D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Specialist wizards...
Kae'Yoss
First Post
Re: Re: [3.5] Specialist wizards...
I was about to ask the same. There's no inherent spell defense, though you can get it via feats and PrC's.
The 3.5 rules are OK in that the schools now have good choices all the way up to 9th-level, while they used to have some gaps in there Abjur 5, Nec 6, Ench 7, Illus 8, Illus 9, Ench 9 - all 1 spell only. And Div 8 and 9, too. The Div 9 gap is still there.
I think they give Div this advantage cause there are almost no attack spells in there (I see only true strike), and because Div is something you shouldn't miss at any cost.
Spatula said:
I was about to ask the same. There's no inherent spell defense, though you can get it via feats and PrC's.
The 3.5 rules are OK in that the schools now have good choices all the way up to 9th-level, while they used to have some gaps in there Abjur 5, Nec 6, Ench 7, Illus 8, Illus 9, Ench 9 - all 1 spell only. And Div 8 and 9, too. The Div 9 gap is still there.
I think they give Div this advantage cause there are almost no attack spells in there (I see only true strike), and because Div is something you shouldn't miss at any cost.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
I think the 3.5 rules actually make specialisation viable, and I'm glad to have them. Before, enchanter or necromancer specialists just were not worth considering, now they can make great selections.
Shard O'Glase
First Post
fine jsut kidding but just pointing out that now div is actually weaker than before. They beefed up all the other categories so the loss of one means more.
I'm not sure about this change, not a big deal since specialists suck IMO. But I haven't gotton a good enough feel for the new schools to form an opinion on this.
I'm not sure about this change, not a big deal since specialists suck IMO. But I haven't gotton a good enough feel for the new schools to form an opinion on this.
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
What version of 3.0 were you playing?
3.0 Enchanters had most of the power of their 3.5 cousins and only had to give up one school. (The only real weakness they had that 3.5e rectified was their abysmal 2nd level spell selection). They're less viable now not more viable.
3.0 Necromancers also had to give up very little which helped to make them viable.
In my estimation, even abjurers and diviners were viable characters in 3.0. (Especially for multiclassed wizards).
In 3.5, OTOH, abjurer doesn't seem to be a viable specialization choice any longer. Giving up two schools for nerfed defensive magic isn't worthwhile--even for nonspecialist wizards. Buffs got weakened so much that transmuters are also of dubious viability now. All told, 3.5e makes specialization less viable and less advantageous rather than more.
3.0 Enchanters had most of the power of their 3.5 cousins and only had to give up one school. (The only real weakness they had that 3.5e rectified was their abysmal 2nd level spell selection). They're less viable now not more viable.
3.0 Necromancers also had to give up very little which helped to make them viable.
In my estimation, even abjurers and diviners were viable characters in 3.0. (Especially for multiclassed wizards).
In 3.5, OTOH, abjurer doesn't seem to be a viable specialization choice any longer. Giving up two schools for nerfed defensive magic isn't worthwhile--even for nonspecialist wizards. Buffs got weakened so much that transmuters are also of dubious viability now. All told, 3.5e makes specialization less viable and less advantageous rather than more.
Plane Sailing said:
Similar Threads
