I wasn't around the forum when the playtesting was going on, but how do people feel about Specialists vs. Universalists? I feel like there really isn't a reason to go with a Universalist now as opposition schools aren't that big of a draw back, unless you really like the flexibility of a Universalist and never being limited in your spells.
The special abilities seem to be about equal, with a slight edge to the Specialists. To me though the flexibility of the Universalist doesn't make up for the lost spell slot at each level. Most of the time a specialist is going to be using spells from their school of choice, so it's not a huge hinderance as the person is playing them because that's the kind of spells they really want to use. Yet they still have the ability to use opposed school spells in a pinch, so they aren't as inflexible as it may at first seem. Granted if there is a need for lots of opposed school spells in a particular situation their specialization will hurt them, but in general they are going to outpace a Universalist as they can cast more spells per day than the Universalist.
I would have liked to see one more special ability for the Universalists. I really don't have a suggestion for one at this time, but it seems Specialists are really the way to go now, as you are no longer prohibited from using spells in an opposed school.
I haven't yet had a chance to play Pathfinder, but I'm planning to run it in the future starting my group with Rise of the Rune Lords, so I don't have any actual experience with the class to know for sure if Specialists really have the edge.
What do you think?
I wasn't around the forum when the playtesting was going on, but how do people feel about Specialists vs. Universalists? I feel like there really isn't a reason to go with a Universalist now as opposition schools aren't that big of a draw back, unless you really like the flexibility of a Universalist and never being limited in your spells.
The special abilities seem to be about equal, with a slight edge to the Specialists. To me though the flexibility of the Universalist doesn't make up for the lost spell slot at each level. Most of the time a specialist is going to be using spells from their school of choice, so it's not a huge hinderance as the person is playing them because that's the kind of spells they really want to use. Yet they still have the ability to use opposed school spells in a pinch, so they aren't as inflexible as it may at first seem. Granted if there is a need for lots of opposed school spells in a particular situation their specialization will hurt them, but in general they are going to outpace a Universalist as they can cast more spells per day than the Universalist.
I would have liked to see one more special ability for the Universalists. I really don't have a suggestion for one at this time, but it seems Specialists are really the way to go now, as you are no longer prohibited from using spells in an opposed school.
I haven't yet had a chance to play Pathfinder, but I'm planning to run it in the future starting my group with Rise of the Rune Lords, so I don't have any actual experience with the class to know for sure if Specialists really have the edge.
What do you think?
Specialist abilities are way better than universalist in most situations. If you want to craft, you take penalties to your opposition schools. This is one area where universalist can shine. Also free metamagics are nothing to sniff at. If you are say level 10 and the Evoker drops a 10d6+5 cone of cold, and the generalist wizard has a free empowered fireball 15d6, assuming no resistances and you hit the same number of targets, he just did more damage with a 3rd level spell than an evoker did with a 5th level spell, and prep'd something more useful than cone of cold in that 5th level slot.
Universalist wizards aren't weaker, they're just different.
I only wish they had left the number of free metamagic uses you got alone. In the beta it was 1/2 your class level, and that was useful, now it's only one at level 8 plus 1 for every two levels there after.
It's the only class ability that does that and it's an odd thing to do, and doesn't really fit.
It almost feels like you get punished for going generalist.
I only wish they had left the number of free metamagic uses you got alone. In the beta it was 1/2 your class level, and that was useful, now it's only one at level 8 plus 1 for every two levels there after.
It's the only class ability that does that and it's an odd thing to do, and doesn't really fit.
It almost feels like you get punished for going generalist.
You do, no unlimited free surprise rounds :) quicken close
Specialist abilities are way better than universalist in most situations. If you want to craft, you take penalties to your opposition schools. This is one area where universalist can shine. Also free metamagics are nothing to sniff at. If you are say level 10 and the Evoker drops a 10d6+5 cone of cold, and the generalist wizard has a free empowered fireball 15d6, assuming no...I wasn't around the forum when the playtesting was going on, but how do people feel about Specialists vs. Universalists? I feel like there really isn't a reason to go with a Universalist now as opposition schools aren't that big of a draw back, unless you really like the flexibility of a Universalist and never being limited in your spells.
The special abilities seem to be about equal, with a slight edge to the Specialists. To me though the flexibility of the Universalist doesn't make up for the lost spell slot at each level. Most of the time a specialist is going to be using spells from their school of choice, so it's not a huge hinderance as the person is playing them because that's the kind of spells they really want to use. Yet they still have the ability to use opposed school spells in a pinch, so they aren't as inflexible as it may at first seem. Granted if there is a need for lots of opposed school spells in a particular situation their specialization will hurt them, but in general they are going to outpace a Universalist as they can cast more spells per day than the Universalist.
I would have liked to see one more special ability for the Universalists. I really don't have a suggestion for one at this time, but it seems Specialists are really the way to go now, as you are no longer prohibited from using spells in an opposed school.
I haven't yet had a chance to play Pathfinder, but I'm planning to run it in the future starting my group with Rise of the Rune Lords, so I don't have any actual experience with the class to know for sure if Specialists really have the edge.
What do you think?
The evoker on the other hand can also fire a quickened magic missile for an extra 5d4+10 in the same round because he has an extra spell slot there. And now the universalist has no special abilities to use anymore while the evoker still can cast one extra spell at every spell level and elemental wall of fire if he 's in the mood for it.
I can think of a lot better things to do with a 5th level slot than a quickened magic missile.
note the generalist used a THIRD level slot, to outdo the evoker's 5th level slot with an EVOCATION spell. The generalist now has as many available 5th level slots as the evoker and no banned school.
Specialist abilities are way better than universalist in most situations. If you want to craft, you take penalties to your opposition schools. This is one area where universalist can shine. Also free metamagics are nothing to sniff at. If you are say level 10 and the Evoker drops a 10d6+5 cone of cold, and the generalist wizard has a free empowered fireball 15d6, assuming no resistances and you hit the same number of targets, he just did more damage with a 3rd level spell than an evoker did with a 5th level spell, and prep'd something more useful than cone of cold in that 5th level slot.
The universalist would need to be level 11 to empower the fireball, at which point the Evoker could just use her bonus spell slot at that level to prepare an empowered fireball of her own and get her bonus damage in to boot (not that it actually counts for much).
The Evoker is using a spell slot the universalist doesn't even have. The universalist is using a spell slot that the Evoker has more of. And the universalist has completely expended her only school benefit worth mentioning.
Specialist abilities are way better than universalist in most situations. If you want to craft, you take penalties to your opposition schools. This is one area where universalist can shine. Also free metamagics are nothing to sniff at. If you are say level 10 and the Evoker drops a 10d6+5 cone of cold, and the generalist wizard has a free empowered fireball 15d6, assuming no resistances and you hit the same number of targets, he just did more damage with a 3rd level spell than an evoker did with a 5th level spell, and prep'd something more useful than cone of cold in that 5th level slot.The universalist would need to be level 11 to empower the fireball, at which point the Evoker could just use her bonus spell slot at that level to prepare an empowered fireball of her own and get her bonus damage in to boot (not that it actually counts for much).
The Evoker is using a spell slot the universalist doesn't even have. The universalist is using a spell slot that the Evoker has more of. And the universalist has completely expended her only school benefit worth mentioning.
Empowered fireball is level 9 minimum. and casting it from a third level slot instead of a 5th level slot is a big deal to me at least. empowered fireball... cloud kill what to choose
stuff
A smart evoker will also have Spell Focus (Evocation) and Greater Spell Focus (Evocation) by that level making it 10% more likely that the targets will take full damage. A Universalist can do this, but probably wouldn't opting for more flexibility over the Evoker's focus.
Add in Arcane Thesis (Fireball) and you can maximize that 12d6+5 fireball at 10th level.
stuffA smart evoker will also have Spell Focus (Evocation) and Greater Spell Focus (Evocation) by that level making it 10% more likely that the targets will take full damage. A Universalist can do this, but probably wouldn't opting for more flexibility over the Evoker's focus.
Add in Arcane Thesis (Fireball) and you can maximize that 12d6+5 fireball at 10th level.
You're right. That in no way makes the point I made invalid. If you take greater spell focus and arcane thesis (fireball, terrible idea) your maximized 5th level fireball is now more powerful than the generalist who decided hey, there's a lot of guys standing together, let's empower this third level fireball on the fly. But he didn't take 3 feats to pull that off.
You're right. That in no way makes the point I made invalid. If you take greater spell focus and arcane thesis (fireball, terrible idea) your maximized 5th level fireball is now more powerful than the generalist who decided hey, there's a lot of guys standing together, let's empower this third level fireball on the fly. But he didn't take 3 feats to pull that off.stuffA smart evoker will also have Spell Focus (Evocation) and Greater Spell Focus (Evocation) by that level making it 10% more likely that the targets will take full damage. A Universalist can do this, but probably wouldn't opting for more flexibility over the Evoker's focus.
Add in Arcane Thesis (Fireball) and you can maximize that 12d6+5 fireball at 10th level.
Didn't mean that it did, especially since all of those feats are available to a Universalist as well, but a specialist is more likely to have them and specialize in their school than a universalist will.
edit: I answered my own question, lol and made the mistake of forgetting 3rd level spells cap out at 10d6.
I only wish they had left the number of free metamagic uses you got alone. In the beta it was 1/2 your class level, and that was useful, now it's only one at level 8 plus 1 for every two levels there after.
It's the only class ability that does that and it's an odd thing to do, and doesn't really fit.
It almost feels like you get punished for going generalist.
I definitely have to agree, especially if you're playing a low-to-mid level game, with no hopes to get a higher level.
This is the kind of stuff I was wondering about. It's been a few years since I've played 3.5 and I haven't even played Pathfinder at this point so I'm a little rusty. There for I was looking for these kind of hidden advantages that I wasn't seeing.
As the Universalist's big advantage seems to be the free meta-magic feat ability and spell choice flexibility, they will tend to trail behind until 8th level, as even at 1st level a Specialist gains the extra spell slots. Being able to essentially have a thrown returning weapon isn't all that great of an ability, unless of course you can put some kind of effect on the weapon.
I don't have my book at hand, so this is from memory, but Specialist's seem to gain three abilities; two of them at first level and one that kicks in around 8th level. This means they also have the advantage in abilities, although some don't have a big effect until higher levels. Universalists only get two, one a 1st level and one at 8th level.
To me it seems that Universalists have to wait for their payoff until higher levels and that Specialist gain the initial advantage, but probably level out some at higher levels. Even at 20th level though, while the Universalist can get more bang out of a single spell for a lower investment a Specialist, provided he lives long enough during a fight, will be able to have more overall spells to cast.
The Universalist's special ability also doesn't really start to pay off until 10th or 12th level when they can use it to use the better meta magic feats like Maximize and Empower, as each use of the ability only allows it to increase a spells level by one so you need more uses to use these. Which means they'll get one free boost to a spell while the Specialist will gain 5 or 6 additional spells per day at 10th and 12th level.
I'm still not convinced that the Universalist is on equal footing with Specialists, but I'm beginning to see a little more equality. I'm thinking they still need just a little bit more, but I'll have to wait and see. Unfortunately I don't think I'll have enough players for two people to want to play a Wizard in one campaign to get a good idea.
Opposed Schools the way they work right now just isn't a big drawback as it allows for them to still use those spells when the crap really hits the fan. Perhaps in addition to opposing school spells costing an extra slot, they should also be cast at -1 caster level.
It still seems the balance was swung in the other direction now.
Honestly, the biggest advantage to generalists is the spell versatility. I'm not just talking about how they can cast any spell without issue, but more that they don't have to take half of their spells at each level in a single school. An evoker will take 19 evocation spells from 2 to 20, with 19 other spells at her own choosing. When half of your spells are from a single school, and the other half are distributed between 7 other schools you can start to feel the stranglehold (if you're anything like me).
Yes, you can add more spells to your spellbook. The problem with this is that doing so cuts into your character wealth, relies on a generous DM (or high diplomacy), and takes time out of your adventuring. The generalist has the ultimate freedom in choosing her spells, which is a serious boon- especially on those odd levels when you first gain access to the new level of spells. A lot of people forget that.
|
From a player perspective it always seemed more fun to go as a specialist rather then a universalist, even back in the older editions of the game. made you stand out a bit more and gave you a reason to tell people no you couldn't cast a specific spell.
Though getting the right stats weren't always easy.
Plus illusionist was fun in AD&D.
The way you guys are talking about the universalist ability makes it lame. The much more important thing about the ability is that it allows the universalist to apply meta on the fly. So as long as you have the silent spell feat you can cast it (X times/ day) and don't have to memorize it in a higher level slot. Similarly with still spell.
As an example if you are an eldritch knight with arcane armor training and had just cast a quickened spell you can't use your arcane armor training and can apply still to the next spell you cast.
Meta-magic mastery isn't about "free meta" it's about "meta on the fly".
Now whether that's worth to loss of a spell per level is a different issue.
FWIW I couldn't imagine ever being an evoker. Conjurers, illusionists, and diviners have the best specialist abilities by a good margin.
EDIT: The other thing is if you use books like Spell Compendium there is no downside to specialization. There id do much overlap between the schools you can easily give up 2 schools and never miss them.
universalists are still worse than any specialization
Your thoughts are alien to me.
Your thoughts are alien to me.The free metamagic is at best of equal value to the free spell slot, and arguably weaker, because specialists can just prep a metamagicked spell in their specialist slots. (It's about the versatility of more spells versus twiddling spells on the fly. I'm of the opinion that it's a wash.) Specialists get other shinies (sometimes very strong ones, like +1/2 class level to initiative or immunity to grapples) on top of this, or can keep their specialist slots and PrC out of wizard, while universalists are stuck in wizard or they stop getting more free uses of metamagic.
So. Feel free to pick a hole in my argument, but "nuh uh" isn't much of a refutation.
I hadn't even thought of multiclassing yet, and a multi-classed Universalist definitely looses out in this respect as well. In light of this I think the free meta-magic ability would have been something to get at 2nd level and gain an extra use at every even level after that. I still think this wouldn't be as good as an extra spell slot at each level, but it would be better.
I also agree that the specialist can pretty much do the same with the metamagic and really do it better as they have the extra spell slots to use from the get go, they just don't have the flexibility of doing it on the fly. The Universalist also has to wait until higher levels to even use the really good metamagic feats to improve a spell on the fly, where the Specialist can start doing it at a lower level.
I'm also not discounting the benefit of applying the metamagic feat on the fly, it's part of it. Just not that big a part.
As an example if you are an eldritch knight with arcane armor training and had just cast a quickened spell you can't use your arcane armor training and can apply still to the next spell you cast.If you're an Eldritch Knight, you PrCed out of wizard and didn't get meta on the fly, or else you've greatly delayed going into EK past the point where slightly better sword-swinging as a wizard much matters.
Ok, so it was a lame example. The point being the benefit is on the fly meta, not just getting it free.
As for the rest of your post, I never disagreed with that. You seemed to have missed the entire point of my post.
The universalist benefit should not be equal to that of the specialist as the specialist is paying a price in spell access. So one needs to be careful in how one tinkers.
The bonus spell per level is more than enough compensation for the specialists. Universalists should get a more powerful ability, maybe not much more but they lose a ton of spell power.
The universalist benefit should not be equal to that of the specialist as the specialist is paying a price in spell access. So one needs to be careful in how one tinkers.The bonus spell per level is more than enough compensation for the specialists. Universalists should get a more powerful ability, maybe not much more but they lose a ton of spell power.
I never thought that the bonus spell was worth the sacrifice of flexibility. If I was going for max spells per day, and I didn't care about losing a tonne of spell selection, I would surely play a sorcerer.
Then again, since there are people on both sides of this issue, perhaps there is some kind of balance achieved? As long as someone somewhere still chooses to play a given class based on what they feel is optimal for their style, then it doesn't really need fixing.
In other words, I would be a lot more concerned about the weakness of Universalists if I ever saw people play specialists. As it stands, Universalists outnumber Specialists 3 to 1 in my group.
This "Well, people disagree about it, it must be balanced" is a pretty basic fallacy.
How is that a fallacy?
"Balance" is making sure that all of the options are fun. If an equal number of people enjoy Universalists vs. Specialists, then balance has been achieved.
Or do you think "balance" is a mathematical zero-sum game between all character choices? Because I have no desire to play such a game.
"Balance" is making sure that all of the options are fun. If an equal number of people enjoy Universalists vs. Specialists, then balance has been achieved.
The word balance is bandied about a lot and generally when people use it in this context they are referring to total class power.
I'm more on your side. If a bunch of folks enjoy playing a class then it's fine.
Because of all the stuff in my post that you didn't quote.
I wasn't trying to take you out of context, I simply didn't repost your quote because my response was right beneath it.
And yes, balance is a zero-sum game between character choices, such that all characters of a given level are equally capable of contributing to the solution of level-appropriate challenges. That's the point of having a game with character levels instead of just playing FUDGE or something, and if you accept complexity as the cost of power you get 3.5 druids. If you're not interested in that sort of balance, why are you contributing to a discussion of that sort of balance?
It is plain to see that we want different things out of RPGs. Below is my opinion of the best use of the term "balance." It's not a personal attack, and I hope you continue to enjoy the game with your own philosophy on the matter.
Level appropriate challenges can (and should) vary widely, and no campaign addresses all of the classes equally. The system cannot be made to create mathematical balance between all classes in an infinite number of situations — those systems that do try this are very bland. I much prefer a little noise in the system, where a druid is a better asset in a forest than a city.
If your benchmark for balance is "players enjoying all of the games features", you must necessarily look outside your own experience to such factors as: "People disagree about which of two classes is best." It is not a fallacy, it shows the existence of preference and choice, which are more important to me than probability-of-victory in deathmatch scenarios.
No algorithm exists to test balance in an RPG as complex as Pathfinder — the only measure is player enjoyment on a massive scale. That's something neither you nor I are equipped to weigh in on, but instead must be decided by consensus of many players, partly through the method you have just described as fallacy.
--
As an aside, the case could easily be made that FUDGE is a more mathematically balanced system than any single version of d20. Fudge dice follow a normal probability distribution, and the only comparisons are with a limited number of identical skills, as opposed to the apple-n-oranges we see in Class power comparison. None of the swinginess of the d20 — in FUDGE, you can be assured that over a large number of tests the outcome will be mathematically equal between two equally matched combatants.
Plus illusionist was fun in AD&D.
Illusionist was the best class choice in the golden days of AD&D, before it became a wizard with a knack for holograms.
I still remember when phantsmal killer was an exclusive illusionist spell... ah, sweet memories.
Level appropriate challenges can (and should) vary widely, and no campaign addresses all of the classes equally. The system cannot be made to create mathematical balance between all classes in an infinite number of situations — those systems that do try this are very bland.
...like 4th ed? [sorry I couldn't resist, my bad]
For the record... Specialists are the only wizards people play in my group. Namely these three. Transmuters, Conjurers, and Illusionists.
And I'm including 3.5 where bannished schools are forbidden.
Heck, I've played several "Focused Specialists" in my time (They give up 3 schools, in exchange for 3 specialist slots per day and 1 lost generalist slot per day)
But you allow spell compendium... so a specialist doesn't sacrifice anything. It's almost like a totally different ballgame.
Under core specialists have an edge. Add in Spell Compendium and it's a much bigger difference.
Actually, I was referring to all the games my group ran, which includes some core only games.
Admittedly we only had one focused specialist in core only, a conjurer. He was hurting a little for versatility but he put his spell list together well enough he still had a strong card for every situation, just not quite as much flexibility. Still kicked the ass out of the sorcerer in the group.
I can imagine that, I played a focused conjurer using mostly core stuff. The character was really good at some things but under other situations he was kind of meh.
To be honest I kind of feel focused specialist is a bit too powerful. Some of the schools you just don't give up very much. In particular if you are willing to give up direct damage (though with spell compendium you don't have to give that up either).
The problem doesn't really start with focused specialization, it starts with specialization.
One extra spell of every level is incredibly powerful, especially when you can prepare one of a vast variety of spells into each of them. When WotC made Conjuration and Transmutation as fast and widesweeping as they did, they doomed specialization to being a stronger choice for a wizard than non-specialization.
That pretty much covers it. Though I really think the supplemental books greatly exaggerates the problem with conjuration and transmutation.
Focused specialist takes that farther, by costing the wizard one more school (often a hard sacrifice mind. The 5 potential sacrifices are evocation, necromancy, illusion, enchantment, and abjuration. Beyond evocation none of them are easy sacrifices, and if you sac evocation you REALLY do not want to sac illusion, meaning for most focused specialist, they say goodbye to Evocation, Necromancy, and Enchantment or Abjuration, not an easy choice) in exchange for an extra spell slot per day, and turning one of your generalist slots into a specialist slot.
The point of all that, is to say that Focused Specialist is 'roughly' balanced to normal specialist, but specialist > Generalist (unless you chose to ban one of the two big...
If they ask, tell them they have to actually surrender 3 schools like they did under 3.5. I don't really agree with you on the focused specialist versus specialist but it's really splitting hairs.
Maybe I'll just house rule that rather than getting bonus spells specialists get +2 CL on spells in specialty and -2 CL in opposed schools.
Maybe I'll just house rule that rather than getting bonus spells specialists get +2 CL on spells in specialty and -2 CL in opposed schools.
Hmm... this is an interesting idea. Do they still have to prepare one specialized spell per day, i.e. lose a general slot? Do they still spend double slots on opposed schools?
It's a stealth buff to sorcerers (not necessarily a bad thing).
Maybe I'll just house rule that rather than getting bonus spells specialists get +2 CL on spells in specialty and -2 CL in opposed schools.Hmm... this is an interesting idea. Do they still have to prepare one specialized spell per day, i.e. lose a general slot? Do they still spend double slots on opposed schools?
It's a stealth buff to sorcerers (not necessarily a bad thing).
No, I would just make it so specialists get the specialist powers and the caster level changes.
hey I like hand of the apprentice of the universalist .
that mixed with the pathfinder EK....
I have a human wizard in my party that basically lives on this ability. Point blank shot, arcane strike and hand of the apprentice makes him pretty handy with a dagger.
Batts