[3.5e] Changes to wizard specialisation

[Shard O'Glase]

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.

Wow in 3e I felt no need to specialize at all. +2 to my spellcraft checks and one extra spell per level. What a pathetic bonus for the massive penalty of loosing at least one entire school. Now with the guarantee of losing two schools I'd never specialize when my powergamer hat is on.

2e wizards kit book had it almost right IMO. Loss of schools sure but little perks appropriate to the specialzaiton along with it. Now only if they'd combined 2e and 3e it would be great. 3

 

[Nightfall]

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

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.

I wonder if that's a shot at R&R2's Foreaction or something else? *is kidding*

In any case as 2nd edition member, I personally felt the 3.0 effects for specialization were fine for the most part. (Maybe making it so that they everyone had to take two school would be better but even then still optional.) This change in 3.5 I certainly don't feel is needed as much as some of the other changes, (like giving paladins a few extra smites per level or making some wholesale changes via bard.)
As for the comment about "wizards" being masters of knowledge, never flew with me either. Wizards might have access to various arcanic lore, but they aren't godlike. They are still guys trying to learn and memorize spells. At least in D&D. If you're talking about other "fantasy" type wizards, need a different magic system. In this instance though, specialization makes sense since we are dealing with a "fire and forget" approach for wizards. In any case that's my two cents. I do hope the guys posting the stuff got it wrong or at least they got a bad copy or something. Cause if not, this is definately one 3.5 rule I'm tossing out.

 

[Eldragon]

I always thought that specializing in 3e was pretty balanced. Not only did you lose a school (or Three), but you also are very limted in what spells you get for free when you level up. Most people forget that When choosing the 2 new spells at level time, 1 of them must be from your specialized school. Thats great when you are a Transmuter or Evoker, but there just arn't enough options for a Diviner or Enchanter.

Furthermore, This is not a simple conversion if I were to move a campaign from 3e to 3.5e. Converting a Ranger or Druid is rather easy. They gain stuff, and lose very little. It is hard to retroactivly rewrite a Wizard's spell list. Part of what defines the character is the spell list.

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."

My sentiments exactly.

While I will refrain from passing judgement until July 18th, I fear that the only way I will see the new system as "balanced" is if there is a major change to the spell system... and I don't see the need for a major change.

 

[Thels]

If the change would be that the schools get balanced out more qua spells they possess, then I'd say it's a move for the better. Having every specialization ban 2 other schools would be a good choice imho for the +1 spell/spell level and the DC and Spellcraft bonus for the preferred school.

But that would mean that there should be a decent array to pick from for every school at every spell level. Right now, some schools just ain't worth it at some levels, like Enchanter at spell level 2 has only Tasha's Hideous Laughter. Though this spell can have good use, some variation would be nice, and if possible something that's not only usefull against humanoids.

BTW, what do people think the benefits are of specialization? I thought the +1 spell/spell level was the biggest bonus here, but it seems like some are doing it for the improved DC?

 

[Dimwhit]

BTW, what do people think the benefits are of specialization? I thought the +1 spell/spell level was the biggest bonus here, but it seems like some are doing it for the improved DC?

Does specializing improve the DC against that school? I thought it was just the extra spell per level. Just for that, I think it's worth it. Wizards don't get to cast a lot of spells, so having the extra spell per spell level is a big bonus.

 

[Eldragon]

No one has said specialization improved the DC of the specialist's school.

 

[Dimwhit]

Well, the post above my last one does, but that was the first I heard of it.

Now if the DC of your specialized school increased, that would be cool. Might even balance out the screw job on lowering the spell focus feats.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

One of the problems with 3.0 specialization was that you didn't give up much. I'm hoping that all of the schools will be relatively balanced with each other now.

That would make Specialization a hard choice, regardless of how many schools you give up. No matter what, you're giving up something good.

 

[I'm A Banana]

THAT'S IT!

I'm going through with my plan to develop a book about the specialists. Instead of beign a sub-set of wizard, they will be a class all their own, with powers and abilities related to their schools of magic....and few if any spells from outside of their school of specialization

Bloody crappy specialization rules.....

Rant over!

 

[Ranger REG]

I don't know. Is it really necessary to choose two or even one school of magic that you're banned to use, just to specialize in the other?

Why not use the Fighter model, but instead of physical weapon specialization at 4th level, choose a school to specialize and gain benefits. Or better yet, offer more bonus feats for Wizards to select Signature Spell feat multiple times? Of course, I would change Spell Mastery feat to allow spontaneous casting of the selected spells (does not have to be a signature spell).

Sorry for rambling.