Building a good wizard?

[Systole]

My mistake, I thought the cape fit the robe slot. Have to get a robe of the mountebank I guess

The reason why Shift is so extra-special goodness is that it's a swift action, rather than Mountebank's/Dimension Door's standard action. You can get out of almost any melee without drawing a single AoO while still having a move action left over.

By the time you start meeting things with reach, your Shift is considerably longer than the reach. You've somehow ended up eye-to-loincloth with a glaive-wielding ogre? No problem! Shift, Invisibility, run like the dickens, and let Boris the Strong and Fair step in.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

The reason why Shift is so extra-special goodness is that it's a swift action, rather than Mountebank's/Dimension Door's standard action. You can get out of almost any melee without drawing a single AoO while still having a move action left over.

By the time you start meeting things with reach, your Shift is considerably longer than the reach. You've somehow ended up eye-to-loincloth with a glaive-wielding ogre? No problem! Shift, Invisibility, run like the dickens, and let Boris the Strong and Fair step in.

That's not how it works. Swift action or no, as soon as you shift your turn is over because it functions like dimension door, which specifies that after using it your turn immediately ends.

 

[Systole]

Whoops, never saw that line in Dimension Door. Still, a swift action isn't an AoO.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Honestly, I go for a Universalist, every time. I hate school specializations for my Wizards. Here's why:

Arcane Bond: This is far and away the greatest ability that a Wizard has; I'll go farther: it is the single best ability that any class gets in the game. I would argue that even Smite Evil is not as powerful in the long run as Arcane Bond.

You get to spontaneously cast one free spell per day that you know. It's like having a special ability, once per day, to do any one of several hundred things. And the way I play my wizards, it really is several hundred things. I sink an INSANE amount of gold pieces into spells. There wasn't much of a good reason to do this in the past -- as these spells would almost never come into play, and if they did, it would only be on a strategic basis (you know the reason you need the spell, you rest and prepare it). So if you did, you did it to be a "completist", or for role-playing purposes, or just because you thought it was "cool".

Now, with Arcane Bond, there is a HUGE benefit to this and you are always Johnny-on-the-Spot with THE STOPPER. The more spells you know, the more AWESOME this ability is. It scales with the level of the character in this sense, and so it grows in power. Arcane Bond is so monstrously powerful an ability, it is TOO GOOD.

If you play a specailist wizard, you permanently foreclose two entire schools of magic to you in terms of your arcane bond ability. That wipes out DOZENS and DOZENS of spells from your chance to be the Wizard with THE STOPPER.

From some people, this is a trade-off they are prepared to make. To me? No. I vastly prefer the versatility of Universalist Wizards and with the Arcane Bond, this is a versatility which really does come into play.

Plus, a Universalist gets to throw their weapon! If you play an elf, you can thrown your longsword. If you play a human wizard and take a longsword as an Heirloom weapon, you can throw that too. At lower levels this ability comes up often. Hell, even at higher levels it has its moments. Plus, it's so flavorful and spiced with badassery. I love this ability.

All by way of saying: Play a Universalist, try to buy every spell in the GAME available to you and collect spells left, right and centre with a view (however difficult it may be) to getting em all. With Arcane Bond, every one of those puppies is available to you whenever you want. It is the ultimate special ability in the game.

Given the MASSIVE power this puts in the Wizard's hands, there really is no other ability which comes close to it in the game. Anything which restricts that power is a sub-optimal choice in the long run, imo.

 

[Mad Hamish]

Universalist you're trading off a bonus spell per spell level for the chance to pick a spell from the 2 opposition schools.
depending on the opposition schools it might be a pretty safe bet that it won't be likely that the big saver comes from the opposition schools.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

(summary)Loves universalist wizards and finishes his statement with: Anything which restricts that power is a sub-optimal choice in the long run, imo.

OK, point by point.

Arcane Bond: This is far and away the greatest ability that a Wizard has; I'll go farther: it is the single best ability that any class gets in the game. I would argue that even Smite Evil is not as powerful in the long run as Arcane Bond.

First off, it is debatable if bonded item is the best arcane bond. Personally, I take the familiar and then improved familiar. I max UMD for my character and take an improved familiar with hands (my current character has a dust mephit). Then I use my familiar to use alchemical items or wands to basically get a free action every round.

Secondly, "greatest ability a wizard has?" *double facepalm* Bad choice of words dude.

And the way I play my wizards, it really is several hundred things. I sink an INSANE amount of gold pieces into spells. There wasn't much of a good reason to do this in the past -- as these spells would almost never come into play, and if they did, it would only be on a strategic basis (you know the reason you need the spell, you rest and prepare it). So if you did, you did it to be a "completist", or for role-playing purposes, or just because you thought it was "cool".

I figured that you didn't mean what you just implied, but then you actually suggest the following:

Play a Universalist, try to buy every spell in the GAME

Here's the math: The recommended wealth level for a 10th level character is 62,000 gp. There are 80 5th level spells alone available to wizards (just counted them). A 5th level spell scroll costs 1,125 gp for wizards.

If EVERY dime you had went into 5th level scrolls you would get 55 of the 80 5th level spells (not counting the freebies at level up). You would buy zero spells of levels 1-4, you wouldn't have the extra spellbooks to scribe all these spells, you have no haversack to carry them, you have no cloak of resistance, rings of protection, wands, staves, rods...

Specialist wizards can spend every dime they make on scrolls and spellbooks (you would need lots of spellbooks) and not buy every spell that isn't in their opposition schools, not even close. (they should ABSOLUTELY NOT do this of course)

I have nothing against a wizard buying spell scrolls for those "once in a campaign - will never memorize" kind of spells, but you don't scribe them!!!

Scribe those spells that cover a large range of uses, then memorize them. Versatility is power, but that versatility is already built into many spells, and many spell schools.

I should point out at this time that the spell schools are poorly designed. If I make evocation an opposition school for example, I can mimic most of the things I could do with evocation spells with a spell from either the conjuration or illusion school.

The more spells you know, the more AWESOME this ability is.

However, as pointed out and proved above, a specialist wizard can buy just as many non-opposition spells as a universalist can buy, so what's the big advantage of the universalist again?

Plus, a Universalist gets to throw their weapon!

every specialization gets neat powers. That point was easy to counter.


So in summary, we've established that buying and scribing every spell in the game simply isn't feasable. You can't even come close.

Specialist wizards and universalist wizards will have approximately the same amount of spells available to their bonded item (if that is the arcane bond they selected), so there really is no advantage to playing a universalist over a specialist in this regard.

We've also established that all wizards, regardless of their specialty, or lack thereof, get abilities specific to that specialty, or lack thereof. Universalists do not have an advantage in this regard either.

I didn't establish this, but I think I implied pretty well that a bonded item isn't the most powerful ability a wizard has. The most powerful ability a wizard has is the ability to cast spells. Obviously.

For this most powerful ability, universalist wizards can expect to use this ability about 20% less than a specialist.

This percentage INCREASES the closer you get to the highest level spell you can cast. For your ability to cast your highest level spells (the most powerful aspect of the wizards most powerful ability), universalists can expect anywhere from a 25% to 50% reduction.

That kind of power restriction is palpable, and someone once said

Anything which restricts that power is a sub-optimal choice in the long run, imo.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I always preferred generalists, because while you don't need to know every spell in the game, or anything close to it, EVERY school (yes, even evocation) has at least a handful of spells that are painful to give up forever.

But in Pathfinder, the school benefits are so much better than universalist, the extra spell slots are as huge a boon as they've always been, and the prohibited schools is barely even a downside now. You can pay two spell slots to cast from an opposition school! This is a really bad expenditure in combat or during an adventuring day to rely on more than in the most isolated of incidents. But for utility/downtime use? It's completely insignificant. So now I CAN prohibit evocation and yet still taste the sweet, sweet fruit of Contingency on an off-day, for example.

So, I really can't justify ever being a Universalist in PF. It just seems like a really crappy deal.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

Even in 3.5 it wasn't nearly as bad as it sounds. I did this analysis a few years ago: Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

Logicninja posted an objection in the responses pointing out how (in the example of a 9th level wizard) a FS would not be able to memorize a variety of spells he listed, and that was unacceptable.

I pointed out the Generalist did not have enough memorization slots for all those spells, but then gave alternates that would perform a similar function from Conjuration for every spell he listed.

For your example, if I remember correctly we replaced contingency with greater shadow evocation (mimicking contingency). Though I agree, in Pathfinder you just cast contingency.

Also note that if you don't want to use up extra memorization slots (and naturally you don't), then consider scrolls, staves or wands, as there is no penalty for using these items to cast from your opposition school.

 

[Steel_Wind]

OK, point by point.

Whenever I see anybody on ENWorld begin to deconstruct another’s post on a “point by point” basis using selective, broken up quotes throughout, in an attempt to ostensibly address the contents of another post in a methodical fashion -- that’s a sure sign that the post I’m about to read is almost certain to be confrontational, argumentative, obnoxious and, usually, more than a little insulting.


And when it comes to your post, it would appear that my spidey senses were tingling correctly.



There is nothing “obvious” of “doublefacepalm worthy” of the suggestion that the arcane bond is the best ability the Wizard class has. Casting spells is great, no argument. Casting any spell the wizard knows without having to first prepare it is even better, as the former is subsumed by the latter. This is the part I would add in “obviously”, except clearly, it isn’t obvious as you appear to have missed it.


I have no idea where you pluck the percentages of just how LESS often the Universalist will be using Arcane Bond than the specialist wizard. It certainly isn’t clear what circumstances or assumptions you are making which lie at the root of this declaration – but it sounds specious to me.


Why are you starting to add up the gp value of spells at fifth level? Could it be that because if you started doing it at, say, first through third level, the mathematical argument against trying to accumulate “every spell in the game” isn’t convincing at all? In fact, it’s pretty doable at that stage, right? But instead of counting up the cost of buying all the first and second level spells and even third levels spells in an attempt to “disprove” this approach to playing a Universalist Wizard, you pick as a point for your accounting departure, 5th level spells? Hmmm... interesting. It’s not as if I didn’t say it would be difficult.


You also choose as the yardstick a wealth by level in the Core Rulebook, which is intended to be a guideline for NPCs but which, in practice, is almost never actually used in Paizo’s own adventure products. PCs in Paizo’s APs will accumulate a LOT more treasure (and spells) than are noted in the “wealth by level” passage in the Core Rulebook to which you refer. So as a yardstick, this really isn’t a very meaningful or practical measurement and amounts to little more than the raw stuff for a straw man.


Your main point of contention seems to be that it would be much easier to just carry around a boatload of scrolls in a prohibited school while keeping the bonuses for a specialist wizard, too. You state that such an approach is a more optimal choice. Your point is attractive and has the appearance of being persuasive when judged in a vacuum.


But while this is persuasive if all you need to consider is the crunch of the game, such judgment is divorced from the realities of actual play. The fact that you are proposing this suggests to me that your GM is not much concerned by your stated approach to optimizing power curves for specialist Wizards in the game. That does not make such an approach by a GM invalid, but it does, in my experience, make it uncommon.


You see, in the case of the games where I play and someone else is the GM (and in my own campaigns where I am the GM), if a player chooses a Universalist Wizard (and foregoes an extra spell slot), I’m not going to penalize him or suddenly become exacting to a fault in making sure his magic items make saving throws whenever he fails a save. And the GMs I play with won’t do it either.


But when the specialist takes the extra spell slot, and THEN attempts to get around the penalty that a specialist wizard suffers due to his arcane bond not working on prohibited schools, by instead carrying a crap load of those spells in scroll form to escape the in-game consequences of the rule? That’s when the specialist Wizard’s magic items will all be playing by the RAW to an exacting degree. Because that’s the way I treat munchkinism in my game. And yes, make no mistake – what you are suggesting is crossing the line into munchkinsm, imo.


Carrying around a vast collection of scrolls is just asking for said scrolls to get taken out by a wayward area attack. It may be permitted under RAW, but it’s not the spirit of the game, imo. YMMV -- and clearly does.

 

[Systole]

Why are you starting to add up the gp value of spells at fifth level? Could it be that because if you started doing it at, say, first through third level, the mathematical argument against trying to accumulate “every spell in the game” isn’t convincing at all? In fact, it’s pretty doable at that stage, right? But instead of counting up the cost of buying all the first and second level spells and even third levels spells in an attempt to “disprove” this approach to playing a Universalist Wizard, you pick as a point for your accounting departure, 5th level spells? Hmmm... interesting. It’s not as if I didn’t say it would be difficult.

Not to speak for Treantmonk, but I imagine he didn't feel like taking the time. I, on the other hand, am an Excel genius, somewhat OCD, and very bored at work today. (See below.) I also imagine he chose level 5 at a simple midpoint rather than for any sinister reason.

To your point, it's actually not even close to doable at that stage. It's sort of possible at (a) wizard level 2 and (b) wizard level 19-20. Even so, at level 20, being a spell completionist means blowing about 90% of your wealth on spells. A bit less considering the freebies.

At wizard level 10 (which was the point in question), spell levels 1-5 represent more than twice your WBL. It's even not possible for a wizard 10 to EITHER grab all of spell levels 1-4 OR to grab all of spell level 5 -- both of those are out of reach. Looking at the chart, that's about par for the course.

Honestly, if you're going to criticize Treantmonk for twisting the facts, you might have at least looked at the facts before shooting off a bunch of assumptions.

[FONT=Fixedsys]Sp.    #       $/   Tot.$/      Cum.   Wiz.[/FONT]
[FONT=Fixedsys]Lvl.  Sp.    Scr.     Scr.      Tot.   Lvl.      WBL[/FONT]
 
[FONT=Fixedsys]1      75      25     1875      1875      2     3000[/FONT]
[FONT=Fixedsys]2     100     200    20000     21875      4    10500[/FONT]
[FONT=Fixedsys]3      95     450    42750     64625      6    33000[/FONT]
[FONT=Fixedsys]4      80     800    64000    128625      8    62000[/FONT]
[FONT=Fixedsys]5      80    1250   100000    228625     10    82000[/FONT]
[FONT=Fixedsys]6      70    1800   126000    354625     12   108000[/FONT]
[FONT=Fixedsys]7      60    2450   147000    501625     14   185000[/FONT]
[FONT=Fixedsys]8      45    3200   144000    645625     16   315000[/FONT]
[FONT=Fixedsys]9      40    4050   162000    807625     20   880000[/FONT]

Sp.Lvl. - Spell Level
# Sp. - Approximate number of spells in that level (Core/APG/UM, from pfsrd)
$/Scr. - Cost per scroll
Tot.$/Scr. - Total cost to buy all scrolls of that level (neglected 2 freebies per wizard level, sue me)
Cum. Tot. - Running total of all scrolls up to selected level
Wiz.Lvl. - Last wizard level before moving on to next spell level. In other words, I'm assuming you want your 1st level spells to be complete before you hit Wizard 3 and have to start on 2nd level spells.
WBL - Suggested wealth by level.