Building a good wizard?

[Treantmonklvl20]

makes lots of accusations.

You seem more interested in attacking me than my points, so I'll just defend myself from your attacks on me and leave you the last word.

1) Attack my points. This is a forum, that's what we do, it is not insulting. Skip the direct attacks on me please, those are insulting.

2) It is not subsumed. It is a separate ability. There is a difference between an ability that requires another ability, and one that incorporates another ability. The latter would qualify for the term "subsumed", the former does not.

3) I'm also suspicious of claims that a universalist uses his bonded item less than a specialist. I made no such claim. My claim was that universalists cast less spells than a specialist. Seriously, it is NOT subsumed! No need to be suspicious of the math. Check it yourself before you make accusations.

4) I used 10th level (and 5th level spells) because I knew it didn't matter what level I chose, but even levels would be more in your favor (since new spell levels are gained at odd levels, so an even level gives you one extra level to build wealth), and 10th level is halfway up the spectrum. Again, you make accusations when you could have checked the math yourself to determine that your accusation could not be correct. (Thanks to Systole for posting the math)

5) The wealth level I used is from the wealth by level in the corebook. It specifies that these recommended wealth levels are for PC's. You could have checked that, but decided to attack my intentions instead. Again.

6) The WBL guide assumes characters will use up consumables and sell items at cost. This is why the total listed is less than what you receive through adventuring. Again, this is stated specifically in the corebook.

7) You seem to think my main point is "just carry around a lot of scrolls for opposition schools", when in fact my main point is "carry around scrolls for those spells that don't come up much" this is a significant difference.

8) Spells can be cast off of scrolls, this mechanical aspect of the game has existed forever. I have absolutely no idea why you think a wizard who keeps scrolls to cast the spells off the scrolls rather than scribing them all is shameless optimizing, though I suspect it had something to do with me suggesting it as something I do.

My DM doesn't punish me for having scrolls that aren't slated for scribing into my spellbook, but that I might actually cast from the scroll. I guess that makes him "uncommon"

9) I don't carry around a crapload of scrolls. Did you not read my post? Scrolls are EXPENSIVE. I have a few scrolls, covering the highly circumstantial stuff. Comprehend languages, Water breathing, that kind of stuff.

10) You suggested I carry around a crapload of scrolls with my wizards in order to bypass the restrictions of bonded item on a specialist wizard, then call me a munchkin for doing it. I never call anyone a munchkin in these forums or anywhere else. Personal attacks have no place here.

I don't take bonded item, which I believe was the very first point I made (I take a familiar every time. I can back that up - I wrote this over a year ago - read the part on arcane bond. I make it pretty clear that IMO it is a lousy option.

So to make it clear - you made up an accusation based on something that was clearly incorrect, and then personally insulted me for your fabricated crime.

The floor is yours. You have the last word.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

Well, if there's one thing this whole thread has done it's convincing me to play a ranger. -__-

Perhaps I should stop asking optimization questions. They never help...

 

[Mad Hamish]

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.

[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.

Note that it gets worse than that because
a) spells with costly material components add to the cost of the scroll
b) you're ignoring the cost of writing the spell into the spellbook (or of a Blessed Book) which adds
level cost
0 5 gp
1 10 gp
2 40 gp
3 90 gp
4 160 gp
5 250 gp
6 360 gp
7 490 gp
8 640 gp
9 810 gp
so on average roughly 20% to the cost of spells of a flat charge of over 10000gp for the blessed book
and then there's also the time involved in scribing. (ignoring free spells)
1 hour + 1 hour per spell level so you're looking at 150 hours for level 1 spells, 300 hours for level 2 spells, 380 hours for level 3 spells, 400 hours for level 4 spells, 480 hours for level 5 spells, 490 hours for level 6 spells, 480 hours for level 7 spells, 405 hours for level 8 spells and 400 hours for level 9 spells

now it's quite common for adventures to level you several levels pretty quickly so I can definately see the time as a big problem for the strategy as well.

 

[Mad Hamish]

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.

If you have 1 specialist school spell per level that you want to memorize then unless you have an opposition school spell per level that you want to memorize then you come out ahead in terms of number of spells as the specialist.

 

[Mad Hamish]

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.

Where was treatmonk insulting to the poster?

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.

it's not subsumed.
It's a 1/day option on top of casting a lot of other spells.

Given a choice between a character who had the everything from the wizard including normal spell casting without the arcane bond casting ability or a character who had everything from the wizard with the arcane bond casting but didn't have their normal casting which one would you choose?

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.

He doesn't he points out that spellcasting is their most powerful abilities and the specialist wizards can cast about 20% more spells per day than a generalist.

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.

a) other people have shown that his argument holds in most levels
b) he has at least shown his case for 1 level, you have failed to make your case for any level at all
c) even if he was wrong at it is practical at most levels at worst he probably would have a mid range case and found that it backed his case so didn't look any further. There's no reason to assume that he's being devious

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.

from
Gamemastering

Table: Character Wealth by Level
PC Level* Wealth
2 1,000 gp
3 3,000 gp
4 6,000 gp

note the heading PC level?

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.

No it isn't, his case is that another way of covering for cases of rarely wanted spells is to have a few scrolls that you can use.

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.

Considering you've got his case wrong the rest of your argument isn't that good.

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.

"Damaging Magic Items
A magic item doesn't need to make a saving throw unless it is unattended, it is specifically targeted by the effect, or its wielder rolls a natural 1 on his save. "

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.

a) again you've misread what he said
b) casting from scrolls is generally either very costly or less effective that casting it yourself. You can't cover a lot of cases with scrolls (damage/level spells for instance)
c) somebody spending a bucketload of money to carry around a lot of spell scrolls would hardly be munckin, in fact it'd be severaly unoptimised

 

[Wiseblood]

I would recommend against building a good wizard. I would recommend building an adventurer using the wizard class. You have certain limitations with wizards that you do not have with fighters and rangers. (you generally do not want to get into melee.) You do have lots of fun options. Gatget-y spells most people scribe on scrolls. Caboom spells to lay waste to enemies. If you put fun first and domination second it's tough to go wrong. It's also kinda tough to suck as a wizard. Your spell list can be revamped so much that you can practically re-invent your character.

 

[HalfordAskold]

I would recommend against building a good wizard. I would recommend building an adventurer using the wizard class. You have certain limitations with wizards that you do not have with fighters and rangers. (you generally do not want to get into melee.) You do have lots of fun options. Gatget-y spells most people scribe on scrolls. Caboom spells to lay waste to enemies. If you put fun first and domination second it's tough to go wrong. It's also kinda tough to suck as a wizard. Your spell list can be revamped so much that you can practically re-invent your character.

Excellent description/point. Make one and have fun! That's what the game is all about i.m.o.