• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Wizard Specialization [Rant]

Seule said:
Specializing your Wizard has always been pretty much a no-brainer since the option was included. Finally, it looks like, with the rebalancing of spell schools, people might actually miss the spells they are giving up.
Personally, I play an Evoker with barred Enchantment and Illusion, and he'll stay that way, but it has hurt a little (no Improved Invis), and it will hurt more.

I've got a Conjurer with the same banned schools, and I've missed them. Even in 3.0, it's not an easy choice. I toyed with the idea of giving up Evocation, but that's deep hurting in Revised, basically all but destroying your direct combat effectiveness.

I expect that we will very rarely see any of the "Big Three" given up, and like Wulf, I'm not sure that Illusion, Abjuration and Enchantment have been brought up to their level.

On the other hand, at least putting the Power Words in Enchantment makes some kind of sense, as opposed to where they put them in NWN...

J
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Wouldn't taking Illusion be a more sensible choice especially since you equate it with being as low powered as Necromancy?

No, it wouldn't be more sensible if your character focuses on the shadow schools.

You do know that specialization isn't mandatory, right? If you want access to all spells, play a generalist mage.

No, it isn't mandatory, but when you want to specialize in something besides Evocation or Transmutation, your black balled because all schools are said to be equal, and they're not. All I'm saying is that its BS that an Evoker gets just as many prohibited schools, in-which any self respecting min-maxer is going to choose to drop Illusion and Necromancy. I think my idea of allowing the weaker schools the option of prohibiting Divination might not be the best idea. But the more powerful schools should have to lose more, thats what I'm getting at. Not everyone wants to play a Boom-Mage, but should an Illusionist have to suffer so much more than an Evoker because they're a bit more modest?
 

Look at things from a necromancer's point of view... as someone who is big into death and negative energy...
humble minion said:
Abjuration. Lose abjuration and you lose dispel magic. Big no-no. Even if you can cope with that (how?), you lose almost every single spell that can protect you from area-effects - energy resistances, globes of invulnerability, save boosts - the lot. First couple of low level evokers you face, you're going to be fried.
The necromancer isn't going to try to go toe to toe with evokers, he's going to send out his Legions of Undead (TM) to deal with them first. The evokers will bolow through their area-effect spells mowing down his minions.

A necromancer has undead, animated minions - he doesn't WANT to have dispel magics going off because that will "un-animate" them. Dispel magic is bad for business - causes too much collateral damage to the necromancer's own handiwork.

Illusion. A possibility. Losing invisibility hurts, and the image spells are great utilities, but Illusion can be sacrificed. you lose a lot of your potential for subtlety this way, though.
Of course, illusions - especially smell-affecting ones, are probably a good idea when you're surrounded by the stench of rotting corpses. :-b

Evocation. Losing pretty much all the area-affect blasting spells hurts (shadow evocations notwithstanding) since there is pretty much no other spell in the Wiz spell list that requires Ref saves, but sending is also a deceptively big loss (why is Telepathic Bond, which establishes a lasting mental communication, a divination while Sending, which establishes a brief mental communication, an evocation? Especially considering Demand is an enchantment!). Sacrificing evocation is almost an option for a cunning wizard but the lack of low-level attack spells is a real problem.
Again, the necromancer doesn't get his way by blasting things. The necromancer gets his way by sending out Legions of Undead or dealing personally with his targets. The threat of being withered or level-drained or tortured to death only to rise in undeath is not something most people particularly enjoy. The necromancer's power isn't feared because he can turn the town into ash... he's feared because he can turn the town into his mindless, undead slaves.

Conjuration: very hard to justify sacrificing, given its flexibility. From Mage Armour at low levels, to the summoning and calling spells at higher levels, to teleportation, plane shifts and gates, a wizard giving up conjuration is sacrificing many of the classes most powerful and iconic abilities.
Who needs to conjure creatures when you can animate them? Granted, the teleport and plane shift and demon summoning spells are probably within the flavor of a necromancer, but a good necromancer is never "in the thick of combat."

Enchantment - other than Illusion, this is the subtle school. Optional for a battlemage (though there are some real killers in there), but in a non-dungeon campaign with politics involved, enchantment is vital. Charm is an almost indispensible interogation aid, as well.
Why on earth does a necromancer want to have anything to do with enchantment? He can't use it on his zombies. He (usually) doesn't have other people around to use it on. As for interrogation, a necromancer doesn't need to be your friend - he'll just kill you and then use speak with dead. Or worse, threaten to kill you and use animate dead so you can't be raised.

Transmutation: A bit like conjuration, there are a few absolutely essential everyday wizard abilities in here. Flight, levitation, lock-opening, stat boosts. Water breathing and polymorph may sound minor, but when you need them you really need them. Transmutation has Passwall, Gaseous Form, Knock, Stone Shape, Ethereal Jaunt and Polymorph. Without these, how does a wizard even get into a locked, unguarded room without blowing the place apart? Forsake Transmutation and the rest of the party will be readvertising your position after the first adventure.
The necromancer doesn't do the dirty work himself. Why cast water-breathing when you can just send some zombies and skeletons (which don't breathe) into the water instead? Why use gaseous form when you can send in an incorporeal wraith or spectre instead?

And then there's Necromancy. There's some great spells in here (Enervation, False life, Circle of Death, Horrid Wilting), but not that many which do unique, vital jobs. Finger of Death? Disintegrate can do the job. Magic Jar? Dominate can fake it. Wave of Exhaustion? If that's your best 7th-level battlespell then you're probably in trouble. You can give up necromancy and not miss out on much, unless you're the build-an-army-of-undead-to-conquer-the-world type (and even then Conjuring and binding fiendish creatures might be a better bet anyway)
Again, you're trying to make the necromancer a "blast mage" - he's not. Necromancers work best behind the scenes, out of sight, until they have their prey in their power.

I mean come on. Evil Necromancers are supposed to terrorise fantasy worlds. How can they do this if they can't summon demons, or teleport, or make their minions look like fair damsels, or put the king under their spell, or level city walls to let their rotting legions in, or even erect spell defences worth a damn. If any of these evil wizards chose necromancy because of the forbidden power it offered, they would probably have been better off getting a good nights sleep, drinking a nice mug of hot chocolate, and having another look at Conjuration instead... [/B]

Again, your problem is that you are equating "necromancer" to "megamage." As I said before, evil necromancers do not terrorize a village by threatening to turn it to ash - they terrorize the village by threatening to "involuntarily enlist" the populace into his unholy undead legions. They don't want to put the king under their spell, they want the king dead - or at least intimidated enough to stay out of their way. They don't need to summon demons - they have vampires and liches that will be happy to work with them. They don't need to erect spell defences - because nothing living should be able to get close enough to make them sweat.

The necromancer is not a crude "blast mage." He's a subtle intellectual who is ruthless, conniving, and has absolutely no reason to place special value on anyone - as he can always just animate their corpses. I get the feeling you want the necromancer to be a "blast mage" and he's just not. That's an evoker.

--The Sigil
 

I have the following suggestion: Just drop the School Specialization restrictions and allow a Favored School for wizards like Domains for clerics. . . The Favored School is chosen at 1st level.

Why? The restrictions on School Specialization (loss of 2 schools usually) outweigh the benefit to the wizard (basically +1 spell slot per level with the school). A wizard character wanting the benefits of school specialization should not have to eliminate two entire schools of magic.

When you take into consideration that clerics and druids get more spell slots per day than wizards anyways, the extra spell slot per day is not a game-breaker.

Also, let's just assume that the schools are POTENTIALLY equal. Right now, the schools might not be equal because of the existing spell lists, however, new spells could always be developed to bolster some of the weaker schools.

Also, if you want a wizard who further specializes into a school, then create a prestige class with the requirement that a school or two must be dropped.
 
Last edited:

humble minion said:
It's almost as if the rules are actively trying to discourage people playing 'white' or 'grey' necromancers.
3.0 changed necromancy to be the 'eeeevil' spell school, instead of the school of spells that affected life force, as it was in previous editions. So nothing particularly new there.
 

Seule said:
Specializing your Wizard has always been pretty much a no-brainer since the option was included. Finally, it looks like, with the rebalancing of spell schools, people might actually miss the spells they are giving up.
Unless you're specializing in one of the Big 3 schools and giving up 2 lesser schools, in which case almost nothing has changed. Transmutation takes a hit in 3.5, as a lot of the key spells got powered down and teleport got moved to conjuration, but even with that it still has a lot of essential effects. And evocation and conjuration haven't lost any power at all.

The thing is, the schools will never and can never be balanced against one another. The definition of the schools precludes it. Enchantment, illusion, and necromancy spells are all limited in the types of creatures they can affect (enchantment being the most limited of the three). The other schools don't have that limitation.
 

PeterLind said:
I suggest that we think outside the D&D box. This is a sacred cow that can go away. We do not have to accept the restrictions in school specialization. A wizard character wanting the benefits of school specialization (in essence, +1 spell slot per spell level) should not have to eliminate two entire schools of magic. The restriction outweighs the benefit to the wizard.

When you take into consideration that clerics and druids get more spell slots per day than wizards anyways - why don't we just allow wizards to pick a favored school at 1st level? Yes, the benefits of school specialization for FREE. There will be no requirement to drop ANY schools to compensate. This would not be a game-breaker. Let's just assume that the schools are POTENTIALLY equal. Right now, the schools might not be equal because of the existing spell lists, however, new spells could always be developed to bolster some of the weaker schools.

Also, if you want a wizard who further specializes into a school, then create a prestige class with the requirement that a school or two must be dropped.

Are you serious? You are completely deleting the sorceror from the book with that scenario. Right now, a sorceror gets hardly any more spells per day than a specialist and gets his top level spells later. The only thing balancing this is prohibited schools for the specialist. Everyone wants to make the specialists not pay for increased power. Why unbalance the game?
 


Wulf Ratbane said:


My completely biased, totally unresearched opinion is that that's complete BS.


Wulf

Playing an abjurer (with Enchantment barred). In 3.0 rated as one of the medium power schools, on par with Illusion and Enchantment. I went through the changes to the school from 3.0 to 3.5:
  • 0th: No change
  • 1st: Endure Elements weaker, Shield weaker
  • 2nd: Protection from Arrows is now (nearly) useless, Resist Energy is much better than before
  • 3rd: No change
  • 4th: No change
  • 5th: Break Enchantment added (new), Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum added (T&B)
  • 6th: No change
  • 7th: No change
  • 8th: Dimensional Lock added (T&B)
  • 9th: No change
The net result of the change is at best on par for the existing spells, so I guess adding Break Enchantment and two spells from Tome and Blood is meant to put it on par with the big three :rolleyes:

Luckily my DM has allowed me to stay on with only Enchantment banned :D

.Ziggy
 
Last edited:

Number47 said:

The only thing balancing this is prohibited schools for the specialist. Everyone wants to make the specialists not pay for increased power. Why unbalance the game?
Well, that and the whole spontaneous casting thing... ;)
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top