My understanding of 3.5 wizards was that Specialists traded entire schools of magic for bonus spells. Univeralists had all schools, but no bonus spells.
In Pathfinder RPG Beta, it appears that Specialists lose a minor power for preparing certain schools. All Wizards, including Universalists, receive bonus spells (or their PF equivalent).
Prohibited schools are less of a sacrifice in PF, but the Universalist went from an obvious choice to an even more obvious choice.
The house rule used in my campaigns is that Specialist wizards may prepare prohibited (or "weak") school spells in spell slots one level higher than the spell's actual level. This is a restriction on par with the minor annoyance in the Beta rules (loss of one power), maybe even a little more severe since it actually keeps the wizard running behind his level in weak schools; not the case with the Beta.
To continue, under this house rule, universalists receive no school powers or Spell Like abilities. They sacrifice nothing and so gain nothing.
HotA and the universalist school powers are just too good to get for free, when other casters must make sacrifices.
|
I have no problem with universalists getting powers, but I agree that they should definitely not have bonus spells, especially since they are allowed to pick them from any school. Can you say "specialists suck in comparison?" Everyone I talk to and ask about who plays wizards regularly say they will only ever play universalists.
And coincidentally in my campaign the player who played the knight was going to take leadership and what did he have as his cohort, a universalist wizard.
A new character came into our game, what is it? A universalist wizard.
I'm starting to detect a theme.
|
That's a lot of utility. And the powers are pretty strong for a universalist compared to say an evoker. I would personally like to see either non-universalists get the feat for school focus in addition to their first level power and or a blanket plus one DC and -2 dc for their specialist school and prohibited school.
|
In 3.5, the tradeoff for specializing was the extra spell slot at each level per day. 3.5 wizards were, in fact, balanced on the assumption that they would be specialists - the decision to be a universalist was supposed to be one that weakened you, because you were a slot down at every spell level. If you could be a 1st level wizard with sleep and grease, or sleep, grease and mage armor prepped, which would you rather go for?
Now, in a sense, everyone's a universalist and a specialist together. In particular because a wizard's potency is in his ability to adapt (with a day's warning) to whatever the world plans to throw at him, the idea that you have schools you prolly-shouldn't-maybe-mostly-never prep from is less of an issue. If it's that important to you, you can have the spell you need. You just have to give up your physical stat bump or save boost or whatever, and frankly, it ain't that great a sacrifice. Now the universalist's special abilities might well need some revisiting, but the idea that "prohibited schools" somehow make the specialist weaker really doesn't hold much water.
the idea that "prohibited schools" somehow make the specialist weaker really doesn't hold much water.
This is why I prefer a "Weak School" to a prohibited one. Purists may disagree, but to my mind a specialist is a wizard who excels in one school at the cost of performance in others. Paying one level higher for a few schools in order to obtain special school abilities seems about right to me.
In 3.5, it was a hefty all-or-nothing penalty that wasn't worth it. In Pathfinder Beta it is an almost unnoticeable penalty that STILL isn't worth it since universalists get the same benefits only better.
Weak Schools come up in roleplay a little more often, and cumulatively they are more of a penalty than the beta version has. A specialist will not ever obtain the highest level of spells in a weak school, and is learning crucial weak school spells two levels behind the CR standard. In the Beta, when specialist prepare weak spells, they are at full strength and can be highest available level, which just doesn't wash with me thematically.
Much as I enjoy having extra spell slots as a Universalist I agree that it's a bit overpowered. I thought that the balance between the 3.5 Generalist and a 3.5 Specialist was actually quite well done. 3.P should definitely ditch the extra spell slots for Universalists.
I love the Universalist school powers and think that the Universalist needs some school powers. Whether or not they should be kept 'as is' is another story. The Universalist capstone is quite a doozy. Don't get me wrong, as a player who loves wizards already, I'd love +2 to DCs and +4 to overcome SR, but should I really be better than a specialist at casting the same spells.
|
|
Interesting thoughts everyone. Instead of killing the extra spells for universalists, I think I am more interested in weakening their other powers a bit to keep them in line for their ultimate flexibility.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Well metamagic mastery is way to powerful, it's enough to just be able to alter a spell spontaneously without casting time. the fact that it doesn't alter the spell level though, maximized meteor swarms? no thank you heck it's 8th level, you can use it the same level you gain it to silent your highest level spells 4 times per day. You can apply metamagic feats to your highest level spells, the feats were design specifically so that you couldn't do that. That was how they were balanced. At the very least you need to include the rule that you can't use this to alter a spell that you wouldn't have been able to cast if you had been preparing it normally. There's a reason that the swift version of metamagic all took a feat to do it once a day. now you just go universalist and take the normal metamagics while the enchanters with their horrible dazing touch, and their meh okay aura of despair are looking at you with jelousy because they have a 1 per day that took them a feat to get.
Interesting thoughts everyone. Instead of killing the extra spells for universalists, I think I am more interested in weakening their other powers a bit to keep them in line for their ultimate flexibility.
Thoughts?
At my table, Specialization has a sacrifice and a payoff, and Universalism has neither.
If univeralists have bonus abilities, then there should be a totally separate set of sacrifices and payoffs for specialists. Recall that the universalist's increased selection of extra spells is probably a bigger allure than any of the school powers.
For nerfed Universalist powers, I recommend scrapping the Hand of the Apprentice and Master of All Schools. HotA is just too complicated for every wizard to be casting. Some bonus to Spellcraft for identifying spell effects seems like an iconic low-power Universal ability.
If the Beta's wizard changes were meant to give the Specialists more appeal, I am sad to report that they seem to have had the opposite effect.
Interesting thoughts everyone. Instead of killing the extra spells for universalists, I think I am more interested in weakening their other powers a bit to keep them in line for their ultimate flexibility.
I would be ok with this but the specialist powers should be significantly more powerful since they are making a significant sacrifice. I lean more towards seriously nerfed generalist powers.
I do like the idea of the meta magic but IMO it should be a bit more limited. Maybe limit the max combined spell level to the highest level spell the wizard can cast. So a 10th level wizard could cast a 4th level spell +1 level or a 4rd level +2 levels of metamagic but wouldn't be able to add metamagic to 5th level spells.
Well metamagic mastery is way to powerful, it's enough to just be able to alter a spell spontaneously without casting time. the fact that it doesn't alter the spell level though, maximized meteor swarms? no thank you heck it's 8th level, you can use it the same level you gain it to silent your highest level spells 4 times per day. You can apply metamagic feats to your highest level spells, the feats were design specifically so that you couldn't do that. That was how they were balanced. At the very least you need to include the rule that you can't use this to alter a spell that you wouldn't have been able to cast if you had been preparing it normally. There's a reason that the swift version of metamagic all took a feat to do it once a day. now you just go universalist and take the normal metamagics while the enchanters with their horrible dazing touch, and their meh okay aura of despair are looking at you with jelousy because they have a 1 per day that took them a feat to get.Interesting thoughts everyone. Instead of killing the extra spells for universalists, I think I am more interested in weakening their other powers a bit to keep them in line for their ultimate flexibility.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I don't particularly care for the HoTA flavorwise and also don't know if it should add your Int mod to dam. I don't think it's particularly off balance-wise, but what justification do we have for the extra damage.
I really love the idea that a Universalist is a Specialist in Metamagic, but definitely agree that metamagic mastery is too powerful. A line should be added to state that you must still be capable of casting a spell of that level.
Mastery of All Schools needs to be toned down or removed in favor of something else. If we gave each specialist a similar bonus in their school (what to do for Abjuration? possibly bonus on +2/+4 dispel checks and +4 to overcome SR) and changed the Universalist's to +1 DC and +2 to overcome SR, would that work?
Along the lines of making the Universalist a Specialist when it comes to metamagic, how about making the Metamagic Mastery ability the capstone (either the original or the toned down version). This would require us to come up with a new 8th level ability, but I'm sure we can come up with something.
Have a Specialist give up only ONE school of magic. That should help out the specialist. I plan on houseruling that a specialist looses one school, but make it set in stone. Sort of like a school of opposition sort of stuff. Just MHO btw.
|
|
Along the lines of making the Universalist a Specialist when it comes to metamagic, how about making the Metamagic Mastery ability the capstone (either the original or the toned down version). This would require us to come up with a new 8th level ability, but I'm sure we can come up with something.
Actually this is an even better idea, metamagic mastery makes sense as a capstone power for a universalist.
I also agree that the capstone power is completely non-sensical from a flavor perspective, suddenly the universalist is better at getting conjurations spells off than the conjurer?
Edit: Removed... see comments below
Interesting thoughts everyone. Instead of killing the extra spells for universalists, I think I am more interested in weakening their other powers a bit to keep them in line for their ultimate flexibility.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
They need to give up the powers or the spells's weaking them is not enough
They need to give up the powers or the spells's weaking them is not enoughInteresting thoughts everyone. Instead of killing the extra spells for universalists, I think I am more interested in weakening their other powers a bit to keep them in line for their ultimate flexibility.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I think the Universalist needs to be altered significantly to bring them in line with Specialists. I do like the 8th level power because metamagic is a bit hard for wizards to work with but if the bonus spells aren't going then it's probably best if they didn't get that as their 8th level power or perhaps didn't get any specialist powers at all as Seeker suggests. (I know this is different from what I said above)
In a similar light it should be more difficult for specialists to memorize and cast spells in their banned schools. They should similarly have to give up their bonus spells or powers. This puts wizards more or less in line with their 3.5 counterparts.
I agree that if the Universalist's Bonus Spell is retained,
(and I see it's logic, having one less spell @ your max level sucks)
the Powers should be majorly toned down. IMHO, they should suffice as "Utility".
(the Metamagic powers were over the top. I didn't calculate numbers, but a Universalist could likely out-do an Evoker at Evocations)
Likewise, I think the the Specialist's School Restrictions should be more strongly enforced:
For one, I don't think they should be able to "activate" Banned Schools on a daily basis just by giving up School Powers.
(which also runs into the problem of 'persistent' School Powers, like Undead Companions Jason suggested for the Necro.)
I also think returning to *2* Banned Schools is valid. You notice it more.
|
The house rule used in my campaigns is that Specialist wizards may prepare prohibited (or "weak") school spells in spell slots one level higher than the spell's actual level. This is a restriction on par with the minor annoyance in the Beta rules (loss of one power), maybe even a little more severe since it actually keeps the wizard running behind his level in weak schools; not the case with the Beta.
There is a precedent in older editions, for having a penalty across the board.
In 2E, the specialist gained the extra spell per spell level, and had +15% to learn new specialised spells, and forced a -1 save penalty for his favoured school (like the equivalent of Spell Focus).
However, he not only gave up all access to banned schools (and it was harder to obtain magic items to fill the gap), but he suffered a penalty to all their non-specialised spells; a penalty of -15% on the chance to learn new spells, and enemies gained a +1 save bonus (like having the opposite of Spell Focus, in 5/6 schools).
Ouch.
Oh, yeah, and each specialism had stat pre-requisites, and your opposition schools were fixed. So there.
Tributary discussion dedicated to whether or not Prohibited School make sense. (3.5 and Beta versions)
I posted this elsewhere, but I'll re-post it here:
Specialist Wizards used to be able to memorize extra spells because they made a huge sacrifice - they designated a few schools of magic as their "opposition schools" and were barred from casting spells from those schools forevermore. They were forced to sacrifice some of the Wizard's versatility in exchange for a little more firepower.
But now Specialist Wizards can cast spells from their Opposition Schools pretty easily. All they have to do is give up their "Specialist Bonus" for a day and they can cast spells from their Opposition Schools as well as any other Wizard. They don't even lose most of their special abilities - they just lose their Specialist Bonus. So you can have a Transmuter Specialist that can still make Telekinetic Attacks, Change Shape, and have a Fluid Form despite the fact that every spell that they have memorized belongs to one of their Opposition Schools.
To further muddy the situation, Specialist Wizards aren't even getting extra spells now - they are gaining spell-like abilities that they can select from the Wizard spell list. Unfortunately, the power of these abilities are tied to the Charisma of the Wizard, which means that in most cases, their DCs for these abilities are going to be pretty poor.
All in all, this new system seems like a lackluster attempt to let Specialist Wizards have their cake and eat it too.
My suggestion: Bring back the Specialist rules from the 3.5 SRD. Have them select two forbidden Opposition Schools and let them get to cast an extra spell per level. Or better yet, sit down and figure out what Opposition Schools best offset the strengths of a particular Specialist School, much like they did in D&D 3.0 and 2nd Edition AD&D.
Generalist Wizards shouldn't get bonus spells or bonus spell-like abilities at all. They aren't being forced to give anything up for these bonus spells. So why do they get them? You want to give all Wizards special abilities as they level? That's fine. But the extra spells for Generalist Wizards have got to go.
|
|
Interesting thoughts everyone. Instead of killing the extra spells for universalists, I think I am more interested in weakening their other powers a bit to keep them in line for their ultimate flexibility.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
For the Unviversalist...
Instead of extra spells per day, how bout extra spells known. Being a universalist, they would study a great many things so having extra spells in ones spell book would make sense for the universalist instead of having extra spells per day. A slight weakening of their powers is a good idea.As for those lovely specialists...
Give them a +1 caster level on their chosen spells, a +1 to the DC of these magics and a +2 on spellcraft checks regarding their chosen school (to learn/identify/etc.).
Also, after all these years, I do think its time for the specialist to now only have one prohibited school. I believe someone above referred to it as a school of opposition!
(In second edition I remember seeing a chart for this)
Of coarse with this option, that prohibited school should be completely cut off to the specialist.
or...
Now if the current choice of having 2 prohibited schools remains, then again I'll agree (as I know this has been mentioned before...) that those prohibited spells (if chosen) should be at -2 caster level, to show the sacrifice made in order to specialize.
Being one whose chosen class is Wizards, these are my 2 platinum pieces on the matter!
Keep up the excellent work!
My suggestion: Bring back the Specialist rules from the 3.5 SRD. Have them select two forbidden Opposition Schools and let them get to cast an extra spell per level. Or better yet, sit down and figure out what Opposition Schools best offset the strengths of a particular Specialist School, much like they did in D&D 3.0 and 2nd Edition AD&D.
I may disagree with much of your post, but I am in favor of balancing the school 1 to 1. This is yet another instance of the evoker becoming the whipping boy of 3e, and it has to stop.
The Diagram of Oppositional Schools was awesome and had a very arcane flavor to it. I would like to see it come back, and to see each school worth sacrificing ONLY ONE other school. If this means more carefully balancing the schools of magic against each other (*grumble*transmutation*grumble*) then why not do THAT? It needs doing anyway.
|
|
For evokers, I'm hoping that SR for certain blasting spells (those subject to element resistance) will go, but that's by-the-bye.
Selfishly, if there's going to be a ruling on changes to the Universalist that weaken it, I'd like it to happen soon (as I have a player about to play a wizard)...
For myself, I'd weaken the level 8 Universalist ability somehow -- less uses per day, for example -- and maybe scale back the capstone. Given that the specialists aren't themselves giving up that much, it seems to me that they aren't that unattractive as options compared to a Universalist that's weakened somewhat in that fashion. I wouldn't cry if bonus spells petered out a bit at higher levels (where casters don't need much help), though. A bonus ninth level spell just for being a wizard doesn't seem that necessary to me. A bonus first level spell at second level, that seems pretty cool. Somewhere between there and here, a change might be needed (but then, that's not a universalist-specific problem so it won't rebalance anything within the class between specialists and universalists).
However, the bigger problem rather than interwizard and interarcane balancing will still remain interdomain balancing in the sense of meleer vs caster. That's another issue that will hopefully be solved in the feats section and in a discussion on the combat rules, though.
|
|
If this means more carefully balancing the schools of magic against each other (*grumble*transmutation*grumble*) then why not do THAT? It needs doing anyway.
Yeeess...
Transmutation: 'The School of Everything'...
Fireball? Should be transmutation, surely? I 'transmute' objects to ash!
Finger of Death? Obvious transmutation! I 'transmute' a living person to a corpse!
Only if they aren't smart about it. Even against golems (especially against golems) transmuters have more capabilities than people give them credit for. It just takes looking at what you got and seeing how to apply it. A transmuter shouldn't be targetting their enemies, that's a losing tactic for them. Instead target the environment. Turn that rock over head to lava, the rock below into mud, and then back into stone so the opponent's feet are stuck in solid rock. You don't have to target a enemy to defeat the enemy, you simply have to stop them from being able to stop you.
|
|
Only if they aren't smart about it. Even against golems (especially against golems) transmuters have more capabilities than people give them credit for. It just takes looking at what you got and seeing how to apply it. A transmuter shouldn't be targetting their enemies, that's a losing tactic for them. Instead target the environment. Turn that rock over head to lava, the rock below into mud, and then back into stone so the opponent's feet are stuck in solid rock. You don't have to target a enemy to defeat the enemy, you simply have to stop them from being able to stop you.
I was talking about anyone casting fireball (and it was a small joke).
My wider point is that I'd like direct damage spells to be of more use at higher levels so would like to see SR against some of them (say, as discussed elsewhere, ones that are subject to element resistance) dropped.
Sorry I had missed that entirely, good point though.
While I'll use anything a DM gives me, I feel that the universalist is just too good right now too. Metamastery is just off the wall great, as in "I'll skip a couple of levels of ANYTHING to get this for my wizard" If they keep the bonus spells they need to lose all special powers, if they keep the powers they need to lose all the bonus spells.
Truthfully they probably need to lose both and specialist need to go back to having full on prohibited schools. You want the power pay the price.
I agree that the universal school needs it powers tone down. Instead metamagic mastery it would good that universal got ability to helps their versatility.
here's idea me and brother came up with to replace metamagic mastery
Spell Recall (Su): You may sacrifice any spell you know to prepare a spell one level lower. Using this ability is full-round action. You may use this ability once per day for every five caster levels you possess.
I agree that the universal school needs it powers tone down. Instead metamagic mastery it would good that universal got ability to helps their versatility.
here's idea me and brother came up with to replace metamagic mastery
Spell Recall (Su): You may sacrifice any spell you know to prepare a spell one level lower. Using this ability is full-round action. You may use this ability once per day for every five caster levels you possess.
Spell Recall is a great idea. Part of me (I think it's the munchkin/power gamer side) wants to keep Metamagic Mastery but push it back to the capstone ability, but Spell Recall is an excellent, and also flavorful, ability that seems to be balanced against other options.
Spell Recall is a great idea. Part of me (I think it's the munchkin/power gamer side) wants to keep Metamagic Mastery but push it back to the capstone ability, but Spell Recall is an excellent, and also flavorful, ability that seems to be balanced against other options.
Well, I talked with my gaming group about this, and after some discussion, I no longer feel that Metamagic Master is as broken as it first looks. I'm mainly opposed to Generalists getting extra spells and Specialists being able to cast Opposition Spells at this point.
|
|
Spell Recall is a great idea. Part of me (I think it's the munchkin/power gamer side) wants to keep Metamagic Mastery but push it back to the capstone ability, but Spell Recall is an excellent, and also flavorful, ability that seems to be balanced against other options.Well, I talked with my gaming group about this, and after some discussion, I no longer feel that Metamagic Master is as broken as it first looks. I'm mainly opposed to Generalists getting extra spells and Specialists being able to cast Opposition Spells at this point.
Then you don't play with the same guys I do ;)
Yea my group took one look at universalist and saw that there was no point of taking the specialist. Thats usually the first sign that it might be overpowered.
Interesting thoughts everyone. Instead of killing the extra spells for universalists, I think I am more interested in weakening their other powers a bit to keep them in line for their ultimate flexibility.
Thoughts?
My thoughts:
Keep their school powers as they are, but remove bonus spells. =P
|
|
As one esteemed member of this thread mentioned earlier, school power DCs are listed as being Charisma based... shouldn't that be Intelligence based as these are for wizards? or is this a built-in limiting factor designed on purpose so as to keep these abilities in check and balanced?
I'm pretty sure it's intentional and I support it, I'm personally glad that the wizards SAD is finally getting the kick in the crotch it so rightly deserved.
|
|
My thoughts:
Keep their school powers as they are, but remove bonus spells. =P
Well, spells are what wizards do. I want them to have plenty, but for the spells to be less unbalanced in themselves (and I don't think that limiting the number of spells is the best way to solve the problem of overpowered spells).
My preferred options:
HotA is clarified, keeps the Int attack bonus but has the Int damage bonus capped at level. Mastery of all Schools goes (and is perhaps replaced by some version of Metamagic Mastery, with MM either replaced with something else at level 8 or else a powered-down version being the level 8 power and a powered-up version being the 20th-level capstone). Bonus spells stay but problematic spells are fixed in the spells section.
Interesting thoughts everyone. Instead of killing the extra spells for universalists, I think I am more interested in weakening their other powers a bit to keep them in line for their ultimate flexibility.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
As currently designed, Universalists and Specialists are really almost identical. I do not feel that a Universalist's School Powers should be weaker than any other Wizard's.
However, I agree with some above that the Universalist's powers are currently *more* powerful than other Wizard's, primarily the capstone as it is equivalent to 18 feats (and stacks with those feats). Halving those bonuses would be good (Granting the same, or the original +2/+4 to Specialists is also appropriate).
To answer the OP - What do Universalists' give sacrifice? Specialty. D&D has always favored characters that specialize in something, making that one thing as powerful as possible. Universalists school powers provide no extra edge to cut through the power curve.
As currently designed, Universalists and Specialists are really almost identical. I do not feel that a Universalist's School Powers should be weaker than any other Wizard's.However, I agree with some above that the Universalist's powers are currently *more* powerful than other Wizard's, primarily the capstone as it is equivalent to 18 feats (and stacks with those feats). Halving those bonuses would be good (Granting the same, or the original +2/+4 to Specialists is also appropriate).
To answer the OP - What do Universalists' give sacrifice? Specialty. D&D has always favored characters that specialize in something, making that one thing as powerful as possible. Universalists school powers provide no extra edge to cut through the power curve.
I'm sorry but I don't really buy this argument, Majuba.
Having played both Specialists and Universalists in 3.5, it seems to me that specialists pay a heavy fee for very little comparative benefit. Specialization was an inferior choice, so much so I have actually begged to reverse the desicion with some of my favorite characters, at one stage designing a prestige class as a backdoor out of the trap (the Repentant). Losing whole schools of magic is a huge penalty. And extra spell per day is nothing (a scroll can do it).
If we look at this as a set of scales, the balance was already tipped in favor of the universalist. PF Beta added "equal" powers to both sides (maybe the Uni. gets slightly better powers). Then we removed the one benefit of spec.s (the bonus spells) so the scale must necessarily tip further toward the univeralist. Then we rescinded some of the restrictions on the specialist (in a very unsatisfying mechanic), but the universalist still comes out way ahead.
The original idea is that a specialist is better at one school by sacrificing study of one or more other schools. It has grown more complicated in the Beta, and I don't really understand for what reason.
|
|
What I *do* like about the new specialists is that they are not barred from other schools anymore (i.e. if they cast spells from other schools or prepare them, they can't use their "school powers" that day or something like that). I think that this is a huge new boost for the specialist camp, to compensate the boost the universalists got.
All I hope for is that the buck stops here, and that we don't assist in an escalation of wizard WMDs... (reboost this specialist feature a little, then go back to universalist and reboost... then go back to the specialist and reboost again, etc.)
What I *do* like about the new specialists is that they are not barred from other schools anymore (i.e. if they cast spells from other schools or prepare them, they can't use their "school powers" that day or something like that). I think that this is a huge new boost for the specialist camp, to compensate the boost the universalists got.
All I hope for is that the buck stops here, and that we don't assist in an escalation of wizard WMDs... (reboost this specialist feature a little, then go back to universalist and reboost... then go back to the specialist and reboost again, etc.)
Lessening the restrictions on specialists might be a good thing if they're on "equal footing" with the universalists, power-wise.
I really don't care for the new mechanic, though. It is hard to get my head around forgoing one power for a day somehow compensating for your prohibited schools... it doesn't make sense in character. While I can see a Golarion-specific metaphysical explanation for this, it isn't going to wash in some other settings that have metaphysics based around the status quo.
I think the mechanic could be rebalanced while preserving that status quo.
My view is kind of the opposite of what I've seen here. Instead of toning down the Universalists the specialists need to get a bump. Some of the specialists powers (the one that jumps most readily to mind is the Evoker) are so terrible they aren't worth the trade off, even if the specialists gained nothing.
The better answer to the problem is giving people a reason to specialize. Honestly nothing I've seen in the specialist bonuses would be enough to make me do so even if the Universalists gained nothing. Two schools of magic for +5 damage at 20th level? As a start the universalist capstone should apply to each specialist, but only for their specialized school.
I'm sorry but I don't really buy this argument, Majuba.Having played both Specialists and Universalists in 3.5, it seems to me that specialists pay a heavy fee for very little comparative benefit. Specialization was an inferior choice, so much so I have actually begged to reverse the desicion with some of my favorite characters, at one stage designing a prestige class as a backdoor out of the trap (the Repentant). Losing whole schools of magic is a huge penalty. And extra spell per day is nothing (a scroll can do it).
If we look at this as a set of scales, the balance was already tipped in favor of the universalist. PF Beta added "equal" powers to both sides (maybe the Uni. gets slightly better powers). Then we removed the one benefit of spec.s (the bonus spells) so the scale must necessarily tip further toward the univeralist. Then we rescinded some of the restrictions on the specialist (in a very unsatisfying mechanic), but the universalist still comes out way ahead.
See, here we disagree. I feel that specialization, particularly the focused specialist offered in Complete Mage, was an incredible powerful option. Your view, and that of many that I've seen here, reflects an attitude that I last remember on the WotC Character Optimization boards a few years ago. You are looking at the possible benefits and detriments, rather then the practical ones. People loved to berate people who ever took spell penetration or spell focus, claiming that such spells provided bonuses that were easily gained elsewhere, while overlooking the fact that such bonuses weren't always available.
It wasn't until treatmonk showed up that you began to see the other opinion gain strength. The view that specialization (more spell slots each day) was worthwhile, and that more basic feats were worth taking. In short, the more practical view on actual gameplay rather then the theoretical view. Theoretically you could really need Dispel Magic, Fireball, Fly, and Suggestion. Realistically you're only going to have access to a couple of them anyway due to limited spell slots and the (at low levels) prohibitive cost of gaining new spells from scrolls and scribing them into your spellbook.
One of the more interesting threads was here:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=953100
I've played specialists in 3.5, and I take that approach. The basic feats are worth taking, IMO.
As things stand in the beta, the specialist trades a slight inconvenience (spec power OR prohibited schools today?) for a different flavor of special abilities. Some of those alternate flavors are weaker than the "default" universalist, who trades nothing.
For this system to make sense, the ability to cast from all schools should be counted as a feature of the universalist school, weighed against the other school abilities. And it is a pretty powerful ability, at the end of the day. The wizard is about flexibility, if all you care about is spells/day you might be better served with a sorcerer.
I've played specialists in 3.5, and I take that approach. The basic feats are worth taking, IMO.
As things stand in the beta, the specialist trades a slight inconvenience (spec power OR prohibited schools today?) for a different flavor of special abilities. Some of those alternate flavors are weaker than the "default" universalist, who trades nothing.
For this system to make sense, the ability to cast from all schools should be counted as a feature of the universalist school, weighed against the other school abilities. And it is a pretty powerful ability, at the end of the day. The wizard is about flexibility, if all you care about is spells/day you might be better served with a sorcerer.
I agree with pretty much everything said here, but stand by my position. Instead of trying to nerf generalists go ahead and buff the specialist bonuses so they are actually worth something.
Regarding the sorcerer, there needs to be a fundamental change to that class to keep up with the wizard, either in spells known (the number needs to go up, perhaps by one spell for each level) or in spell acquisition rate (e.g. the same level as a wizard). With either change it needs a bump to 4+ skill points a level and an expanded skill list (Diplomacy would be nice). As it stands the class is horrifically crippled, having both a crappy casting stat, crappy skill list, delayed spell acquisition (effectively taking a sorcerer is like playing a multiclassed wizard), crappy skill points, and nothing really to offset it.
I would never consider playing a sorcerer at this point if the wizard was an option, more because of the delayed spell gain then anything else.
|
|
I've played specialists in 3.5, and I take that approach. The basic feats are worth taking, IMO.
As things stand in the beta, the specialist trades a slight inconvenience (spec power OR prohibited schools today?) for a different flavor of special abilities. Some of those alternate flavors are weaker than the "default" universalist, who trades nothing.
For this system to make sense, the ability to cast from all schools should be counted as a feature of the universalist school, weighed against the other school abilities. And it is a pretty powerful ability, at the end of the day. The wizard is about flexibility, if all you care about is spells/day you might be better served with a sorcerer.
Exactly. The specialist powers should make the specialist able to do things the universalist can't... Perhaps not much more powerful (wizards do not need to be much more powerful), but much more versatile within their school, perhaps gaining unique effects.
The idea of specialists being able to prepare opposing spells but having to give up something for it intrigues me. The something should probably be a little more, though. In turn, though, the universalist shouldn't be getting as many bonus spells as the specialist. (I'm not opposed to the universalist gaining _some_ bonus spells, though... an unspecialized wizard at low levels needs more spells desperately!). Perhaps generalists only get a bonus SLA of their highest level (or can trade it for lower-level ones), or get SLA's more infrequently?
The universalist also should certainly _not_ be getting abilities superior to the specialists', and they especially should not be better at casting spells in a specialists's school than a specialist is! But they should be getting _some_ abilities, to give universalists a reason to stay with the class. Perhaps something themed around their versatility of being good with all schools of magic, something that they can shift around or apply differently each day.