough battle quite like haste.
-Michael
mark edward hardwidge
> Ick! Do you really want to face two flurries of blows from a high-level
> monk? Or a fighter with two weapons and Improved Two-Weapon Fighting?
> This is a _3rd level_ spell, remember.
Well, how much does haste speed people up? Whatever that
fraction is, let them have a set of attacks every 1/x rounds.
E. Pluribus Unum
Andrew Tellez wrote:
Of course. The DM can always do whatever he wants. What I was asking, though, is
where are the rules (if any) on recharging wands? I've been operating under the
belief that wands don't get recharged in 3e. (And if they do, but it costs the same
as making a new one, why would anyone bother?)
Wayne Shaw
<mona...@kpunet.net> wrote:
>Of course. The DM can always do whatever he wants. What I was asking, though, is
>where are the rules (if any) on recharging wands? I've been operating under the
>belief that wands don't get recharged in 3e. (And if they do, but it costs the same
>as making a new one, why would anyone bother?)
Effectively, you don't recharge them. You just make a new one.
Andrew Tellez
"E. Pluribus Unum" wrote:
>
> Of course. The DM can always do whatever he wants. What I was asking, though, is
> where are the rules (if any) on recharging wands?
If it's uncharged, it's as if making a new wand. If it's charged, it's
as if adding powers to a magic item.
> I've been operating under the
> belief that wands don't get recharged in 3e. (And if they do, but it costs the same
> as making a new one, why would anyone bother?)
Basically, recharging has the same per-charge cost that new wands do.
If the DM allows materials to be reused, it may be cheaper. Otherwise,
the benefit is that you have a wand.
Hong Ooi
>But then, I come from an OD&D context where
>Haste effected everything.
So?
Wayne Shaw
<hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 12:39:01 -0800, Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> wrote:
>
>>But then, I come from an OD&D context where
>>Haste effected everything.
>
>So?
So by that standard, the current Haste spell is already much _weaker_
than what I'm used to; it only gives a partial action, and only
effects one target. That's much weaker than the old OD&D Haste which
affected a group for all purposes. And since in those days fighters
only got one swing anyway, it's not much different than the situation
now.
Heck, as far as that goes, there's only a meaningful difference in
most cases once you get 6th or higher level characters, and the
difference isn't pronounced until you get to 11th.
Peter Newman
>
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 15:01:56 +1100, Hong Ooi
> <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 12:39:01 -0800, Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> wrote:
> >
> >>But then, I come from an OD&D context where
> >>Haste effected everything.
> >
> >So?
>
> So by that standard, the current Haste spell is already much _weaker_
> than what I'm used to; it only gives a partial action, and only
> effects one target. That's much weaker than the old OD&D Haste which
> affected a group for all purposes. And since in those days fighters
> only got one swing anyway, it's not much different than the situation
> now.
More importantly in OD&D Haste affected a group. Now
you need Mass haste to do that. The old Haste was _way_
overpowered.
Wayne Shaw
wrote:
>> So by that standard, the current Haste spell is already much _weaker_
>> than what I'm used to; it only gives a partial action, and only
>> effects one target. That's much weaker than the old OD&D Haste which
>> affected a group for all purposes. And since in those days fighters
>> only got one swing anyway, it's not much different than the situation
>> now.
>
>More importantly in OD&D Haste affected a group. Now
>you need Mass haste to do that. The old Haste was _way_
>overpowered.
That's quite true; but my point was that it effected both wizards and
fighters and it didn't seem to significantly favor one over the other.
That's only meaningful now because of multiple attacks (and in
practice, it can still let a multiple attacker get significantly more
in since the extra action permits them to close with the partial and
then use a Full Attack, which in many, though not all circumstances is
a _big_ advantage), and people only expect it to be weaker for mages
because of the way it worked in 2e (and maybe 1e, but I'm not familiar
with how it worked there). To the view of someone coming right from
OD&D there seems nothing overpowered about it affecting mages and
fighters equally, any more than the fact that suprise rounds effect
them equally, even though this effectively favors mages.
Peter Newman
>
> Peter Newman wrote:
> >
> > Andrew Tellez wrote:
> >
> > I agree. However since our party is more powerful than we
> > realize we tend to avoid fights with monsters we could take
> > out in a 'fair fight' unless we set it up ahead of time to
>
> Our style doesn't always give that luxury. The party travels
> extensively, often by mundane means, and we occasionally get ambushed.
Why travel so much? There should be people you can kill and
rob most places :)
> My early warning system is adequate to keep us out of most encounters,
> but we occasionally run into things that aren't spotted. When not
> travelling, we're usually dealing with someone else's territory and are
> in a hurry, so we need to deal with encounters as they show up. We
> don't yet have enough escape resources.
>
> > My Wizard has Greater Scrying and Teleport without Error.
> > When we want to kill someone, we simply Scrye on him, Teleport
> > without Error in while Mass Hasted and start throwing damage
>
> Your Wizard is a bit more potent than mine. I usually use summoned
> creatures to do my dirty work. Planar Binding is very nice.
My Wizard has known Summon Monster 1 for a while but only
recently picked up Summon Monster 7. He won't be using it much
until he gets more level 7 spell slots since Teleport w/o
Error is much more useful.
> > we sometimes take damage as well. In our last stand up fight
> > (a beholder) my Wizard died in round one from a failed save
>
> I can't remember a stand up fight. We either get jumped or do the
> jumping.
We ambushed the beholder, it's just that (unlike our last
several encounters) we actually took damage.
> In one instance we did both.
My character had inherited a keep from his Wizardly teachers
teacher. We're playing in the Wrath of the Immortals campaign
and one of the big world changing events of that campaign was
thrown in a bit early when we switched from Cyclopedia D&D to
3rd ed. Since the PC's were there when the universe changed
we remember that coins used to be 10 to a pound and not 50
to a pound, we remember that Bards couldn't cast spells before
this, we remember that Dwarves used to be a lot more resistant
to magic, that magic items didn't cost XP's to make, that few
spells had material components, etc, etc. In exchange for
telling this other Wizard some high level information about
this I got a small keep that he wasn't going to need anymore
once he fled the planet. The keep was guarded by a beholder
so we had to whack it before Tien could claim it, now that
we have killed it I'm not sure how to guard the keep properly.
Tien's got the skeleton of a gargantuan red dragon that he's
going to 'Animate Dead' on and then cast a 'Permanent Illusion'
and a 'Magic Mouth' on so that it will once again look and (temporarily)
sound like a CR 19 old Red instead of a CR 7 Gargantuan Skeleton.
This should deter burglars.
Unfortunately that'll have to wait another 2 levels. In the meantime
he's Arcane Locked the door but that's not enough. He's considering
Wall of Stoning the only door shut but people could still get in
through the two windows or Dimension Door in. I suppose he could
try to find 'Guards and Wards' at the Wizards guild but he may need
to hire actual guards.
My character is psyched to get the keep but I as a player
know that part of the country will be conquered and destroyed
(presumably including my keep) in a year or two by the bad
guys so it's not too campaign imbalanceing.
> (The enemy had sent in an attack
> party of diguised fiends to get us and some others. My character was
> using True Seeing to investigate something else, and spotted them.
> Damage ensued. The Druid and his Menagerie went after some, the Wizard
> with a Big Sword decided to melee with their leader (stop laughing), and
> I got to play fire support. I think I actually took some damage in that
> fight, which was unusual.)
>
> > sweet talked a True Resurrection out of the high priestess
> > of the goddess of commerce (for an 8,000 GP fee, the price
>
> We don't know any priest that can bring back the dead, let alone any
> powerful enough to do a True Resurrection. Our Druid is our best bet.
Mystara is a high powered setting. Raise Dead is easy to find
and we've had one (NPC) member of the party raised back when we
were all 2nd or 3rd level and we had to hustle to get the 1,000
GP's. Finding the True Resurrection might have been hard for
most parties but since all the Immortals know that we were there
to foil the world threatening plans of the Chaotic Rad and Rafiel
they've let a lot of their high level priests know who we are.
Now most of the high level priests in the world know who we are.
One of our DM's running themes is that you can't get what you
want. Therefore the rest of the party, who want publicity,
are less known than my Wizard who is trying to avoid it.
> > included a slight mark up for urgency since my dead Wizards
> > familiar was going hysterical and bugging them to get me
>
> My "familiar" would have just done it himself. Then again, my
> "familiar" is more properly a planar ally.
Lower planar?
> > > or when I expect reinforcements to arrive.
> >
> > Not a state our party is usually in. The bad guys come to
> > us or we come to them. Either way we're usually bunched up.
>
> Ours tend to arrive in waves if the creatures are smart enough and
> tactically skilled. Or, like the fiends, summon more bad guys.
Generally smart and tactically skilled opponents don't attack
us and we're too chicken to attack them. Our games tend to be
short on combat. When I complained this session that it's been a
while since we got to kill anything the DM pointed out that
after I cast Detect Poison on the entries in the (Mardi Raw
equivilent) hometown town parties cooking contest and noted that
one of the entries contained large amounts of strychnine the
mayor had his muscle boys feed it to the cook who made it. Thus
I'd been responsible for the death of somebody. It's just not
the same though.
> > > Why waste a spell
> > > when Big Sword Guy and the Druid's Menagerie of Death have it covered?
> >
> > By jumping in with spells the Wizard reminds the rest of the party
> > that he's a bad ass who they'd better not try and assassinate. Trust
> > is good, fear is better.
>
> My "familiar" is a big help in that department.
My familiar is played for comic effect by the DM. My Wizard told
the familiar that if he wants to keep using the Ioun Stone of +2
INT he's currently borrowing (picture a 6" newt who looks like
the Gecko lizard in the Geico insurance commercials surrounded
by an orbiting glow in the dark gem) he'll have to earn the
8,000 Gp's it is worth - without breaking the law.
The familiar says he's not sure how to do that since he can't
cast spells or even talk to regular people. My Wizard reminds
the newt that he has Knowledge Arcana +18 and Spellcraft +18 [1]
and can open up a consulting service. The next thing I know the
newt has stolen Tien's spare quill and parchment and is busy
making out a sign. If the newt go's & gets a business license
I'll have to hurt my DM.
[1] Familiars have the better of the normal skills for that
type or the masters skills. Thus the newt has 17 ranks each
in both skills since my PC does.
Hong Ooi
>That's quite true; but my point was that it effected both wizards and
>fighters and it didn't seem to significantly favor one over the other.
>That's only meaningful now because of multiple attacks
Exactly. The new haste is unbalanced in its effects, because a
significant part of a fighter's improved combat ability with level comes
from the extra attacks. The benefit of the extra partial action thus
goes down over time. The exception would be when they get a full attack
instead of a single attack, but that's a special circumstance. OTOH, a
wizard gets an effective doubling of firepower, regardless of the
circumstances and regardless of level.
>with how it worked there). To the view of someone coming right from
>OD&D there seems nothing overpowered about it affecting mages and
>fighters equally, any more than the fact that suprise rounds effect
>them equally, even though this effectively favors mages.
The point is that the current haste _doesn't_ affect mages and fighters
equally, and this change attempts to correct that.
OD&D haste was a different spell, under a different system and using
different assumptions. I see no reason to ape its effects.
Peter Seebach
Hong Ooi <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>Exactly. The new haste is unbalanced in its effects, because a
>significant part of a fighter's improved combat ability with level comes
>from the extra attacks. The benefit of the extra partial action thus
>goes down over time. The exception would be when they get a full attack
>instead of a single attack, but that's a special circumstance. OTOH, a
>wizard gets an effective doubling of firepower, regardless of the
>circumstances and regardless of level.
Not regardless of circumstances; he needs to be in a good position to cast
spells (he may not be) and he needs to have spells left that he's willing to
blow.
>The point is that the current haste _doesn't_ affect mages and fighters
>equally, and this change attempts to correct that.
By making it much weaker for *both* of them; I'm not sure that's a win.
You might get what you want with "only spells two or more levels lower than
the highest level a caster has access to can be cast with the partial action
granted by a haste spell".
>OD&D haste was a different spell, under a different system and using
>different assumptions. I see no reason to ape its effects.
Sure, but the same for 2E. I think you're reacting as much by instinct to
the horror of mages emitting huge swarms of spells as by actual reasoning.
2E has taught us that haste doesn't give spellcasters extra spells; we're
used to it. Having seen it in play, even with ~15th level spellcasters, I
don't think it's an unbalancing spell.
Michael Scott Brown
> significant part of a fighter's improved combat ability with level comes
> from the extra attacks. The benefit of the extra partial action thus
> goes down over time.
No, it goes up. A bonus attack at +4 is not as valuable as a bonus
attack at +20.
-Michael
Hong Ooi
True, the best way to put it might be as I did way back at the start of
this thread:
>If you're
>a melee combatant, the benefit becomes relatively less important as you
>gain levels, because you get more attacks anyway.
That is, the benefit does improve in absolute terms, but relative to
your total combat ability, it's a decline.
Peter Newman
>
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 16:55:54 -0800, Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> wrote:
>
> >That's quite true; but my point was that it effected both wizards and
> >fighters and it didn't seem to significantly favor one over the other.
> >That's only meaningful now because of multiple attacks
>
> Exactly. The new haste is unbalanced in its effects, because a
> significant part of a fighter's improved combat ability with level comes
> from the extra attacks. The benefit of the extra partial action thus
> goes down over time. The exception would be when they get a full attack
> instead of a single attack, but that's a special circumstance. OTOH, a
> wizard gets an effective doubling of firepower, regardless of the
> circumstances and regardless of level.
>
> >with how it worked there). To the view of someone coming right from
> >OD&D there seems nothing overpowered about it affecting mages and
> >fighters equally, any more than the fact that suprise rounds effect
> >them equally, even though this effectively favors mages.
>
> The point is that the current haste _doesn't_ affect mages and fighters
> equally, and this change attempts to correct that.
Well in the game world the 'Haste' spell was presumably written
by a Wizard or Sorcerer. Is it really all that surprising that
they might right a spell that benefits the spell caster more than
the fighter?
If you think Haste is too powerful, as written, to be a level
three spell than change it. However I just don't see the fact
that it will help wizards more than fighters as a big deal.
Most spells that used to age you years now cost you XP's.
How about if Haste costs 100 XP's if cast on someone else
they also lose 100 Xp's. Mass Haste costs 100 XP's to every
target.
Hong Ooi
wrote:
>Well in the game world the 'Haste' spell was presumably written
>by a Wizard or Sorcerer. Is it really all that surprising that
>they might right a spell that benefits the spell caster more than
>the fighter?
Possibly. The magic weapon spell was also presumably created (or
translated from the divine original) by a wizard or sorcerer, and yet it
benefits People Who Whack Things much more than People Who Zap
Things....
>
>If you think Haste is too powerful, as written, to be a level
>three spell than change it.
Well, duh. I did. :)
>
>Most spells that used to age you years now cost you XP's.
>How about if Haste costs 100 XP's if cast on someone else
>they also lose 100 Xp's. Mass Haste costs 100 XP's to every
>target.
That's not a bad suggestion.
Peter Seebach
Hong Ooi <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>>Most spells that used to age you years now cost you XP's.
>>How about if Haste costs 100 XP's if cast on someone else
>>they also lose 100 Xp's. Mass Haste costs 100 XP's to every
>>target.
>That's not a bad suggestion.
I think it is... I would probably suggest subdual damage, instead.
Hmm. There's a balancing act; just say that every spell cast using a "haste
action" gives you a point of subdual damage, or maybe a d3.
Peter Newman
>
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 02:54:47 -0900, Peter Newman <pne...@gci.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Well in the game world the 'Haste' spell was presumably written
> >by a Wizard or Sorcerer. Is it really all that surprising that
> >they might right a spell that benefits the spell caster more than
> >the fighter?
>
> Possibly. The magic weapon spell was also presumably created (or
> translated from the divine original) by a wizard or sorcerer, and yet it
> benefits People Who Whack Things much more than People Who Zap
> Things....
True. I assume that's so Wizards can get lots of money making
and selling permanent magic items. It seems to me that making
magic Arms should probably require the 'Magic Weapon' or 'Greater
Magic Weapon' spell.
> >If you think Haste is too powerful, as written, to be a level
> >three spell than change it.
>
> Well, duh. I did. :)
I meant 'Change it because you think it is too powerful to
be a level 3 spell not change it because it helps the wizard
more than the fighter.' So does Mage Armor, would you change
that too?
Would you be OK with Haste as written if it were a level 4 spell?
Hong Ooi
wrote:
>Hong Ooi wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 02:54:47 -0900, Peter Newman <pne...@gci.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Well in the game world the 'Haste' spell was presumably written
>> >by a Wizard or Sorcerer. Is it really all that surprising that
>> >they might right a spell that benefits the spell caster more than
>> >the fighter?
>>
>> Possibly. The magic weapon spell was also presumably created (or
>> translated from the divine original) by a wizard or sorcerer, and yet it
>> benefits People Who Whack Things much more than People Who Zap
>> Things....
>
>True. I assume that's so Wizards can get lots of money making
>and selling permanent magic items. It seems to me that making
>magic Arms should probably require the 'Magic Weapon' or 'Greater
>Magic Weapon' spell.
That wouldn't be a bad house rule.
>
>> >If you think Haste is too powerful, as written, to be a level
>> >three spell than change it.
>>
>> Well, duh. I did. :)
>
>I meant 'Change it because you think it is too powerful to
>be a level 3 spell not change it because it helps the wizard
>more than the fighter.' So does Mage Armor, would you change
>that too?
Ah! That's an interesting analogy you've just drawn. The benefit of mage
armour is a +4 armour bonus to AC. This isn't overpowered, because the
+4 doesn't stack -- it overlaps with similarly typed bonuses.
Eventually, the spell will be overtaken by other ways of protecting
yourself, such as from bracers of armour.
The spellcaster-specific benefit of haste is the extra spell you can
cast with a partial action. That's an _extra_ spell, on top of the spell
you could normally cast, so the benefit "stacks". If haste were to act
in a manner analogous to mage armour, the extra spell would "overlap" in
some strange and yet-to-be-defined manner with the spell you could cast
as a normal action. Conversely, if mage armour were to act in a manner
analogous to haste, its +4 AC bonus would stack with all other AC
bonuses.
Peter Newman
1) What I meant is that since armor bonus's don't stack the spell
is much more helpful to someone not wearing armor. If your armor
already provides a +4 bonus the mage armor is useless.
2) Bracers of Armor +4 cost 16,000 GP's. Casting Mage Armor
on ones self does not. Mage Armor is good for 1 hour/level, while
Haste has (and should have) a much shorter duration. Therefore
Mage Armor is a better substitute for regular armor than Haste
is a substitute for being higher level and having an extra attack
anyway. The benefit of Haste (at least to me) is that each recipient
of it gets to chose how to use that extra partial action.
> The spellcaster-specific benefit of haste is the extra spell you can
> cast with a partial action. That's an _extra_ spell, on top of the spell
> you could normally cast, so the benefit "stacks". If haste were to act
> in a manner analogous to mage armour, the extra spell would "overlap" in
> some strange and yet-to-be-defined manner with the spell you could cast
> as a normal action. Conversely, if mage armour were to act in a manner
> analogous to haste, its +4 AC bonus would stack with all other AC
> bonuses.
Yes I suppose it would, but the point of view that I'm coming
from is that casting spells is simply a matter of wiggling
your fingers the right way, saying the right words, and using
the right components and/or focus (obviously some spells leave
out some of these steps). If you are moving faster than why
wouldn't you be able to do all these things faster and thus cast
faster?
If the problem is one of play balance then the solution should
preferably balance the spells benefits with its cost.
How about this for a solution. Haste is a third level spell,
therefore it's not powerful enough (unless Heightened) to let
you cast spells of more than third level hasted. Thus
a Hasted caster could cast two spells per round only if they
were both third level or less. (Not counting Quickened spells,
if any). Since 'Mass Haste' is identical to Haste, except on
more targets, maybe it can't let you cast spells of more than
third level once per round either.
As the caster levels up he will have more spells of greater
than third level and the Haste will be of relatively less use
to him. OTOH he'll also have more slots for spells of the third
level or less so haste will have greater absolute use.
Michael Scott Brown
news:3AAC9206...@gci.net...
> Yes I suppose it would, but the point of view that I'm coming
> from is that casting spells is simply a matter of wiggling
> your fingers the right way, saying the right words, and using
> the right components and/or focus (obviously some spells leave
> out some of these steps).
> If you are moving faster than why
> wouldn't you be able to do all these things faster and thus cast
> faster?
*Concentration*. Ain't of the body.
> How about this for a solution. Haste is a third level spell,
> therefore it's not powerful enough (unless Heightened) to let
> you cast spells of more than third level hasted.
Following the pattern of Quicken, should this idea not be 0th?
-Michael
Andrew Tellez
Peter Newman wrote:
>
> Andrew Tellez wrote:
> >
> > Peter Newman wrote:
> > >
> > > Andrew Tellez wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree. However since our party is more powerful than we
> > > realize we tend to avoid fights with monsters we could take
> > > out in a 'fair fight' unless we set it up ahead of time to
> >
> > Our style doesn't always give that luxury. The party travels
> > extensively, often by mundane means, and we occasionally get ambushed.
>
> Why travel so much? There should be people you can kill and
> rob most places :)
They don't have the things we want. :) Also, we're working for a robber
baron (er, merchant consortium) that employs us to act as trade scouts,
explorers, enforcers, and deniable assets.
> > Your Wizard is a bit more potent than mine. I usually use summoned
> > creatures to do my dirty work. Planar Binding is very nice.
>
> My Wizard has known Summon Monster 1 for a while but only
> recently picked up Summon Monster 7. He won't be using it much
> until he gets more level 7 spell slots since Teleport w/o
> Error is much more useful.
That's why I like Planar Binding. The creature stays until it's done
(sometimes longer) and one can get more potent creatures with it than
with Summon Monster.
> > We don't know any priest that can bring back the dead, let alone any
> > powerful enough to do a True Resurrection. Our Druid is our best bet.
>
> Mystara is a high powered setting.
We're playing Dark Sun, which has power, but limited ability to bring
back the dead.
> most parties but since all the Immortals know that we were there
> to foil the world threatening plans of the Chaotic Rad and Rafiel
Too many powerful being know about my mage for his taste. Four,
possibly six of the sorcerer kings know who and what he is, and at least
one knows what he plans. Fortunately, none are yet inclined to act on
their information.
> > My "familiar" would have just done it himself. Then again, my
> > "familiar" is more properly a planar ally.
>
> Lower planar?
Upper, surprisingly. It's an Ursinal. I was originally going to try
for an Arcanoloth, but decided to first attempt something that wasn't as
high maintenance.
> Generally smart and tactically skilled opponents don't attack
> us and we're too chicken to attack them. Our games tend to be
> short on combat.
Ours don't have much either, but some are unavoidable given what we're
doing. We're also doing Rod of Seven Parts (which is kind of odd in
Athas), and have the occasional batch of mutated chaos beast wannabes
coming after us.
Andrew Tellez
Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>
> > If you are moving faster than why
> > wouldn't you be able to do all these things faster and thus cast
> > faster?
>
> *Concentration*. Ain't of the body.
But it's Consitution based. :)
Actually, this mihgt be a good way to do it. Concentration checks are
generally required when one is casting spells when one ought not to.
Perhaps an appropriate Concentration check to cast at a faster rate?
Michael Scott Brown
news:3AACFFB0...@gwu.edu...
> > *Concentration*. Ain't of the body.
>
> But it's Consitution based. :)
>
> Actually, this mihgt be a good way to do it. Concentration checks are
> generally required when one is casting spells when one ought not to.
> Perhaps an appropriate Concentration check to cast at a faster rate?
Excellent, excellent idea. There's still an issue with high level
casters having an easy time Concentrating, but a DC of maybe 15+spelllevel
might do the job, correlating to some sort of violent motion disruption.
After all, who says haste is smooth? +3 levels for a guaranteed 'fast'
spell or 3 levels for a chance to waste your high level spells . . that's
smelling happier to Michael.
-Michael
Hong Ooi
wrote:
>Hong Ooi wrote:
>> Ah! That's an interesting analogy you've just drawn. The benefit of mage
>> armour is a +4 armour bonus to AC. This isn't overpowered, because the
>> +4 doesn't stack -- it overlaps with similarly typed bonuses.
>> Eventually, the spell will be overtaken by other ways of protecting
>> yourself, such as from bracers of armour.
>
>1) What I meant is that since armor bonus's don't stack the spell
>is much more helpful to someone not wearing armor. If your armor
>already provides a +4 bonus the mage armor is useless.
Sure.
>
>2) Bracers of Armor +4 cost 16,000 GP's. Casting Mage Armor
>on ones self does not. Mage Armor is good for 1 hour/level, while
>Haste has (and should have) a much shorter duration. Therefore
>Mage Armor is a better substitute for regular armor than Haste
>is a substitute for being higher level and having an extra attack
>anyway. The benefit of Haste (at least to me) is that each recipient
>of it gets to chose how to use that extra partial action.
Hm, now that's a bit disingenuous, isn't it? IIRC, you said earlier in
this thread that the main benefit of Quicken Spell was the ability to
get off a third spell when hasted. That would imply that the main
attraction of the feat was the increased firepower in a situation where
it was required, rather than its ancillary benefits (no AoOs for
casting, can move and cast freely, etc). Similarly, it would imply that
the main benefit of haste _to a mage_ is indeed the firepower, rather
than simply the added tactical flexibility.
>
>> The spellcaster-specific benefit of haste is the extra spell you can
>> cast with a partial action. That's an _extra_ spell, on top of the spell
>> you could normally cast, so the benefit "stacks". If haste were to act
>> in a manner analogous to mage armour, the extra spell would "overlap" in
>> some strange and yet-to-be-defined manner with the spell you could cast
>> as a normal action. Conversely, if mage armour were to act in a manner
>> analogous to haste, its +4 AC bonus would stack with all other AC
>> bonuses.
>
>Yes I suppose it would, but the point of view that I'm coming
>from is that casting spells is simply a matter of wiggling
>your fingers the right way, saying the right words, and using
>the right components and/or focus (obviously some spells leave
>out some of these steps). If you are moving faster than why
>wouldn't you be able to do all these things faster and thus cast
>faster?
Why not indeed? As an alternative viewpoint, it could be argued that
casting spells is a matter of concentrating one's mind, opening a
channel for arcane (or divine) energies, and directing these energies
toward the desired goal. Even if my body is moving faster, the speed
with which the spell's energies are manifested might not be affected at
all.
The point is not that one of us must necessarily be right or wrong. It's
that an in-game rationale can be found for both situations -- whether or
not casting spells is affected by haste.
>
>If the problem is one of play balance then the solution should
>preferably balance the spells benefits with its cost.
Yes, basically I'm coming at this from the play balance standpoint.
Your proposed solution (limit haste to 3rd level spells and lower) and
Andrew Tellez's (require Concentration checks for hasted spellcasting)
are both good. The main issues I can think of are:
- This still leaves magic items, like wands, staves, etc out of the
picture. If we assume items still work the same, it means there's a
potential loophole, since the intent was to power down haste. It may be
that the cost associated with creating and recharging these items is a
satisfactory balancing factor -- although if you're in a situation where
haste is required, it seems likely that you're probably not going to
hold back....
- Alternatively, if we assume items work like spells, it leaves open the
question of how to deal with item powers that aren't based on particular
spells. For example, the ring of the ram, the ring of shooting stars, or
various rods. This also holds for creatures with special abilities.
Michael Scott Brown
> picture. If we assume items still work the same, it means there's a
> potential loophole, since the intent was to power down haste.
Your argument about rate-of-channeling allows an implicit 1/round usage
paradigm, and it's probably a good idea.
-Michael
Bradd W. Szonye
>Notice the game balance of Quicken Spell - you have to prepare *each
>spell* that you wish to be able to fire off rapidly with an enormous
>penalty in added levels. But simply casting *one* 3rd level spell
>suddenly lets you double your casting rate for many, many spells? It's
>absurd. Quicken is balanced, Hasted casting is not.
Indeed, it's not balanced -- fighters can potentially benefit from
/haste/ much more than spellcasters can! The spellcaster gets two spells
per round instead of one, which is roughly double the damage dealt.
Fighters, on the other hand, get an extra attack at full BAB at the
least, and will be able to full-attack more often than usual.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that most fighters hit 50% of
the time at BAB, 25% of the time at BAB-5 (second attack), and only 5%
of the time with further allowed attacks. The 50% base appears to be the
"balance point" for attacks, just as it is for saving throws and opposed
skill checks. Anyway, a full attack action does 150% the damage of a
standard attack action.
A normal wizard does X damage. The same wizard with /haste/ does 2X.
A normal fighter entering melee range does X damage. The same fighter
with /haste/ does at least 1.5X damage (cautious approach plus full
attack) and up to 2.5X damage (partial charge plus full attack).
A normal fighter in full-attack position (already in melee or using a
bow) does 1.5X damage. With /haste/, he does 2.5X damage (partial attack
pluss full attack).
Thus, a hasted wizard gets 100% more damage, whereas a hasted fighter
gets 67-150% more damage. (All this is discounting certain special
attacks like the whirlwind: haste makes those much more effective,
because you can move in and execute the feat before your opponents can
react.) On average, the wizard will likely get more out of /haste/, but
the fighter has the potential to do better in some situations.
Thus, I don't see how it's unbalanced to let wizards double-cast. In
fact, if you deny it, then fighters are getting a 50-150% damage boost
relative to wizards, and I don't think *that's* fair or balanced.
--
Bradd W. Szonye Work: br...@cup.hp.com
Software Design Engineer Home: bra...@concentric.net
Hewlett-Packard Cupertino Site, iFL Phone: 408-447-4832
Bradd W. Szonye
>On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:47:16 -0800, "Michael Scott Brown"
><mi...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>"Hong Ooi" <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote in message
>>> Exactly. The new haste is unbalanced in its effects, because a
>>> significant part of a fighter's improved combat ability with level
>>> comes from the extra attacks. The benefit of the extra partial
>>> action thus goes down over time.
>>
>>No, it goes up. A bonus attack at +4 is not as valuable as a bonus
>>attack at +20.
The benefit of the partial action *does* decline, but not by much.
Against a balanced challenge, the extra attack's benefit drops from
about +65% damage to about +60% damage. Nothing significant.
>True, the best way to put it might be as I did way back at the start of
>this thread:
>
>>If you're a melee combatant, the benefit becomes relatively less
>>important as you gain levels, because you get more attacks anyway.
The benefit of an extra attack does not decline enough to notice -- once
you get extra attacks at all. When you go from single attacks to
multiple attacks, the damage bonus drops from +100% to +65%, but after
that it remains fairly constant. Also, there are many circumstances
where fighters can get better than +100% damage out of /haste/.
I think you're overreacting to the rules change; looking closely at the
numbers indicates that fighting and spellcasting are roughly balanced
with respect to /haste/ as-is.
Bradd W. Szonye
>Exactly. The new haste is unbalanced in its effects, because a
>significant part of a fighter's improved combat ability with level comes
>from the extra attacks.
I must disagree with this. A 20th level fighter gets 4 attacks per
round, but he does not do quadruple damage! Remember that each
subsequent attack is at -5 cumulative to hit.
Here are the numbers:
Expected damage factor
Die roll needed on first hit:
Atks 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2
1 .05 .15 .25 .35 .45 .55 .65 .75 .85 .95
2 .10 .20 .30 .45 .65 .85 1.05 1.25 1.45 1.65
3 .15 .25 .35 .50 .70 .90 1.20 1.50 1.80 2.10
4 .20 .30 .40 .55 .75 .95 1.25 1.55 1.90 2.30
Expected damage relative to a single attack
Die roll needed on first hit:
Atks 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2
1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2 2.00 1.33 1.20 1.29 1.44 1.55 1.62 1.67 1.71 1.74
3 3.00 1.67 1.40 1.42 1.56 1.64 1.88 2.00 2.11 2.21
4 4.00 2.00 1.60 1.57 1.67 1.73 1.92 2.07 2.24 2.42
Just as flurries and two-weapon fighting is really only effective
against low armor classes, you only get the full benefit of multiple
attacks against very tough and very weak opponents. For an
equally-matched opponent, multiple attacks only give you 73% more
damage, and that only at the highest levels! Also, note that the number
you need to hit usually is about 10; just like saving throws and opposed
skill checks, attack bonus vs AC is balanced around the 50% point.
(While BAB goes up every level for fighters, there are enough magical AC
and Dex enhancements available to match that, and CR X monsters
typically have about AC 15+X.)
Anyway, an extra partial action only becomes "meaningless" (ie., "only"
+25% damage) in the most extreme situations: 16th+ level and you need to
roll 20 to hit. For more typical challenges, /haste/ is about a 65%
damage bonus.
Is the wizard's 100% /haste/ damage bonus better than that? Yes. Is it
so much better that we should call it "unbalanced"? Not in my opinion.
>The benefit of the extra partial action thus goes down over time.
Only marginally. Starting at 6th level (shortly after /haste/ becomes
available), the fighters' damage bonus drops from about 65% down to 60%
at 16th level. The ratio hardly changes at all.
The /haste/ spell *is* less significant to fighters who are up against
very tough (need 20s to hit) or very weak monsters, but it's a good
boost for balanced challenges -- including the mirror match.
>The exception would be when they get a full attack instead of a single
>attack, but that's a special circumstance.
It's not *that* unusual. Also, it's a big boost: in that case, 6th level
fighters get a 155% damage bonus, and 16th level fighters get a 173%
damage bonus for that round. (I'm assuming a partial charge or use of a
bow.) The fighters actually do much better than the wizards do if the
opponents are spread out.
On the whole, I'd guess that both fighters and wizards will do roughly
twice as much damage while under the influence of /haste/. I think the
spell is currently very well-balanced. To those folks who feel
otherwise: is your judgment based on actual play, or just on eyeballing
the numbers? I've noticed that the folks arguing for "no rule change"
are the ones who have played with haste extensively.
>OTOH, a wizard gets an effective doubling of firepower, regardless of
>the circumstances and regardless of level.
So, wizards always double firepower; fighters range from 1-2/3 times
firepower to 2-1/2 times firepower. That looks balanced to me.
>The point is that the current haste _doesn't_ affect mages and fighters
>equally, and this change attempts to correct that.
It does affect them equally, just not identically. Have you playtested
the rules as-is? Have you done an analysis of the situation, beyond "it
feels wrong" or "it's different"? The expected damage is very similar
for fighters and wizards both.
Peter Seebach
Bradd W. Szonye <bra...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Is the wizard's 100% /haste/ damage bonus better than that? Yes.
For a few rounds. Then it's not. So, on the whole, I don't think it's
a bad balance situation at all.
>the numbers? I've noticed that the folks arguing for "no rule change"
>are the ones who have played with haste extensively.
Yes. And been *badly* whacked by hasted opponents. :(
Bert Blaine
fighter really doesn't lose anything over time buy attacking more often.
The spell is fine for mages, if they want to burn out their supply of spells
faster LET THEM!
.......
I know several sadistic DM's (is there a mirror around?) who might even
encourage it . :)
Bradd W. Szonye wrote in message ...
Michael Scott Brown
> Michael Scott Brown <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Notice the game balance of Quicken Spell - you have to prepare *each
> >spell* that you wish to be able to fire off rapidly with an enormous
> >penalty in added levels. But simply casting *one* 3rd level spell
> >suddenly lets you double your casting rate for many, many spells? It's
> >absurd. Quicken is balanced, Hasted casting is not.
>
> Indeed, it's not balanced -- fighters can potentially benefit from
> /haste/ much more than spellcasters can!
Using numbers, good - nice start on the analysis. Numbers. <purr>
However:
I'm initially suspicious of the toy numbers chosen for the hit rates,
however, basing conclusions on only one AC/BAB combination can be very, very
misleading. However, that issue's ultimately moot, this aspect will always
be over a range of BAB and AC differences and we should simply accept that a
harder target takes less damage than a lightly armored one.
Your initial offerings are these:
Fighter:
(a) X = Base % of hitting times avg. weapon damage.
(b) an extra partial attack raises damage potential X to 2X if character
standard actionizes.
(c) easier (ie; can move) full attack provides (1+a)X, where a<1 in
general.
(d) partial and full attack provides (2+a) X
These are all fine, good, and dead on comparisons.
Wizard:
(a) X = base damage potential (after saves, etc.) of typical whomping
spell
(b) extra partial casting action raises potential to 2X.
There's a weakness in the analysis route you chose here with the wizard;
by focusing only on percentage increases (often a solid move) you obscure a
very important point of comparison between the fighter and the wizard on
this issue.
The two attackers have a *very* different "base" from which these
percentage improvements are being compared. X for the fighter is not the
same as X for the wizard; if we were being more rigorous we would change X
to "Y".
Y >> X in D&D; magic hits *hard* to make up for being finite.
This means that the net increase in damage done to the enemy is a lot
bigger for the wizard than for the fighter, and this is major cause for
balance concern. Another sword blow per round, even if a +3 bastard blade
in the hands of a specialized, strongarm is a *chance* of doing 1-10+9 to
_one_ person (if it hits at all), whereas another (undisrupted) Fireball for
10-60 (chance for *half*) to *many* persons . . .
Further, there's a synergy issue - certain combinations of spells are
even more devastating when used together and Haste allows the wizard to get
'em both out there without meaningful reciprocation.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
Monetary Idea of Strangeness:
What if casting two (un-quickened) spells in a round while Hasted ends the
effect for that individual prematurely due to "overload" or some other
magical mambo-jambo?
-Michael
Hong Ooi
wrote:
>Anyway, an extra partial action only becomes "meaningless" (ie., "only"
>+25% damage) in the most extreme situations: 16th+ level and you need to
>roll 20 to hit. For more typical challenges, /haste/ is about a 65%
>damage bonus.
>
>Is the wizard's 100% /haste/ damage bonus better than that? Yes. Is it
>so much better that we should call it "unbalanced"? Not in my opinion.
I think it is. As MSB pointed out, this comparison is askew because it
looks only at relative benefits. The 100% haste damage bonus for the
wizard is better than the fighter's 65%, assuming your numbers are
correct. In addition, that 100% bonus is applied to a base that's
significantly higher than the fighters, thus exacerbating the disparity
that already exists.
A fighter might do an extra 1d10+10 points of damage with his sword, if
we're generous -- say 15 on average. A wizard can do an extra _35_
points with a fireball on average, or an extra _70_ points with a
delayed blast fireball (admittedly with a save -- but then the fighter
also needs to hit). And that's not counting spells that don't do hit
point damage -- two polymorph other spells per round could be very
nifty, for instance.
>On the whole, I'd guess that both fighters and wizards will do roughly
>twice as much damage while under the influence of /haste/. I think the
>spell is currently very well-balanced. To those folks who feel
>otherwise: is your judgment based on actual play, or just on eyeballing
>the numbers? I've noticed that the folks arguing for "no rule change"
>are the ones who have played with haste extensively.
They're also the ones who mostly play wizards. Not that I'm casting
aspersions on anyone's objectivity here ;) but let's just say that they
might have slightly different priorities and preferences to what I do.