Specialist Wizards: Where's da Oomph?

[Mistwell]

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

I don't understand this opinion. I've never played a game with a wizard or sorceror who did not find invisibility, and greater invisibility, to be extremely useful. It has nothing to do with the rest of the party most of the time. Making your spellcaster very difficult to target is just incredibly useful.

I think you thought of invisibility as primarily a stealth spell for non-spellcasters. It's not, for the most part. Sure, it can help with stealth, and with sneak attacks. But more important, it's a useful defensive spell for the spellcaster. Unless the opponants have see invisibility, they will be very frustrated when a flying, invisible spellcaster starts rainging flaming death from above. It's like your party has it's own stealth attack helicopter. It's a pretty common tactic in our games, and I think in many games.

 

[Mistwell]

The Image spells are definitely useful. And if you allow that ridiculous PrC from Races of Stone in combination with Heighten Spell and Earth Spell (and Signature Spell: Silent Image for good measure), Silent Image becomes "Cast any Evocation or Conjuration spell of your choice spontanteously of any level you could normal cast, but it might be less than 100% real for some levels"

It's flexibile and useful, but I disagree with you that it's ridiculous or overpowered. The spells are less than real for almost all levels actually, unless you start allowing some wierd combos from Dragon Magazine feats and prestige classes like Shadowcrafter. And you are talking about having the following 6 feats (and as a gnome, so no bonus racial feat) to be able to do it: Heighten Spell, Spell Mastery, Signature Spell, Earth Sense, Earth Spell (which only works if you are earth, and if your spell does not have air, fire, or water descriptor), Spell Focus: Illusion. And you need 7 levels of arcane spellcasting before you can even enter the class, along with some cross-class skills.

So really, you are talking about a relatively high level character with virtually all of their feats dedicated to that single concept. All so they can cast any non-fire, non-air, non-water evocation or conjuation (creation or summoning only), but only if they are standing on stone or earth. In other words, so they can be a relatively weak but flexible blaster or summoner sometimes with no feats that help with being a blaster or summoner other than having a high DC.

Flexibility is useful, and fun. But I don't think it's overpowered or ridiculous. I think you could actually build a much more powerful character concept with 6 feats and cross-class skills and relatively high number of levels if you wanted to.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I don't understand this opinion. I've never played a game with a wizard or sorceror who did not find invisibility, and greater invisibility, to be extremely useful. It has nothing to do with the rest of the party most of the time. Making your spellcaster very difficult to target is just incredibly useful.

I think you thought of invisibility as primarily a stealth spell for non-spellcasters. It's not, for the most part. Sure, it can help with stealth, and with sneak attacks. But more important, it's a useful defensive spell for the spellcaster. Unless the opponants have see invisibility, they will be very frustrated when a flying, invisible spellcaster starts rainging flaming death from above. It's like your party has it's own stealth attack helicopter. It's a pretty common tactic in our games, and I think in many games.

it probably comes down to game style. Basically how hard does the DM bring it to the back ranks. I've gained the impression from many who post here that as long as the fighter is in the front nothing gets past to the wizard. No one apparetly take a AoO to get to the back and handle the wizard, or concentrate ranged weapons on the wizard or spells. In these games the wizard doesn't have to worry about defensive spells, so who cares about invis for anything other than stealth.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I actually use the 2e wizard handbook and give the specialists the benefits listed there. They generally aren't much but its somesmall benefits spread out over the levels. They also had some fantastic flavor text describing each specialist.

Because yes specialists suck booty. There isn't a level where the extra spell has been worth the loss of 2 schools.

 

[KarinsDad]

Because yes specialists suck booty. There isn't a level where the extra spell has been worth the loss of 2 schools.

First level when survival is critical and 3 spells is vastly superior to 2?

A few years back many people took a Specialist Wizard over a straight Wizard. But, that was in the 3E days when you could give up a single school, although one of the better ones, for most combinations. Simplifying the rule to two schools (except for Divination) has really cooled off the desire for Specialized Wizards.

This is probably a good thing since so many people took Specialized Wizards in 3E that straight Wizards were rarely played. It definitely balanced it back to where it belonged. But, I also think they should have added +1 to the caster level of the specialized school when they did that. That type of change would make the it a real Pro vs. Con choice unlike the core 3.5 rules.

 

[Victim]

Even at higher levels, I found the bonus spell slots to be quite valuable. While running completely out of spells is rather rare to say the least, there's considerable pressure on your wizard's biggest guns - your 7th through 9th level spells. I found the extra slots at those for those spell levels to be pretty nice.

Also, extra slots for a wizard are more than just extra casts before they go empty. They're also extra FLEXIBILITY. Since, in most cases, a wizard bothering to specialize in something would usually prepare a spell of his school at most levels anyway, that restricted spell slot is going to free up a normal one. Then you can take anything; an extra defense, a extra copy of an attack spell, a second attack mode, utility, etc. Each extra spell slot the wizard can prepare broadens his capabilities.

-----------------------------------

One quick solution is to switch back to 3.0 specialization rules. Despite their effort to balance the schools, they aren't equal.

Another idea would be to make some specialist only spells. You could give abjurers some dedicated counterspells, perhaps some immediate wards, etc. Conjurerers get summons that go off faster, among other things. You could also implement some of the UA features via these spells.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

it probably comes down to game style. Basically how hard does the DM bring it to the back ranks. I've gained the impression from many who post here that as long as the fighter is in the front nothing gets past to the wizard. No one apparetly take a AoO to get to the back and handle the wizard, or concentrate ranged weapons on the wizard or spells. In these games the wizard doesn't have to worry about defensive spells, so who cares about invis for anything other than stealth.

Well, my wizards have been targets of enemy attacks. But usually these attacks did not come often or strong enough to outright kill him, and then other defenses play in.
One of my wizards died to a Bodak Gaze Attack - Invisiblity wouldn't have protected him against that...

It also comes down to the tactics and abilities of the group. We rarely have a fighter type character that isn't capable of hindering the mobility of enemies (with Combat Reflexes and/or Trip), and so enemies have low chances of actually getting to the groups spellcaster (and risking an AoO and being tripped is not preferable to chop the fighter into pieces)

 

[KarinsDad]

One of my wizards died to a Bodak Gaze Attack - Invisiblity wouldn't have protected him against that...

Actually, Invisibility can be a partial defense against Gaze attacks.

Most Gaze attacks have a limit of 30 feet (including a Bodak's). Hence, moving away where the opponent is either unaware of you or unaware of your location is very helpful. It minimizes the creature's chances of targeting you specifically and if you stay more than 30 feet away, you are totally protected.

And if you cannot be specifically targeted, you only have to make one saving throw max per round (if in range), not two.

Granted, your particular Wizard might have been surprised or something where he was immediately within 30 feet and failed the save. But as a general rule, Invisibility is still a partial defense versus Gaze attacks, just like it minimally can be a partial defense against most attacks.

 

[Mistwell]

it probably comes down to game style. Basically how hard does the DM bring it to the back ranks. I've gained the impression from many who post here that as long as the fighter is in the front nothing gets past to the wizard. No one apparetly take a AoO to get to the back and handle the wizard, or concentrate ranged weapons on the wizard or spells. In these games the wizard doesn't have to worry about defensive spells, so who cares about invis for anything other than stealth.

Yeah, you are probably right. In our games, if the NPCs even see someone dressed like they might be an arcane caster, it can become a dogpile and the guy in a funny hat moment! And hidden attacks often come from behind and in front of the party at the same time in an ambush. So, if our casters don't have a good AC, concealment or cover, lots of hit points, or some other way of avoiding melee death, they will be toast pretty quickly. And, even if they do have those things, it still sometimes means they go down (usually faster than anyone else).

 

[KarinsDad]

Yeah, you are probably right. In our games, if the NPCs even see someone dressed like they might be an arcane caster, it can become a dogpile and the guy in a funny hat moment! And hidden attacks often come from behind and in front of the party at the same time in an ambush. So, if our casters don't have a good AC, concealment or cover, lots of hit points, or some other way of avoiding melee death, they will be toast pretty quickly. And, even if they do have those things, it still sometimes means they go down (usually faster than anyone else).

It's not just arcane casters and it's not just NPCs. Anyone who looks like they can get a spell (or psionic power or monster special attack) off is liable to be on the receiving end of the dogpile in our game (both by the PCs and by intelligent NPCs). Hit point damage from a combatant type can be easily healed. Spell, spell like, or supernatural effects sometimes take a lot more effort.