A few points I feel are important for the topic:
1) The wizard doesn't really need a boost in strength.
But does it need a reduction in strength? Because that's what this is when compared to Specialization.
2) SLA's are typically CHA based and a change in that is a variation.See above in several posts where other classes have INT-based SLAs.
3) The key attribute doesn't matter for many of the spells on the lists. Even with the difference in ability, lets not forget that the wizard has the innate ability to jack his CHA an extra 4 with a 2nd level spell for an occasion where it would be crucial to have(unless of course it's of a restricted school, and even then he could carry around a scroll or wand with no penalty).So you now want the wizard to memorize a second level spell so he can effectively (though likely still not as effectively as if he'd just memorized the spell normally) cast a spell that he could have added to his spellbook one level earlier and has likely been casting at a greater effectiveness for a whole level before the school "bonus" kicks in? For the spells that don't require saves, you're right, it doesn't matter. But for the ones where it does matter it's been made very much weaker than being simply able to cast one spell of my choice from my specialty each day.
4) The ability to cast spontaneously is a feat the wizard couldn't pull previously. This adds versatility to an already versatile class...which is a benefit. I'm not sure the benefit needs to be more than that.This isn't spontaneous casting... if you compare it to specialization from stock 3.5, basically these rules force a specific use of a spell, one level later, with a lower save (when relevant).
Well, to be honest there are more than enough cries for the casters to be toned down a bit. I'm not huge on this, but some mild toning seems ok for the wizard. The lists solve some of the lower level, "get my crossbow out" problems, they offer something extra for a caster yet at the same time don't cripple him from having prohibited schools in his spellbook. I'm not sure the lists are perfect, but I like the basis behind them, because they look to solve both.
Oh and it is spontaneous casting in the fact these spells don't have to be memorized.
And really, this doesn't power down the specialist wizard severely and plenty of people would argue that it doesn't go far enough. I'm not one of them, but head over to the WotC boards and ask them about the wizard...wear a helmet.
|
And really, this doesn't power down the specialist wizard severely and plenty of people would argue that it doesn't go far enough. I'm not one of them, but head over to the WotC boards and ask them about the wizard...wear a helmet.
I've often found that tinfoil works best when I have the misfortune of visiting those boards. ;)
If one looks hard enough, there is somebody crying about every class, saying how it's broken or unstoppable, or something, compared to all other classes (except maybe bard... I don't think I've ever heard the complaint about the bard...).
To be honest, I never play wizards (except I am playing one now) because I dislike memorizing spells.
As for not powering down the specialist... I disagree (obviously :) ). It was well explained by another poster, but basically these "free" spells you call spontaneous are actually replacing a spell of my own choice. They are also appearing a level later than the actual spell I could learn if I wanted it. They are also using CHA for the DC for the save, if relevant - that's a huge hit for a class that casts all of its other spells based on Int. It's just not interesting, and it's mechanically inferior to Specialization. (Oh, and the Evocation school power is really very lame.)
Well, now I am really bothered. I thought I was pretty dead on with my previous beliefs, but I didn't realize specialist wizards didn't get an extra spell at every level.
Nope, they don't. Losing 1 spell / level per day really sucks. Particularly for wizards who go into a prestige class (as they lose both the nifty special ability, and they lose the extra spell per day - at least that's how I read the special abilities being from the wizard class). The bonded object kinda' helps make up for that... but it's also a trade for the Familiar (A feat and bonus to saves or skills if nothing else).
I also waver on the caster level/wizard level issue. Without the bonus spell at every spell level, I am very likely to multiclass, so I think I prefer the system to reward that.
Why would you do that? You lose the extra spell from casting progression and you lose the spell like ability. I imagine that the prestige classes (such as Master Specialist) assume you gain the specialist ability every level. Thus, you lose some of the spell casting power that a character of your level is assumed to have.
I'm notmoved by the rogue argument. Sorry fellas, one 0-level and one 1st-level SLA should never be a reason to justify a change n the game.
O.k., and I'm not moved by homogeny. Archmages have spell like abilities that aren't based on charisma. There's a feat in the complete arcane that gives you spell like abilities... pretty sure this isn't based on charisma either. If you want homogeny, shouldn't it be looking at being consistent with how 3.5 treats spell like abilities for Wizards already and staying consistent with that?
I am trying not to believe that wizards just took a big step down in Pathfinder. Maybe the extra feats and HP merit this change. Wizards are pretty cool already,and based on higher ability scores, they will cast a few more spells with higher Intelligence. Maybe I am okay with this.
Everyone gets the extra feat. Wizards aren't the only class to benefit from the upped hitdice. So, if we ignore the changes made across the board, and focus on the changes to the wizard... how does this change compare to the 3.5 wizard? You lose spell selection, you lose spells per day from prestige classes... and you gain spell like abilities without the choice of what those abilities are. And some of those abilities are fairly useless (abjurer's standard action for a deflection bonus for 1 rnd, for example... there's a spell out of Player's HB II that is better, level 1 and an immediate action. Why use the spell like ability?).
Maybe one helpful fix is for Spell Focus to apply to spells as well as SLAs.
That's not going to fix anything. Assuming this isn't already the case, this bumps the DCs up by 2. Guess what, everyone who you'll be needing to make a save will already be likely to beat the DC of your Int. +2. Cha. +2 isn't worth the time.
First of all, the plural of bonus is bonuses, not boni. If we were speaking Latin, which we are not, the plural would be bones (Boh-Nehs). But as we speak English, the plural is bonuses. Saying Boni makes you sound like a pretentious jack.Second of all, if you are going to be a pedant, there the burden of actually being correct.
Bonus is a first/second declension adjective, so the Boni is correct for the plual. Bona (neuter plual) would be even more correct for the sense being used. Only Fifth declension nouns end in -es (for both singular and plural).
Mike
Except that you're talking about "adding a bonus" which means that it is a noun. A 3rd declension masculine noun as it happens.
Bonus is an adjective only when used as an adjective, something which is done in English only by Bill and Ted. When was the last time you said "This is some bonus pizza, dude!"
-Frank
First of all, the plural of bonus is bonuses, not boni. If we were speaking Latin, which we are not, the plural would be bones (Boh-Nehs). But as we speak English, the plural is bonuses. Saying Boni makes you sound like a pretentious jack.Second of all, if you are going to be a pedant, there the burden of actually being correct.
Bonus is a first/second declension adjective, so the Boni is correct for the plual. Bona (neuter plual) would be even more correct for the sense being used. Only Fifth declension nouns end in -es (for both singular and plural).
Mike
Except that you're talking about "adding a bonus" which means that it is a noun. A 3rd declension masculine noun as it happens.
Bonus is an adjective only when used as an adjective, something which is done in English only by Bill and Ted. When was the last time you said "This is some bonus pizza, dude!"
-Frank
You are still wrong. Latin adjectives can be used with assumed nouns, but that does not make them nouns. This is because missing (assumed) nouns are allowed in Latin. Bonus is first/second declension, not third. Also, third declension nouns ending in -us are always neuter (just as those ending in -ix are female, and those ending in -or are masculine).
Like I said there is a burden to be correct when you are a pedant. I honestly don't care how bad your Latin is, except when you go out of the way to correct someone else's correct Latin.
Mike
PS. I agree with your point that using a Latin plural in English when the English plural exists is pretentious.
Nunc est bibendum.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Speaking of the burden to be correct, and relating that to a gaming issue, there was a previous post that stated you can use an SLA whenever you want, including inside a t-rex's mouth. I get the actual point, the versatility of SLAs, and I agree with that poster's intent.
But, for everyone else's edification, so you DMs don't have to put up with players who read that one post, SLAs are subject to Concentration checks, too. They are more flexible, but they are not infallible.
You, just so we can still swallow wizards whole. : }
How about discussing "DC for Wizard Specialist School Powers" rather than latin...
Since the initial writer asked for a vote... Charisma... why should CHA always be a dumping stat...
Intelligence appears to be the thing that enables a man to get along without an education. Education appears to be the thing that enables a man to get along without the use of his intelligence. A.E.Wiggan