I normally used it to get out of trouble. Quickened invisibility or expeditious retreat, run to a safe area, cast 2nd spell.
I normally used it to get out of trouble. Quickened invisibility or expeditious retreat, run to a safe area, cast 2nd spell.
But isn't that a bit...well, defensive? and dull for what's supposed to be the best Metamagic around?
As far as quicken summon monster I, that has its theoretical uses - although summon monster V is a far better use of that precious 5th level spell slot for the Conjuration specialist Wizard
I'd never use it on Summon Monster I, ever! Glitterdust/Cloud of Bewilderment/Web, for sure but it still doesn't look as nice as another Dire Lion, Babau, Whoolly Rhino, Bearded Devil [for Treeminky] or Ankylosaurus!
Any suggestions for the Metamagic Feat?
Quicken Spell, for me, is useful at 9th level and up, primarily to quicken true strike. This really comes into its own at 11th level when you have disintegrate, although there are other touch attacks that can also be paired to lethal effect with a quickened true strike.
That's wierd, I never really looked at the "to hit" part as a problem as you're probably a RTA build and have the required Feats to make hitting almost a formality. It's the Fort save that usually prevents the pile of dust!
The Incorporeal problem is a good example, but maybe a regular MM and a handful of 1st level Pearls of Power would suffice.
Use Battlefield control, Buffing or Debuffing instead - or if you must do damage to contribute, summon a Bearded Devil - satisfaction guaranteed!
You're obsessed with Bearded Devils!
Quicken Spell: Can you tell me when this Feat gets good? I ask because although I understand that the principle of casting 2 spells a round is cool and groovy, even with this Feat I still have a headache deciding when you use it!
I'm level 9. Focussed Specialist Conjurer going with Summoning more than Clouds. I have a lesser Rod of Metamagic Sculpt as most of my Sculpt-able spells are 3rd level and lower [Grease, Cloud of Bewilderment, Glitterdust, Web, Fireball, Sleet Storm & Stinking Cloud]
I have the following Feats: Scribble Scroll, Spell Focus Conjuration, Augment Summoning, Cloudy Conjuration, Metamagic School Focus Conjuration, Sudden Maximize & obviously Quicken Spell.I look at my spell options at 5th level [Summon Monster V & Teleport] and I ask myself "Do I want a Quickened Glitterdust/Cloud of Bewilderment/Web or another Summon Monster V"? Summon Monster V always looks better! Maybe I could change that to a Quickened Magic Missile... Hmmm, nope still isn't looking a better option!
Ok, so with Metamagic School Focus Conjuration I get Quicken conjuration spells [up to 3/day] for +3 levels rather than 4 [I also have Rapid Summoning alternative class feature from UA]. This means that I could have a Quickened Grease, lesser Orb of Acid, Mage Armour or Wall of Smoke in place of a 4th level spell, and on paper that looks great.
However, which of those would you prefer Quickened, compared to an extra Black Tentacles, Dimension Door, Greater Invisibility, Resilient Sphere or Summon Monster IV?? Here again, the 4th level spells all look more attractive than the Quickened 1st level ones.Just to add to this head-twist is that I need to pick another Metamagic Feat next level and I've no idea what to choose.
So far I've...
Level 9 is a bit early to be relying on Quickened Metamagic spells as a staple. That said, if you've got the feat already, later on you will find it useful.
What you want to do is wait for a few levels (maybe level 12 or 13 where you have access to 6th or 7th level spells) - then using up a 4th or 5th level spell slot for a quickened spell doesn't hurt so much.
keep in mind that your quickened spell is not the big show of the round. However, a 1st or 2nd level spell that scales well with level, in addition to a level appropriate spell in one round increases your effectiveness likely.
Good quicken spell candidates:
Protection from X: An excellent defensive spell at any level, but at high level do you really want to use a whole standard action to cast it? I didn't think so.
Shield: Not for everyone, but if you rely on AC at all, then this provides a +4 that stacks with pretty much anything you may have. However, the duration ain't great which means it's an in-combat spell. At high levels, spending a standard action to pump AC is a pretty pathetic use of an action, but a swift action? Much better.
Resist Energy: You just entered combat with a Blue Dragon, and you've got no acid resistance ready. You don't want to spend a whole action when fighting a dragon on defensive magic, but a quickened Resist Energy will make Acid Breath survivable, even for a squishy wizard. Combine it with something that keeps the Dragon at range, cause this spell aint going to stop his teeth from ripping you apart.
Fog Cloud: Me likely clouds. Yes, you have Cloudy Conjuration, but for those who don't, a quickened Fog Cloud can be useful at any level. Fog Clouds don't give saves, nor does SR or True Seeing bypass.
See Invisibility: Not a spell I'm a big fan of when it's level appropriate, but when it can be cast quickened, I become a much bigger fan. Find and Destroy the invisible target all in one deadly round.
Mirror Image: A great defensive spell even at high level. Casting it quickened gives you a real defensive boost at the beginning of a combat without preventing you from dishing out the pain with your standard action.
Spectral Hand: A real winner for a quickened spell. Deliver a touch attack at range with one standard action.
Comprehend Languages: Now I'm just seeing if you are still paying attention. Are you? Or am I just words on a page now going blah blah blah?
I normally used it to get out of trouble. Quickened invisibility or expeditious retreat, run to a safe area, cast 2nd spell.But isn't that a bit...well, defensive? and dull for what's supposed to be the best Metamagic around?
As far as quicken summon monster I, that has its theoretical uses - although summon monster V is a far better use of that precious 5th level spell slot for the Conjuration specialist WizardI'd never use it on Summon Monster I, ever! Glitterdust/Cloud of Bewilderment/Web, for sure but it still doesn't look as nice as another Dire Lion, Babau, Whoolly Rhino, Bearded Devil [for Treeminky] or Ankylosaurus!
Any suggestions for the Metamagic Feat?
That is not the only thing its good for, but it kept my guy alive, darn killer DM's. I think its best used as a quick debuff or buff, before you cast the spell you really want.
Comprehend Languages: Now I'm just seeing if you are still paying attention. Are you? Or am I just words on a page now going blah blah blah?
Jajajaja...
Bad news that now rules explicitly say that metamagiced slot aren´t infinite. It was very useful with sorcerer and Quicken spell.
By the way Grease also works fine, blocking charges, helping rouge with their escape artist (its okay to spend a swift action being reactive when the standar is proactive), dismarming, forcing flated-footedness,etc.
Humbly,
Yawar
Quicken mostly become useful at higher levels (10+) when combat takes shorter and shorter and you want to do as much as you possibly can in 1 round. Sure, a 5th level spell is better than a quickened lvl 1 (or 2 spell with metamagic focus), but you won't be able to cast all your lvl 5 spells in combat anyway. It is better to cast a lvl 5 spell + a quickened lvl 1 spell than just a lvl 5 spell after all ;-)
I can see that at level 15 you might want to start combat with a quickened haste on your entire party and some kind of lvl 6 or 7 battlefield control spell instead of just that last one. You want to cram that haste in somewhere after all. It would be a waste if that was all you do in 1 round.
Ok, thanks guys.
(Treeminky: Yes I'm still reading!)
Any suggestions for the level 10 Feat?
Ok, thanks guys.
(Treeminky: Yes I'm still reading!)
Any suggestions for the level 10 Feat?
Still Spell or Silent Spell, otherwise an item creation feat. Unless you have a HUGE INT bonus and/or a small spell book, Spell Mastery isn't worth it.
If they bring the Archmage back, I know what feats I'm taking...
Ok, thanks guys.
(Treeminky: Yes I'm still reading!)
Any suggestions for the level 10 Feat?
Well - Obviously 3.5 is an option (you have Cloudy Conjuration), so how about:
Spontaneous Divination (CC)
or
Domain Power (CM I think) - though you would need to check with your DM how that would convert to PF.
Regarding quickened uses, is it just me or combinations with quickened Ray of Enfeeblement could be nice?
For example:
Q-RoE with Black tentacle?
Q-RoE with Web?
DW
Regarding quickened uses, is it just me or combinations with quickened Ray of Enfeeblement could be nice?
For example:
Q-RoE with Black tentacle?
Q-RoE with Web?DW
Yep, that would work very nicely to pare down the victim's STR/CMB/CMD.
Necromancy, Enchantment & Divination are my prohibited schools...
Domain Granted Power CC - though you would need to check with your DM how that would convert to PF.
This is an interesting option. Although we are using PF rules, we're using 3.5 Gods in our AoW campaign.
I'm Neutral and my God is Ehlonna, granting the Animal Domain which would grant me Speak with Animals... very useful for a Summoner Wizard!
One thing that you should note with the Form of Dragon spells, you can not cast any spells with material components unless you have the Eschew Materials Feat.
I should definitely note that. Good catch!
The Hand spells DO allow spell resistance, which may degrade them slightly.
The only other area I majorly disagree with is on the nature of the Arcane Bond. Familliars have thier uses, but the greatest problem every wizard faces is proper selection of spells per day plus the oddball situatonal ones. In a campaign like Pathfinder Society where you can't scribe anything and are extremely limited on scroll purchases, having that "any spell in your spellbook" ready to call once per day is a benefit that just keeps getting better the fatter your book gets.
I'll second this. There are so many spells that are extremely useful, but too situational to justify preparing them every day just in case. The bonded item allows you to "spontaneously" cast any one of those spells when the situation demands it.
Yes, losing your bonded item really sucks, but it's very unlikely if you choose a ring. If someone has managed to capture you and take your ring, you're already screwed anyway.
but I'd love some further insight into how certain spell combos or casting strategies can increase the overall effectiveness of the group.
I'm not sure I follow. Care to provide an example?
The Hand spells DO allow spell resistance, which may degrade them slightly.
Good call. I don't know why I thought Foreceful Hand didn't allow SR...
The only other area I majorly disagree with is on the nature of the Arcane Bond.
You are certainly entitled to disagree. I can't really comment on Pathfinder Society play - I make my opinions mainly based on my own group's style of play.
I knew when I wrote it that it wouldn't be a popular opinion ;)
I've taken less grief over "Gate" than I thought though...
BTW, Saruman wasn't boned by the breaking of his staff. He'd already been so boned that breaking it was possible. :)
I think the breaking of the Staff was possible because Gandalf had become head of the order of Istari and therefore had the authority to remove Saruman, but he chose not to do it until Saruman had refused the opportunity to repent...but that's a debate for another place and time.
I chose this example because:
a) I'm a huge geek - especially when it comes to Lord of the Rings
b) Because the staff breaking is the point where Saruman ceases to be a Wizard (at least in the LotR sense of the word). Much like your PC when your arcane bond gets broken.
I think the size of the handicap cause by arcane bond is proportionate to the Quality of the DM and his playing style. Your arcane bond may never be threatened- it may be destroyed every couple levels. In my opinion a good DM (ie good storyteller) can ignore an obvious weak spot like a spell book, or a staff, or a family- so a good DM will threaten it...b]once[/b]. If it becomes a recurring thing it's bad for the story- the DM shouldn't have every orc sundering your staff, I mean how many of us have had our spell pouches sundered? I've never had it happen, but I'm sure some people have. And I'm sure that among those people, most of their DMs didn't make it a recurring problem.
That's my two cents-I like the arcane bond (for wizards- it doesn't mesh with a sorcerer's flavor... for me).
Does anyone have any opinion on the pathfinder Savant Prc from the Seekers of Secrets book? (especially as it relates to this guide)
Does anyone have any opinion on the pathfinder Savant Prc from the Seekers of Secrets book? (especially as it relates to this guide)
Well I like the Prestige Class. It has some nice class features, especially picking other classes spells [even at +1 level]. However, as with all full casters, giving up a spell caster level is a huge sacrifice, and I'm not sure whether it's worth it on the number crunching [optimizer] side, but for flavour, I think it pretty good.
I enjoyed this guide alot and wanted to say thank you. As a newly starting GM with all new players to the game (i have played before though) this was a good read i will certainly hand this over to the lady playing the wizard in my campaign.
Just a question: Is the Universalist really that bad? Metamagic Mastery sounds awesome and additionally you do not have to cross any spells out of your potential spellbook. hand of the Apprentice only helps at low levels but i find it more useful than the abilities some other specialisations offer. I also think conjuration is the best, as i also love the summons, but i think that the Universalist is also a pretty decent option. As i am pretty new to all of this i would like some insight on why it is not a good choice.
Thanks for the effort and time you put into this.
Tim
I enjoyed this guide alot and wanted to say thank you. As a newly starting GM with all new players to the game (i have played before though) this was a good read i will certainly hand this over to the lady playing the wizard in my campaign.
Thanks! Hope she finds it helpful.
Just a question: Is the Universalist really that bad?
Define "That bad"
I don't think picking it ruins your wizard or anything, but I do think it's the worst option available overall.
Metamagic Mastery sounds awesome and additionally you do not have to cross any spells out of your potential spellbook.
Why do you need to cross spells out of your spellbook with any other specialization?
Metamagic mastery is certainly a good ability - but not nearly as good as getting an extra spell for every level you can cast IMO.
hand of the Apprentice only helps at low levels but i find it more useful than the abilities some other specialisations offer.
Really? You know that most of the other "3+Int bonus" attacks that other specializations offer are touch attacks right?
I also think conjuration is the best, as i also love the summons, but i think that the Universalist is also a pretty decent option.
I hate to say it isn't a decent option, because I don't think there are any terrible options.
However, of the list of 9 decent options - I would rate it 9th.
As i am pretty new to all of this i would like some insight on why it is not a good choice.
You will find that Wizards run out of spells, or at least run out of their highest level spells fairly quickly. If you are a universalist - this happens much more quickly - since every other specialization grants you 1 extra spell per level of spell you know, and universalist doesn't.
That's a BIG penalty.
Thanks for the effort and time you put into this.
Tim
Thanks again!
You know what? I don't hate it when I am wrong, i just hate it, when others are right. ;)
Just joking...
That all sounds very reasonable. I gues i just overestimated the Metamagic Mastery and the drawbacks, when selecting certain school. I guess i just would not be able to decide, which two school to cross out, so i would have to pay double slots. I guess that would be Divination and Necromancy, where Divination would hurt me more. But the most important spells from that school (like identify) are on a low level, where a high INT Wizard will have enough school and i guess the extra spellslot makes up for that. When i read through the different schools now, i guess that the other abilities granted by that choise are indeed more viable. So if I would have to pick a school after reading your guide i guess my personal choice would be Illusion.
Thanks for the input. Will talk that through with the lady and as she just only progressed to level 2 allow her to switch her school, if she would want to.
What will really help her get into the game faster ist the part about the role (knowing what to do on the battlefield really help - let the pally, the druid and the rogue dish out the damage and do other things more helpful) and the rundown of the spells.
Would love to read something like that about a paladin, as i am afraid our build here really sucks, because we planned something out wrong, but hey.
Thanks for the twentieth or so time!
Love these guides. Is there one in works for the monk?
Love these guides. Is there one in works for the monk?
Thanks!
Currently there isn't one in the works at all.
Definitely won't be writing one until after December I think - my schedule is crazy for the rest of the month.
I am considering Monk heavily for my next guide. Nothing inspires me to write a guide like a few, "This class sucks" threads. :)
Another poster mentioned working on a Monk guide - so if that pops up in the next few weeks, I'll take a look through that - if I agree with the points, I probably won't write a guide.
Hint for Monks: The primary ability score for Monks isn't Wisdom or Dexterity. It's Strength.
Hint for Monks: The primary ability score for Monks isn't Wisdom or Dexterity. It's Strength.
??. I will have to wait to see this one in more detail.
Have you considered including traits in the guide? I'm not sure how many people are using traits, but if they are, there are some that seem really well suited to the aspiring god-wizard. There are two that really stand out to me.
Focused Mind Your childhood was either dominated by lessons of some sort (be they musical or academic) or by a horrible home life that encouraged your ability to block out distractions to focus on the immediate task at hand. You gain a +2 trait bonus on concentration checks.
This applies to all concentration checks, not just for defensive casting as with the Combat Casting feat. And it will add to the bonus from the feat as it is a trait bonus.
Reactionary You were bullied often as a child, but never quite developed an offensive response. Instead, you became adept at anticipating sudden attacks and reacting to danger quickly. You gain a +2 trait bonus on Initiative checks.
This adds to the bonus from Improved Initiative, and if you take both you have a +6 bonus on initiative checks.
For a multi-classed wizard, I can see taking Magical Knack as it raises your CL by (up to) two levels.
Magical Knack You were raised, either wholly or in part, by a magical creature, either after it found you abandoned in the woods or because your parents often left you in the care of a magical minion. This constant exposure to magic has made its mysteries easy for you to understand, even when you turn your mind to other devotions and tasks. Pick a class when you gain this trait—your caster level in that class gains a +2 trait bonus as long as this bonus doesn’t increase your caster level higher than your current Hit Dice.
None of the others look nearly as useful, but I am interested in whether I'm overlooking something interesting.
Sweet mother of flapjacks! This is totally awesome!
I'd love to see how the wizard stands up against the Summoner class. Here's hoping you'll write a guide to the class!
Sweet mother of flapjacks! This is totally awesome!
I'd love to see how the wizard stands up against the Summoner class. Here's hoping you'll write a guide to the class!
The playtest Summoner seems all kinds of powerful.
I'll be interested how the official version comes out. I wouldn't mind seeing it nerfed slightly actually, because I think as it stands it's maybe a bit too good.
|
Hi Treantmonk,
I promised to have a look at your work and stop back to reply. I'd first like to say that you have a talent for cutting through the data horizontally, and pointing out comparisons that would take some of us a few months or a year to fully realize. For that aspect primarily I see these essays of good value. My only critique, although the FAQs already addresses the question of the tone of this work, I'd like to challenge you to consider how you could still have fun with sarcasm without ostensibly 'teaching' newer generations to make a vaue-judgment about character power. That is, is there a way to be clear that your instruments are designed to provide clarity around optimization, yet not deliver a value judgement about those who role play characters in game campaigns where power isn't a concern. As we've discussed before, we both know the game is played quite viably with or without optimization. As a humble suggestion, your documents might also reach a broader audience if the concept of optimization was seen as insightful for those who choose to play 'nerfed healing wizards with an INT of 12' or whatever the non-powerful suite of the day might be. I see your documents of value, and am not suggesting changes for the sake of criticism, but rather to make them more accessible to the full breadth of the hobby, and to 'teach' or provide insight to more without necessarily conveying negativity around non-optimized characters or characters with designed/intended disadvantages. I would welcome your thoughts on this, and do not seek any arguments so much as respond as promised to say that overall the documents are insightful. Thank you.
-Pax
20-point buy: Str 7 (-4), Dex 16 (10), Con 13 (3), Int 18 (17), Wis 7 (-4), Cha 8 (-2)
Wouldn't this spread make role-playing the character challenging? With a 7 Wisdom you would almost have to play him as taking foolish risks all the time (since he has no common sense) and with an 8 Charisma he won't be the likable sort... possibly even a straight out jerk. I realize you're trying to optimize for maximum number crunching goodness, but you also have to look at each stat and realize what it means from an RP perspective. A Strength of 7 means you're underdeveloped like an old woman. In my view the game is more than just numbers and you should take everything into account imo. Remember that dump stats need to be RP'd... unless you really don't care about the RP, in which case I wonder why you're playing the game in the first place.
I do appreciate the time and effort Treantmonk spent in making the guide, it's just something I'm curious about.
20-point buy: Str 7 (-4), Dex 16 (10), Con 13 (3), Int 18 (17), Wis 7 (-4), Cha 8 (-2)Wouldn't this spread make role-playing the character challenging? With a 7 Wisdom you would almost have to play him as taking foolish risks all the time (since he has no common sense)
Low Wisdom in-game doesn't mean foolish. Wisdom reflects ones overall perception/observation of the people and things around you. He could be more concerned about looking through an interesting book than paying attention to what might be around the next corner or whether someone has just Sleight of Handed his purse.
and with an 8 Charisma he won't be the likable sort... possibly even a straight out jerk.
Almost probably yes! He's likely an Elf and will possibly look at anyone that isn't a) an Elf or b) a Wizard, as a rather unfortunate soul, for example.
RP-ing a low Charisma doesn't have to mean rude. It can be fun to RP him as saying the wrong thing at the wrong time, or rubbing others up the wrong way etc.
Hi Treantmonk,
I promised to have a look at your work and stop back to reply. I'd first like to say that you have a talent for cutting through the data horizontally, and pointing out comparisons that would take some of us a few months or a year to fully realize. For that aspect primarily I see these essays of good value. My only critique, although the FAQs already addresses the question of the tone of this work, I'd like to challenge you to consider how you could still have fun with sarcasm without ostensibly 'teaching' newer generations to make a vaue-judgment about character power. That is, is there a way to be clear that your instruments are designed to provide clarity around optimization, yet not deliver a value judgement about those who role play characters in game campaigns where power isn't a concern. As we've discussed before, we both know the game is played quite viably with or without optimization. As a humble suggestion, your documents might also reach a broader audience if the concept of optimization was seen as insightful for those who choose to play 'nerfed healing wizards with an INT of 12' or whatever the non-powerful suite of the day might be. I see your documents of value, and am not suggesting changes for the sake of criticism, but rather to make them more accessible to the full breadth of the hobby, and to 'teach' or provide insight to more without necessarily conveying negativity around non-optimized characters or characters with designed/intended disadvantages. I would welcome your thoughts on this, and do not seek any arguments so much as respond as promised to say that overall the documents are insightful. Thank you.
-Pax
Optimizing is something RP-ers do all the time. If you were to play a Wizard would you pick spells that wont help you or the party in the challenges ahead? Would you choose not to protect yourself from danger, or, choose to have a CON score of 5?
If the answer is No to any of those examples, you've just optimized >to a degree<.
Hi Treantmonk,
I promised to have a look at your work and stop back to reply. I'd first like to say that you have a talent for cutting through the data horizontally, and pointing out comparisons that would take some of us a few months or a year to fully realize. For that aspect primarily I see these essays of good value. My only critique, although the FAQs already addresses the question of the tone of this work, I'd like to challenge you to consider how you could still have fun with sarcasm without ostensibly 'teaching' newer generations to make a vaue-judgment about character power. That is, is there a way to be clear that your instruments are designed to provide clarity around optimization, yet not deliver a value judgement about those who role play characters in game campaigns where power isn't a concern. As we've discussed before, we both know the game is played quite viably with or without optimization. As a humble suggestion, your documents might also reach a broader audience if the concept of optimization was seen as insightful for those who choose to play 'nerfed healing wizards with an INT of 12' or whatever the non-powerful suite of the day might be. I see your documents of value, and am not suggesting changes for the sake of criticism, but rather to make them more accessible to the full breadth of the hobby, and to 'teach' or provide insight to more without necessarily conveying negativity around non-optimized characters or characters with designed/intended disadvantages. I would welcome your thoughts on this, and do not seek any arguments so much as respond as promised to say that overall the documents are insightful. Thank you.
-Pax
Well I think that is an entirely different guide dont you think? Certainly Optimization has to do with powerful characters, that is what this guide is for. You have to weigh the material based on that. It is made by an optimizer for an optimizer.
What you are talking about is essentially a "Making the Best out of sub-optimal choices" Guide. A wizard with an Int of 12 is the opposite of optimized. I am certain you can have fun with a 12 int wizard, i have seen some very odd builds work out to the point where they can contribute. But that is a competely different topic, and needs to be approached in a very different way. I dont think you could put both concepts in the same guide.
I really appreciate how helpful these guides are, but one of my players is red/green colorblind.
I'm sure he can tough it out, but after watching him learn to excel at video games with red bogies and green allies on the radar, I think maybe he deserves a break on this one.
That is all.
edit - maybe throw a dropshadow, bolding, or underline on one color? that way you don't have to mess about with your conventions.
Optimizing is something RP-ers do all the time. If you were to play a Wizard would you pick spells that wont help you or the party in the challenges ahead? Would you choose not to protect yourself from danger, or, choose to have a CON score of 5?
If the answer is No to any of those examples, you've just optimized >to a degree<.
The picking of stats is not roleplaying, it's setting the stage and the parameters that you're going to roleplay in. By your logic anyone who plays a wizard that's not a supergenius isn't "roleplaying" which is an absurdity in itself. Maybe the wizard I'm roleplaying isn't the totally social dsyfunctional supergenius. Maybe he has "only" a wisdom of 16 or 15, but he actually has a functional charisma and is more of a friendly face than most wizards.
If the campaign you play in only has room for 20 int Wizards who are setup by the strict parameters of an optimization guide, then one has to ask whether it's a roleplaying campaign... or a paper and dice MMORG.
Here's what it comes down to. If you are playing a wizard with an Int of 11 of 12 you're going to be an AWFUL wizard. You will not contribute meaningfully to encounters (combat OR otherwise) of your own level. Why would you purposely play a character, even for enjoyable RP purposes, whose personality, feat, skill, or spell selection ACTIVELY HINDERS your party's progress through an adventure?
What you're arguing is that your stats DICTATE your roleplaying which I disagree with. I have a wizard (on hiatus but still active) who has a 17 charisma. I don't play my character as someone who is boisterous and likable, though that would be a valid way to play her, I play her as confident and austere.
But again, this guide is not a ROLEPLAYING guide to wizards, it is an optimization guide and a very good one at that. There are not strict guidelines to making a wizard, and nowhere does the author say so. There are spells that are less useful, but every spell has its use.
In the end it's about how you have fun. If you have fun playing the bumbling idiot wizard, who never has the right thing memorized, spends all his feats on Weapon Focus: Sap, is slow on the uptake, sleeps through combat, continually fireballs getting his teammates scorched, and has the HP pool of a wet cat then go for it.
Hi Treantmonk,
I promised to have a look at your work and stop back to reply. I'd first like to say that you have a talent for cutting through the data horizontally, and pointing out comparisons that would take some of us a few months or a year to fully realize. For that aspect primarily I see these essays of good value. My only critique, although the FAQs already addresses the question of the tone of this work, I'd like to challenge you to consider how you could still have fun with sarcasm without ostensibly 'teaching' newer generations to make a vaue-judgment about character power. That is, is there a way to be clear that your instruments are designed to provide clarity around optimization, yet not deliver a value judgement about those who role play characters in game campaigns where power isn't a concern. As we've discussed before, we both know the game is played quite viably with or without optimization. As a humble suggestion, your documents might also reach a broader audience if the concept of optimization was seen as insightful for those who choose to play 'nerfed healing wizards with an INT of 12' or whatever the non-powerful suite of the day might be. I see your documents of value, and am not suggesting changes for the sake of criticism, but rather to make them more accessible to the full breadth of the hobby, and to 'teach' or provide insight to more without necessarily conveying negativity around non-optimized characters or characters with designed/intended disadvantages. I would welcome your thoughts on this, and do not seek any arguments so much as respond as promised to say that overall the documents are insightful. Thank you.
-Pax
I like them the way they are. Value-judgements are important. I wish I had learned it sooner. I would not have had to make so many characters.