Wizard specialization incentives

[Roman]

So your "must-have" spells are now Stoneskin, Shapechange, and anything else that's normally balanced by a material component. Not a good idea.

-- N

True, but since Sorcerers are assumed to be sub-par with respect to wizards even in the standard system and since Sorcerers lose almost all of their 'immediate flexibility' advantage and virtually all of their 'more spells per day' advantage with the introduction of the spell-point system - would this not bring them back to par with the wizards?

 

[Rystil Arden]

What I would do is offset expensive material component cost with a generously low ratio XP cost (5 GP : 1 XP is the usual, whereas 25 GP : 1 XP is generous). Besides, Shapechange, mentioned above, is focus-based rather than component-based, so eliminating the focus altogether shouldn't be too unbalancing (the 1500 GP circlet is a pittance indeed once you can actually cast this spell). A 7th-level sorcerer will probably be a whole lot more willing to pay 10 xp for stoneskin (which is 1/700th of what he needs for next level and 1/2100th of what he already has) rather than 250 GP, which is 1/76th of his entire expected cash amount and 1/32nd of all the cash he will get by his next level. The sorcerer makes a gain, but this way, there's still at least some cost.

 

[Goblyns Hoard]

I've actually considered setting up a future campaign with a houserule that would prevent generalist wizards, and force all of them to specialize.

My campaign is already like this and it's working fine. I do give ALL casters a boost in that they memorise a number of spells per day and then cast spontaneously from that set (so like Arcana Unearthed I'm told), and have gotten rid of sorcerers (except in magical creatures - i.e. dragons can take levels in sorcerer)

The reason I went this way is primarily for role-playing reasons - the main area of the campaign is a magocracy and I liked the idea of the various Guilds of Mages vying for power. It also gives characters a little more stylistic focus in setting up their mage in the first place. And I let players use the UA variants if they want.

 

[Cyberzombie]

So your "must-have" spells are now Stoneskin, Shapechange, and anything else that's normally balanced by a material component. Not a good idea.

-- N

Umm, you *have* seen how Eschew and other "no material component" abilities work, right? You *are* aware that that has been thought of for years and accounted for, right? Eschew doesn't work on those spells. Other abilities that have been created usually burn xp.

You're bringing up a problem that was already dealt with in beta testing, mang.

 

[Nifft]

Umm, you *have* seen how Eschew and other "no material component" abilities work, right?

Context, amigo. That's a response to "what if I allow ANY spell with NO material components, I already give everyone Eschew, I'm thinking of Spell-Like Ability access for Sorcerers".

-- N

 

[Lord Ravinous]

Are you joking?

Giving up necromancy, boo hoo, no real detriment, lots of ways to still blast foes and animating is neat but not essential.

Don't be hatin' on Necromancy now,

But anyways, I've had a problem w/ the new Specialization rules for 3.5 since they came around, while its not as hard a hit for lets say...an Evoker (sure, drop Illusion and Necromancy, then your done), but for someone that likes to play Necromancers, they make it more difficult than it needs to be, I'm sorry, I think if I want to drop Evocation to specialize in Necro, then that should be the only one dropped, same goes for Transmutation, they're 2 of the most powerful/useful schools, and should count as 2 schools for specialization purposes.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Don't be hatin' on Necromancy now,

But anyways, I've had a problem w/ the new Specialization rules for 3.5 since they came around, while its not as hard a hit for lets say...an Evoker (sure, drop Illusion and Necromancy, then your done), but for someone that likes to play Necromancers, they make it more difficult than it needs to be, I'm sorry, I think if I want to drop Evocation to specialize in Necro, then that should be the only one dropped, same goes for Transmutation, they're 2 of the most powerful/useful schools, and should count as 2 schools for specialization purposes.

I tend to use something like the 3.0 system with several tiers of schools, myself, to prevent this problem. I don't use the exact 3.0 system, as I have elevated Necromancy onto the Illusion/Enchantment tier thanks to its cool new 3.5 spells.

 

[Roman]

What I would do is offset expensive material component cost with a generously low ratio XP cost (5 GP : 1 XP is the usual, whereas 25 GP : 1 XP is generous). Besides, Shapechange, mentioned above, is focus-based rather than component-based, so eliminating the focus altogether shouldn't be too unbalancing (the 1500 GP circlet is a pittance indeed once you can actually cast this spell). A 7th-level sorcerer will probably be a whole lot more willing to pay 10 xp for stoneskin (which is 1/700th of what he needs for next level and 1/2100th of what he already has) rather than 250 GP, which is 1/76th of his entire expected cash amount and 1/32nd of all the cash he will get by his next level. The sorcerer makes a gain, but this way, there's still at least some cost.

Heh, this would result in my players having their characters NEVER cast any spells that cost XP. They are 'irrational' about XP in that manner - they will never even create magic items since it costs XP.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Heh, this would result in my players having their characters NEVER cast any spells that cost XP. They are 'irrational' about XP in that manner - they will never even create magic items since it costs XP.

That's pretty funny Why not pay 10 xp when the baddies are going to give much much more

 

[Roman]

That's pretty funny Why not pay 10 xp when the baddies are going to give much much more

I know, I know, but everybody has some quirks and they have this one (well, among others).