Most wanted School Specialization

[Kae'Yoss]

I have two evokers in two games (and both were stupid enough to ban transmutation, which they regret ever since! But it's a lot of fun teasing them: "why don't we just teleport there? Ah, I forgot: you can't" ) so I vote thus.

My wizard is a generalist, but that's because it's only one level anyway - he's bladesinger - and I hardly use those spells.

In NWN, I play a Fighter/Transmuter (banned evocation) in the PoR Module. I try to simulate a bladesinger/spellblade with that.

 

[Li Shenron]

It really seems that choosing the opposite schools is a pain, there is always something you're going to miss later. I would't be surprise if in the future (maybe 4th edition? ) the system is changed to something else...

Some time ago, I was thinking about the following change:

You may cast spells from your opposed schools with 50% arcane failure (stacking with % from armor and shield).

The idea came from searching a way to let Wizards choose a specialization LATER than 1st level (which would be quite appropriate, since usually whatever you do you specialize after you master the basics...) without completely losing formerly learned spells. It would have been possible for them to cast banned spells, but at such a price that you would have seen very rarely a Wizard prepare a banned spell, if not really necessary.
The rule was also expanded to let a Wizard take MORE specialization: basically at 1st, 6th, 11th and 16th level she got the right to have another school (she could always delay the choice to a later level, but can only take a new spec. when gaining a level, and never 2 new spec. at the same level), with of course new prohibited schools added. Of course, she can't spec. twice in the same, or spec. in a already forbidden school, or select a forbidden school twice (you can easily check that if you take 4 spec., only 1 can be a "major schools", otherwise you can only spe. in 3, and never in more than 2 "major").
Actually, I was not sure to let an extra specialization grant extra spells/day, maybe that would be overpowering, so I was considering to let the spec. spells work exactly like the Clerics domain spells.

PS the idea was part of a set of changes to core classes I was writing (but never planned to use) to lower some rigidity I don't like in Monk, Bard, Ranger and Paladin, and it quickly brought me to apply dangerous ideas to all the classes

Feel free to reply with the most humiliating comments you find appropriate...

 

[Kae'Yoss]

It really seems that choosing the opposite schools is a pain, there is always something you're going to miss later.

Well, that's the point, istn't it? No pain, no gain, as they say. You have to leave a little charm to the generalist wizard.

I would't be surprise if in the future (maybe 4th edition? ) the system is changed to something else...

I doubt it: it has been like that all the time, and it seems almost everyone is happy with it

You may cast spells from your opposed schools with 50% arcane failure (stacking with % from armor and shield).

Sounds ok, could be worth it (and more in line with 3e mentalism of penalties instead of restrictions). But you'd have to extend that to magic items as well (those that a specialist could not use)


The idea came from searching a way to let Wizards choose a specialization LATER than 1st level (which would be quite appropriate, since usually whatever you do you specialize after you master the basics...)
[/QUOTE]

But you do specialize after you master the basics - when you reach 1st-level, you're a full-fledged (but low-level) wizard, and an apprentice no more.

without completely losing formerly learned spells. It would have been possible for them to cast banned spells, but at such a price that you would have seen very rarely a Wizard prepare a banned spell, if not really necessary.
The rule was also expanded to let a Wizard take MORE specialization: basically at 1st, 6th, 11th and 16th level she got the right to have another school (she could always delay the choice to a later level, but can only take a new spec. when gaining a level, and never 2 new spec. at the same level), with of course new prohibited schools added. Of course, she can't spec. twice in the same, or spec. in a already forbidden school, or select a forbidden school twice (you can easily check that if you take 4 spec., only 1 can be a "major schools", otherwise you can only spe. in 3, and never in more than 2 "major").

I think one specialization is enough. It has to be something special, and remain something special, not something you have with half the schools. Also, it will be very hard to get enough banned schools.

[/QUOTE]
Actually, I was not sure to let an extra specialization grant extra spells/day, maybe that would be overpowering, so I was considering to let the spec. spells work exactly like the Clerics domain spells.
[/QUOTE]

Of course no more spells per day, or you can totally trash the sorcerer.

[/QUOTE]
Feel free to reply with the most humiliating comments you find appropriate... [/QUOTE]

I jus thope for you kreynolds won't read that!

 

[Li Shenron]

But you'd have to extend that to magic items as well (those that a specialist could not use)

I should have written it clearly, that it was indeed applied to items as well!

But you do specialize after you master the basics - when you reach 1st-level, you're a full-fledged (but low-level) wizard, and an apprentice no more.

Ok, you can see it this way also.
I was anyway thinking of my beginner players that really didn't know much of the spells from different schools, it would have been better to start as a generalist, with utility spells, and choose later which Wizard you're really going to be. I could not really tell them "you can always change with your next character", it sounds too much like "take it easy, you're going to die soon and will make another Wiz"

I think one specialization is enough. It has to be something special, and remain something special, not something you have with half the schools.

In fact, I don't even know how much serious this idea of mine was...

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I was anyway thinking of my beginner players that really didn't know much of the spells from different schools, it would have been better to start as a generalist, with utility spells, and choose later which Wizard you're really going to be. I could not really tell them "you can always change with your next character", it sounds too much like "take it easy, you're going to die soon and will make another Wiz"

The big picture is that novice players choosing a specialized path are likely to make strategic missteps regardless of the class. This is not a problem unique to wizards.

Making choices with lasting positive and negative consequences is what makes rpging into a story worth telling.

I think you are exagerating the problem. IMHO, the only poor choice for a PC in specialization is dropping Transmutation. Pretty much every other choice reasonable. And even losing Transmutation is playable by a skilled player.

 

[Dremen]

Abjuration is my choice. My Wizard is a Ranger\Wizard and is a support character. The extra spell per day is why I choose to specialize at all. It really helps with multi-class. He has more of a cleric role, and buff's the other character (only 2 players). More of a strong Defense makes a good offence.

Evocation is the Opposition school I choose. I wouldn't have taken many spells from this school anyway. I havn't missed it yet. I couldn't give up spells from any other school/s, too many spells I like.

-d

 

[Pax]

Only 3E wizard I've ever played was a Necromancer specialist -- well, Necromancer(7)/Loremaster(8) when he was retired.

Opposition school was Enchantment/Charm ... why control 'em while they are alive, instead of killing them and controlling them AFTER they're dead?

I also "near-specialised" in Wall spells. If it was a Wall Of _____ spell, my NecroLoremaster knew it, and probably had at least one prepared. Drove my GM batty; he typically had NO real terrain issues in combat, then when my turn came up ... *poof* instant terrain (Wall of Stone was one of my favorite spells, heh!).

Unfortunately, I later discovered that Wizard necromancers got the shaft, in a way ... they can animate nothing above zombies and skeletons, AND, they only get Animate Dead as a FIFTH level spell, while clerics get it as a third level spell, AND get the better undead-making spells (WTF?).

feh.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Ok, you can see it this way also.
I was anyway thinking of my beginner players that really didn't know much of the spells from different schools, it would have been better to start as a generalist, with utility spells, and choose later which Wizard you're really going to be. I could not really tell them "you can always change with your next character", it sounds too much like "take it easy, you're going to die soon and will make another Wiz"

True enough. I know two players who banned Transmutation and regret it almost every game session. The wizards were their respective first D&D 3e Characters (and D&D Characters as well IIRC) and they knew not much of the spells. They didn't foresee things like haste, polymorph, fly, time stop. While the one (a now-epic Wizard) has now boots of speed and some other item that grants fly, he only had a single time stop once (from a special item) and it wasn't much use when he used it, and probably he won't have another timestop in his career...

 

[Terwox]

I played an Evoker w/ conjuration banned for a little bit. Boom. *shrug*

Were I to make another wizard, it would be a Diviner. Probably ban necromancy. Why? Because Mostin rules.

(Sepulchrave's storyhour. Ah, yes.)

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

KaeYoss,

I think your two players are a special case. They should have known better than to create two characters with the exact same strengths and weaknesses.

This is not a problem unique to wizards. A party with two archers and no melee grunts will have problems, too. As will a party with no one who can cast healing or use a Wand of CLW.