Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jalkain" data-source="post: 939810" data-attributes="member: 2473">*much snipping above*Hi E-B.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; I believe a poll some time ago suported this.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Just like you said.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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!).&nbsp; I've already worked out how to convert my Abjurer to 3.5e , in preparation for the fateful day.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Wipe Ray of Enfeeblement and Disrupt Undead off my spell list, and away I go.&nbsp; So there will be one abjurer in 3.5e, at least <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I suspect most other people will have more trouble making the conversion.&nbsp; Still, I'll miss those great new Wave spells...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jalkain, post: 939810, member: 2473"] *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 [i]one[/i] 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... [/QUOTE]

Verification