I would like to see the prohibited school have more effect on specialist wizards. Although foregoing spells from that school completely is too much, I would like spells from the banned schools to be treated as 1 level higher [or 2 levels higher or even 3 levels higher {though not 4 levels or more - that would be too much}] for specialist wizards (so for example, fireball would be a 4th [or 5th or 6th] level spell for a specialist with evocation as his prohibited school).
What do you think?
I would like to see the prohibited school have more effect on specialist wizards. Although foregoing spells from that school completely is too much, I would like spells from the banned schools to be treated as 1 level higher [or 2 levels higher or even 3 levels higher {though not 4 levels or more - that would be too much}] for specialist wizards (so for example, fireball would be a 4th [or 5th or 6th] level spell for a specialist with evocation as his prohibited school).
What do you think?
I think I suggested exactly this in another thread (sadly under the radar). In fact, if I didn't know otherwise, I might think I was you.
Prohibited schools in 3e were harsh, but I managed to live with them.
Letting me cast spells from a prohibited school in a limited capacity is great, because there are some spells you just need, and if the Wizard Class is balanced correctly there is at least one such spell from every school. The problem is, no specialist character is ever going to forgo his specialist advantages; his spell focus, greater spell focus, his new abilities, etc.; in order to prepare his weakest spells. The entry fee is way too steep for anyone to take the bait.
Also, keeping track of specific prohibited schools is annoying as well (i.e. which spells are in those schools). Now I have two or more schools of magic to track... shouldn't I be concerned with my one school to the detriment of all others? To this end, my group has routinely "spread out" the prohibition penalty to a slight penalty on all non specialist schools.
I hope that we can show specialists to be good at one school and bad at the rest, without either crippling them OR making them sacrifice the personality of their spells for the day. Just make them a bit worse somehow in all non-specialist schools, and do away with prohibition (so to speak). It will be easier to keep track of, and still reverse compatible (at least as much as the Alpha 3 version).
-1, -2 or even 1/2 caster level for prohibited schools would mean that specialists felt like they were "bad" at these schools, even without making them forgo their favored school for the day. Heck, let it limit their access to spells via minimum caster level. I just don't see the Necromancer saying "Time to put the undead away for today, I need to teleport." I would rather see him cast a really crappy teleport spell, and then get berated by his party until the next time they fight a vampire.
The "metamagic" solution of +1 or +2 Spell Level slots is good and harsh. I think it would work equally well.
I'm not sure but quite a few people have mentioned that prohibited schools were not much of a penalty (give up one ability... still use scrolls etc). I'm hoping for some changes in the specialist schools. It's tough to be patient though. One month... *sigh*
I'm not sure but quite a few people have mentioned that prohibited schools were not much of a penalty (give up one ability... still use scrolls etc). I'm hoping for some changes in the specialist schools. It's tough to be patient though. One month... *sigh*
As I recall, and it is quite possible I'm wrong, you couldn't use spell trigger or spell completion items from your prohibited school. Heaven forbid you prohibited Abjuration, for you would be without Dispel Magic forevermore.
I believe under PfRPG this is no longer the case. I'm too lazy to look it up right now though.
Okay, I can see that being an issue.
My critique still stands though: Who is going to ever opt to prepare prohibited schools in exchange for their Arcane School Benefits? That rule is wasted ink.
My critique still stands though: Who is going to ever opt to prepare prohibited schools in exchange for their Arcane School Benefits? That rule is wasted ink.
99% of the time, it is. But I'm exactly the kind of DM who would insert a situation that could be specifically addressed with an out-of-school spell, forcing that kind of decision on the player. In fact, I plan to do just that!
Okay, I can see that being an issue.
My critique still stands though: Who is going to ever opt to prepare prohibited schools in exchange for their Arcane School Benefits? That rule is wasted ink.
Note: it's only the one specific "specialist bonus" ability that you lose if you prepare a "prohibited" spell. For instance, an illusionist would lose the ability to increase illusions with a duration of "concentration" to "concentration + X rounds" (which is a pretty lame ability, IMO). Similarly, the Abjurer's resistance 5 vs. one energy type is pretty weak; I'd gladly give it up in exchange for an unlimited spell list.
Note: it's only the one specific "specialist bonus" ability that you lose if you prepare a "prohibited" spell. For instance, an illusionist would lose the ability to increase illusions with a duration of "concentration" to "concentration + X rounds" (which is a pretty lame ability, IMO). Similarly, the Abjurer's resistance 5 vs. one energy type is pretty weak; I'd gladly give it up in exchange for an unlimited spell list.
Okay, I can see that happening.
Still, I'd rather see them cast lousy prohibited spells than be "universal for the day." It would have more flavor.
I would like to see the prohibited school have more effect on specialist wizards. Although foregoing spells from that school completely is too much, I would like spells from the banned schools to be treated as 1 level higher [or 2 levels higher or even 3 levels higher {though not 4 levels or more - that would be too much}] for specialist wizards (so for example, fireball would be a 4th [or 5th or 6th] level spell for a specialist with evocation as his prohibited school). What do you think?
Let me just say that I really like this idea. The only issue is that an abjurer's fireball then has a higher save DC than an evoker's, which seems kind of weird.
Still, I'd rather see them cast lousy prohibited spells than be "universal for the day." It would have more flavor.
I agree completely.
I would like to see the prohibited school have more effect on specialist wizards. Although foregoing spells from that school completely is too much, I would like spells from the banned schools to be treated as 1 level higher [or 2 levels higher or even 3 levels higher {though not 4 levels or more - that would be too much}] for specialist wizards (so for example, fireball would be a 4th [or 5th or 6th] level spell for a specialist with evocation as his prohibited school).
What do you think?
I think I suggested exactly this in another thread (sadly under the radar). In fact, if I didn't know otherwise, I might think I was you.
Prohibited schools in 3e were harsh, but I managed to live with them.
Letting me cast spells from a prohibited school in a limited capacity is great, because there are some spells you just need, and if the Wizard Class is balanced correctly there is at least one such spell from every school. The problem is, no specialist character is ever going to forgo his specialist advantages; his spell focus, greater spell focus, his new abilities, etc.; in order to prepare his weakest spells. The entry fee is way too steep for anyone to take the bait.
Also, keeping track of specific prohibited schools is annoying as well (i.e. which spells are in those schools). Now I have two or more schools of magic to track... shouldn't I be concerned with my one school to the detriment of all others? To this end, my group has routinely "spread out" the prohibition penalty to a slight penalty on all non specialist schools.
I hope that we can show specialists to be good at one school and bad at the rest, without either crippling them OR making them sacrifice the personality of their spells for the day. Just make them a bit worse somehow in all non-specialist schools, and do away with prohibition (so to speak). It will be easier to keep track of, and still reverse compatible (at least as much as the Alpha 3 version).
-1, -2 or even 1/2 caster level for...
I keep on suggesting the increased spell level for spells from prohibited schools at every Alpha release, but so far it hasn't met with any developer comments, so we don't know whether they like it or not - but they are very busy with the Beta, so that is to be expected. That said, I must say I like your idea too - having no prohibited school and instead having a more minor penalty on all non-specialist schools sounds like a rather interesting way to approach the issue and I would have no qualms about either my solution or your solution being implemented.
I would like to see the prohibited school have more effect on specialist wizards. Although foregoing spells from that school completely is too much, I would like spells from the banned schools to be treated as 1 level higher [or 2 levels higher or even 3 levels higher {though not 4 levels or more - that would be too much}] for specialist wizards (so for example, fireball would be a 4th [or 5th or 6th] level spell for a specialist with evocation as his prohibited school). What do you think?Let me just say that I really like this idea. The only issue is that an abjurer's fireball then has a higher save DC than an evoker's, which seems kind of weird.
Yes, when I initially thought of this idea I had the same concern. However, then I realized that this isn't as big an issue as I thought at first. In the rare cases that other casters want to sacrifice their higher level spell slots on lower level spells, they can cast heightened spells (though they would have to take a feat to do so under current rules - a feat I never see anyone take - perhaps all casters should be allowed to prepare their spells in higher level spell slots). The vast majority of the time, however, the penalty of having to cast the same spell from a higher level spell slot is nowhere near worth the benefits. Besides, one of the specialist abilities could be that spells from their chosen school have a higher save DC and that would get rid of the problem completely. After all, if we are imposing a penalty on the specialists over what they currently have in PFRPG, we can increase a little the benefits they receive from specialization too.
I agree completely.
Still, I'd rather see them cast lousy prohibited spells than be "universal for the day." It would have more flavor.
Indeed - that is one of my reasons for suggesting it. :)
|
Agh! More wizard-haters! :)
How about this instead: The school you take as your specialization you cast at 1 Caster Level higher than the rest of your spells (or 2 or 3)? Then the specialist ones are separated out as being better spells for the caster to choose.
It's the same effect you guys are after, but it doesn't totally bugger the wizard class, yet again, and totally pigeon-hole him into one school of magic to the exclusion of all others. Everyone's asking for *more* leeway for the other classes, and even when the classes have been given a pretty hefty boost find a reason to complain about single feats that have been changed. These radical changes to the power and utility of a wizard some are suggesting would make the class nearly unplayable as a specialist.
It probably won't matter... with the way Jason changed specialization I doubt many people won't play a Universalist anyway.
|
Agh! More wizard-haters! :)
How about this instead: The school you take as your specialization you cast at 1 Caster Level higher than the rest of your spells (or 2 or 3)? Then the specialist ones are separated out as being better spells for the caster to choose.
It's the same effect you guys are after, but it doesn't totally bugger the wizard class, yet again, and totally pigeon-hole him into one school of magic to the exclusion of all others. Everyone's asking for *more* leeway for the other classes, and even when the classes have been given a pretty hefty boost find a reason to complain about single feats that have been changed. These radical changes to the power and utility of a wizard some are suggesting would make the class nearly unplayable as a specialist.
It probably won't matter... with the way Jason changed specialization I doubt many people won't play a Universalist anyway.
I feel the same way, Marc.
In fact, since 3.5 came out - I've always ruled that a specialist wizard gets one prohibited school (instead of two), and his specialist school spells are cast at 1 level higher.
As written in Alpha, none of my players who playtested wizards played a specialist. All three played universalists. After playtesting through Alpha 3 for a few weeks w/ those rules, we decided to try playing Alpha3 + alot of my own alterations and variants to try them out - which included the above change to specialists. The wizard this time around is a conjurer, (no access to Abjuration) and he really likes it.
Robert
Agh! More wizard-haters! :)
I love wizards, I really do. It's specialists that bother me, and only then because they are so much weaker than their universalist counterparts, irrespective of edition.
How about this instead: The school you take as your specialization you cast at 1 Caster Level higher than the rest of your spells (or 2 or 3)? Then the specialist ones are separated out as being better spells for the caster to choose.
That doesn't strike me as worth the bonus spell they used to get, but I think you're on the right track. I might consider boosting that to a +2 cl, and penalizing all other schools by -1 cl. That way, the specialist shows he is not as good at most spells as a universalist, but he is great at his school.
It probably won't matter... with the way Jason changed specialization I doubt many people won't play a Universalist anyway.
That, to me, seems to be a problem, since the Arcane Schools take up much more space than the 3.5 version did, and the book seems to be running long in the page count. I don't like hearing about "wasted ink" type rules.
|
|
I might consider boosting that to a +2 cl, and penalizing all other schools by -1 cl. That way, the specialist shows he is not as good at most spells as a universalist, but he is great at his school.
I was actually being facetious. :) However, I am wholly against this "-1 CL on all other schools" idea. Maybe -1 CL on one or two opposed schools, instead of the absolute exclusion (from 3.5 - something I was fine with, btw). To cripple the VAST majority of the caster's known spells just to get a small gain in one school is just not right.
It probably won't matter... with the way Jason changed specialization I doubt many people won't play a Universalist anyway.That, to me, seems to be a problem, since the Arcane Schools take up much more space than the 3.5 version did, and the book seems to be running long in the page count. I don't like hearing about "wasted ink" type rules.
Yes indeed. I switched my 3.5 evoker into a Pathfinder Universalist. The evocation school powers are too sucky to bother with. Some other schools aren't terrible, but I don't think there's anything that is really much better than Universalist. But there are whole threads dedicated to that topic. ;) I am still considering for my group, when I come to DM (probably in late August), just dropping the entire School Powers section out and bringing back 3.5 specialization. There have been a lot of good ideas for adjusting the school powers section, but most have been met with absolutely no response from anyone who can actually affect such change. (the lack of feedback has spawned a couple of threads, too.)
|
|
Yes indeed. I switched my 3.5 evoker into a Pathfinder Universalist. The evocation school powers are too sucky to bother with. Some other schools aren't terrible, but I don't think there's anything that is really much better than Universalist. But there are whole threads dedicated to that topic. ;) I am still considering for my group, when I come to DM (probably in late August), just dropping the entire School Powers section out and bringing back 3.5 specialization. There have been a lot of good ideas for adjusting the school powers section, but most have been met with absolutely no response from anyone who can actually affect such change. (the lack of feedback has spawned a couple of threads, too.)
Marc, I woulndn't be surprised to see a lot of that changed a bit when the Beta comes out. The designers have already said that alot of the "drastic changes" to things was like casting a fishing line across a pond and dragging it back to see what bites they'd get. I'm guessing a lot will revert or have changes - once they were able to guage what changed illicited "bites" and which ones got spit back out.
Robert
|
I would like to see the prohibited school have more effect on specialist wizards. Although foregoing spells from that school completely is too much, I would like spells from the banned schools to be treated as 1 level higher [or 2 levels higher or even 3 levels higher {though not 4 levels or more - that would be too much}] for specialist wizards (so for example, fireball would be a 4th [or 5th or 6th] level spell for a specialist with evocation as his prohibited school). What do you think?Let me just say that I really like this idea. The only issue is that an abjurer's fireball then has a higher save DC than an evoker's, which seems kind of weird.
What if we translated this idea into some kind of metamagic feat? I don't have access to the Alpha rules right now, so I can't check up on how exactly this might work, but the feat would allow you to prepare a prohibited spell in a slot x levels higher than usual. This way, you would have the effect of the fireball spell being prepared one level higher than normal, but no increase in save DCs and the like.
Clearly, this would be more welcome if prohibited spells had a more severe penalty than they currently do (from what I remember of the Alpha, preparing a prohibited spells is not that big a deal). Also, perhaps the feat is limited to one particular school. Example: Versatile Specialist [evocation], or something along those lines.
I have alwys been a wizard-heavy player. usually as a specialist. Never once have I seen a problem with not being able to cast spells from a prohibited school. It is *prohibited*! As in, the individual caster has learned the arcane arts in a manner that excludes them from understanding the theories behind certain other types of magic.
I think what is often over looked is that the person playing the specialist is an actor protraying a ROLE, not a person looking for the best spread of abilities. (and by "role", I do NOT mean 'striker' ' or 'controller' or 'guy meant to get hit lots' or whatever else 4e is attempting to force into the "role" part of "role-playing").
A specialist losing spells (and the ability to use *scrolls or wands*) from the prohibited school simply has to be far better at using the remainder of the magic he does have. It's a challenge; that's the *point*. If you are simply looking for ways to boost your powers and cover all of your bases, you aren't being true to the *spirit* of being a specialist. Figure out what your specialist does well, figure out what he doesn't have time to or care to understand, and find creative ways to make up for the shortcomings; don't try to min/max your way into "a univeralist with some extra abilities."
I played a necromancer. I studied the undead. I had absolutely no reason to learn illusion or enchantment since the undead I studied were not affected by those. It caused me several problems later ... but I learned to overcome those obstacles as they arose. That's the point of gaming: to challenge yourself.
|
|
I have alwys been a wizard-heavy player. usually as a specialist. Never once have I seen a problem with not being able to cast spells from a prohibited school. It is *prohibited*! As in, the individual caster has learned the arcane arts in a manner that excludes them from understanding the theories behind certain other types of magic.
Excellent point indeed. Some of the issue the OP has in this instance - along with many of the supporters - is that as it stands with Alpha 3 - the specialist isn't "good" enough (meaning rewarded mechanically enough) in order to give up the two schools. With the removal of the "bonus" spell you used to be able to memorize - and replacing them with an arbitrarily assigned spell to cast - based on CHARISMA modifiers for DCs I might add, is not commensurate of taking a specialist - thereby making the universalist the wizard of choice across the board.
The ideas we have been throwing is a way to help swallow that pill or alleviate the disparity. Some ideas have been to lessen the penalty for the opposed school, and some have been to increase the benefit of the chosen school.
Considering as it stands you CAN already memorize a spell from an opposing school in Alpha rules (you just lose the school power for that day), coming up with ways that allow you to memorize opposite school spells but cast them in a deficient manner (penalty to caster level or cast them via a metamagic feat), isn't really adding anything back - its playing on the fact that it can already be memorized.
Robert
|
|
What if we translated this idea into some kind of metamagic feat? I don't have access to the Alpha rules right now, so I can't check up on how exactly this might work, but the feat would allow you to prepare a prohibited spell in a slot x levels higher than usual. This way, you would have the effect of the fireball spell being prepared one level higher than normal, but no increase in save DCs and the like.
Clearly, this would be more welcome if prohibited spells had a more severe penalty than they currently do (from what I remember of the Alpha, preparing a prohibited spells is not that big a deal). Also, perhaps the feat is limited to one particular school. Example: Versatile Specialist [evocation], or something along those lines.
you know - that's NOT a bad idea. Thats actually quite good. I would say a +2 level for such a spell.
Robert
What if we translated this idea into some kind of metamagic feat? I don't have access to the Alpha rules right now, so I can't check up on how exactly this might work, but the feat would allow you to prepare a prohibited spell in a slot x levels higher than usual. This way, you would have the effect of the fireball spell being prepared one level higher than normal, but no increase in save DCs and the like.
I really like this idea also, make the spells prohibited entirely but make a metamagic feat that allowed you to cast spells from a prohibited school as +1 level.
Feat: Cross School Learning
Benefit:
A wizard or other arcane caster who has schools of magic that are prohibited due to specialization may memorize spells from one of the schools of magic normally prohibited to him. A cross school spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell’s actual level.
As a secondary benefit arcane casters with this feat can utilize spell triggered magic items from prohibited schools by burning a first level spell from his spells memorized for the day.
Normal
You cannot cast spells which are in prohibited classes.
??? It's a feat plus it's also +1 level both of which make it more expensive to use. I feel making it a feat and +2 levels would be a bit harsh.
|
|
??? It's a feat plus it's also +1 level both of which make it more expensive to use. I feel making it a feat and +2 levels would be a bit harsh.
Well while we dont disagree that the idea is a good one, we definitely do disagree this aspect, as I not only see +2 level as fair, but I also feel that the sudden inclusion of being able to activate items and scrolls and such with the feat is too lucrative as well.
Robert
Well while we dont disagree that the idea is a good one, we definitely do disagree this aspect, as I not only see +2 level as fair, but I also feel that the sudden inclusion of being able to activate items and scrolls and such with the feat is too lucrative as well.
Hmm, well it wouldn't take much to sway me to your point of view :) Right now specialization in PRPG is much more permissive than what I proposed. I'll set aside the magic items for now as I'm not really attached to it.
Why do you think 2 levels? I'm not even sure people would take this feat with it at plus one level. At plus 2 levels I just don't see the point, I can't see wasting a feat because I would never use a 5th level slot to cast a third level prohibited spell. As it is with just +1 I think a lot of people would skip the feat.
Part of the issue I guess revolved around what sources are allowed. With a bunch of splat books or Spell Compendium the schools are not nearly as restrictive as they are in core and so the penalty for specialization is considerably lower than it was when the PHB was released.
|
|
Hmm, well it wouldn't take much to sway me to your point of view :) Right now specialization in PRPG is much more permissive than what I proposed. I'll set aside the magic items for now as I'm not really attached to it.
Why do you think 2 levels? I'm not even sure people would take this feat with it at plus one level. At plus 2 levels I just don't see the point, I can't see wasting a feat because I would never use a 5th level slot to cast a third level prohibited spell. As it is with just +1 I think a lot of people would skip the feat.
Well like someone said above - the point of "opposed" is that it is not suppose to be available at all. By introducing such a feat/capability (assuming we're moving away from the "if you memorize a barred spell you lose access to your specialty school power") that allows you access to something you previously coulnd't do at all - needs to be a steep price. MOST people who specialize in a school and give up others - usually only truly miss out on a few choice spells that they do wish they had.
For instance, the conjurer in my playtesting is opposed to Abjurations. They're 8th level - but I know that the player wishes he could cast "Shield" spell; theres' no other spell that gives as a Shield bonus - so its not like he can duplicate it any other way - AND he's dreaded the couple of times an adversary peppered him with Magic Missles - and wished he could defeat it with that simple spell. Casting it even as a 3rd level spell would be worth it to him in such cases, I'm sure. Getting rid of Illusion is a popular choice - but losing out on Mirror Image really sucks! Thats one spell that no matter what, most wish the still could cast it - and would be okay with losing all the others - so long as they had access to that one spell that could buy enough time for the wizard to get completely buffed up with his needed spells.
IMO - being able to cast that one or two spells that they used to never be able to cast is worth it for 2 level increase - they won't do it all the time - but when they do - its worth it. Plus it gives them the availability to creat a magical item that requires such a spell as a prereq for the item. So I think 2 levels is fair - more akin to empowering a spell, than just "silent spell."
Of course - that is just my opinion; that and a buck-fifty will get you a Jimboys Taco.
Robert
Hmmm... it's funny how different choices can flavor a decision. I would never give up those 2 schools for exactly the reason you state, they both contain spells I wouldn't want to be without. So I dropped Evokation and Enchantment and never looked back. I just don't see a single spell in those lists that I would pay 2 levels to use. There are one or two I might use if they were one level high like hideous laughter.
I am still on the fence but I definitely see your point of view on the 2 levels. Personally I would rather it go back to the previous complete ban than remain the trivial loss of specialty bonus it is now. Another possibility is "Memorize a prohibited spell lose all specialist powers and SLAs".
|
|
I really like this idea also, make the spells prohibited entirely but make a metamagic feat that allowed you to cast spells from a prohibited school as +1 level.
Feat: Cross School Learning
Benefit:
A wizard or other arcane caster who has schools of magic that are prohibited due to specialization may memorize spells from one of the schools of magic normally prohibited to him. A cross school spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell’s actual level.As a secondary benefit arcane casters with this feat can utilize spell triggered magic items from prohibited schools by burning a first level spell from his spells memorized for the day.
Normal
You cannot cast spells which are in prohibited classes.
I like the wording, the only qualm I have is about the second paragraph: I think giving relatively easy access to spell trigger items is a pretty powerful ability for a feat that already has a significant benefit to give. That's not too bad when you think of Wands, but when Staffs come around, it gets a little too good.
As for the power of the feat, I think +1 level would be sufficient. When you look at the other +2 spell level metamagic feats, this is not in the same league. For example, who would choose to use this when they can empower a spell they already have, or heighted a spell by two levels? If you remove the spell trigger bonus, I believe that +1 spell level is a fair price to pay to have access to spells you couldn't normally cast.
Personally I would rather it go back to the previous complete ban than remain the trivial loss of specialty bonus it is now. Another possibility is "Memorize a prohibited spell lose all specialist powers and SLAs".
Here I completely agree, the system should go back to a complete ban, ideally, but the losing of all SLAs is pretty fair as well. I feel that to specialize, a wizard should have to give up quite a bit, and right now, it doesn't feel that way.
Sounds like lots of you want access to banned spells AND the bonuses of your chosen school all at the same time...
Well you can, its called a house-rule. You don't need loads of people on these boards to say "yeah man, thats a great idea, we're all going to do that" for you to do whatever you want, you just need you and your players.
Having others agree with your ideas is always nice but you don't need permission to play the rules you feel work best.
I think its highly unlikely that we're all going to buy the final Pathfinder rules and stick to them 100%.
|
|
Sounds like lots of you want access to banned spells AND the bonuses of your chosen school all at the same time...
Well you can, its called a house-rule. You don't need loads of people on these boards to say "yeah man, thats a great idea, we're all going to do that" for you to do whatever you want, you just need you and your players.
Having others agree with your ideas is always nice but you don't need permission to play the rules you feel work best.
I think its highly unlikely that we're all going to buy the final Pathfinder rules and stick to them 100%.
So we should avoid discussing things that might be considered house-rules?
I am very well aware that I can do what I like in my own game, however, if I want to discuss the question at hand with other people on the boards, I don't see what the problem here is. Many points of view are better than a single, authoritative stance.
|
|
Well you can, its called a house-rule. You don't need loads of people on these boards to say "yeah man, thats a great idea, we're all going to do that" for you to do whatever you want, you just need you and your players.
Having others agree with your ideas is always nice but you don't need permission to play the rules you feel work best.
I think its highly unlikely that we're all going to buy the final Pathfinder rules and stick to them 100%.
True enough - but perhaps seeking feedback, suggestions, and opinions from others may be what one needs to help with validation, or help find other ways of doing the same thing - but slightly different and better - and ultimately a way to share those ideas with someone who hadn't thought of it yet. Plus it helps discuss possible balancing issues with the rules, and possible loop-holes or pitfalls within them that the OP hadn't thought of yet.
I don't think people are looking for "permission" just looking for ways to express their creativity and share it with others who may have similar needs/wants or views/opinions.
Robert
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a banned schools metamagic feat, as the rule for specialists. Nice one, Nameless! I think I'll try playtesting it and see how it works. Now for the LA... Robert, you mentioned +2 levels, I think? Off the cuff, that sounds reasonable. Anyone else going to give it a try?
You don't need loads of people on these boards to say "yeah man, thats a great idea, we're all going to do that" for you to do whatever you want, you just need you and your players.
True enough - but perhaps seeking feedback, suggestions, and opinions from others may be what one needs to help with validation, or help find other ways of doing the same thing - but slightly different and better - and ultimately a way to share those ideas with someone who hadn't thought of it yet. Plus it helps discuss possible balancing issues with the rules, and possible loop-holes or pitfalls within them that the OP hadn't thought of yet.
I don't think people are looking for "permission" just looking for ways to express their creativity and share it with others who may have similar needs/wants or views/opinions.
Robert
Actually, the purpose of these boards is exactly to offer suggestions that will end up changing the rules that end up in the final product of Pathfinder. That's why Paizo is hosting them: to get tested outside input and carefully considered and discussed rules systems. That's how you produce a strong product that you know a good number of your clients will like.
You don't need loads of people on these boards to say "yeah man, thats a great idea, we're all going to do that" for you to do whatever you want, you just need you and your players. Having others agree with your ideas is always nice but you don't need permission to play the rules you feel work best.
True enough, but testing with multiple groups helps catch problems that might not come up with a single group (I've suggested things in the past, and gotten responses along the lines of, "we tried that, too, but what happened is X, so you need to add Y," sparing me having to re-invent the wheel).
Also, as evidenced by this very thread, an idea will often come up that sounds like fun to try; I really like having a free "marketplace of ideas," in that regard.
Sounds like lots of you want access to banned spells AND the bonuses of your chosen school all at the same time...
Ummm. Stuart, are you familiar with the Alpha 3 rules? I think it's pretty safe to say that almost every proposal on this thread is more harsh than what the current state is.
I think its highly unlikely that we're all going to buy any RPG in the foreseeable future and stick to the rules 100%.
Corrected.
Quick and dirty edit of my take on Namelesses suggestion:
Feat: Cross School Learning
Benefit:
A wizard or other arcane caster who has schools of magic that are prohibited due to specialization may memorize spells from one of the schools of magic normally prohibited to him. A cross school spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell’s actual level.Normal
You cannot cast spells which are in prohibited classes.
All I did was nuke the spell trigger items. I'm still on the fence about one level or two right now. Keeping in mind of course that the Beta will hopefully make this exercise pointless.
|
|
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a banned schools metamagic feat, as the rule for specialists. Nice one, Nameless! I think I'll try playtesting it and see how it works. Now for the LA... Robert, you mentioned +2 levels, I think? Off the cuff, that sounds reasonable. Anyone else going to give it a try?
Thanks! :)
I'm kind of caught in the middle when it comes to the level adjustment for the spells. I see both sides of the argument, but really, in some ways, I feel it depends on the ruleset you're using.
According to Alpha 3 rules, you don't lose much for preparing a prohibited spell, just losing a minor ability, if I remember correctly. In this case, I think that giving a +1 spell level adjustment (as 0gre suggested) would be a fair decision. However, if you were to place this feat into standard 3.5 rules where prohibited spells are strictly prohibited, I would think a +2 adjustment (as Robert Brambley suggested) would be in order due to the relative power increase of the feat.
Either way, I'll probably be waiting until the Beta to start another playtest, but I will take a look at this when I do.
Look, I apologise to those who took my comments the wrong way. Many of these threads seem to end up with a few people almost insisting that their particular idea is the best solution to the given subject and it appears that in some cases those people have lost sight of the bigger picture. The point of my post was to say that if you don't like the fact that banned schools are exactly that >banned< then fine, just house rule an acceptable solution, which is what most people do anyway.
Personally I prefer the 3.5 Specialization rules and I don't particularly like the new school abilities and will probably stick with 3.5 on this subject. I've always liked the trade off between spells per day and versatility.
Jason has come up with a good solution. You can use the banned schools spells in exchange for losing, for that day, the abilities that you would normally have. That seems pretty generous to me. Wanting to expand on that so you don't lose those abilities -at whatever alternative cost-, for me, is heading into Cake, and Eat It territory. However, there is nothing wrong in discussing it here but IMO it's asking too much.
These boards are fantastic place for voicing opinions and shaping Pathfinder's final form, I do fully understand and appreciate that.
|
|
Personally, I love the new Wizard specialization rules. I NEVER would have considered a non-generalist in previous editions, whereas now I'm not sure I'd EVER play a generalist again. The prohibited schools being unaccessible is exactly why. The Wizard should be the guy that can cast any arcane spell he comes across, and prohibiting totally TWO schools of magic for an extra spell in ONE always seemed pointless to me. The other advantages aren't as appealing to me. I love the spell-like powers (although I'd make them INT-based) far more than I ever would have the bonus spell. So I really hope that the current state of the specialists continues, myself.
Look, I apologise to those who took my comments the wrong way. Many of these threads seem to end up with a few people almost insisting that their particular idea is the best solution to the given subject and it appears that in some cases those people have lost sight of the bigger picture. The point of my post was to say that if you don't like the fact that banned schools are exactly that >banned< then fine, just house rule an acceptable solution, which is what most people do anyway.
Personally I prefer the 3.5 Specialization rules and I don't particularly like the new school abilities and will probably stick with 3.5 on this subject. I've always liked the trade off between spells per day and versatility.
Jason has come up with a good solution. You can use the banned schools spells in exchange for losing, for that day, the abilities that you would normally have. That seems pretty generous to me. Wanting to expand on that so you don't lose those abilities -at whatever alternative cost-, for me, is heading into Cake, and Eat It territory. However, there is nothing wrong in discussing it here but IMO it's asking too much.
These boards are fantastic place for voicing opinions and shaping Pathfinder's final form, I do fully understand and appreciate that.
I'd have to agree with Stuart here. I apologize if I mistook your post; didn't mean to sound rude.
I agree that 3.5 specialization rules were fine. I have yet to run into a problem with them that couldn't be overcome with intelligent role-playing. That being said, I also like the new take on the specialist abilities in place of the 3.5 specialist bonuses. I think it could add a new twist to an old favorite.
I also have to agree with the *cake/eat it* reference. If you want extra ability in one area, you have to pay for it in another area. If you are unwilling to pay the penalty, you should not get the benefit ... plain and simple. If you are unwilling to give up spells from some schools, you shouldn't consider playing a specialist.
It would be less contentious if the schools were more balanced.
Shadow Evocation? At what point does my Evoker get to cast a Force Illusion?
If I go on with more examples, I'll be here all night. A bad choice (such as evocation) in 3e was very harshly penalized due to the perceived power of the class. The truth has born out in play, Evocation is a lame school.
I also have to agree with the *cake/eat it* reference. If you want extra ability in one area, you have to pay for it in another area. If you are unwilling to pay the penalty, you should not get the benefit ... plain and simple.
As the Alpha is written, you ALREADY eat your cake and have it, too. If I understand it, you lose only the 1st level ability if you prepare barred-school spells. That's so minor as to be laughable. Requiring that a specialist burn a feat in order to gain that ability, and even then forcing him to use higher-level slots without a corresponding increase in save DC, is a FAR harsher penalty than the Alpha document levies (although still not as harsh as the 3.5e total loss; but then again, the school abilities in Alpha are not nearly as good as a fee spell/spell level).
If I understand it, you lose only the 1st level ability if you prepare barred-school spells. <snippity-do> a FAR harsher penalty than the Alpha document levies (although still not as harsh as the 3.5e total loss; but then again, the school abilities in Alpha are not nearly as good as a fee spell/spell level).
Actually, in Alpha, you gain more "spells" in general than you would in 3.5. For instance, an 8th level Illusionist in Alpha would gain 6 extra spells (4 silent images, an invisibility, and a displacement) plus an at will (blinding ray as a standard act) and 2 useful abilities (invis field limited when needed and extra time on durations). An 8th level 3.5 Illusionist would get 4 extra spells (1 per spell level). Much less impressive than Alpha.
Personally, I still prefer the *total ban* of 3.5 with the abilities of Alpha 3. Although if the "take prohibiteds and lose something for the day" rule stays, the caster should lose ALL of the specialist bonuses and abilities for the day.
Actually, in Alpha, you gain more "spells" in general than you would in 3.5. For instance, an 8th level Illusionist in Alpha would gain 6 extra spells (4 silent images, an invisibility, and a displacement) plus an at will (blinding ray as a standard act) and 2 useful abilities (invis field limited when needed and extra time on durations). An 8th level 3.5 Illusionist would get 4 extra spells (1 per spell level). Much less impressive than Alpha.
The Alpha guy has more total uses per day; usually the multiple-use ones are fairly lame (blinding ray has its own problems, like, does it allow a save? The Alpha doesn't actually say one way or the other, IIRC). If not, that particular item may be broken. Overall, the 3.5 guy still has better save DCs and vastly more flexibility.
There's no reason you can't stick with 3.5; Paizo seems happy with the Pathfinder system. Nameless has proposed yet a third option, for use by people who aren't real happy with either of the other alternatives. All of them seem reasonably well-balanced to me; beyond that, it's strictly a matter of taste.
A big problem I’ve seen a lot of people come up with for the new schools is the SLA rules fussing with casting costs that are there to balance the spell (I’m looking at you Wish). There also is a lack of versatility that you would normally get with choosing your extra prep spell; while going universal is more appealing. There are also possible compatibility problems with stuff like Focused Specialist and the prestige classes that focus on how your specialization works. I don’t think that there was much of a problem with things the way they were, but for the sake of offering an alternate option (I really liked a few of the ideas above, just scroll up to see where credit is do):
Choose your specialization and prohibition schools as normal. At every level you may choose a spell from the school you choose to specialize in and add it to a list of “Favored Spells”. For every spell level you can cast, you may prepare an additional spell from your list of Favored Spells. These spells are cast at +2 CL and have a +2 save DC. You may learn spells from a prohibited school, by you get a -2 to Spellcraft checks involving those schools, and you must roll Use Magic Device checks whenever using an item involving them. Whenever you prepare a spell of a prohibited school you do not get to prepare your specialization spells, and all spells you cast for the rest of the day are at a -1 CL and -1 DC. All spells of a prohibited school take an additional -3/-3 penalty (total of a -4/-4).
I think this keeps the flavor of specializing, but also allows for more versatility and no compatibility issues spring to mind. It also allows free use of splat books. I think this gets around the rules funk for SLAs (which a lot of people probably wouldn’t remember or know about in the first place) while keeping versatility of choosing your Favored Spells.
I like the metamagic feat idea for prohibited spells, so that the DC of the higher level spells is not increased. I might even suggest giving this feat to specialists for free. As to the level penalty for the spells, that would depend on the amount and the nature of the extra benefits that specialists would receive for making their prohibited schools more restrictive then they are now, since the extra penalty for the prohibited schools is only half the equation - they would have to receive a compensating benefit in order not to be overshadowed by the generalist wizard.
On another note, this whole differential DC issue could be entirely avoided if Pathfinder RPG switched to a scaling spell DC system as suggested by several people on these boards.