Stuff
Can I get the short version?
Well thats not nice. Just meant it was a bit hard to read and digest and a short version would be nice.
3.5 OP's love to crow about how the powerful the wizard is because they automatically assume they can acquire whatever spells are most overpowered that they wish and abuse the hell out of them.
This sense of entitlement is incredibly easy to puncture, is what it all sums up to. If they DON'T have access to any and every spell they want, wizards lose a whole lot of power.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find that deciding how many spells the wizard gets and which ones is like telling a fighter what feats he is allowed to get.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All 3 fullcasters were tier one in 3.5 remember? Do you tell the cleric he can't cast certain spells to? Are you up front about this sort of houserule? Do you think its fair to the player playing the wizard? Do you think it really adds up so everyones even? Questions.
Telling the wizard what class features he gets is on par with telling the fighter what he gets or the barbarian what rage powers he gets. I can understand banning one or two, but of course its going to drastically reduce their strength. Unless your going out of your way to make them all powerful.
Part of the game is choice, I don't advocate taking it away. This conversation has gone way offtopic from PrCs I think.
A better example is allowing wizards to procure every spell he wants without limit is akin to allowing the fighter to spend gold to acquire every feat he wants, or the barbarian to grab every rage power he wants.
That's the difference between the classes. A fighter is explicitly limited to what feats he can get by feat trees and maximum numbers of feats.
The wizard has no such restrictions. Nor does the cleric, save for having a weaker list and alignment restrictions. But the wizard breaks spellcasting much more then a cleric does.
I have little problem with a wizard choosing any of his free spells from out of the core spells, which have, at least in PF, been fairly well balanced.
But just spending gold and grabbing any spell from everywhere? Ugh. I have yet to see a justification why fighters and rogues couldn't spend gold on extra training and pick up talents and feats that way. It's the same kind of power up...vast increase in versatility with little down side, and spells applied to the correct situation are always more powerful then feats.
==Aelryinth
I don't think any class should be kinda meh. Thats just an insult. Everyone should be fun, full of options, and easy to flavor. I am not sure if what you are doing is really what they need, but YMMV. PrCs removing the extra spells while being meh themselves is not a secret wizard fix or anything. Saying its okay because wizards are OP and its okay for them to pay is not a happy solution I don't think. Find a fun alternative maybe?
I disagree that buying spells is like buying feats. Spells are a much different mechanic. Feats are not versality, they don't add options. There are not some crazy form of tactical feats which allow you to do new things in combat or add new mechanics. There is numbers. They are flat bonuses. Rarely do you see a feat that actually does something more than numbers.
Your allowed to award feats and allow players to buy them if you really wanted, but thats houserules. I like the idea of awarding feats.
Meet an old mentor? He spars with you for a bit and you learn from it.
Meet a monk? He trains you to understand the world around you. Sure you don't think you'll need it, but its a good feeling to know your prepared and to see what others may not.
During your downtime you go around the town practicing several hobbies. You gain a campaign trait! 2 skills of your choice are now in class.
Meet a master blacksmith? Here have skillfocus. You might need it.
Go through the ancient trials of the 10 warlords? They invest within you great knowledge from an eldritch source.
Tough times ahead, but your journey has been long. Here have toughness... Boss is in the next room.
In the middle of a room is a red potion, the lifetime acheevement of a wizard long dead. Drinking it gives you fills you with great strength and you gain the Toughness feat.
I'm not saying wizards should be 'kinda meh', I'm saing the need to be MORE 'kinda meh'. Why? Because anyone whose ever played a fighter in a high level game will tell you, for the bulk of it you are peripheral. Likewise with the other character classes.
Wizards need to do more to earn their powers (their spells, their forbidden lore, their arcane secrets, etc) for no other reason than game balance.
I actually do like roleplaying how I get my powers, feats, skills, and other things during downtime. Its fun and flavorful. I don't want it to become a mandate. Worse is when you want a different fluff than whats in the book and it removes options.
On the flipside, upping Rogues, Monks, and Fighters is actually healthier for the game. Nerfing is alienating and can hurt feelings if done midgame. Everyone loves buffs though! More so its accepted that those three could use a little help, and its not a terrible idea to up them so they have less problems.
MR. Sin,
There are more then a few feats that do add versatility and options...however, those are rarely combat feats. For instance, racial feats that allow darkvision, or allow you to fly, or add energy resistance, are more then just 'mere numbers'. Likewise, metafeats that turn a concussive fireball into a dazing attack SoS is more then numbers.
But, unsuprisingly, while some combat feats can add some new options in battle (think the step up and strike line, or Dazing Assault, or the Crit feats), but for the most part are indeed mere modifiers to the dice.
==Aelryinth
Energy resistance and AC are moar numbers. What feats allow you to fly that aren't racial or adding more rage powers or something like that?
Yeah, I know there are a few. I did say most. I just don't see many. Theres also the issue with adding feats that do add options that detract from what you can already do by making you need a feat to do it in the first place.
Well, the problem is that Combat Feats affect combat. Those are the ones that most apply to fighters, and those are usually number modifiers.
If you use General feats, you can come up with some stuff that's crazy, but you still have to look from a fighter's perspective. A fighter should be better with feats the way a bard is better with music and the way a Rogue is with skills.
ANd the tools are already in the class. A feat that operates on a mental level can be modified by bravery. A feat that operates on quick or flexible level can be modified by armor training. And a feat that operates on a tough or strong level can be modified by weapon training.
Then you have feat modifiers built into the class that modify all feats, not just armor prof, weapon prof, and saves against fear.
==Aelryinth
First thing's first: Comparing Feats to Spells like they're even close to being in the same league mechanically is so utterly wrong. Feats ALWAYS work, ALL the time. Spells known are SEVERELY limited by spell slots per day. There is NO honest way to make this a workable comparison. So can we get off that horse please?
Second, even Schrodinger's Wizard absolutely cannot solo high-level encounters. If yours can, your GM is being SUPER nice about the difficulty of his/her encounters. Yes, high-level spells can be absolutely necessary in very flashy ways, but I promise you you still need the other classes just as much as they need you. (Example? Your average fighter-type will almost always push out higher damage numbers than even your best blaster-caster. Another example? Good luck to Mr. God Wizard when the enemy has a high Fort and several high resistances/immunities - and lots of monsters fall into this category.)
Third, comparing ANY full-caster to ANY Fighter makes the Fighter look bad, and the reason for this is that the current PF system works against the Fighter in ways that most other classes just don't have to deal with (Monk and Rogue are also on this list). It's not because Wizards are just so frakkin' amazing - It's because Fighters have to pound their face into needlessly long feat trees and super-low skills, without gaining anything that makes them feel unique (no, Armor Training doesn't feel special, it's just slightly better numbers).
Lastly, this game is supposed to be about having fun! What is fun about taking a week off from adventuring with your party so you can go teleport to some city and scrounge around for spells that you would have gotten for free if you hadn't wanted to take this prestige class for SLIGHT variance on your regular style? Not to mention that blowing a few thousand gold every two levels will likely keep you from buying that gear you ACTUALLY want - you know, the gear that keeps you mechanically on par with the rest of your party.
What is fun about knowing that, unless your GM pays special attention to your needs, that taking a PrC as a spell-book-user is actually a LOSS of power and potential instead of a gain?
tl;dr - Just another thread full of wizard-hate up in here.
First things first: Having an ability that works all day doesn't mean a thing if you aren't in a situation where it applies. Having Dodge is wonderful. +1 AC! When you are tooling about town, it's useless. Wasted space. Nobody is trying to hit you.
Spells apply when you want them to apply. They are used in the situations where they can apply. Just as it doesn't matter that a melee can eventually knock down a castle wall by beating on it all day, it doesn't matter that casters have limited slots...they only need to have enough slots to deal with the situation they find themselves in. And they generally have enough spells to apply to multiple situations, in or out of combat, a fact which gets more prominent at higher levels.
If they don't, they pull back. And guess what? The guys with feats pull back, too, because the spells are so much more powerful then the feats, and there aren't any feats that provide healing like spells can.
---
Two, if you can Schroedinger's Wizard, you can most assuredly 'solo' high level encounters. I believe Ashiel has a wizard enemy build she throws against her parties just to display that fact. Between Summonings, Callings, Undead, Charm spells, Simulacarums and the like, a wizard can instantly become their own adventuring party.
If you haven't seen this, then you haven't seen a high level wizard with a powerful spellbook in play who wasn't afraid to dominate the party. It's really humilating to the melees when a God Wizard finally lets go and they realize the casters didn't need them at all to win the fight.
---
Three - you just pooed the feats vs spells comparison, then turned around and use it yourself?
-----------
Four, if having to pay nominal amounts of gold to buy some spells, in exchange for getting the Class Features you want that nobody else has is 'badwrongfun', then maybe the person grabbing the PrC needs to redefine what 'fun' is.
Because it sounds like 3.5 fun, where PrC meant 'have your cake and eat it, too, in all ways better then core class.'
And PF is trying really hard to make that Not True.
==Aelryinth
I think most players end up with more than their default 2 per lvl spells as a wizard, that comes from gm "fiat"
a lvl 20 sorcerer knows 34 spells (not including cantrips)
A wizard at lvl 1 with 20 int, and then at lvl 20 without scribing extra will know 46 spells.
If these 12 spells really make the difference you need to stop playing wizards and just go with a sorcerer.
Or considering the spells known difference, you can go sorcerer and continue to get your spells known and be "on par" with those wizards that didn't get one for free for 6 or so levels. or you'll be ahead if not otherwise.
If your GM isn't accommodating to the whole culture that a wizard requires, you need to just not play a wizard. the issue of prestige classes not giving a wizard spells is not the issue in this scenario EVER. It's the GM. And even in a world of pure wizards without prestige classes, the versatility of your spell book is compromised by not being able to scribe scrolls, so why play one?
If it's "I want to play a wizard" despite my GM not wanting wizards to be played how they should... give up on it.
Regardless of GM attitudes, a wizard player in anything resembling a traditional campaign (like anything Paizo publishes, for example) pretty much has a right to expect to find some scrolls, a musty spellbook lost in a dungeon or another wizard or organization willing to sell or trade spells, Just like someone playing a fighter with weapon specialization (glaive) expects to somehow get a +1 glaive at some point, despite the fact that nothing about his class actually guarantees this or even really suggests that he should expect this. after all, a mundane glaive still grants the bonus from his feats so he should just be happy with this or play a different class right?
It's okay for there to be exceptions, but only as as long as everyone is on the same page from the start IMO, and this sort of game should really be an exception, rather than the rule.
First things first: Having an ability that works all day doesn't mean a thing if you aren't in a situation where it applies. Having Dodge is wonderful. +1 AC! When you are tooling about town, it's useless. Wasted space. Nobody is trying to hit you.
Spells apply when you want them to apply. They are used in the situations where they can apply. Just as it doesn't matter that a melee can eventually knock down a castle wall by beating on it all day, it doesn't matter that casters have limited slots...they only need to have enough slots to deal with the situation they find themselves in. And they generally have enough spells to apply to multiple situations, in or out of combat, a fact which gets more prominent at higher levels.
If they don't, they pull back. And guess what? The guys with feats pull back, too, because the spells are so much more powerful then the feats, and there aren't any feats that provide healing like spells can.
---
Two, if you can Schroedinger's Wizard, you can most assuredly 'solo' high level encounters. I believe Ashiel has a wizard enemy build she throws against her parties just to display that fact. Between Summonings, Callings, Undead, Charm spells, Simulacarums and the like, a wizard can instantly become their own adventuring party.If you haven't seen this, then you haven't seen a high level wizard with a powerful spellbook in play who wasn't afraid to dominate the party. It's really humilating to the melees when a God Wizard finally lets go and they realize the casters didn't need them at all to win the fight.
---
Three - you just pooed the feats vs spells comparison, then turned around and use it yourself?-----------
Four, if having to pay nominal amounts of gold to buy some spells, in exchange for getting the Class Features you want that nobody else has is 'badwrongfun', then maybe the person grabbing the PrC needs to redefine what 'fun' is.Because it sounds like 3.5 fun, where PrC meant 'have your cake and eat it, too, in all ways better then core class.'...
No offence meant, but I have to ask. Do you only ever get to play with douchebags? The samples you give are always extreme min-maxers with no thought for party members, the few people I showed this and the max dex example of yours simply said they'd feel dirty if they ever played a character like that.
I'm currently alchemist/wizard, but I doubt I'll use simulacrums for anything outside servants back at home or exotic pets and mounts.
First things first: Having an ability that works all day doesn't mean a thing if you aren't in a situation where it applies. Having Dodge is wonderful. +1 AC! When you are tooling about town, it's useless. Wasted space. Nobody is trying to hit you.
When tooling about town, a prepared Stinking Cloud is just as useless as that Dodge feat. When you suddenly find yourself thrown into a combat situation, that Dodge applies to all foes for all attacks - the Stinking Cloud (assuming you even have it prepared! You planned on a quiet day after all) only gets to happen once.
Bottom line? Situational things are situational, and that applies equally to prepared spells as it does to permanent feats.Two, if you can Schroedinger's Wizard, you can most assuredly 'solo' high level encounters. I believe Ashiel has a wizard enemy build she throws against her parties just to display that fact. Between Summonings, Callings, Undead, Charm spells, Simulacarums and the like, a wizard can instantly become their own adventuring party.
If you haven't seen this, then you haven't seen a high level wizard with a powerful spellbook in play who wasn't afraid to dominate the party. It's really humilating to the melees when a God Wizard finally lets go and they realize the casters didn't need them at all to win the fight.
Wizard is my favorite class. I know the in's and out's of what spells work best where, and how powerful a caster really can be.
But no wizard is going to one-shot a Balor (a Paladin, Ranger, etc. absolutely can with good enough rolls).Also: Summonings are a full-round cast per summon. Callings are a 10 minute cast per calling. Undead are weak unless you HEAVILY specialize into them, and that's not a Wizard's forte, even if specialized in Necromancy. Charm Spells (and all SoS/D spells) are useless when saved against. Simulacrums are also long cast times (1 to 12 hours) and are only half as good as the creature you're making it's likeness after (which means combat probably won't be it's forte unless you're super-high level).
So, unless the bad guys are cool with chilling in the corner to let the Wizard have the time s/he needs to cast all these spells, then no, they absolutely cannot "instantly become their own adventuring party."
Three - you just pooed the feats vs spells comparison, then turned around and use it yourself?
How exactly did I use it myself?
I made the argument that feats and spells are entirely different mechanically, and therefore can't be compared as if they're the same thing power-wise.Admitting that spells are generally more powerful than feats doesn't do anything to harm my argument.
Four, if having to pay nominal amounts of gold to buy some spells, in exchange for getting the Class Features you want that nobody else has is 'badwrongfun', then maybe the person grabbing the PrC needs to redefine what 'fun' is.
Because it sounds like 3.5 fun, where PrC meant 'have your cake and eat it, too, in all ways better then core class.'...
I think you're seriously hand-waving the possible difficulty of finding the spells you want, in addition to all the downtime required to actually add spells to your book (at least an hour per spell level per spell scribed).
Not to mention, if you can't find the spell you want, you're stuck doing independent research, which takes a week's time, several skill rolls, and 1000g per spell level.Not everyone has a Blessed Book (or the ability to create one) either.
But most importantly, letting the PrC Wizard keep earning his 2 spells per level doesn't actually increase his power. The trade ISN'T "spells for PrC abilities," it's "Wizard Specialization abilities for PrC abilities."
Yes, in 3.X a PrC was practically free power for a Wizard. Guess what? This isn't 3.X, it's Pathfinder.
I find that if that was actually the concern, then we'd have way more Druid and Ranger hate, and Wizards would get left alone. Those two are *far* worse about making other characters obsolete.
Strongly suspect that the thread question has been answered in a round about way - a high level wizard is not kinda 'meh' and so certainly doesn't need any extra help.
And just to rebuke the previous 'wizard hate' comment - my concern about them is based upon DM'ing and playing for over 20 years, and giving all the other party members a valid role in the game.
I never actually had a question. I was just curious what people thought about wizard prestiges. I don't care for power, but for concept. Easily solved this (well, not that easily) by refluffing Souldrinker into a Ferryman/psychomomp kind of class that has the ability to delay eternal rest and use soul fragments as fuel for things and then taking arcane archer but with thrown weapons.
I never actually had a question. I was just curious what people thought about wizard prestiges. I don't care for power, but for concept. Easily solved this (well, not that easily) by refluffing Souldrinker into a Ferryman/psychomomp kind of class that has the ability to delay eternal rest and use soul fragments as fuel for things and then taking arcane archer but with thrown weapons.Strongly suspect that the thread question has been answered in a round about way - a high level wizard is not kinda 'meh' and so certainly doesn't need any extra help.
And just to rebuke the previous 'wizard hate' comment - my concern about them is based upon DM'ing and playing for over 20 years, and giving all the other party members a valid role in the game.
And that is why I envy you. I never had the (apparent) luxury of having a good and flexible DM except once, and his game has been on hold due to the way our group functions. Then again, my group has been telling that DM we wanna continue, and he said he does have a plan.
Fast EXP progression, a story with Planescape-like elements and a dash of humor on most of the serious moments, and the DM actually let me play a chara I enjoyed playing instead of shoehorning in racial restrictions and ruining my (or anyone else's) fun! Why is this so rare again?
...so as not to fall completely off-topic, I took a look at some Wizard PrCs and wondered if they're any good, mainly the Daivrat and the Blackfire Adept.
Anyone who could answer that?
I never actually had a question. I was just curious what people thought about wizard prestiges. I don't care for power, but for concept. Easily solved this (well, not that easily) by refluffing Souldrinker into a Ferryman/psychomomp kind of class that has the ability to delay eternal rest and use soul fragments as fuel for things and then taking arcane archer but with thrown weapons.Strongly suspect that the thread question has been answered in a round about way - a high level wizard is not kinda 'meh' and so certainly doesn't need any extra help.
And just to rebuke the previous 'wizard hate' comment - my concern about them is based upon DM'ing and playing for over 20 years, and giving all the other party members a valid role in the game.And that is why I envy you. I never had the (apparent) luxury of having a good and flexible DM except once, and his game has been on hold due to the way our group functions. Then again, my group has been telling that DM we wanna continue, and he said he does have a plan.
Fast EXP progression, a story with Planescape-like elements and a dash of humor on most of the serious moments, and the DM actually let me play a chara I enjoyed playing instead of shoehorning in racial restrictions and ruining my (or anyone else's) fun! Why is this so rare again?
...so as not to fall completely off-topic, I took a look at some Wizard PrCs and wondered if they're any good, mainly the Daivrat and the Blackfire Adept.
Anyone who could answer that?
From personal experience. Eh. I can't tell power wise because I'm not really good at gauging it. Conceptwise, daivrat seems nice, even tho meeting geniekin is rare and situational depending on campaign. Blackfire Adept seems nice, only downside is that they are basically ripping reality to let evil stuff in, and we have a paladin, so yeaaaaah.
When tooling about town, a prepared Stinking Cloud is just as useless as that Dodge feat. When you suddenly find yourself thrown into a combat situation, that Dodge applies to all foes for all attacks - the Stinking Cloud (assuming you even have it prepared! You planned on a quiet day after all) only gets to happen once.
Bottom line? Situational things are situational, and that applies equally to prepared spells as it does to permanent feats.Wizard is my favorite class. I know the in's and out's of what spells work best where, and how powerful a caster really can be.
But no wizard is going to one-shot a Balor (a Paladin, Ranger, etc. absolutely can with good enough rolls).
Also: Summonings are a full-round cast per summon. Callings are a 10 minute cast per calling. Undead are weak unless you HEAVILY specialize into them, and that's not a Wizard's forte, even if specialized in Necromancy. Charm Spells (and all SoS/D spells) are useless when saved against. Simulacrums are also long cast times (1 to 12 hours) and are only half as good as the creature you're making it's likeness after...
So, unless the bad guys are cool with chilling in the corner to let the Wizard have the time s/he needs to cast all these spells, then no, they absolutely cannot "instantly become their own adventuring party."How exactly did I use it myself?
I made the argument that feats and spells are entirely different mechanically, and therefore can't be compared as if they're the same thing power-wise.
Admitting that spells are generally more powerful than feats doesn't do anything to harm my argument.I think you're seriously hand-waving the possible difficulty of finding the spells you want, in addition to all the downtime required to actually add spells to your book (at least an hour per spell level per spell scribed).
Not to mention, if you can't find the spell you want, you're stuck doing independent research, which takes a week's time, several skill rolls, and 1000g per spell level.
Not everyone has a Blessed Book (or the ability to create one) either.But most importantly, letting the PrC Wizard keep earning his 2 spells per level doesn't actually increase his power. The trade ISN'T "spells for PrC abilities," it's "Wizard Specialization abilities for PrC abilities."
Yes, in 3.X a PrC was practically free power for a Wizard. Guess what? This isn't 3.X, it's Pathfinder
=======================================
In order of response:The wizard has the ability to switch out Stinking Cloud...the melee cannot switch out dodge. And SC, btw, is a great offensive spell for town work, since it doesn't do property damage...so I'll assume you said 'fireball'. :) So, before the wizard goes tooling, he'll change his spell set up.
You're missing the point on the 'one wizard adventuring party'. All of that stuff can be done before the fight begins. The adventuring party doesn't have to wait for nothing, the wizard is alone. He's got lots of time, as much as he likes, before heading into the lair of evil/good with his private army. You don't have to superspecialize in necromancy, you just need the right corpses to make stuff with, and the right undead. And happily enough, when you kill the enemy, you might be able to make more on the go!
One-shotting a balor? A wizard? Wish for a Holy Word, CL 21. BAM, gone...along with any other extraplanar/summoned things in the vicinity (like,say, the second balor and any other summons. Let's see the paladin one round all of those!).
Banishment and other spells can do the same.
Spells, again: I'm not hand-waving spells acquisition. You argue that getting two free spells isn't an increase in power, and then bemoan the fact that not getting those two free spells is costing you time and money. And, heck, go to any major metropolis and you can basically get any spell you want, and copy it.
2 spells free a level is 2 more spells then the PrC has. I think simple math, and the idea that versatility is power, will put a hole in the '2 free spells doesn't increase power' statement.
Time and money are power. It's time and money the wizard doesn't need to spend that the PrC does. It's a cost of leaving the class.
I'm not at all sure why you brought up the Book. If you have any capacity to get one, you will, because it's cost effective to do so. If you can't, that's a situational issue.
-------
As for knowing what a wizard is capable of, yes, I've seen it in play. The whole 'private army' idea lasted one adventuring session before everyone got sick of him monopolizing the dice, but we were all impressed with what he might be able to bring to a battlefield if needed.
Note the original example was a "Schroedinger's Wizard", which is pretty much the poster child for douchebag min-max builds. You only really see it in theorycrafting and 'my wizard totally ownerz' threads, but anytime you give a wizard time to prepare, it gets pretty damn scary what they are capable of.
==Aelryinth
"Schrodinger's Wizard" doesn't mean anything other than "a wizard who happens to have exactly the right spells prepared for a situation." Min-maxing, yes, absolutely. Douche-baggery? Dunno where you get that from...
You're also HIGHLY overstating the "power" you gain from a PrC. You play a Wizard (PrC or not) because you want to cast spells. The only thing a PrC does is change the flavor of the way you cast those spells. If you're not advancing your spellbook along with your slots per day, you rob the character of the entire point of playing the class.
(And hand-waving away the issue by saying, "Just go to ye olde big city" doesn't fix anything. You have access to whatever your GM gives you access to, and that's it.)
And, as obvious as it is I'll note again, every spontaneous caster still gets to learn their new spells known when leveling in a PrC. If your point of view were actually the concern of the devs, then Sorcerers wouldn't get to know new spells either. Except they do.
Unfortunately, Spells Known for a sorceror is part of the tables of their level advancement, not a class feature like the free spells is. trying to equate their free spells to those of a wizard is a hoot...but please don't make such an illogical comparison again.
And sorry, you're bemoaning "GM's won't give me spells" as a reason for the free spells, except that in the standard game, it's assumed you have widespread and easy access to spells. So, you're going with house ruling as a reason?
And, sorry, PrC's tend to have a lot of abilities that are above and beyond spellcasting. If all you want is spellcasting, stay a wizard. you take a PrC for the class abilities. One of the class abilities you give up is 2 free spells. And in the core game, that's just meaning you lose out on a max of 2 days and a couple thousand gold.
Schroedinger's Wizard is indeed assumed to have any spell he can need to deal with any situation in any argument...that's how it's used. And the people doing so are generally quite blind to the weaknesses of their wizard in the real game, and get real, real asinine as they Schroedinger's Wizard to justify anything and everything. So, yes, SW calls to d-baggery.
==Aelryinth
Spells are a class feature for sorcs but not for wizards... okay.
The standard game are you presumably going to find a magic shop in certain areas. Now... say your adventuring in the forest of magwambi?
They rarely have powers that super charge spellcasting. Many have flavor thats entirely unrelated to spellcasting really. You could easily take away the diabolist spell levels and give it full BAB and have a class devouted to devils that does melee. A sort of enforcer.
Spells are a class feature for sorcs but not for wizards... okay.
Right? /mind blown
Standard is the wrong word I think. Stereotypical fits better. :) (And how many games fit the "stereotypical" D&D game? Maybe 2 that I've played in in 15ish years of gaming...)
The simple fact is that if the PrC abilities are actually powerful enough to warrant losing spells over, then the levels of the PrC will have gaps in it's "+1 level of spellcasting class." THAT is how they manage power vs utility when designing PrCs.
Take the Darkfire Adept PrC. It's abilities add enough "power" to your character that you lose out on 3 levels of spellcasting increase. To suggest that on top of that you should also lose out on 7 additional levels of core spell learning is asinine.
(And to just shrug it off as "2 days and a couple thousand gold" ... Congratulations, you just added a single 2nd level spell to your spellbook. That's all you got for holding up your gaming group for two entire adventuring days. How do they not force you to play a different class again??)
Spells are a class feature for sorcs but not for wizards... okay.Right? /mind blown
I have no arguements for that. I'm not going to change a mind and its ridiculous. I will say I disagree, but argueing about something like that is going to be a mess.
The levels you don't gain spellcasting levels are the ones it makes sense not to gain spells known or slots. Casters will tend to avoid those anyway, and its best left to casting on the side gigs.
When a caster enters a PrC chances are he wants to be a caster. He gives up his specialization and progression in whatever class he was in so he can have another flavor. This isn't an ultimate power thing, its just going for a certain flavor or specialization.
They can live side by side with archetypes pretty well really, think of it like stacking archetypes. An Invulnerable barbarian/mute barbarian is going to be a different rage prophet than a mounted fury/dual cursed Lame&Tongues one. They could use some love and care and it could be made sure its viable and functional instead of just flavorful.
I find that deciding how many spells the wizard gets and which ones is like telling a fighter what feats he is allowed to get.
I disagree that buying spells is like buying feats. Spells are a much different mechanic. Feats are not versality, they don't add options. There are not some crazy form of tactical feats which allow you to do new things in combat or add new mechanics. There is numbers. They are flat bonuses. Rarely do you see a feat that actually does something more than numbers.
Are spells like feats, or aren't they?
Spells are a class feature for sorcs but not for wizards... okay.
The standard game are you presumably going to find a magic shop in certain areas. Now... say your adventuring in the forest of magwambi?
They rarely have powers that super charge spellcasting. Many have flavor thats entirely unrelated to spellcasting really. You could easily take away the diabolist spell levels and give it full BAB and have a class devouted to devils that does melee. A sort of enforcer.
If you let my sorceror buy SPells Known like a wizard can, I'll equate them to being equal, and HOT *^(&^, I will GLADLY give up my free Sorc Spells Known if I can buy them. hooty-hoo!!!!!!!!
So, you just entered a PrC and you're what level in the forest of mugwampi? And you just teleported back to a big city, walked into your local guild, sat down, copied down the spells you wanted, and then hook up with the rest of your party who also did their shopping, and bamfed yourself back to the Forest.
yeah, not seeing it. Time and money. You're screaming about a minor bit of inconvenience any wizard worth his salt could get around in literally seconds of thinking about it. Not buying it.
==Aelryinth
I find that deciding how many spells the wizard gets and which ones is like telling a fighter what feats he is allowed to get.I disagree that buying spells is like buying feats. Spells are a much different mechanic. Feats are not versality, they don't add options. There are not some crazy form of tactical feats which allow you to do new things in combat or add new mechanics. There is numbers. They are flat bonuses. Rarely do you see a feat that actually does something more than numbers.Are spells like feats, or aren't they?
That would be a yes and no. Heh! They are like feats if they want to be, often completely replacing the need for feats...and at other times they aren't, but so much more powerful that they don't need to be.
==Aelryinth
The simple fact is that if the PrC abilities are actually powerful enough to warrant losing spells over, then the levels of the PrC will have gaps in it's "+1 level of spellcasting class." THAT is how they manage power vs utility when designing PrCs.
The problem is that there are no PrC playable that have actually good abilities.
In 3.5, there was the same cost for spells not gained when a wizard leveled up in a PrC (actually it was more expensive because spells costed more to write). But in 3.5, PrC were amazing, so it was useful (or, for some PrC, very powerful), to take a PrC.
In pathfinder, most useful PrC are Evil (which is forbidden in most campaigns), and the majority of PrC are Meh.
In core rules (CRB, APG, UM, UC), there is actually only one PrC for Wizard, and it is the Loremaster (and not a good one BTW).
Yes, there are also Arcane Archer, Arcane trickster, Eldritch knight or Mystic Theurge, but they are all for multiclassed characters, not for a Wizard.
I'm not asking for a Master of 7 veils, Incantatrix or Archmage as it was in 3.5, but at least playable PrC for wizards in Pathfinder... Even in Ultimate Magic, there isn't any PrC available !
I find that deciding how many spells the wizard gets and which ones is like telling a fighter what feats he is allowed to get.I disagree that buying spells is like buying feats. Spells are a much different mechanic. Feats are not versality, they don't add options. There are not some crazy form of tactical feats which allow you to do new things in combat or add new mechanics. There is numbers. They are flat bonuses. Rarely do you see a feat that actually does something more than numbers.Are spells like feats, or aren't they?
They are not. The comparison was related to choices. I could have used skillpoints as another example. I'm entirely against removing choice from the player. The point in the first was that if you tell people they have to do this and that, you remove choice from the player and of course he's going to suck if your not trying to work to his best interest. In the second I was trying to clarify that spells are not like feats, but I'm not willing to argue about it forever. You really can't compare feats to spells very well. Many spells are of limited use but can solve puzzles or really change the game, but feats are always on but most often tend to be small bonuses that add up. Spells often do things feats just won't, such as grant fly or haste. Both low level spells.
Aerylinth, please don't answer questions directed at me. Those were about my opinion.
If you let my sorceror buy SPells Known like a wizard can, I'll equate them to being equal, and HOT *^(&^, I will GLADLY give up my free Sorc Spells Known if I can buy them. hooty-hoo!!!!!!!!
So, you just entered a PrC and you're what level in the forest of mugwampi? And you just teleported back to a big city, walked into your local guild, sat down, copied down the spells you wanted, and then hook up with the rest of your party who also did their shopping, and bamfed yourself back to the Forest.
yeah, not seeing it. Time and money. You're screaming about a minor bit of inconvenience any wizard worth his salt could get around in literally seconds of thinking about it. Not buying it.
==Aelryinth
Oh, I didn't know the wizard always had the power, time, and resources to just teleport away and get what he needs for a scroll and inconvinience the party while he rewrites it all into his book on a time restrained adventure. Never mind that he has to be taxed gold he really shouldn't, but he has to inconvinience the party too. This is supposing he hit 9th level wizard and learned teleport of course. He also may not be able to carry all his companions, so he may have to leave the ranger behind or something I guess too. It is only a minor inconvinience, depending on your adventure it could be a whole lot more. Its also a lackluster reward for finally entering a PrC. If your okay with that go ahead and do it in your games. Its RAW anyway.
Sorcs can buy spell slots with a page of spell knowledge. They are however limited in spells by design. Favored class bonus and feat can add to it. However I was refering to how you said it was a class feature for sorcs to gain spells but not wizards. Both have it written in their class. They both get access to the same spells however, at a slightly different pace. The sorcerer doesn't cease to be a sorcerer when he gains a PrC, and the wizard doesn't cease to be a wizard when he enters a PrC. The same goes for witch, magus, or oracle.
Lets move on from this. Your not going to change your opinion and neither will I. You think its okay they don't get spells and I don't. I don't think it adds much to the conversation.
So, you just entered a PrC and you're what level in the forest of mugwampi? And you just teleported back to a big city, walked into your local guild, sat down, copied down the spells you wanted, and then hook up with the rest of your party who also did their shopping, and bamfed yourself back to the Forest.
yeah, not seeing it. Time and money. You're screaming about a minor bit of inconvenience any wizard worth his salt could get around in literally seconds of thinking about it. Not buying it.
==Aelryinth
Your argument seems to assume that every player must make their wizard fit the "stereotypical wizard trope." What if they dont?
What if the wizard is from said forest? Never been to a big city before in his life. His magical training was passed down through his family, in more of a tribal tradition than any sort of mage guild.
Or, crazy thought: You enter the PrC before you're high enough to cast Teleport?
How about an even crazier thought: The DM is the type who wants you to actually have to travel places, and therefore disallows spells like Teleport or Overland Flight, etc.
I never actually had a question. I was just curious what people thought about wizard prestiges. I don't care for power, but for concept.My main spellcaster in LSJ is a Wizard/Loremaster who serves pretty well as a sage. And he's never had a problem in pulling his weight in an adventuring group.
I'm not saying Loremaster is bad or not working. Just that I find bonuses to knowledge, random bonuses from secrets, and extra languages extremly dull and easily gained otherwise.
I've always found loremaster to be one of the better PrCs for a wizard myself. Very general and cool if you just want to dip in and be a smart guy, or you can stay and be a smarter guy. Fullcasting makes it viable and its nice alternative to later school abilities if your not keen on getting those. Still a little heavy on prereqs though, and can't argue against it being a little on the dullside though.
So, you just entered a PrC and you're what level in the forest of mugwampi? And you just teleported back to a big city, walked into your local guild, sat down, copied down the spells you wanted, and then hook up with the rest of your party who also did their shopping, and bamfed yourself back to the Forest.
yeah, not seeing it. Time and money. You're screaming about a minor bit of inconvenience any wizard worth his salt could get around in literally seconds of thinking about it. Not buying it.
==Aelryinth
Your argument seems to assume that every player must make their wizard fit the "stereotypical wizard trope." What if they dont?
What if the wizard is from said forest? Never been to a big city before in his life. His magical training was passed down through his family, in more of a tribal tradition than any sort of mage guild.
Or, crazy thought: You enter the PrC before you're high enough to cast Teleport?
How about an even crazier thought: The DM is the type who wants you to actually have to travel places, and therefore disallows spells like Teleport or Overland Flight, etc.
Oh, I'm sorry, was the fact that the CORE GAME assumes that you have easy access to spells 1-4th level suddenly become 'this rule is invalid because of our house rules making it so?'
or that in larger cities, finding spells of 5th+ is practically guaranteed?
Sorry, no.
you're making a house rules assumption, and I'm making a core game assumption. If you want access to spells, then you'll take the neccessary steps to get access to spells. If that means your hedge wizard has to go visit a bigger town, guess what? That's what he's going to do anyways if he wants to expand his spellbook! He's going to spend time and gold! Just like a normal wizard, minus a handful of spells per level. Or, like a good adventurer, he'll loot enemy spellbooks and get some useful stuff that way.
Methinks thou doth protesteth too much.
And flavor/quality of PrC's is not at play here. Yes, 3.5E PrC's were stronger and gave you your cake and let you eat it, too. I'm glad to see that has changed. A 3.5 truism is that any class that costs you caster levels generally isn't worth getting into. That basically means that almost all the PrC's are not worth your time as casters, becuase more spells in memory and higher caster level are better then all but the most broken PrC abilities.
But don't go throwing in custom house rules and niche situations and think they are valid reasons. If you're going to talk House Rules, then have your DM House Rule you still get your free spells. It's that simple.
In the core game, you don't if you PrC, and that's just part of the balance and sticking to core classes.
===Aelryinth
I've always found loremaster to be one of the better PrCs for a wizard myself. Very general and cool if you just want to dip in and be a smart guy, or you can stay and be a smarter guy. Fullcasting makes it viable and its nice alternative to later school abilities if your not keen on getting those. Still a little heavy on prereqs though, and can't argue against it being a little on the dullside though.
Loremaster would probably be an archetype if such had existed at the time of the core game. Despite being open to other classes, it really is wizard centered. There'd just be sage variants of it for other classes more tailored to cleric or bard.
==Aelryinth
Methinks thou doth protesteth too much.
This is why I said to talk less about it. Its not going anywhere.
In any case, gold and a player dependancy on doing something outside of class features are not class balance. If it were monks would get much more starting gold and would be expected to have more over the course of the game. If they aren't an example then rogue.
gave you your cake and let you eat it, too
This is a bad thing? Is your arguement that people shouldn't have cake and eat it too?
I suppose MrSin is right.
I enjoy a good argument, but there comes a point when banging your head into a brick wall just starts to hurt.
I'll just be content that my GMs won't be so ridiculous as to disallow those two little spells per level. :)
This is a bad thing? Is your arguement that people shouldn't have cake and eat it too?
You're not actually defending the idea that a PrC should give you all the abilities of a core class + nifty cool powers that core classes could never get, are you?
Because that's the model of a 3.5 PrC, especially caster PrC's.
And no, I don't think that's a good thing. It's like Munchkinism 101.
==Aelryinth
It saddens me that nobody seems to think Evocation needs more love.
I do. Evocation, especially core evocation, is pretty terrible. You could bump the damage die type for pretty much every core evocation spell, and I probably still wouldn't bother to prep more than one or two.
Your campaign may vary, but any campaign can include design choices that disadvantage any character class that uses external gear. Put PCs in a place where they don't have level-appropriate magic weapons, and can't buy them, and the GM doesn't make them available in treasure, and see how well the fighter does.
The rules as written and intended obviously considered buying spells for a spellbook to be something relatively routine and inexpensive. A new 1st-level spell costs a character 15 gp (5 to borrow a spellbook, 10 to actually copy the spell), and will consume one hour in scribing. This is cheaper than, for example, a vial of holy water. A new 9th-level spell runs 1,215 gp, less than full plate, though it will take the wizard nine hours.