[3.5e] Changes to wizard specialisation

[jasamcarl]

Number three was not a joke, nor a troll. There are several changes that seem to show that the redesign team hasn't rally thought through the effects of the changes they have made, and this seems like one of them.



I hold this portion of your post up as evidence in support of the notion that number three is a valid concern. If your supposition is correct, then the specialist wizard is now an unbalanced mechanic that favors wizards who specialize in the "big three" over other schools. [/B]

Really? I would have identified the 'not thinking through crowd' as those who assume that every change is in the context of no other changes. That is where balance wise. But, please, be simplistic. It makes my rebuttals easier.

 

[Psion]

Re: Re: [3.5e] Changes to wizard specialisation

Or, more likely:

3. The guys doing the redesign haven't thought things through and are doing something stupid.

I think they are attempting to make it simpler, but aren't paying enough attention to backwards compatability, and in essence are making too big a change for too little reason.

I think those who are thinking that this is about balancing the schools are giving them too much credit ... or not enough, as introducing that many changes into the spell list would be tantamount to a drastic alteration in the spell list. I don't think they are morphing the spell list that much, and to really alter the power of the spells on individual levels would make some spells require different level. No, the existing balance between spell levels is about the general utility of the schools, not about the power of individual spells.

I don't buy the Jalkain's theory that this is about ensuring supplements don't throw off the balance. Supplements have infinite capability to unbalance things with a simple misplaced spell level.

 

[Storm Raven]

Really? I would have identified the 'not thinking through crowd' as those who assume that every change is in the context of no other changes. That is where balance wise. But, please, be simplistic. It makes my rebuttals easier.

I didn't say that it was certain that they were not thinking things through, I said it was a possible (and as far as I can tell, likely) option.

For every change that makes sense and seems like a good idea, we've seen another change that simply seems to be pointless tinkering, in some cases for no better reason than "it's simpler this way" (even if it does appear to have a negative and unintended consequence).

I think the most damming evidence I have heard about the quality of the revisions came on Monte Cook's site. Monte has seen the new books. he has stated that he will incoprorate a "few" of the changes in 3.5 into his game, but will ignore most of them. If he's seen it, and thinks most of the changes are a bad idea, that seems like a serious indictment right there.

 

[Technik4]

Monte Cook helped write 3.0, and has contributed a lot via Malhavoc Press, so yes his opinion has weight. However, I believe in all his ventures he appeals to a certain subset of d&d players, see his label on AU that states it is for groups who are already experienced with normal d&d.

I can't say whether he was speaking for the game in general or for that subset of gamers, but I'm inclined to believe the latter. Of course, you could make the claim that there shouldn't be any difference, regardless.

An interesting (though soon to be reviled) thing I just thought of, as far as wizards taking the "magic" approach to d&d. They released Portals, a "basic" magic set for beginner users. Then they released regular "experienced" expansion sets (in sets of 3) along with a base set for "advanced" users. The corollary is between 3.5e and the inevitable Complete Warrior, Complete Spell-caster*, etc.

Technik

*- not a real book, yet.

 

[Dimwhit]

It looks to me like a lot more specialist wizards are going to have no access to the Necromancy school.

I think that the single greatest failure in the new D&D is the serious lack of good spells for Necromancy. Maybe it's just me, but that seems like a school of magic that anyone should want for specializing (assuming it fit the character). Instead, people choose is as their forbidden school because there's not much there. Just a shame.

 

[Chronosome]

I think that the single greatest failure in the new D&D is the serious lack of good spells for Necromancy. Maybe it's just me, but that seems like a school of magic that anyone should want for specializing (assuming it fit the character). Instead, people choose is as their forbidden school because there's not much there. Just a shame.

To PHB PCs, maybe. If you have the Book of Vile Darkness, and you're playing in something "dark", then a whole lot of options open up. I've never really seen D&D give the PC necromancer good choices, but the NPC necro has had quite a bit...if you buy the right supplements.

I'm looking to forward to seeing how 3.5 handles the school.

 

[Gez]

I think I'll house-rule specialization anyway.

It will no longer brings bonus spell slots.

However, both free spells gained at each level would have to come from that school, other schools are only accessible through scrolls, spellbooks, or costly researchs.

In exchange, no barred schools. And a +1 to the DC of the spells from the specialized school (offsetting the nerfing of Spell Focus).

 

[Number47]

I think they are also trying to make specializing a difficult choice. In 3E, I never liked the fact that a specialist seemed to give up little in order to gain a great deal. Along with rebalancing the schools themselves, I think a positive change overall. Hard to judge in a vacuum, of course.

 

[DaveStebbins]

I was very impressed with how 3E handled specialists and opposition schools. When I first read the sidebar, I thought to myself, "They finally got it right."

This is one of the (very) few 3.5 changes about which I have doubts. My initial reaction is that I think I might keep the 3.0 handling of opposition schools. However, I will do my best to reserve judgement until I can see things as a whole.

-Dave
"Life is not the way it’s supposed to be. It’s the way it is. The way you cope with it is what makes the difference." --Virginia Satir, social worker

 

[Dimwhit]

In 3E, I never liked the fact that a specialist seemed to give up little in order to gain a great deal.

Not sure I agree with you, though loopholes could be found. My Evoker gave up Abjuration and Enchantment, both good schools. (There might be a third, I dont' remember.) But I suppose it really depends.