Specialist Wizards: Where's da Oomph?

[the Jester]

I like the variants in UA; I would recommend just giving them those bonuses for free if you feel they need a power-up.

On the subject of diviners, I have always thought that a well-played high-level diviner is certainly powerful enough to warrant banning two schools of magic; I don't think they should get the special treatment of only having to give up one. Angel of Adventure's cohort in my epic game proved me right; a powerful diviner is a fantastic asset.

 

[Cabral]

Diviners only have to give up one school. As for the UA variants. The Enchanter Cohort variant has potential for some serious strength. Definately worth giving up a familiar for ...

Overall, however, I am a bit underwhelmed by the power of specialist wizards. (For the specialist enchanter, I added the class skills variant with taking away the bonus feats)

 

[blargney the second]

Sorcerers are true specialists.
-blarg

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

Specialist Wizard

The problem with the specialist wizard is that, thematically, it sucks.

The whole idea of a wizard is that he's a generalist.. a guy who can learn any wizard spell if he finds it in some dusty tome and copies it into his book.

The idea that there's a whole school of magic that the Wizard can't access goes completely against this. Even a sorcerer, who should be much more focused, isn't restricted from a school of magic.

The specialist wizard can't even use a wand if it's in his banned school. So the wizard with +15 knowledge Arcana and +15 spellcraft can't use a wand of magic missile, while the sorcerer who's never cracked a book in his life (and who doesn't know magic missle) can. It just seems odd.

Ken

 

[Mistwell]

The Illusionist variants in UA (and the Gnome Illusionist variants in Races of Stone), all seem well balanced and worth-it.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I like the variants in UA; I would recommend just giving them those bonuses for free if you feel they need a power-up.

On the subject of diviners, I have always thought that a well-played high-level diviner is certainly powerful enough to warrant banning two schools of magic; I don't think they should get the special treatment of only having to give up one. Angel of Adventure's cohort in my epic game proved me right; a powerful diviner is a fantastic asset.

I think it depends heavily on the campaign and the plots given, and on the spells actually avaible for the Diviner. My experience tells me that the PHB spells offer some very basic abilities (and you can't go without them), but they aren't exactly powerful. If a diviner had access to some divine divinations, that might be different, but the wizard spells aren't that impressive.
That said, I think you could still give up two schools. You don't need illusions or enchantments, even if they are very versatile and offer some interesting abilities. In role-playing heavy campaigns they might be a lot more interesting (but I somehow don't like the idea of using Charm Person or Dominate in such campaigns), but in a straight dungeondelving campaign, abjurations, conjurations, divinatons, evocatons and transmutation are sufficient.

What I would consider for specialist wizard:
Grant them access to non-wizard spells. Maybe they need to specifically research these spells (no freebie per level and no simply copying from a scroll), and maybe at a higher level as it is available to other casters. Unfortunately, not all schools benefit identically (Conjurers and Diviners probably would gain the most of it, and the latter might be especially problematic with the fact that they have to give up only one school.)

But I am currently really considering to have my next wizard (whenever I will need one) be a generalist. I think the extra spell slots are worth a lot to a wizard, but being able to cast really any kind of spell is nice.
(Though I must admit such a Generalist quickly has to become a Loremaster, and I don't want to play a third one.)

 

[Mistwell]

You don't need illusions or enchantments, even if they are very versatile and offer some interesting abilities. In role-playing heavy campaigns they might be a lot more interesting (but I somehow don't like the idea of using Charm Person or Dominate in such campaigns), but in a straight dungeondelving campaign, abjurations, conjurations, divinatons, evocatons and transmutation are sufficient.

I think you will find that you stand in an extremely small minority with your take on Illusions. Invisibility is one of the most basic key spells in the game, particularly in dungeondelving campaigns. And the "Image" line of spells are pound for pound some of the best, most scalable and useful spells in the game...if you have a good imagination. I'd take Illusions over, for example, Necromancy, any day (unless I was playing a Necromancer).

 

[irdeggman]

I find the PHB specialists to be well bland also.

I would use the UA ones instead, not because of power issues but because they have a better "feel" to them. Something more than pluses to spellcraft checks an extra spell and 2 opposition schools. There just doesn't seem to be anything truely unique or flavorful about the generic specialist.

 

[ForceUser]

"generic specialist."

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think you will find that you stand in an extremely small minority with your take on Illusions. Invisibility is one of the most basic key spells in the game, particularly in dungeondelving campaigns. And the "Image" line of spells are pound for pound some of the best, most scalable and useful spells in the game...if you have a good imagination. I'd take Illusions over, for example, Necromancy, any day (unless I was playing a Necromancer).

Invisiblity is nice, but until you can conceal all characters with the spell, it is not overly useful.
If the group doesn't have a Rogue (and several of our parties lack one), nobody gains a big benefit from it. I think See Invisiblity is more important then Invisibility