-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
[3.5e] Changes to wizard specialisation
- Thread starter Jalkain
- Start date
Selvarin
Explorer
For what it's worth, methinks I may go with this:
1) +1 DC to all spells from the specialist wizard's chosen school; +2 on Spellcraft checks relating to the school; +1 on saves vs. spells from the chosen school; -1 DC penalty to spells cast by the specialist wizard with regard to two other schools. one bonus memorized spell/spell level as long as the bonus spell is form the wizard's chosen specialty.
Frankly, I like the idea of specialist wizards gaining a bonus spell relating to their chosen specialty. I don't find it unbalancing. And while I've accepted the idea of restricting schools I've found it a concept without a really sound set of reasons behind it. It's like a fighter choosing to specialize and then being told, "OK, you can specialize with this bastard sword but you cannot wield a bow or learn how to use whips." *shrug* But then again why would anyone choose to be a generalist wizard if they can basically get everything as a specialist wizard and then some? *back to the drawing board*
1) +1 DC to all spells from the specialist wizard's chosen school; +2 on Spellcraft checks relating to the school; +1 on saves vs. spells from the chosen school; -1 DC penalty to spells cast by the specialist wizard with regard to two other schools. one bonus memorized spell/spell level as long as the bonus spell is form the wizard's chosen specialty.
Frankly, I like the idea of specialist wizards gaining a bonus spell relating to their chosen specialty. I don't find it unbalancing. And while I've accepted the idea of restricting schools I've found it a concept without a really sound set of reasons behind it. It's like a fighter choosing to specialize and then being told, "OK, you can specialize with this bastard sword but you cannot wield a bow or learn how to use whips." *shrug* But then again why would anyone choose to be a generalist wizard if they can basically get everything as a specialist wizard and then some? *back to the drawing board*
A little speculation on the reasoning behind the banning of banning Divination:
In 3E we have a couple cantrips that probably SHOULD be divination spells (detect magic, read magic) that were likely deemed too fundamental to a wizards spell list to restrict them to a specific school, and were therefore stuck in the universal category.
Perhaps as part of an attempt to better balance the schools, these spells WERE added to the divination school, thus making Divination a lot more important. However, if they are still considered fundamental spells that no wizard should be without, perhaps because all wizard training begins with learning these spells, then they would have to disallow choosing Divination as a restricted school.
Not saying whether this is good or bad. I've never played a specialist wizard before. But this seems a likely rationale for the change.
-=The Jesster: Gatchaba Goose=-
In 3E we have a couple cantrips that probably SHOULD be divination spells (detect magic, read magic) that were likely deemed too fundamental to a wizards spell list to restrict them to a specific school, and were therefore stuck in the universal category.
Perhaps as part of an attempt to better balance the schools, these spells WERE added to the divination school, thus making Divination a lot more important. However, if they are still considered fundamental spells that no wizard should be without, perhaps because all wizard training begins with learning these spells, then they would have to disallow choosing Divination as a restricted school.
Not saying whether this is good or bad. I've never played a specialist wizard before. But this seems a likely rationale for the change.
-=The Jesster: Gatchaba Goose=-
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
My own prediction about this particular 3.5e change is as follows:
You'll see very very few abjuration or divination specialists. Those schools offered decent benefits in 3e at the cost of one school (2 if you're an abjurer and picked divination and necromancy as prohibited). However, this usually amounted to selecting as a specialty school something that wasn't your primary spell list. An Abjurer, for instance might use transmutation for most of his offense--the difference between him and a transmuter was that he always had a bunch of abjurations on hand and the transmuter might not. Similarly, a diviner might use mostly evocations but he would always have a bunch of divinations handy which few evokers would.
In 3.5e, the cost of two schools will outweigh the benefits of having a good selection of abjurations or divinations.
You'll also see very few people select Evocation, Transmutation, or Conjuration as their opposition schools. In 3e, this was a solid mechanical choice--it was a high cost but often more acceptable than losing 2 or 3 other schools--for characters who wanted to specialize in one of the big three and also offered a lot of flavor (I've seen quite a lot of Evocation barred conjurers and transmuters and some conjuration barred evokers). Evocation was also a viable banned school for enchanters and illusionists who wanted to avoid the "artillery mage" stereotype.
In 3.5e, there is no benefit to selecting a more important school as an opposition school and it is therefore less likely to be done. Furthermore, since two schools will always have to be selected as opposition schools, it will be a more pressing matter for wizards to pick the schools least useful to them. (Since the absolute costs will often be higher, minimizing them will be of less importance. Just like people are much more likely to min/max their purchase of a car than their purchase of toilet paper at least in part because the associated costs are much higher).
So, 3.5e will see a drastic reduction in both the variety and flavor of specialist wizards. I predict no more evocation banned wizards and no more abjuration specialists.
You'll see very very few abjuration or divination specialists. Those schools offered decent benefits in 3e at the cost of one school (2 if you're an abjurer and picked divination and necromancy as prohibited). However, this usually amounted to selecting as a specialty school something that wasn't your primary spell list. An Abjurer, for instance might use transmutation for most of his offense--the difference between him and a transmuter was that he always had a bunch of abjurations on hand and the transmuter might not. Similarly, a diviner might use mostly evocations but he would always have a bunch of divinations handy which few evokers would.
In 3.5e, the cost of two schools will outweigh the benefits of having a good selection of abjurations or divinations.
You'll also see very few people select Evocation, Transmutation, or Conjuration as their opposition schools. In 3e, this was a solid mechanical choice--it was a high cost but often more acceptable than losing 2 or 3 other schools--for characters who wanted to specialize in one of the big three and also offered a lot of flavor (I've seen quite a lot of Evocation barred conjurers and transmuters and some conjuration barred evokers). Evocation was also a viable banned school for enchanters and illusionists who wanted to avoid the "artillery mage" stereotype.
In 3.5e, there is no benefit to selecting a more important school as an opposition school and it is therefore less likely to be done. Furthermore, since two schools will always have to be selected as opposition schools, it will be a more pressing matter for wizards to pick the schools least useful to them. (Since the absolute costs will often be higher, minimizing them will be of less importance. Just like people are much more likely to min/max their purchase of a car than their purchase of toilet paper at least in part because the associated costs are much higher).
So, 3.5e will see a drastic reduction in both the variety and flavor of specialist wizards. I predict no more evocation banned wizards and no more abjuration specialists.
FireLance
Legend
I personally never quite liked the idea of specialists. In my view, you need basic understanding of magic in general (Wizard levels) before you can specialize. I though PrCs like the Loremaster were the way to go to give effect to the concept of specialist wizards.
So, who would be interested to do up 7 other PrCs to detail the 7 other types of specialist wizard?
So, who would be interested to do up 7 other PrCs to detail the 7 other types of specialist wizard?
Storm Raven
First Post
Elder-Basilisk said:
Which is why the changes to specialist wizard school selection is not one of the handful of rules from 3.5 that I have seen that I will be incorporating into my game.
Elder-Basilisk said:
*much snipping above*
Hi E-B. I know we haven't been in agreement much so far on 3.5e issues, but I'm with you on this one.
I think in 3e, the schools were pretty well balanced with regard to one another, and so all types of specialist were played. I believe a poll some time ago suported this. I think the only balance issue was that the specialist didn't give up much compared to a generalist wizard, although for some schools, the fact that you had to always add one specialist spell each level was restricting.
I'd say that in 3.5e, specialists will on average be on a par with generalists, but that there will be a greater imbalance between the schools. Just like you said. And yes, it will lead to less flavour and variety, which is sad, because I think the 3e specialisation system really contributed to making interesting and varied wizard characters.
Taking a specialist wizard is now going to be a hard choice. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but a lot of people will make the same kinds of choices, and some combos will be ignored. I'm a serial specialist, and I've already got this idea for a 3.5e necromancer of Wee-Jas, barred from Abjuration and Conjuration, but then I'm a little strange...
One small disagreement (had to really!). I've already worked out how to convert my Abjurer to 3.5e , in preparation for the fateful day. I was barred from Illusion, but my PC has never had much use for Necromancy spells, and so that now becomes my second barred schoold. Wipe Ray of Enfeeblement and Disrupt Undead off my spell list, and away I go. So there will be one abjurer in 3.5e, at least
I suspect most other people will have more trouble making the conversion. Still, I'll miss those great new Wave spells...
Jalkain said:
Actually, that's just silly. Just realised I'll lose both Shield and Mage Armour. Might have to scrap Illusion again...
Then again, maybe they've changed the spells in each schools as well. They seem to going a little above the call of duty when it comes to making changes. It's not as though people were crying out in their thousands for a change to the spell specialisation system.
Selvarin
Explorer
E-B definitely hit the nail on the head with that analysis. *nod*
Currently I'm playing with another idea, that the specialist wizard's two 'forbidden' schools should merely reflect the minimal training and understanding regarding them. Besides a DC penalty and a -2 on Spellcraft checks regarding learning them, wizards would be unable to learn spells from those schools if they're higher than 3rd level. Either that or add a Spellcraft penalty to learn such spells equal to the spell's level.
Ahh, home-rule. *wonders*
Currently I'm playing with another idea, that the specialist wizard's two 'forbidden' schools should merely reflect the minimal training and understanding regarding them. Besides a DC penalty and a -2 on Spellcraft checks regarding learning them, wizards would be unable to learn spells from those schools if they're higher than 3rd level. Either that or add a Spellcraft penalty to learn such spells equal to the spell's level.
Ahh, home-rule. *wonders*
Similar Threads
