√ Wizard arcane schools got revised for the Beta. The big change here is that wizards now choose the spells that they gain upon reaching 2nd, 4th, 6th, 10th, 12th, 14th, 16th, and 18th levels. These spells must be from their school and are set once selected. It should be noted again that these spells now act as bonus spells, not spell-like abilities. This change does not affect the supernatural abilities granted by arcane schools.
Title says it all. Though the bonus spells will clearly work at least slightly different from core. In core specialist bonus spells are at 2nd, 4th... (8th is omitted for a Su). My reading is that the spells are class features not part of the normal spell progression. That way PrCs don't gain them. That's a little (overdue) nerfage for the Wizard PrCs. This also eliminates all the concerns about wish and some other breakage due to SLAs, and I'm guessing crappy SLA save DCs.
Overall? A bit more flexible, many things broken are fixed, and a little more like the previous state.
Where did you find this out at? Link?
Where did you find this out at? Link?
Paizo blog
Where did you find this out at? Link?
I could have sworn I linked this or at least said it was in the blog. Stupid me. Yes it was in the blog - Link.
So, does that mean the Universalist wizards will be able to pick any spell, or that they won't get any bonus spells. I'm hoping for the later....
So, does that mean the Universalist wizards will be able to pick any spell, or that they won't get any bonus spells. I'm hoping for the later....
That answer will have to wait. I'm hoping we go back to specialists sacrifice 2 schools (and actually sacrifice them, without the option of losing one small power and getting them back) and universalists just having the core wizard powers. Wuzards are cool enough without needing specialist powers for a specialty they don't have.
|
Dennis da Ogre, the powers are what keeps Wizards from burning through is spells and forcing the party to rest often. I for one don't want that. It's bad enough that we have to stop to "rest" because the sorcerer runs out of spells before the cleric and pre-beta wizards, getting rid of universal school abilities means you don't need universal at all.. everyone specializes since the benefit out weights the sacrifice.
Dennis da Ogre, the powers are what keeps Wizards from burning through is spells and forcing the party to rest often. I for one don't want that. It's bad enough that we have to stop to "rest" because the sorcerer runs out of spells before the cleric and pre-beta wizards, getting rid of universal school abilities means you don't need universal at all.. everyone specializes since the benefit out weights the sacrifice.
I guess it depends on the level. I wouldn't mind the universalist getting the first level at will attack to keep them running for levels 1-5 or so. Maybe some other powers that are significantly weaker than the specialists. Beyond that though giving the Universalist extra powers without any sacrifice is just power bloat. Based on the Alphas I think Jason feels as you do. Cest La Vie.
If you want to cast spells all day long be a sorcerer. If you want the class that always has the most powerful spells take wizard. Even so, I wouldn't mind a power where wizards gave up a higher level spell to get some at will abilities all day long, similar to the "reserve feats" from Complete Mage.
Very few people feel the wizard is the 80 lbs weakling that needs help in D&D.
So, does that mean the Universalist wizards will be able to pick any spell, or that they won't get any bonus spells. I'm hoping for the later....
I would prefer to see the opposite. Universalist wizards getting any spell and not the most powerful special abilities.
Here I always thought that it was planning and prudence which kept wizards and other spellcasters from burning through their spells too fast.
Any place with any kind of organization behind it - including simple tribes of orcs - which has come under an attack which was quickly broken off, should bring in assistance, make preparations to deal with any abilities their attackers were observed using, set up ambushes, send out their own trackers to locate the group that attacked them and attack them, get their valuables and most vulnerable members out of the way, and otherwise respond as appropriate to their level of intelligence. Giving up the advantage of surprise and letting the opposition get organized is likely to be fatal to the entire party: if whoever you’re attacking was strong enough to give you serious trouble (enough to, say, “burn through your spells”) during a surprise attack they’re quite possibly going to be strong enough to kill you if you fall back and let them get organized - unless you give up on the attack entirely and go elsewhere (not uncommon).
Unoccupied places are generally so dangerous or environmentally hostile that no one wants to occupy them - which means that settling down to rest in or near them is likely to be equally problematic.
Running out of healing? Either you’ve gotten really unlucky, you’re near the end of your mission, you’re up against opposition which is too powerful for you (and it’s time to get out and stay gone), or you’re behaving recklessly rather than trying to avoid injury. The fact that there’s a hospital nearby doesn’t mean that I should need it every time I work with the power tools.
Over the decades, the “15-minute adventuring day” has never been a problem.
I wouldn't say never been a problem but it rarely is for me. I guess the idea that a wizard should be played intelligently has gone by the wayside. The new wizard is an overglorified blaster. No wonder the warlock is so popular.
Here is a thought. Rather than make the wizard more like the warlock why not just play a warlock?
|
My biggest concern is that they are going to nerf the wizard so much that they will be the "red headed step child" of PFRPG. If they take away all the bonus spells that is ok with me so long as they get to keep the cool supernatural abilities in the alpha as well as the at will first level ability so that they have something to do if they don't want to waste their spells. The 8th leve Metamagic Mastery ability is wicked sweet and even the 20th level ability that boosts save DC's and caster checks is awesome.
One final thought, is if they have taken all the Wizards bonus spells back in the beta, then I hope they increase the power of the supernatural abilities back to where they were in the alpha 1. Specifically, I would like to see Metamagic Mastery go back to one use per level per day instead of 1 use per 2 levels per day. I'd also like to see the first level supernatural ability come back.
Just my takes on things, but I hope they haven't made the Universalist Wizard the weakest of the arcane classes. In 3.5, there wasn't any incentive to play a universalist at all because Specialists were better in virtually every respect. I don't want to see that happen in the Beta.
well from the wording there keeping the 1st,8th and 20th powers.
My biggest concern is that they are going to nerf the wizard so much that they will be the "red headed step child" of PFRPG.
...
Just my takes on things, but I hope they haven't made the Universalist Wizard the weakest of the arcane classes. In 3.5, there wasn't any incentive to play a universalist at all because Specialists were better in virtually every respect. I don't want to see that happen in the Beta.
I don't think this is going to be a problem. Core wizard will always be the guy with the most powerful spells in the game.
In core if Jason really wanted to balance the specialist/ generalist field he should change the wording under the dropped schools to "A wizard can never give up divination or enchantment to fulfill this requirement." If casters couldn't give up enchantment suddenly it's a lot tougher to find 2 schools to drop, the other schools are a lot tougher to drop.
Splat books and PrCs are another issue and seriously change the balance between Specialists and generalists. In core there was at least a little sacrifice when you took specialist. With splatbooks the new spells mean the specialists really don't have to give up anything. Once you were able to drop evocation and still be a decent blaster then it was no longer a tough choice.
My reading of the beta preview seems to be that the wizard gets to choose which spell fills the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 10th, et al slots, but once you choose, it's permanent. So instead of having a bunch of Summon Monster I (which seemed to be a major contention for some), you could have a bunch of Mage Armors. Of course, once you turned 2nd level and made that decision, there would be no going back.
I think that works great for me. You could pick the exact same stuff in Alpha or you could choose whatever else fits at that spell level for what you wanna do.
I'm still all for completely losing the prohibiteds though. Bringing back the planning wizard rather than pushing the blaster wizard means the player has to find ways to compensate for areas they are lacking. Truly prohibited (as in "can not use") espouses this mindset. If you choose to play a wizard, and in particular a specialist, you have to be doing it for more than the "I like blowing stuff up" reasons. Let's get back to the well-planned thinking wizard.
I'm still all for completely losing the prohibiteds though.
This is a double negative and confusing... I think I agree with you but I'm not sure.
|
|
I'm still all for completely losing the prohibiteds though.This is a double negative and confusing... I think I agree with you but I'm not sure.
My experience in playing, since the notion was introduced in 2nd Edition, was that the concept of prohibited schools was too much for most people to take. The number of times I've played a specialist wizard, whether in a pen and paper game, or a D&D computer rpg, could probably be counted on one hand. In many cases, the benefits just did not outweigh the versatility of a mage with access to all schools. The advent of sorcerers simply made the distinction even greater, as one of the comparative advantages a wizard had was that very flexibility in spell choice.
To that end, I found that I'm often more inclined to do what my last 3.x mage character did, when roleplay dictated a degree of specialization - simply take feats that gave advantages to a particular school, as a generalist, rather than undertake the disadvantage of a prohibited school. As such, I'm a definite believer that removing prohibited schools was a good idea. The concept is more one that I feel might fit with a prestige class (like the Red Wizards of FR - super-specialists, really), rather than a base class.
I'm still all for completely losing the prohibiteds though.This is a double negative and confusing... I think I agree with you but I'm not sure.
Sorry, let me clarify that.
I believe that when a specialist names 2 prohibited schools they should actually be prohibited. They should not be allowed to cast spells from those schools. to do otherwise is just a powergaming tactic to avoid having to offset the gains for being a specialist. You shouldn't be able to get something for nothing. The trick is to figure out how to compensate for the loss, either through creative use of other spells or allying yourself with compatriots who can balance out the specialist.
Being able to cast the prohibited school spells if you give up a simple ability is a cop-out. If you're unwilling to completely lose/sacrifice a couple of schools, you shouldn't be a specialist.
I don't necessarily want SLA's to "make spells last longer". Your spells last as long as you choose to conserve them.
What I want is something to do that isn't a crossbow, during rounds when a spell would be wasted.
That means I want something moderately useful, but not so much that I prefer it Over a spell. I just want something to do, for when I dun wanna cast a spell.
Iconic wizards through the ages have always had things to do aside from casting spells. Even Raistlin carried a dagger. Now, I'm not asking to be a sword swinging wizard (hallo Gandalf), but I would like to have an option besides "do nothing, or cast a spell".
"reserve feats" allow for that in 3.5 and I used them quite liberally. The SLA's and such in Paizo allow for it now. I'm not sure I want to see those go away.
-S
What I want is something to do that isn't a crossbow, during rounds when a spell would be wasted.
It's not entirely clear from the text but I think the first level specialist ability is staying. While in theory I think it's silly, in game play I think it works well.
Iconic wizards through the ages have always had things to do aside from casting spells. Even Raistlin carried a dagger. Now, I'm not asking to be a sword swinging wizard (hallo Gandalf), but I would like to have an option besides "do nothing, or cast a spell".
Hmmm, this is funny because in most of the fiction I've read wizards generally do mundane things, smack dudes with their staff, etc then only use magic when it's most needed and to maximum effect.
Don't get me wrong, I am more or less with you on the first level SLA for mechanical reasons (although the same effect could be accomplished by giving the wizard a decent base attack bonus), it's just not what I see in fantasy fiction most of the time.
I wish I'd kept track of how many kills my halfling has "stolen" so far with his dagger.
In the current campaign, if I don't think it's worth casting a spell, my lil halfling wizard whips out his dagger and goes to town.
He's killed at -least- 4 monsters this way. (and by kill I mean killing blow, not 100% hp total with his dagger), and I think it may be closer to 8 or 10, i just never kept track
But while I enjoy that and the comedy of it, the dice will fall one day and there'll be one less halfling in the party to show for it.
I would really love a way to stay "in combat" without resorting to melee. (without it being obscenely over powered too, of course)
-S
I also hate how spell focus works adding just a +1 DC what about schools that dont have a lot of saving throws involved. I always thought School focus should give +1 DC and/or +1 Caster Level with choosen school.
I would have to agree, and I think you have an excellent solution here. I may adopt this ... I might just make it either/or rather than and/or. I'va always disliked spell DCs in 3.x anyway; they become a bit too easy at higher levels, making those worries over high level casters being overpowered less relevant to me ... but that's just me.
I always wondered why the didnt just go the route of Caster Level adjustments.
The whole idea behind specialization is that it is supposed to be an even trade. If you just make the caster -1 caster level in his opposed schools then the 'cost' is nowhere near as severe as outright prohibiting the schools and thus any benefits for specialization should be proportionally less.
I also hate how spell focus works adding just a +1 DC what about schools that dont have a lot of saving throws involved. I always thought School focus should give +1 DC and/or +1 Caster Level with choosen school.
There are no feats that simply advance caster level and I'm of the mindset that it should stay that way. I wouldn't mind +1 DC or increase the duration of a spell as if the caster were one level higher though.
|
|
I wish I'd kept track of how many kills my halfling has "stolen" so far with his dagger.
In the current campaign, if I don't think it's worth casting a spell, my lil halfling wizard whips out his dagger and goes to town.
He's killed at -least- 4 monsters this way. (and by kill I mean killing blow, not 100% hp total with his dagger), and I think it may be closer to 8 or 10, i just never kept track
In 2nd edition, my elven wizard used flung daggers all the time, since you could throw two / round. Way more effective than trying to line up a Burning Hands in that game. :)
In 2nd edition, my elven wizard used flung daggers all the time, since you could throw two / round. Way more effective than trying to line up a Burning Hands in that game. :)I wish I'd kept track of how many kills my halfling has "stolen" so far with his dagger.
In the current campaign, if I don't think it's worth casting a spell, my lil halfling wizard whips out his dagger and goes to town.
He's killed at -least- 4 monsters this way. (and by kill I mean killing blow, not 100% hp total with his dagger), and I think it may be closer to 8 or 10, i just never kept track
I think part of the problem is serious AC and hit point creep. Fighters under version 3 are much more effective so AC and hit points of monsters has crept up as a result. So under 3/3.5 the wizards BAB progression plus lack of fighter feats to boost accuracy and damage is a guarantee of complete ineffectiveness as a martial character. In AD&D and 2e Armor classes were more or less capped at -10. The 2 dagger thing also helped. As players got to higher levels under AD&D/2e the magic user started sucking more relatively but they had enough spells by then that it didn't much matter.
Incidentally I think the dagger was the #1 weapon choice for wizards at first level because it was the only melee+ranged weapon available to them.
|
|
Incidentally I think the dagger was the #1 weapon choice for wizards at first level because it was the only melee+ranged weapon available to them.
Exactly so. When you've only got one weapon proficiency to choose, and your 600% more likely to find a magic dagger than a magic quarterstaff, and 12000% more likely to find a magic dagger than a magic sling, it's dagger all the way, bay-bee!
|
|
Feats increasing caster level for specific schools/descriptors is already out there, no reason it can't be applied to Specialists where it would make the most sense.
It can get pretty wonky when the school/descriptor enhancing feats start stacking, as with some mage who takes a few Spell Focus (evocation) style feats and stacks them with feats the specifically enhance fire spells, allowing him to double-up on DC and caster level increases. It's expensive, and an 'all your eggs in one basket case' that leads to teary accusations when the DM whips out the fire resistant / immune targets, but still, and interesting specialization choice for a pyromancer-type wizard.
Or somebody who watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail and realized that Tim the Enchanter was *exactly* the sort of wizard he wanted to play. :)
Feats increasing caster level for specific schools/descriptors is already out there, no reason it can't be applied to Specialists where it would make the most sense.
I don't have access to much non-core material so I wouldn't knwo about that stuff. In general I don't take the presence of something in splat books as an indication that it's balanced though.
Regardless, are you talking about eliminating the current specialization setup and replacing it with a simple +1 CL/ -1CL? Or are you talking about using the current setup (or the Alpha 3 setup) with -1CL instead of prohibited schools?
Prohibited schools were the only reason specialists were at all balanced so anything that would reduce the specialization penalty would have to significantly reduce the benefits from specialization.
Incidentally I think the dagger was the #1 weapon choice for wizards at first level because it was the only melee+ranged weapon available to them.
Pfft. Darts rule, daggers drool! (3/round instead of 2/round)
Incidentally I think the dagger was the #1 weapon choice for wizards at first level because it was the only melee+ranged weapon available to them.Pfft. Darts rule, daggers drool! (3/round instead of 2/round)
I forgot about those... except you couldn't use them in melee and from what I remember wizards only had one weapon at first level. It was a tough choice but the melee option generally did it for me.
Pfft. Darts rule, daggers drool! (3/round instead of 2/round)I forgot about those... except you couldn't use them in melee and from what I remember wizards only had one weapon at first level. It was a tough choice but the melee option generally did it for me.
Why couldn't you use darts at ultra-close (i.e. melee) range? Attacks of opportunity weren't even born yet...
I don't recall, maybe we were just daft about that.
Meh. Same for Shuriken. Daggers are just more useful. Sometimes there's something that needs cuttin.'
Yeah, but most non-monster cuttin' don't need no proficiency. :-)
But how many magic darts did you stumble across? I wouldn't say magic daggers were coming out the ears but there were a few. Never saw a magic dart in a pre-made adventure.
*If there had been an internet back in those days I can see this would have been a hotly debated topic on the character optimization boards.*
|
But how many magic darts did you stumble across? I wouldn't say magic daggers were coming out the ears but there were a few. Never saw a magic dart in a pre-made adventure.
*If there had been an internet back in those days I can see this would have been a hotly debated topic on the character optimization boards.*
Indeed. The greater debate, though, would not be darts vs daggers, it would be darts vs..... katana!
Indeed. The greater debate, though, would not be darts vs daggers, it would be darts vs..... katana!
Nah, the whole anime/ manga/ japanese animation love hadn't started back then. The big cultural influence the Japanese had on us back then was giant robots.
Yes. My suggestion was meant to apply Caster level adjustments in place of extra spells and prohibited schools. Basically the benefit of specialization would be +1 Caster Level with that school and -1 Caster level with opposed schools. You could even extend that to saying that the -1 prevents the wizard from casting opposed spells at 1st level.
I do like this idea actually. It makes for less differentiated specialists but overall it's a good thought.
Probably the greater problem with specialization is that the schools are totally unbalanced with some schools having lots of powerful spells (transmutation, conjuration) and some being nearly worthless (enchantment). Overall, for specialization to work and be 'balanced' the schools need to be at least roughly in balance. Splat books only made this issue worse.