Wizard Specialist Powers


Combat & Magic


Can we please replace the wizard specialist powers with feats that have specialist as a prereq? The specialist doesn't need more spells or spell like powers. What the specialist needs is more flavor - primarily stuff that is in effect at all times (like '+1 damage per die for fire based spells' for invokers that focus on fire spells.) These feats can be in chains so that more powerful abilities become available as the character further focuses on what type of necromancer/invoker/summoner etc. he will be.
This will give more options for the character and make the game system more backwards compatible.


I disagree i think the powers they were given are 100% within there flavor .


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
I disagree i think the powers they were given are 100% within there flavor .

Okay, you think the powers they were given are 100% within their flavor. I'm not sure what relevance that has to the point I'm making. I'll assume that I'm not being clear enough. Let me try again.

A player may have a necromancer character who does not animate dead (perhaps the character is a wizard dedicated to killing undead and the animation of dead offends him). That player may not see a point to having his character get a special ability of animating dead. This isn't about what -you- think is appropriate for that player's character.
Or, let's say that two players are both playing evokers. Those players are going to want special abilities which distinguish the characters from one another. Also, one may be playing an ice theme and not want a special power to shoot a fire ray.


LilithsThrall wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
I disagree i think the powers they were given are 100% within there flavor .

Okay, you think the powers they were given are 100% within their flavor. I'm not sure what relevance that has to the point I'm making. I'll assume that I'm not being clear enough. Let me try again.

A player may have a necromancer character who does not animate dead (perhaps the character is a wizard dedicated to killing undead and the animation of dead offends him). That player may not see a point to having his character get a special ability of animating dead. This isn't about what -you- think is appropriate for that player's character.
Or, let's say that two players are both playing evokers. Those players are going to want special abilities which distinguish the characters from one another. Also, one may be playing an ice theme and not want a special power to shoot a fire ray.

Ya man your first post made it seem like you disliked them for flavor reasons.as for your points they seem like house rule DM changes lets look though them

* necromancer's I do think needs a white school but 3e dnd pretty much only focused on the black.So if killing undead is your thing it's not the best class,without a lot of DM rules even in 3e.fast change give him turn undead for your game.
*the 1.1 rules kinda fix that for invokers I would like to see them be able to change the enrgy type on all energy based spell...acid and iceball's anyone ,icebolt,fire bolt lighting ball.ya get the point .

I like the schools but for your game I don't think it be very hard to take what ever spell they get and swap it for another of the same level from there school.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
I disagree i think the powers they were given are 100% within there flavor .

Okay, you think the powers they were given are 100% within their flavor. I'm not sure what relevance that has to the point I'm making. I'll assume that I'm not being clear enough. Let me try again.

A player may have a necromancer character who does not animate dead (perhaps the character is a wizard dedicated to killing undead and the animation of dead offends him). That player may not see a point to having his character get a special ability of animating dead. This isn't about what -you- think is appropriate for that player's character.
Or, let's say that two players are both playing evokers. Those players are going to want special abilities which distinguish the characters from one another. Also, one may be playing an ice theme and not want a special power to shoot a fire ray.

Ya man your first post made it seem like you disliked them for flavor reasons.as for your points they seem like house rule DM changes lets look though them

* necromancer's I do think needs a white school but 3e dnd pretty much only focused on the black.So if killing undead is your thing it's not the best class,without a lot of DM rules even in 3e.fast change give him turn undead for your game.
*the 1.1 rules kinda fix that for invokers I would like to see them be able to change the enrgy type on all energy based spell...acid and iceball's anyone ,icebolt,fire bolt lighting ball.ya get the point .

I like the schools but for your game I don't think it be very hard to take what ever spell they get and swap it for another of the same level from there school.

I really doubt that my game would be the only that'd have white necromancers (or players who want flexibility of character concept, for that matter). Besides, as I said before, I don't think specialists need more spells to set them apart. They need more "always on" types of powers.


well I myself would love for white necromancer to get some love but still like the schools in alpha.


LilithsThrall wrote:


I really doubt that my game would be the only that'd have white necromancers (or players who want flexibility of character concept, for that matter). Besides, as I said before, I don't think specialists need more spells to set them apart. They need more "always on" types of...

I agree.

Having feat trees or something like that would be much more open, different skills, etc. Think what would happen if say Spell Penetration has a prereq of Enchanter.

I get tired or maybe annoyed? by static bonuses for such a far reaching concept.
ITT Academy is the only school for Invokers, they just have campuses world wide.


Some possible feats include

Merciless Tracker
prereq: Necromancer
This feat allows the Necromancer to track undead. The character uses the spellcraft skill in place of the survival skill

Fortune Teller
prereq: Diviner
This feat allows the diviner to perform acts of fortune telling. The diviner makes a spellcraft roll and, if he makes the target number, can perform an augury as a standard action whether or not he's memorized that spell.

Overload
prereq: Invoker
This feat allows the invoker to increase the damage of invokations. He can increase the damage by +2 hit points at a cost of 1 of his own hit points. He can increase a spell's hit points by as much as 2*his level (at the cost of 1*his level of damage for himself).

The Exchange

I'm with the OP, as I've said on another thread.

As an aside, re necromancy, the 20th level power seemed odd to me. If you can become undead, but not a lich, at 20th level, how come there are so many liches about? Yeah, I know you only need to be level 13, but even so can't you just wait and adventure a bit (I know I am being somewhat facetious, but i think there is nevertheless a minor game logic issue here).

Scarab Sages

LilithsThrall wrote:
Can we please replace the wizard specialist powers with feats that have specialist as a prereq?

Ditto! I love the idea, but would like to see more flexibility in how specific powers are chosen.

LilithsThrall wrote:
These feats can be in chains so that more powerful abilities become available as the character further focuses on what type of necromancer/invoker/summoner etc.

I'd like to see something similar to the d20 Modern feat trees or the combat style paths for the Ranger in 3.5.

Edit: also, if specialist wizards could build their own power trees as mentioned above, then the Universalist could select from among any of the specialist sets and mix/match them to create their own power tree.


White Necromancer...

couldn't that be played as another type of specialist that has a large assortment of necromancy spells because it's not one of his two prohibited schools...

And what's with trying to make mages more powerful... that's one of the things that have to be curtailed as a fundamental power imbalance exist in 3.5 between high level non-casters and casters with casters coming up on top...

And no its not balanced by the fact that wizards suck the first few levels....because at low levels an orc getting a critcal with his great axe can one-shot-kill a barbarian... the first few levels are just really the luck of the dice in many combats...

and before you disagree about the one-shot-kill... a 2nd lvl character hit by the example orc warrior in MM is going to take 6d6+9 dmg...avg roll is 30hp of damage so unless you have more than 20hp at 2nd level...and the avg character does not (16Con Ftr 2 has an avg of 20 20 1/2 so the orc needs to roll 1pt above avg)... one-shot-kill...


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

I'm with the OP, as I've said on another thread.

As an aside, re necromancy, the 20th level power seemed odd to me. If you can become undead, but not a lich, at 20th level, how come there are so many liches about? Yeah, I know you only need to be level 13, but even so can't you just wait and adventure a bit (I know I am being somewhat facetious, but i think there is nevertheless a minor game logic issue here).

The power and the immortality, I'd imagine. Keep in mind, you don't get a phylactery with Deathless. If someone manages to kill you, that's it, with no chance to come back. Plus you don't get all the lich-specific abilities.


Praetor Gradivus wrote:

White Necromancer...

couldn't that be played as another type of specialist that has a large assortment of necromancy spells because it's not one of his two prohibited schools...

And what's with trying to make mages more powerful... that's one of the things that have to be curtailed as a fundamental power imbalance exist in 3.5 between high level non-casters and casters with casters coming up on top...

And no its not balanced by the fact that wizards suck the first few levels....because at low levels an orc getting a critcal with his great axe can one-shot-kill a barbarian... the first few levels are just really the luck of the dice in many combats...

and before you disagree about the one-shot-kill... a 2nd lvl character hit by the example orc warrior in MM is going to take 6d6+9 dmg...avg roll is 30hp of damage so unless you have more than 20hp at 2nd level...and the avg character does not (16Con Ftr 2 has an avg of 20 20 1/2 so the orc needs to roll 1pt above avg)... one-shot-kill...

Praetor Gradivus, who was your post directed to?

Noone said that a white necromancer couldn't be played as another type of specialist that has a large assortment of necromancy spells, but should such a kludge be necessary?
Noone said that mages should be more powerful than other classes. we were discussing feat options.
And noone said anything about the fact that wizards suck at the first few levels or about one-shot kills.
So, who was your post directed to?


I also agree with the OP. I don't really care if it is feat trees, or a powers list, though. I simply would like powers/abilities that are interresting and flavorful. Some of the powers are like that, as in the metamagic ability for universal wizards, but most are just more of the same kinda things the wizard can already do.

I will attempt to post some ideas on this soon.


Yay, specialist feats. Yay. Another way to make your character suck at everything by having to expend feat slots on things they should already be good at. Yay. Not. :P

As has already been posted in at least two other threads, a selection of two different abilities for any given level of where specialist abilities are acquired goes a long way to making different specialties seem less cookie cutter. Feats are not a good way to give abilities to a person with a class acquired specialty. If the class provides the specialty, the specialty should do something special, else it's not really a specialty but just a word to tack onto your character sheet in exchange for two schools of magic you have trouble using. This is the same reason that turn/rebuke undead is a class ability and not a feat. It's a specialty that exists in relation to the class, and thus grants an ability rather than just granting you a title and the ability to take a feat that lets you do something with the title other than put together a snazzy character resume.

Bob: Hi! I'm invisible Bob!
Joe: No you're not. I can see you.
Bob: Well, I'm waiting on a feat slot...*cries*

Now if you'd like feats that add onto the specialists powers, that's all very groovy. Enhancing specialization is what feats are designed to do (i.e. extra turning & improved turning using the above example). But characters simply don't have the feat slots necessary to be buying what should be class abilities with them. Having to do so would create exactly the opposite effect from what seems desired. It would eat up the feat slots the character could be customizing and branching out with by forcing you to spend them on a few limited choices of things to buff a class ability that otherwise doesn't do anything. And who wants that?

I've been mildly snarky due to the lateness of hour, so I'll include some example feats by way of apology.

Side by Side
You're rarely without companionship in your dimensional travels.
Prerequisite: Conjuration school, Access to Dimensional Steps ability, Charisma 13+
Benefit: When using the Conjuration ability Dimensional Steps, you may bring along one companion at no additional usage of distance.

Corrupt Animation
While others stick to mindless minions, you've mastered the hungry dead.
Prerequisite: Necromancy school, Access to Animate ability, Wisdom 13+
Benefit: When utilizing Animate, you may opt to create ghouls. Total number of HD summoned does not change. Skeletons, zombies and ghouls may be created in any combination.

Eh. Mediocre, but that's my first glance at it. I'll probably be more inspired by lunchtime. ^_^


NekoMouser wrote:
<snip>

I'm afraid I don't get the point you are trying to make.

By my count, a specialist will get 15 feats between 1st and 20th level.
Can you give an example of the problems having specialist abilities as feats will cause considering that?
I mean, give a specialist character concept which needs some specific 15 feats (and list those feats) in order to capture that concept such that specialist feats must remain off the table.
The specialist -does- do something special, it gives access to specialist feats.


LilithsThrall wrote:

Can we please replace the wizard specialist powers with feats that have specialist as a prereq? The specialist doesn't need more spells or spell like powers. What the specialist needs is more flavor - primarily stuff that is in effect at all times (like '+1 damage per die for fire based spells' for invokers that focus on fire spells.) These feats can be in chains so that more powerful abilities become available as the character further focuses on what type of necromancer/invoker/summoner etc. he will be.

This will give more options for the character and make the game system more backwards compatible.

This is a good idea. Wizards should get a bonus feat at first level, then.


I'm personally against spending feats for specialist powers, unless I get *alot* more Wizard bonus feats (like, along the lines of what a fighter gets). My non-Wizard feats get spent on stuff like toughness, dodge, combat casting, ect. My Wizard bonus feats get spent on metamagic and item creation, and the occasional spell mastery. I don't want to have to make a choice between taking toughness to survive the first few levels easier, or taking a specialist feat to make chosen school of magic more effective. The gradually gaining powers thing that is already there, while it needs to be worked out and is probably miles from finalized, is pretty freaking awsome.


alexander deel wrote:
I'm personally against spending feats for specialist powers, unless I get *alot* more Wizard bonus feats (like, along the lines of what a fighter gets). My non-Wizard feats get spent on stuff like toughness, dodge, combat casting, ect. My Wizard bonus feats get spent on metamagic and item creation, and the occasional spell mastery. I don't want to have to make a choice between taking toughness to survive the first few levels easier, or taking a specialist feat to make chosen school of magic more effective. The gradually gaining powers thing that is already there, while it needs to be worked out and is probably miles from finalized, is pretty freaking awsome.

I asked another poster about this. I'll ask you as well.

You get 15 feats between 1st and 20th level. Please provide a character concept and 15 feats needed for that concept (or without those feats, your character is going to die) - which would prevent you from getting specialist feats.

Scarab Sages

Psychic_Robot wrote:
This is a good idea. Wizards should get a bonus feat at first level, then.

Or, to take this a step further, they could get a bonus feat at each level they currently gain one of the new powers, and the bonus feat list could mimic the powers currently listed and be expanded to include additional options along the same lines. Although I do kind of like the idea behind the current power trees, so ... yeah.


grrtigger wrote:
Psychic_Robot wrote:
This is a good idea. Wizards should get a bonus feat at first level, then.
Or, to take this a step further, they could get a bonus feat at each level they currently gain one of the new powers, and the bonus feat list could mimic the powers currently listed and be expanded to include additional options along the same lines. Although I do kind of like the idea behind the current power trees, so ... yeah.

Perhaps you can give me a good answer to a question I have.

Why do you prefer the current power trees (where all specialists of the same school get carbon copy powers) vs. a system which offers options to the player?

Sovereign Court

You can, in theory, make every option, ability and talent in the game a feat, and then restrict certain feats to certain classes.

But I don't want a massive, user-unfriendly feat section in my PathfinderRPG.

Scarab Sages

LilithsThrall wrote:
Why do you prefer the current power trees (where all specialists of the same school get carbon copy powers) vs. a system which offers options to the player?

I don't ;)

While I really like the idea behind providing specialists a school-specific flavor along the lines of the specialist power trees in the first Pathfinder Alpha, I'd like to see some amount of customization. You need look no further than earlier in this very thread to see one suggestion I floated concerning customizing the specialist powers.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

The Powers are there to give Wizards something in addition they could do daily once they rule out of spells.. or in some cases, prolong their combat effectiveness in a "day."


I like the skill power mechanics as written. However I agree that further options would make things more interesting. I am the player in the games I participate in that play things a little differently than the others (may have something to do with being the only female in a group of boys..;o))

Suggestion: Maybe have a choice of 2 to 3 school powers at each of the levels they are acquired.

Example:
Abjuration School
Specialist Bonus: You gain resistance 5 to an energy type of your choice OR you can change the target of abjuration spells with a target of YOU to Touched Ally (or something like that).
1st: Protective Ward OR something else (imagination is deserting me as I type)

and so on.

With more choices within each school each wizard specialist would have their own flavor.


LilithsThrall wrote:
NekoMouser wrote:
<snip>

I'm afraid I don't get the point you are trying to make.

That's because you are arguing rather than reading. Here, let's try again.

Quote:
By my count, a specialist will get 15 feats between 1st and 20th level.

Really? I'm counting 14 between the Wizard advancement table on page 16 and the Character Advancement table on page 9. Where are you getting the other feat? Are you assuming Human? Are you counting Scribe Scroll? NM...doesn't matter. The cleric gets 10, the rogue gets 10 and the fighter gets 21.

Quote:
Can you give an example of the problems having specialist abilities as feats will cause considering that?

I did, actually. But let's try this again with the numbers above. For the fighter, half the feats are class abilities necessary to do the job. Note that as a result the number of feats comes in better than twice what's available to the cleric. The cleric receives only 10 because their class variability comes from the selection of two domains and the cure/inflict and turn/rebuke options. The Wizard receives 4 bonus feats for the same reason the fighter does, but to a more limited degree. He receives only only one specialization (as opposed to two domains), arguably mildly more powerful than a single domain. He receives a reduced BAB, a more limited selection of armor and weapons. So he needs those four feats to stay viable. He also needs the specialist powers to stay balanced to the cleric, whose better armor, better weapon selection, better BAB, extra good save, increased number of Domain abilities and new positive/negative energy abilities make them the new power to be reckoned with.

Quote:
I mean, give a specialist character concept which needs some specific 15 feats (and list those feats) in order to capture that concept such that specialist feats must remain off the table.

Diviner, Necromancy prohibited school. Quick on the spell, makes heavy use of conjuration, illusion and spell booby traps for crowd control. Shares a close bond with a powerful familiar. Is basically fearless and awfully hard to charm. Can detect magic at will.

Feat List: Improved Initiative, Toughness, Arcane Toughness, Arcane Consumption, Bonded Familiar, Augment Summoning, Combat Familiar, Endurance, Iron Will, Indomitable Soul, Spell Linked Familiar, Vatic Gaze, Earthbound Spell, Imbued Summoning.

I could conceptualize like this all day, but I don't actually hold the responsibility of burden of proof, as I'm not asking for anything to change. Aside from that, I'd ask you to name a single reason I'd want to spend a feat on something rather than receive it as a class ability.

If the tables of Specialization powers are amended to include more than one option (as is the case with some other templates in later 3.5 rules), I'd likely be supportive. If there are feats available to improve upon the abilities of the various specialties, I'd be happy with that. Create a system where my class abilities are all nothing more than feat prerequisites, without the presence of additional feats to support the change? I don't think I could get behind that.

Quote:
The specialist -does- do something special, it gives access to specialist feats.

I've already made my point about the idiocy of new titles that grant nothing more than the ability to take a feat. But let's put it this way: where else in the system is there a mechanic that operates in that fashion? As pointed out previously, every mechanic that has feats available to modify it actually does something modifiable. I'm not aware of any class ability in the core system that provides nothing unless you spend a feat on it. Perhaps you can show me a similar mechanic?

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 1 / Combat & Magic / Wizard Specialist Powers All Messageboards
Recent threads in Combat & Magic