As I said before, it comes down to what your GM throws at you.
My gm's tend not to use too many enemy spellcasters, so Dispel Magic isn't very useful.
If your GM throws at least one spellcaster per day at you, I can see having it memorized, possibly a couple of times, but it really comes down to what type of enemies you generally fight, like Improved Disarm for example.
There are problems with this.First of all, summoning your own critter takes 1 full round.
I notice you cut off the portion of my post that said, "I use summoning since you mentioned it in the example - although casting times complicate it a bit more than shown in the example I've given - but you get the point right?"
Second they don't negate one another. The first summon, say ordered to attack the enemy wizard doesn't stop doing so because an enemy summon is on the field.
If the second summon grapples the first, then yes it does. Several summon options have the "Grab" ability - those that don't incur an attack of opportunity.
If the grapple attempt fails - you can still have a summoned creature bodyguard between you and the enemy summoned creature.
It's all situational of course, and your spell choice will be based on what you have memorized and what works for the situation. It may be an invisibility spell, or a fly spell, or a mirror image spell. One way or the other, the odds are good you have something more effective and reliable than dispel magic.
Third if you are dealing with say a summon monster 5 spell by a 9th level enemy, you would need a 5th level spell to 'balance' this out rather than a chance with the 3rd level spell...
Again it depends on the critter summoned. If an invisibility spell will do, then that's a lower level than dispel. It's all situational, but Dispel is never reliable...regardless of the situation.
If most of your party is grappled by a Black Tentacles spell and you could only potentially ddoor out say at most one of them (rest being out of reach) then a dispel to free them all, even at a 50-50 chance is a very palatable option.
Assuming you too are stuck in the tentacles - you don't have a 50/50 chance with dispel, because you first have to succeed at the concentration check (which is difficult in Pathfinder) and then at the dispel check.
Once again, the best spell to counter another depends on circumstance, but one thing you can be absolutely certain of, is regardless of the circumstance, if you cast dispel, you are counting on luck, not tactics.
I think 3.5 player's gravitate towards Dispel Magic because it was just so great in 3.5 but now, in PF, it's just good, and I have to admit that I find it very hard not to prepare at least one each day.
Treantmonk, You seem the most valuable source when it comes to Druids.
I was wondering if I might discuss something with you, though since there are no private messages on this board, at least.. not that I'm aware of.
I was wondering if we could speak over E-mails?
Treantmonk, You seem the most valuable source when it comes to Druids.
I was wondering if I might discuss something with you, though since there are no private messages on this board, at least.. not that I'm aware of.
I was wondering if we could speak over E-mails?
Stop being stingy with information. :)
Treantmonk, You seem the most valuable source when it comes to Druids.
I was wondering if I might discuss something with you, though since there are no private messages on this board, at least.. not that I'm aware of.
I was wondering if we could speak over E-mails?
That would be OK, or we could start up a new thread and discuss there - or just on the existing Druid handbook thread.
Or you could PM me on Gleemax. Just let me know if you are doing that, because I don't check my Gleemax account that often.
Fine, I'll share.
Anyway.
I was curious, it looks to me like the PHB II Shifter Druid variant is now O.P. for the Pathfinder Druid.
Am I correct?
Is there a way to possible make a shifter variant that would be both balanced and useful.
I have an idea or two in mind.
That are inspired by the Shifter Variant from PHB II.
Aside from that, I have another shifter option that I've been working on, but I really do dislike it.
The shifter option I have in mind now is that the druid uses nature bond (shifter) as his choice, and he gets wildshape at level 1, but instead of daily uses, they can use the ability 1 hour per level, per day, in total.
Meaning I could shift for 10 minutes, deshift, and still have 50 minutes left for that day. At level 1.
This would grant early access to Beast Shape I, but all other forms and shapes would only be accessible at the level they are normally gained.
Aside from that, At will unlimited transformation would be granted at lvl 15.
Aside from that, to further houserule the Druid so that it wouldn't be abusive. A druid is already stated that it must be familiar with a creature, I'd represent this by a knowledge nature check DC10 plus the creatures CR.
That is the option that I dislike at current, but came up with none the less. I've been told it seems balanced, but I haven't had many opinons.
My shifter PHB II inspired ideas are as follows
Wildshape At Will, 1st Level.
Possibly Limited Amount of Forms.
Can Shift From Form to Form.Possibility of additional bonuses to stats for varying forms. (Unlikely/unsure)
Possibility of Magical Enhanced Attacks for DR bypassing purposes (Unsure/unlikely)
Possible Move or Swift Action to Shift (Unlikely)
Woops, I so thought this was your Druid thread. My bad, sorry.
Anyway, just got a new suggestion from a very awesome person.
Nature Bond (Shifter) Option.
Half an hour each Druid level duration.
Levels one to three = 1 Uses per day
Level 4 = 2 Uses per day
Level 6 = 4 Uses Per Day
Level 8 = 6 Uses Per Day
Infinite Uses at???
Just gotta wait for you to tell me if such an option would need to be buffed in certain areas or things to make it balanced and a viable option that people would actually want to pick it.
So I suppose I've gotta wait for you to inform me of your opinions on all the options, and the concept in general I suppose.
Any ideas about what to do when you're Grappled?
Since the chance of passing the concentration check of > DC 10 + the grappler’s CMB + the level of the spell you’re casting < seems extremely unlikely.
Any ideas about what to do when you're Grappled?
Since the chance of passing the concentration check of > DC 10 + the grappler’s CMB + the level of the spell you’re casting < seems extremely unlikely.
Cast grease to give yourself a bonus to your acrobatics check, then try to slip out. If you are of a high level then quicken a spell assuming you escape to avoid being grappled again. This is not a universal solution however.
Any ideas about what to do when you're Grappled?
Since the chance of passing the concentration check of > DC 10 + the grappler’s CMB + the level of the spell you’re casting < seems extremely unlikely.
Boots of the Swift Passage is one of the most handy and cheapest anti-grapple items (from magic item compendium). For only 6k or so you can d-door 20ft 5/day as a move action ;-)
Getting grappled as a wizard is teh suck. Especially at lower levels. At high lvls you generally have magic items to avoid being grappled.
Boots of the Swift Passage is one of the most handy and cheapest anti-grapple items (from magic item compendium). For only 6k or so you can d-door 20ft 5/day as a move action ;-)
Boots of the Swift Passage cost 5k. 5/day [move action] 20ft.
Boots of Big Stepping cost 6k. 3/day [standard action] 60ft.
Dimension Stride Boots cost 2k grant 5 charges [1= Teleport 20ft, 3= 40ft & 5= 60ft] and a +2 bonus to Jump [standard action].
Ring of Freedom of Movement. Wizard's problem solved.
Ring of Freedom of Movement. Wizard's problem solved.
Weighing in at 40k!
Ring of Freedom of Movement. Wizard's problem solved.Weighing in at 40k!
And worth every copper.
And worth every copper.Ring of Freedom of Movement. Wizard's problem solved.Weighing in at 40k!
For sure, sooo with you on that, but still, compared to the low-end items, it'll require some serious piggy-banking !
Regarding the Walls: I'm not sure Wall of Force can be laid horizontal (further enhancing the value of Wall of Stone over Wall of Force). Remember that you may have to bypass your own Walls of Stone at some point, however.
Regarding the Hands: I like Forceful Hand more than Grasping Hand. 1 level lower, and the constant bull rush is a significant pain for anything that wants to approach you. The problem with Grasping Hand is that there are many critters on the Summon Monster tables that simply outperform the hand when it comes to grappling.
I have a (potentially) silly question. when he gains a level does a wizard get 2 new spells for each spell level he can cast? Or is it two spells period?
For instance My charecter is just leveling up to 7th, does he get 1st 2nd and 3rd level spells as well as 2 fourth?
2 spells
Just finished reading and CUDOS to you sir. Agreed with 99%. but something that has awalys been a thorn in my side was not adressed.
When choosing a Specialty School, what do u suggest giving up?
Just finished reading and CUDOS to you sir. Agreed with 99%. but something that has awalys been a thorn in my side was not adressed.
When choosing a Specialty School, what do u suggest giving up?
enchantment and necromancy, or evocation depending on who you ask.
necro has spells to reduce enemy stats/lvl's in accordance with guide, that would suck to drop
necro has spells to reduce enemy stats/lvl's in accordance with guide, that would suck to drop
My opinion on dropping necro is that many of the spells end encounters so adventure designers and many DM's make sure their bosses are virtually immune to them, same as enchantment spells. If I am going to drop a school, I am going to drop one I know I wont be able to use when its time to end the campaign.
necro has spells to reduce enemy stats/lvl's in accordance with guide, that would suck to drop
There are other debuffs besides necromancy. There are no schools in the game that don't have good spells, but as Wraithstrike mentioned - Enchantment, Necromancy, Evocation (in that order) are all good choices for banned schools.
|
necro has spells to reduce enemy stats/lvl's in accordance with guide, that would suck to dropThere are other debuffs besides necromancy. There are no schools in the game that don't have good spells, but as Wraithstrike mentioned - Enchantment, Necromancy, Evocation (in that order) are all good choices for banned schools.
Abjuration might also be a good choice, particularly if you have decent clerics/divine spellcasting in your party. Most of the decent abjuration spells can be cast by divine casters; the few that cannot you can either live without or take on scrolls or wands for emergency use, unless you'll be going into a situation where you know they'll be needed.
In 3.5, since you could not cast spells from opposition schools, banning abjuration was a bad idea. However, since you can use scrolls and the like with banned school spells in Pathfinder, or even memorize them if need be, it makes taking abjuration and the like as an opposition school far more viable.
I personally would order my preference for banning under pathfinder as: enchantment, evocation, abjuration, necromancy.
If you're going to memorise banned spells then you more than eliminate the advantage of specialisation's extra spells. Quipso Itto Dotto.I'm going to add that for my purposes, I disagree with Treatmonk that going Univesalist is as bad an option as he makes it out to be. The additional spells per day have far more of an impact at low levels, becoming less importat at the higher ones. I also prefer the increased flexibility that the Universalist approach makes. it's very much a YMMV kind of thing. I do tend to go the specialist route when I'm multi-classing with fighter, either abjuration or evocation as my schools of choice in such a scenario.While I definitely agree with you in 3.5, in PF where the schools are not banned but rather expensive to memorize I'm not so sure.
-James
No, are just eliminiting the advantege of being a specialist for the especific level of spells in wich you prepare the spells. Also specialist powers are generally better than the generalist powers.
Humbly,
Yawar
I don't think you can defend the universalist option. Primarily the problem is that D20 has so many spells that most characters go their whole 'life' with only a fraction of them. Getting a negative on two schools simply makes your spell choice faster. Because of his extra castings the specialist actually casts a greater number of spells than the 'school' with no barriers to casting.
The problem for Wizards is never spell choice it is always spells cast per day.
Further so long as you only want 1 spell per day from the reduced schools you really get no penalty at all. Your benefit supplied the extra spell slot _for each level_. The base number of spells at each level is 4. Getting an extra spellslot right up to 9th level is like being 25% more wizard.
A wizard only gets a handful of slots at each level what is the chance that given the wide choice that a wizard can fill his options with the other schools? Having an extra
The craft magic item limitation is only marginal because you can always buy the item or get someone else to make it for you.
And, I think that most if not all the specialist schools have better powers.
S
I don't think you can defend the universalist option. Primarily the problem is that D20 has so many spells that most characters go their whole 'life' with only a fraction of them. Getting a negative on two schools simply makes your spell choice faster. Because of his extra castings the specialist actually casts a greater number of spells than the 'school' with no barriers to casting.
The problem for Wizards is never spell choice it is always spells cast per day.
Further so long as you only want 1 spell per day from the reduced schools you really get no penalty at all. Your benefit supplied the extra spell slot _for each level_. The base number of spells at each level is 4. Getting an extra spellslot right up to 9th level is like being 25% more wizard.
A wizard only gets a handful of slots at each level what is the chance that given the wide choice that a wizard can fill his options with the other schools? Having an extra
The craft magic item limitation is only marginal because you can always buy the item or get someone else to make it for you.
And, I think that most if not all the specialist schools have better powers.
S
This is all assuming you only cast a very limited selection of spells. I normally use spells from every school. It seems to me to be a playstyle issue. The specialist powers are better, but not enough to matter to me personally.
I wasn't aware that the option "needed" defending.I don't think you can defend the universalist option.
Then why are you doing so?
Look the wizard is a fine, fun, and powerful class. No one is saying otherwise, and no one is saying a Universalist is horrible or un fun to play. We're only saying that it is marginally sub-optimal in most play situations, which I agree with. Your mileage may vary. That's fine. You may love tossing fireballs all day, but for most games this is a sub-optimal choice.
Personally I don't think anything can beat the school powers for Divination. Always going first has some serious benefits.
On the subject of Subjet Enervation and Energy Drain:
Have you seen this thread
Let me add a quote from that therad.
Do spellcasters that gain negative levels lose the ability to cast their highest level spells as a result of those negative levels?
Say a 14th level Wizard gains 2 negative levels. Has he lost the ability to cast 7th level spells entirely?
Judging purely and strictly by the rules for energy drain on page 562 of the core rulebook, we see this:
"The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed. Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels."
So while your 14th level wizard who gains 2 negative levels would not lose any of his 7th level spells (they stay prepared in his mind), but since the ability to cast 14th level spells is a level dependent variable, he would lose the ability to actually cast those spells. They'd be locked in his head with nowhere to go until he got rid of a negative level, at which point they'd all be available for casting again.
This would make both Enervation and Energy Drain real spell caster killers.
I have a question. I hope you or anyone else can help me. Let me start it of with another quote from the same thread
Ok, so now we established that getting negative caster levels drops the ability to cast certain level spells you do not qualify for anymore.
Does that mean that getting positive caster levels enables you to cast spells you qualify for using the new level? If not, why the difference?
This is an interesting point, but it sidesteps the issue. The effect that's causing the loss of access to higher level spells is not merely a lowered caster level... it's the accumulation of negative levels that we're talking about. So for this argument to actually be legit, it would have to use the opposite of this effect—gaining positive levels. Which DOES give you the ability to cast more spells.
[...]
How might a person get positive caster levels?
|
|
I don't think you can defend the universalist option. Primarily the problem is that D20 has so many spells that most characters go their whole 'life' with only a fraction of them. Getting a negative on two schools simply makes your spell choice faster. Because of his extra castings the specialist actually casts a greater number of spells than the 'school' with no barriers to casting.
The problem for Wizards is never spell choice it is always spells cast per day.
Further so long as you only want 1 spell per day from the reduced schools you really get no penalty at all. Your benefit supplied the extra spell slot _for each level_. The base number of spells at each level is 4. Getting an extra spellslot right up to 9th level is like being 25% more wizard.
...
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you're claiming that wizards get +4 spells automatically each time they level. My understanding is that they get 2 new spells, so adding +1 for a universalist effectively increases their base spells known by 50%.
In a campaign abounding with lots of looted spellbooks, arcane scrolls, and magic shops, this might not make much of a difference. However, if your characters are out in the wilderness somewhere when they level, that extra spell can be a huge asset, particularly if several levels go by before you can get back to a city with wizards and libraries to copy and research spells from. Even if you have an enemy spellbook or two, being able to hand-pick your spells via leveling grants more flexibility than choosing from whatever limited options it provides.
I'm not saying that this would make universalists on par with specialists, but it would help, and it fits with their theme of having a broader base of knowledge to work from.
Ideally, they should also get +1 special ability of some sort for being universalists. That throwing weapons thing is ridiculous. Maybe give them additional bonus metamagic/item creation feats?
Another option would be to reduce or eliminate the penalties for losing a bonded object or having a familiar slain.
EDIT: Rereading your post, I guess you are referring to spells cast per day, not spells learned. I'll definitely agree with you that the +1 spell is a huge benefit for the specialist; it is actually better than a 25% bonus, since it increases to 33% or 50% for the highest levels of spells a wizard can cast.
|
|
@ Treantmonk:
In your guide, how about adding a section in the Specialist Schools where you rate schools to ban? There was some discussion of this earlier in this thread, but having it in the core guide would be useful for would-be wizards. Since specializing no longer forbids you from casting banned schools, I'd think that the choices of schools to ban would be different than in 3.5 ed.
@ Treantmonk:
In your guide, how about adding a section in the Specialist Schools where you rate schools to ban? There was some discussion of this earlier in this thread, but having it in the core guide would be useful for would-be wizards. Since specializing no longer forbids you from casting banned schools, I'd think that the choices of schools to ban would be different than in 3.5 ed.
I would second this.
One should note that because the banned schools now allow scroll use it really depends on what you want to do rather than what TreeMinky thinks is best. Look at the spells you'll be "banning" and decide whether you can live with them via scrolls with low DC's & durations.
If I was just tossing fireballs all day, I'd be an Evoker or Sorcerer. That's not generalised that's a specialised approach to magic. And yes, Treatmonk pretty much implies that Generalist is a horrible choice to play in his "optimising" guide. Being a Universalist means that every spell I can lay my hands on has a potential good use, it also means that the Wizard's emphasis is on spells as it should be as opposed to a hat of gimmick powers.
The School Powers of Divination need to be good, because for the most part the spells are as one would put them.... "sub optimal"
The fireball comment was merely to point out there are different playstyles WITHIN the wizard. There is no playstyle, in my opinion and experience, that can't do without a spell school or two. Personally I don't use evocation spells and rarely use enchantment spells. So I specialize pretty much with no penalty. And as long as you don't memorize more than one "forbidden" spell of EACH LEVEL every day, which seeing as there are 8 schools and likely 6 or 7 spell slots doesn't seem likely, you come out ahead with superior school powers.
TREANTMONK (not Treatmonk) says that yes Generalist is a poor choice. It IS because it is less powerful than other choices. Being specialist doesn't mean that spells you lay your hands on may have no use because THEY CAN CAST FROM EVERY SCHOOL I'm not sure you grasp that. Not only that but there is no restriction on their use of spells froms scrolls, wands, or staves. Those gimmick powers are what make specialists more optimal. It seems you don't want to argue the facts but are just grumpy that people won't agree with you that a Universalist is just as powerful as a Specialist (because they're not).
Furthermore, Divination spells being sub-optimal? What universe have you been living in? See Invisibility, Detect Magic, Arcane Sight, Scrying, True Strike, Identify, Telepathic Bond, True Seeing, Moment of Prescience are all clutch wizard spells and often game breakers. They are largely utility, but that in no way makes them sub-optimal.
I tend to see things form a different perspective. I'm used to campaigns where wands, scrolls, and staves are simply not that common and magic items are more difficult to obtain and generally impossible to purchase, and NPC wizards are very very reluctant to share any of their knowledge.
We also have a house rule that specialists can not choose from forbidden schools for thier two freebies per level.
The divination spells you mentioned have thier utility but its very situational as opposed to many of the spells that are used for controlling the battle field, grease, dispel magic, ice storm, summon monster, reverse gravity, etc. Treantmonk defines the utility of spells in thier battle field basis, in his own evaluation, most of the divination spells come up short as casting spells because of thier situational nature.
Like I said, they are utility spells not combat spells. Wizards are one of those classes that are extremely useful in and out of combat and both portions of gameplay are important to account for if you want to be optimal. The spells I listed are maybe not combat spells but are almost certainly spells you'll cast one of on a daily basis. I don't know what a wizard would be without Detect Magic, Identify and Scrying especially.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you're claiming that wizards get +4 spells automatically each time they level.
I am not talking about available spells. I am talking about casting slots. When a class offers only 4 casting slots, without ability bonuses, getting a 5th slot is like getting 25% more wizard.
Because you have that extra slot, the penalty of needing two slots to cast a blemished school of magic is not even a penalty until you cast the second spell of that school from that level. The bonus slot has supplied the price of your penalty.
While it is true that the blemished schools are a penalty, when you can read scrolls, use magic items, or simply get someone else to cast them the that penalty vanishes and you are left with the extra spell slot.
Btw. I hope every DM expects Wizards in their games to want more than 2 new spells to learn per level. 2 spells is the minimum.
sigurd
How might a person get positive caster levels?You don't because they don't exist and are not even a defined quality. You can however get effective boosts to your caster level which would impact level/dependent factors i.e. damage , duration, etc. (subject to applicable inherent caps)
Appart from death knell, how would a spell caster get an effective boost to the caster level?