Should a "specialist" wizard be demoted?
- Thread starter Bugaboo
- Start date
incognito said:
Nuh-uh. I prefer "thought-provoking" to "inflammatory." Perhaps "harmless teasing" at its worst. That's why the term "troll" is too blunt for most of the good stuff that happens here at ENWorld. Gotta broaden those vistas, open the mind ...
... kill all the halflings.
But back to the issue: If the character never acts like a specialist, does he have any right to take the special abilities/bonuses/advantages/whatever? This player only wanted an extra spell at the cheapest cost (Necromancy). In all other ways, he's a standard wizard. So when he (his character) introduces himself to NPCs as a "diviner" before he dazzles them with fire spells, it's offensive and ridiculous. It's like watching a "cleric" use his domain abilities but never really recognizing a deity or universal force that grants them.
You've gotta have standards.
hammymchamham
First Post
Bugaboo said:
And you are on a power trip. Lets see what his extra spell gives him
A specialist does NOT mean thats all he casts. If that is what a specialist is, it would say so in the PHB. It means he forgoes something to gain an extra spell slot.
Maybe you need to prepare some adventures where Fireball and Lightning bolt will do no good, but Detect Posion and Scrying will. Its not the players fault. Its not like Divination is an all powerful school. He's not getting an extra fireball a day. He's getting an extra Dected Posion and an extra Tongues. Cry me a river.
S'one of the reasons that I've always thought that "Spell Focus" should give you a nonspecific +2, as in, a +2 that gets applied to these rolls, preferentially:
Saving Throw DC (Like it is now)
Spell Resistance Check (Which would stack with Spell Penetration)
Skill Check (as in, SF
ivination would give you a competence bonus on your Scry check when you cast "Scrying". but not when you just used a crystal ball)
Effective Caster Level, if all else fails
That way, even schools that don't include stuff with saving throws would have a reason to take the ability. Spells with saves would have the +2 applied to that. If not, then the SR check would get the +2. If it's not an SR-affected spell, then any Skill Check would get the bonus, and if there's no skill check associated with the ability, then you just add 2 to the guy's effective caster level for purposes of spell duration and what-have-you.
Dunno -- too powerful?
-Tacky
Saving Throw DC (Like it is now)
Spell Resistance Check (Which would stack with Spell Penetration)
Skill Check (as in, SF
ivination would give you a competence bonus on your Scry check when you cast "Scrying". but not when you just used a crystal ball)Effective Caster Level, if all else fails
That way, even schools that don't include stuff with saving throws would have a reason to take the ability. Spells with saves would have the +2 applied to that. If not, then the SR check would get the +2. If it's not an SR-affected spell, then any Skill Check would get the bonus, and if there's no skill check associated with the ability, then you just add 2 to the guy's effective caster level for purposes of spell duration and what-have-you.
Dunno -- too powerful?
-Tacky
hammymchamham said:
This is a good point. And he is losing something in Necromancy. Spectral Hand, Enervation, Vampiric Touch, Horrid Wilting, plus all the good level 9 spells. Enervation is a very valuable spell in a wizard's arsenal against things like dragons, or even other buffed wizards. Killing off their best spell slots and reducing their saves is pretty good.
d12
First Post
sigh
Bugaboo, I think you're wrong. By taking Diviner, this player has made a very small sacrifice (no necromancy) for a very small gain (1 extra divination/level/day). If he's powergaming, he's not doing it very well. It's not like he found some obscure d20 book and used unbalancing feats from it or even pulled a rule out of the FRCS or something - he's using a rule from the PHB.
Let me put it another way. If I rolled up a ranger and decided to play a half-elf so I could take human as my favored enemey and then I didn't try to kill (or at least wound) every single human I crossed, would you say that I was being a munchin and make me pick a new favored enemy?
Let me put it a third way - it sounds like your issue is not with his numbers (stats, levels, spells, etc) but rather with the manner in which he is playing his character. Unless he's violating his alignment then (IMVHO) its not your call to say that he's playing his character "improperly."
Bugaboo, I think you're wrong. By taking Diviner, this player has made a very small sacrifice (no necromancy) for a very small gain (1 extra divination/level/day). If he's powergaming, he's not doing it very well. It's not like he found some obscure d20 book and used unbalancing feats from it or even pulled a rule out of the FRCS or something - he's using a rule from the PHB.
Let me put it another way. If I rolled up a ranger and decided to play a half-elf so I could take human as my favored enemey and then I didn't try to kill (or at least wound) every single human I crossed, would you say that I was being a munchin and make me pick a new favored enemy?
Let me put it a third way - it sounds like your issue is not with his numbers (stats, levels, spells, etc) but rather with the manner in which he is playing his character. Unless he's violating his alignment then (IMVHO) its not your call to say that he's playing his character "improperly."
Last edited:
Henry
Autoexreginated
And to think I almost replied to this seriously. Then I looked at its author...
For the question of principle, though, Bugaboo, someone who picks a rule, but breaks its spirit is still NOT breaking the rules. Remember this. From a balance standpoint, there is no undue power gained here, and the character WOULD be better prepared to face circumstances besides just blasting them.
Of course, roleplaying should be considered; if the DM is uncomfortable with the situation, the DM would need to work something out with the player. Perhaps the DM in the cmapaign has been throwing rather combat-heavy challenges at the party, and the "diviner" has needed to assume the role of artillery platform to catch up?
For the question of principle, though, Bugaboo, someone who picks a rule, but breaks its spirit is still NOT breaking the rules. Remember this. From a balance standpoint, there is no undue power gained here, and the character WOULD be better prepared to face circumstances besides just blasting them.
Of course, roleplaying should be considered; if the DM is uncomfortable with the situation, the DM would need to work something out with the player. Perhaps the DM in the cmapaign has been throwing rather combat-heavy challenges at the party, and the "diviner" has needed to assume the role of artillery platform to catch up?
Bugaboo said:
I agree you must have standards. But are you imposing your aesthetic standards on him? In short, in this a case of, "well, I wouldn't play a specialist diviner that way, so he's wrong and should be punished?"
Since we don't (well, you might, but we don't ) know why he chose this particular specialist, it appears unfair to impose the DM's view of how characters should behave, when the the character is not messing up the campaign.
In short, your entire case for penalizing this player appears to be, "I wouldn't do it that way." That seems a trifle... harsh.
Similar Threads
