I started this thread because I wanted a forum where people could express the positive things they like about the wizard/universalist. I have made a separate thread so that it would not seem as though I am picking on or being impolite to anyone else on their thread.
I hope that this will help in developing a great game into something even greater.
I personally think that wizards/universalist are fine just the way they are and not "overpowered" the way other threads have stated. I also love he fact that necromancers are no longer lagging behind the cleric in the control the undead dept.
My main reason for wanting the universalist to remain unchanged is because it makes sense that it you don't specialize you learn more about all the schools of magic and thus can reduce the cost of metamagic feats. I played a few prestige classes that had that as an ability at higher levels and it was not overpowered or game breaking in the slightest. If you like the wizard the way he is now(Thanks Paizo!) then this is where you can express that.
I love wizards -- always did, and still do. I don't like the changes in the combat rules that have hamstrung warrior-types: wizards only seem overpowered because the melee guys are now so limited in comparison to what they used to be able to do in 1e. Give the melee guys some of their old abilities back, and wizards will go back to seeming "normal" again.
I love wizards -- always did, and still do. I don't like the changes in the combat rules that have hamstrung warrior-types: wizards only seem overpowered because the melee guys are now so limited in comparison to what they used to be able to do in 1e. Give the melee guys some of their old abilities back, and wizards will go back to seeming "normal" again.
Well said
|
I love wizards -- always did, and still do. I don't like the changes in the combat rules that have hamstrung warrior-types: wizards only seem overpowered because the melee guys are now so limited in comparison to what they used to be able to do in 1e. Give the melee guys some of their old abilities back, and wizards will go back to seeming "normal" again.Well said
++
My Wishlist (and apologies for diversion from actual thread topic):
Feats (none restricted to just fighters) to:
Threaten more squares without needing reach weapon.
Do more damage with AoOs (including those from the increased number of threatened squares from the previous feat)
Make sword and board worthwhile. Somehow.
And:
Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip all unnerfed
Changes to combat rules:
Casters easier to disrupt (makes meleers more relevant as now they can disrupt casters whilst also being necessary to protect them; of course, their ability to do the defending depends on making them harder to ignore, see feats wishlist).
Able to swap attacks for moves (possibly through feats, although as anyone with any interest in combat would have to take them, it might be best as a combat rule rather than eating feat slots).
Other changes:
Magic armour enhancement cheaper for the higher enhancements and able to go significantly further (up to +10, whatever).
Wizards can stay fun and the meleers can be fun at the same time. We don't want the wizards to either be able to do without the meleers to a large extent (and using cohorts to do whatever melee stuff they need done) or to have to act as buffbots to keep the meleers alive. So I like the Universalist (including HotA, which I really do like, although as I've said elsewhere, I'm OK with a damage bonus capped to level, but keeping the attack bonus being Int bonus uncapped) and my problems, like Kirth's, are with what 3.5 did to meleers and also with some spells that need depowering or else getting an increased casting time. Oh, and I want SR not to work against more spells (including direct-damage evocations based on elements.
EDIT: Really am sorry that this is irrelevant to the thread. Kirth's comment touched off my enthusiasm for writing it.
The Universalist is clearly the best choice. ;)