D&D 3.x [3.5] Specialist wizards...

[Pax]

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.

I have an ECL 25 Enchanter, 3.0 rules, that would love to prove you hideously, gruesomely, and fatally wrong ... Dhao Mavri, over in The Exodus, at RPOL.net.

Here's what I'd cast at you, in a single round:

Quickened Mind Fog ... Multispell Quickened Suggestion("Trust me") ... Nybor's Castigation ... Nybor's Castigation (haste).

Spell DC is 44 for the mind fog, 42 for Suggestion (effective 52 if the mind fog works), 47 for the first Castigation (effective 57, again), and 51 for the second castigation (effective 61, again).

And as for spell penetration? 1d20+47 for each and every one of them; SR won't be a problem.

Granted, immunity to mind-affecting spells and effects isn't terribly hard to come by, but absent that ...

... you're worm food.

For the record, Dhao is a human Specialist Wizard(Enchanter, 5)/Archmage(3)/Red Wizard(10)/Shadow Adept(7) with opposed schools of Conjuration and Evocation.

 

[Rary the Traitor]

My group will be sticking to 3.0 rules for wizard specialization, if only because our wizard is an Illusionist who picked Evocation as his prohibited school for the sole reason that he didn't want to play an "artillery mage", as he calls them. With 3.5 ed., he would have to either pick Evocation AND another school, which everyone in our group agreed would disadvantage him too much, or pick two less powerful schools (yes, we still think some schools are less powerful despite how the spell lists were changed), which would destroy his character concept.

 

[Spatula]

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.

As the player of an enchanter (evocation barred) I would have to disagree. Losing evocation is already a big hit, and I don't see anything in the 3.5 spell lists that makes me want to give up yet another school for.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I play a Transmuter and I will probably give up being a specialist if/when we convert to 3.5.

It looks to me I am substantially weaker than before even if I only had to lose Conjuration. I have no interest in giving up yet another yet another school. I certainly will not do without both Dimension Door and Teleport. No way.

I think 3.0 specialist were on the powerful side, but it was hardly a no-brainer if you considered the advantages of being a generalist item crafter. All they really needed to do was balance out the schools better.

With less flexibility, if I went with a specialist I would feel forced to go witht he minmax route. I thought it gave my chracter interesting flavor to give up on Mage Armor, Glitterdust, Stinking Cloud, Wall of Stone, and summonings. Now giving up two from Necromancy, Evocation, Enchantment, Adjuration would be pretty much the only way to go IMHO.

 

[bret]

I have to agree with others. I think there will be less specialist wizards with r3.5 than there were with 3.0. I've run a couple of specialist wizards under 3.0, but wouldn't want to do it with what I've seen of r3.5.

 

[Jhyrryl]

All Specialist Now Look the Same to Me

Discounting variations for personality/alignment, here's what I'd give up as a specialist of each class (you could probably devise a personality test out of this kind of thing):

Abjurer
-- (3.0) Illusion
-- (3.5) Illusion and Necromancy
Conjurer
-- (3.0) Evocation
-- (3.5) Illusion and Necromancy
Diviner
-- (3.0) Necromancy
-- (3.5) Necromancy
Enchanter
-- (3.0) Conjuration
-- (3.5) Illusion and Necromancy
Evoker
-- (3.0) Conjuration
-- (3.5) Illusion and Necromancy
Illusionist
-- (3.0) Enchantment
-- (3.5) Enchantment and Necromancy
Necromancer
-- (3.0) Enchantment
-- (3.5) Enchantment and Illusion
Transmuter
-- (3.0) Illusion and Enchantment
-- (3.5) Illusion and Necromancy

Anyone see a pattern? <g>

Abjuration can't be given up, as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather have seen this school be the "not opposable" one, regardless of how "important" it is to put read magic and detect magic in their most appropriate schools and make sure that everyone has access to them; speaking strictly from a game mechanics standpoint, of course.

Conjuration was something a typical mage could survive without. Not anymore; not now that it has all the teleport effects.

Divination is easily something that a group can survive without the mage having. Chances are, the party cleric is going to do most of the divining anyway. This should not have been made the "must have" school.

Enchantment while easy to give up before, wasn't something I'd give up lightly. The charm, hold, and dominate spells are just too useful, especially in non-hack-and-slash environments.

Evocation could actually be given up by conjurers before (and it was my preferred way to go). Now it's practically impossible for a mage to deal significant damage without access to this school, and having to give up another school on top of that would simply be asking too much.

Illusion, despite having some nifty effects, has too many spells that just plain suck (ooh! a 5th-level spell that can be either a fireball or a lightning bolt, and all it gives up for all that versatility is that it's likely to do less damage than a magic missile!)

Necromancy, despite the wider range of spells it now has, it is still the easiest thing to give up, because of all the evil spells.

Transmutation is still a loaded school, with most of the game's mobility and buffs. I'd have given up Abjuration before giving up transmutation before, which is a pretty strong statement considering what I said about Abjuration. Even after the removal of teleportation magic and the nerfing of most of the buff spell (which I'm happy for, especially as a DM), I still would be very hard pressed to give this school up, let alone this and another.

I think they did a much better job of balancing the schools. That said, certain schools are still way too weak, and the choices I would make as a specialist demonstrate that.

Edit: too many I's and N's in "divining" - I dropped some. Also added a forgotten "not."

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I didn't like specializing in former editions, either - It was always some good stuff you gave up.

 

[Darklone]

Re: Re: [3.5] Specialist wizards...

What save bonus?

Specialist wizards got a +1 against spells from their specialised school. Didn't they?

 

[Storm Raven]

Re: Re: Re: [3.5] Specialist wizards...

Specialist wizards got a +1 against spells from their specialised school. Didn't they?

Not in any version of 3rd edition.

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

Except that 3.5 makes specialization about twice as expensive as 3.0 did.

Look at it this way:

In 3.0, the schools were unbalanced. Transmutation, Evocation and Conjuration were clearly better than Abjuration, Enchantment and Illusion, which were clearly beter than Necromancy and Divination.

But there was a variable cost of specializing. To specialize as a Transmuter, you had to give up one of the big schools, a couple of the mid-powered schools, or the small schools and a mid-powered school. Similarly, if you wanted to specialize in a mid-powered school, you had to give up one mid-powered school, and so on. Effectively, you had to give up a school (or schools) that had relative power equal to the power of the school you were specializing in.

Now turn to 3.5. Let's assume that the 3.5 revisions actually did make the schools relatively balanced against one another (except for divination, which is still the weak stepsister school). In order to specialize now, you have to give up two schools of relatively equal power to the school you are specilizing in. Effectively, you have to give up schools that when combined together have relative power double to the power of the school you are specilizing in.

In short, if you take the 3.5 design team at its word (that they balanced the schools) it clear that it is now twice as costly to be a specialist in 3.5 as it was to be a specialist in 3.0. Is this a good move? I doubt it. It was always an iffy move to be a specialist before, now it is a move that is probably subpar, suitable only for flavor reasons.