Brulefer's page

So what is the reasoning behind this? A wizard with a bared school can already cast it by using an extra spell slot. He can even make a wand with that spell.

Right, and if he crafts or buys an item with an opposition school spell on it, he can effectively circumvent the inconvenience of having to use that extra spell slot. While this is not a perfect solution, it does take the edge off what is supposed to be a restriction on his spellcasting. Hence my houserule suggestion to counter the problem.

Are wizards with wands and scrolls becoming a menace to the population?

Yes, hadn't you heard? It's in all the papers. ;)

I still don't think that a 1st level wizard without a barred school should be better at using wands than a 10th level wizard with.

Also, the "double caster level" rule is kind of wonky. A 2nd level wizard can use a 1st level (prohibited) scroll no problem, but a 20th level wizard can't use a 6th level scroll. And "rolling for scroll misshap" (in the case of a wizard whose level is high enough to cast the spell in question) is basically just a "check for 1", since he can't fail numerically.

I would treat him as being 2 levels lower. Or more, if you feel that's appropriate.

Good point, maybe 2 levels higher would work better

I seems a little odd to me that specialist wizards should be able to cast spells from their opposition schools from spell trigger or spell completion items without any penalty. Given enough downtime, a wizard with say, Evocation as an opposed school will be able to create say a Wand of Fireballs, and basically ignore the penalty on casting spells from his opposed schools.

To counter this, I'm proposing a simple set of house rules:

1. When casting a spell from an opposition school using a scroll, a specialist wizard must have double the minimum caster level of the spell to automatically cast the spell. Otherwise, he must roll to avoid a mishap as per the rules.

2. When casting a spell from an opposition school using a spell trigger item, such as a wand or staff, the specialist wizard must expend double the listed number of charges.

3. When creating an item containing one or more spells from opposition schools, the cost of making the item is 50% more than the listed price (with creation times increasing accordingly).

This hasn't been play tested, and some tweaking may be necessary, especially for rule 3. But it limits specialists in what I feel to be a logical fashion, one which is consistent with the new rules. And it's still a better deal than specialist wizards got in 3.5.

Thoughts?

Brulefer wrote:

But, surely this is counteracted by the favoured class rule? Every level in a favoured class may or may not add one skill point to the character's total. It seems that they have solved the problem, only to then re-introduce it.

Naw. 17th level wizard? Give her 17 extra hp or 17 skill points. wizard 5/fighter 3/rogue 8, just decide which one she likes best and that many skill points. It's more of one flat bonus. Different skill point bonus due to Int were a pain because it could be +3 for levels 1-3, +4 for 4-11, +5 for 12-19, and +6 at 20, unless she went for Wis on the 3rd ability bump... too many different numbers.

Okay, yeah, it does complicate things a little tiny bit, but nothing compared to that old nightmare.

Fair enough, I guess was thinking more in terms of a DM checking a high level character. Let's say that a player creates that 17th level wizard for a one-off high level adventure. He allocates his character 8 extra skill points, and 9 extra hit points. A DM would not easily be able to check whether his character was valid or not. It might be impossible if they rolled for hit points each level.

Arcane Armor Training/Mastery. I think it's amazing that we've had to wait 9 years for such an obvious feat to be added to 3.x core rules. Thank you Paizo!

Intelligence gives retroactive skill points. This is fact. They told everyone at PaizoCon, it's covered in the Permanent bonuses under Intelligence, and it's covered in the Headband of Intellect. It was done for ease in making NPCs or high level PCs without wondering where the Intelligence increase occurred. Same reason why they nixed cross-class skills costing double the points.

Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys

Retroactive skill point increases does simplify high level character creation, it's true. By itself, it makes the total number of skill points an automatic calculation.

But, surely this is counteracted by the favoured class rule? Every level in a favoured class may or may not add one skill point to the character's total. It seems that they have solved the problem, only to then re-introduce it.

Given the reactive and limited nature of counterspelling anyway (many beasties use non-counterable SLAs, many, many more use pointy claws, slavering maws and sharp weapons to 'make their point'), I wouldn't see that as overpowered at all as a Specialist ability for Abjurers.

The Abjurer already has a very small spell-list, with one of the most popular 'abjuration' spells, the one that the Abjurant Champion is based around, being Mage Armor, a *conjuration* spell!

Turning an Abjurer into a one-man spellcaster-stopping-machine doesn't strike me as unbalanced in the least, particularly when any single threat CR-appropriate challenge is going to have access to a few spells outside of his ability to counter (being higher level than the PCs). The only time he's going to be able to 'shut down' an enemy spellcaster is going to be when that spellcaster was his CR or lower, and he'll expend a spell for every spell he counters, making it an even trade off of his resources against encounter resources. Assuming multiple encounters a day, he'll *still* end up behind. Assuming encounters that have monsters that use physical attacks, spell-like abilities and / or supernatural abilities, he'll be no more or less effective than any other wizard, and the requirement to fill his spell list with Abjuration spells to be able to Spontaneously counterspell with will ensure that he's not going to be flinging around the Hastes and Black Tentacles and other staples with as much abandon as another wizard.

Great idea, and great thread in general. The idea of making counterspells more relevant to combat is long overdue, and the idea of making abjurers the masters of counterspelling provides an interesting way of differentiating them from the other school specialists.

Some very good stuff here. A couple of points in particular:

1. I totally agree with the idea of making spells from 'prohibited' schools require a higher spell slot. I think 1 level higher should be fine. That's enough to make these spells poor choices most of the time, while leaving them available. Also, the name 'prohibited schols' should then be changed to something else. Maybe 'minor schools'?

One important point: When calculating the DC of the spell, the normal level of the spell should be used. I know this was specified in 3.5E, but I think a special mention should be made when explaining this rule. For example, Slow should always have a DC appropriate to a 3rd level spell (unless Heighten Spell is being applied).

2. One thing I disagree about are the 8th and 20th level abilities for universalist wizards. Both seem far too powerful, in fact as things stand I would be unlikely to take a specialist. This is especially true if the above specialisation system is implemtented, since universalists would not get penalised for casting from any of the schools.

As writen, would a player have to declare that he was using this feat everytime they wanted to cast a spell and is that the intention of the feat.

It seems kinda odd, more like a simon says kinda rule. "Oops, you didn't declare AAT, your going to have to pay the full cost of spell failure."

Maybe just have an understanding with your DM that the feat is your default feat, and will be used unless you specifically select another.

After all, if you're casting a spell, it pretty much goes without saying you want to reduce the chance of it failing.