Wizard specialization incentives

[Rystil Arden]

Well what UA suggests to do with this is let sorcerers and bards use their SP to cast whatever spells they wish, as usual, whereas wizards and the like would need to prepare spells a la Arcana Unearthed (so a 2nd-level generalist with 14 Int would be able to prepare only 3 different level 1 spells each day to cast with her 5 SP, but she could change that list each day). The interesting thing is that in the proposed UA system, specialists gain additional prepared spells but not any additional SP, which helps make the generalist a more healthy and viable choice. That said, I've never played with this variant, but since it basicaly works like psionics, and psionics is pretty-well balanced now in 3.5, the system would probably work. All the spellcasters get more versatile, and perhaps the sorcerer does get his toe stepped-upon a bit, which could be an issue if only because the sorcerer class is already such a subpar option mechanically compared to the wizard. One option is to simply eliminate the sorcerer class if you use this system, since everyone casts decently spontaneously, so there's really no need for one. Instead, allow characters who are dead-set on the "Charisma-Caster" to simply play a wizard that casts using Charisma and has the sorcerer skill-list.

 

[the Jester]

I just wanted to chime in and say that I think specialists and non-specialists are pretty well balanced. I'd be hard-pressed to give up any schools of spells, but the extra spell at each level is sweet.

 

[Nifft]

Instead, allow characters who are dead-set on the "Charisma-Caster" to simply play a wizard that casts using Charisma and has the sorcerer skill-list.

Alternately, allow Sorcerers to choose spells off ANY primary spell list (Cleric, Druid, Wizard), give them 4 skill points/level, and grant them Use Magic Device as a class skill, BUT their class spell-list consists of ONLY those spells they can currently cast.

-- N

 

[beaver1024]

Where do you get that idea? I haven't seen any posts or statements to that effect myself. If you have a link to some, however, I'd be interested to see them.

I'm not entirely sure search function is working but Andy Collins strongly implies this in the discussion threads about the Elven Generalist Wizard in Races of the Wild.

 

[Nifft]

Andy also noticed that RAW Elves are poor Wizards. The racial sub level is meant to address that issue by granting one huge benefit of Specialization without its usual penalty.

-- N

 

[beaver1024]

When compared to lost capabilities like contingency and teleport, the balance is (IMO) in favor of the generalist.

Which leads one to wonder about the competence of the designer who designed the 1st elven wizard racial substitution level. The only penalty being "cannot specialise". What a throwback to the 2e kits with similar retarded reasoning.

 

[beaver1024]

Andy also noticed that RAW Elves are poor Wizards. The racial sub level is meant to address that issue by granting one huge benefit of Specialization without its usual penalty.

-- N

This means that the elven wizard substitution level is outright better than any other types of wizard that elves can be, which was denied by a subsequent email by Andy, or the racially substituded elven wizard is balanced with specialist elven wizards, which means that specialist wizards are better than generalist wizards. Andy Collins takes the later stance.

 

[Nifft]

Yes, I'd agree with that, but I'd also argue that the Elf racial-sub Wiz is balanced against a Human Specialist, due to a couple of factors:
1) Elves make poor Wizards; and
2) Elves are supposed to make good Wizards.

I'd argue that a baseline Elf Wizard would lose out to a Human Wizard, if both were of the same type (generalist or specialist).

I make no personal assertion regarding generalist / specialist power. I've never seen a specialist in play.

-- N

 

[Rystil Arden]

Specialists are better than generalists in most adventuring parties, but not all. For instance, in one of my campaigns, there was a Telepath and a Wizard, so it didn't hurt the Wizard at all to be barred from Enchantment. If the Wizard is the party's only spellcaster, well that's a different story.

Without those substitution levels, picking a PHB elf and being a generalist is something of a pointless suicide mission, unless you rolled extremely high CON I suppose.

 

[beaver1024]

Specialists are better than generalists in most adventuring parties, but not all. For instance, in one of my campaigns, there was a Telepath and a Wizard, so it didn't hurt the Wizard at all to be barred from Enchantment. If the Wizard is the party's only spellcaster, well that's a different story.

Without those substitution levels, picking a PHB elf and being a generalist is something of a pointless suicide mission, unless you rolled extremely high CON I suppose.

According to Andy picking a PHB elf and being a specialist wizard is viable. Hence the racial sub level is balanced against specialist wizards.

Therefore if PHB elf + wizard racial sub level = viable wizard and PHB elf + specialist wizard = viable wizard then one can generalise that elven wizard racial sub level = elven specialist wizard. Since we know that elven wizard racial sub level > elven generalist wizard, we can conclude that specialist wizard > generalist wizard. At least this is how Andy sees it.