Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pickaxe" data-source="post: 1046403" data-attributes="member: 10812">Actually, druids are the major spell-casting class that gets the fewest spell slots; no domains, no specialization, no sorcerer-type slots.Back on the topic of specialization, I tend to think that 2 schools is in fact too much, but I've never played a high-level campaign. The change itself smacks of the rumored "Nerf the Wizards!" campaign that many say drove the spell revisions.My interest in this whole discussion really stems from conversations I've had regarding sorcerers vs. wizards. One side of the argument is that the extra spell slots of sorcerers aren't such a great advantage, given the relative ease with which one can make scrolls. The other side is that sorcerers don't give that much up in spell diversity (at least at high levels) and make up any deficiencies through magic items (especially if these are readily purchased).The interesting thing here is that both of these arguments point out problems with specialists. The advantage of the extra spell slot is diminished by the ease of creating scrolls. And the specialist is even limited in how he can overcome the loss of two schools through magic items. I haven't played any high level wizards, but I have played a generalist and, to a lesser extent, a diviner (no necromancy). For a while, I was regretting not specializing the first character, as it seemed like an extra slot per level was too good to pass up. But I decided not to specialize, because I had better flexibility and better opportunities to take advantage of magic item creation (which is important in our campaign). A specialist would end up cutting himself out of making all sorts of items.Maybe a 20th level specialist of any school would convince me otherwise, but I still think 2 schools is too much.--Axe</blockquote>

Verification