Are most Wizards Diviners now?

[nsruf]

I would say Diviners are less likely than before because there are more good spells in the other schools of magic.

I suppose most people see this as an argument FOR choosing a Diviner. After all, you get more spells per day and don't lose as much as other specialists.

Even in a good aligned group, there are several Necromancy spells that a wizard could use.

Sure, but some might be frowned upon by the LG party members as "unsporting". That, plus the bad rep of necromancers and the fact that they have to forgo some of their more interesting spells in a good group, means that I won't think twice about sacrificing that school. YMMV.

 

[Taren Seeker]

With the nerfing of con enhancements like Endurance, False Life (necromancy) becomes an almost must-have spell. Becuase of spells like this in almost every school there really isn't any other school I'd specialize in aside from Divination.

It really is a no brainer if your DM plays an even close to core game. If a mage can't learn spells over and above his free 2 per level then everyone would play a sorceror.

 

[bret]

I suppose most people see this as an argument FOR choosing a Diviner. After all, you get more spells per day and don't lose as much as other specialists.

As a diviner, you were only required to give up one school in 3.0. In 3.5, you are losing more than you did in 3.0. Since you are losing more than you used to, less people should be willing to take that tradeoff.

Having played diviners in 3.0 and looked at the 3.5 spell list, I would not take that specialization in 3.5.

Sure, but some might be frowned upon by the LG party members as "unsporting". That, plus the bad rep of necromancers and the fact that they have to forgo some of their more interesting spells in a good group, means that I won't think twice about sacrificing that school. YMMV.

Most paladins can't make a spellcraft roll to tell what sort of magic was used.

Without spellcraft, other characters can only judge by the visible effects. Anyone who told a wizard of mine that a spell was unsporting would get a lecture about how such attitudes quickly lead to Might Makes Right.

So that just leaves worrying about what other spellcasters in the group think. Provided the spell doesn't have the [Evil] discriptor or require unclean material components, the clerics shouldn't have a problem. I wouldn't suggest casting Ghoul's Touch, but Blindness or Spectral Hand should be fine.

 

[Holy Bovine]

Has anyone used the restricted school access they used in 2E? It went along the lines of the schools being part of a 9 point wheel and you would lose access to those school(s) on the opposite 'side' of the wheel to your specialty. I remember is completely screwed the Diviners (that and their pitifully small spell selection that is) and Evokers had to give up Abjuration (and Dispel Magic...hey you didn't really want a defense did you? ) but it was a reasonable approach to this problem. So far i am kicking around various changes but nothing definate yet.

 

[nsruf]

In 3.5, you are losing more than you did in 3.0.

Ok, but that applies to all other specialists as well. So I don't see how that has changed.

Most paladins can't make a spellcraft roll to tell what sort of magic was used.

Did I say anything about a paladin? Why is it anybody assumes the paladin is going to be the troublemaker

Seriously, I was thinking about a paladin, too. And I am not sure what their codex says about slaughtering blind foes. So even Blindness/Deafness could be a no-no.

Anyone who told a wizard of mine that a spell was unsporting would get a lecture about how such attitudes quickly lead to Might Makes Right.

Sorry, I don't get it. How is NOT using an "unfair" (by whatever standard) spell leading to a Might Makes Right situation? Wouldn't (ab)using that spell whenever possible do that?

 

[bret]

Sorry, I don't get it. How is NOT using an "unfair" (by whatever standard) spell leading to a Might Makes Right situation? Wouldn't (ab)using that spell whenever possible do that?

It is OK for a fighter/paladin/etc to train all their lives in use of weaponry and use that skill in a fight, but it isn't OK for a wizard to use their knowledge of spells in a fight.

If the fairness of a fight is judged by both combatants using the same weapon, the person who is stronger and has trained more with weapons (especially the one in use) is going to be at a significant advantage. Might (prowess with weaponry) Makes Right.

A wizard using a blindness spell may be a much more humane way of ending a battle. If the enemy recognizes that surrender is an option, you could then get them to give their surrender without a loss of honor and without having to injure or kill them.

Now I must admit it would be stupid for a wizard to actually use a Blindness spell on a fighter type, since I believe that is a Fortitude saving throw, but the concept is still valid. Sorry, no PHB at hand to look for a better example spell -- I quite often used to play Diviners so I don't know the necromancy spells as well.

 

[Nifft]

So far I've seen only regular, non-Specialist Wizards. Under both 3.0 and 3.5e.

-- N

 

[Psiblade]

I know a couple of 3.5 diviners. Strange both gave up illusion. I was told that the only illusion spell one of the was going to miss was greater invis. Even that spell is now only 1rd / level. Giving up Necro means giving up ray of enfeeblement (no save)( a empowered max ray of enfeeblement can deal 14 points of str damage with no save ouch!), waves of exhaustion (no save), undeath to death (no save), etc.


-Psiblade

 

[Technik4]

I'd say no. I've played an evoker and an illusionist, thought about enchanter (but played the psionic equivalent). Under 3.5 specialization is still nice for multiclassers (who won't have enough spell levels to choose everything anyway) or for players who see too many options when playing a wizard (a specialization narrows the focus). I think its ridiculous to think that any 1 school is "necessary", even any 2 (although you can flub a wizard depending on the group).

Technik

 

[Hypersmurf]

And even more so, as according to the SRD, you no longer need to have Spell Focus in your specialization. In 3.0 you were required to, if you were going to take SF.

I'm away from my PHB right now, but AFAICT, the 3E SRD doesn't mention that... where did you find that rule?

I can't find anything linking Specialization to Spell Focus...

-Hyp.