SPecialists don't gain DC bonuses

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by WotC_Andy
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Roger Shrubber
9. I understand that specialist Wizards now have to forfeit two other schools (with exceptions relating to Divination). Are there any additional benefits gains with this selection beyond those from 3.0?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9) Nope.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? I'd come to understand that specialists would now get a +1 to DC in their scool of expertise. Must have been a rumor, then.

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45270&perpage=20&pagenumber=9

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I'm not particularly surprised. I think I've been in the minority in that I think specialzation has always been weak in 3e. The loss of versatility IMO no where near is off set by an extra spell to cast. Now with the new system well i'll just assume the schools were rebalanced close enough that losing two schools no matter which school you specialize in makes sense.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

The loss of versatility IMO no where near is off set by an extra spell to cast.

IME a specialist was "fiddly". If you banned a school like Necromancy you weren't actually giving up anything good. (Why use Finger of Death when Disintegrate was superior most of the time and had a much wider range of targets and uses?)

 

[Eldragon]

I have no idea how people get the idea into their heads that specializing increases the DC of the spells cast from that school. Perhaps its the +2 on Spellcraft checks that make people confused. But I see it all the time. I even have to correct my own players once in a while.

And now the debate about 3e/3.5e Wizard Specialization begins.

I would give an argument on why I think 3e was well done and balanced... But why bother? No one cares, and everyone has their own house rules for it anyway.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

IME a specialist was "fiddly". If you banned a school like Necromancy you weren't actually giving up anything good. (Why use Finger of Death when Disintegrate was superior most of the time and had a much wider range of targets and uses?)

well if you banned necro you are only gaining an extra div spell, that doens't exactly rock my world. Threre are many levels where I'd normally not prepare any. So the benefit is marignal.

But yes it was "fiddly" in that you could reduce the damage a lot. Still every school had spells in it that I felt the loss of more than I felt the gain of 1 extra spell per spell level to cast. And if I had to lose two schools I wouldn't even want to think about it.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

well if you banned necro you are only gaining an extra div spell, that doens't exactly rock my world. Threre are many levels where I'd normally not prepare any. So the benefit is marignal.

HA! Don't think of it as "being forced to take a divination spell" but getting an extra spell.

I can find a good Divination spell for most levels, and some (such as see invisibility) are virtually required.

 

[Psion]

I would give an argument on why I think 3e was well done and balanced...

And I agree.

That said, after a few comments from Andy, it is seeming that 3.5 will be balanced too (though some people debat this).

The problem IMO is backwards compatability. The claim was that converting characters to 3.5e would be a quick and painless process. Having to totally retool your spellists and (worse) retcon it in the campaign does not seem quick or painless.

 

[Psion]

Interesting thread. One thing to note.

Andy Collins wrote:
7) Not exactly. The scrying spell now uses a Will save rather than a Scry check, so there really wasn't any use for the skill. It was an interesting idea to tie a spell to a skill, but it wasn't utilized well enough to justify the complexity.[/b]

This makes Spell Focus non-useless for diviners.

Also, it's noteworthy that there are many changes being talked about in that thread that I like. It may seem, with my sig, that I am busting 3.5's chops, so to speak. Really, I see a lot of things and say "that's how I would have done it." Heck, the conventions on staves in flurries, the harm change, and many other changes are already very similar to my existing house rules.

I am just pointing out where we differ...

 

[Dinkeldog]

And now the debate about 3e/3.5e Wizard Specialization begins.

I would give an argument on why I think 3e was well done and balanced... But why bother? No one cares, and everyone has their own house rules for it anyway.

Actually, the debate begins again.

I'll weigh the 3.5 rules against Wulf's/Badaxe Games specialization rules in the Elves book. I'll most likely keep the new spell creation rules from there, as well, but I'm biased.