|
I originally responded to a post that claimed that the rogue is not underpowered because they have the option of doing massive damage from Sap Master.
And the way Sap Master was being used was munchkin. Having a powerful feat tree like Sap Master that can make and break a class is not a good thing.
And my games can do without it. I want my players to have freedom in creating different types of characters not forced into 'must-have' feats.
Lol. Powerful? By all the definitions you claim about Sap Master Power Attack fits also. Do you ban it?
It is a niche, situational feat tree.
It is usable in surprise rounds, with a very select group of archtypes (namely Scout but maybe there are others) and when invisible (which as you get higher in level the number of creatures that can see invisible increases.
It is easily defeated through mundane means like uncanny dodge.
Fortification magic ability can foil it.
Odds are you only get it once per round.
Nothing about this feat tree screams OverPowered or Ban worthy.
It is usable in surprise rounds and in the first round of combat. So 2 Sap Master attacks
per combat.And you don't need a Rogue archetype to use Sap Master, to suggest otherwise is misleading and completely false.
There is nothing mundane about Uncanny Dodge it is a specialised ability and so doesn't have wide use, well unless you are attacking a thieves guild or a barbarian camp.
Power Attack is a totally different thing to Sap Master and can never be considered munchkin like how Sap Master is.
Still only 1/round. The Surprise Round. The First Round of Combat. By you own declaration. I will even say that he gets it inother rounds of the same combat through the usage of archetypes and other abilities/items/spells.
I didn't suggest that you can only use SM with Scout. To use it reliably from more than The Surprise and First Round of Combat, you need to find a way to give the FlatFooted condition to your target. The Scout does that. I am not sure if there are other archetypes that do also. That was what I said. Take a breath and read what I am writing.
Uncanny Dodge is an Ex ability. There is nothing magical or supernatural about it...thus mundane. Rogue (2), Barbarian (4), Bloodrager (2). These classes plus PrC and probably archetypes gain uncanny dodge. I have no doubt that there are magic items that give it also.
I just don't get how you can say Sap Master is munchkin--a concept whose definition is based around creating an overpowered character. Yet you deny that Power Attack isn't.
|
|
Imagine, OilHorse, if we instead had three primary defenses: AC, touch AC, and distracted AC.
It could be said that the unchained monk's Spin Kick style strike "targets your opponent's distracted AC" or that feinting made your opponent "distracted relative to your next attack."
Then, we could draw a clear line in the sand, and qualify "flat-footed" as a condition that is an escalation of "distracted," which includes the additional prohibition of being unable to use immediate actions or make attacks of opportunity (ex. a surprised combatant).
In short, there could have been a chapter on Unchaining Conditions which could have not only created entirely new conditions (such as Bewildered, Disoriented, Hampered), but organized them into general categories (Fear, Nausea, Shock), consequently setting universal provisions for their relative escalation and relaxation.
Just in case I wasn't clear.
I agree with you in the idea that it would be nice to get more concise information on game concepts though something informal like a blog.
|
|
Every gaming group is different and have different ways of looking at things.
I play with an extensive amount of house rules and my gaming group plays 1/month usually a 12-16 hour game session (heaps of caffeine needed in our games).
We play without the grid but with miniatures and small mini-maps. And quite a bit of role-playing occurs, as you can fit it in during our long game sessions. And combat is a little bit different less codified.
We use 3/4 BAB for saving throws (+2 for good saves) so a 5th level Rogue has a Will save of +3, iterative attacks are at full BAB, Rogues get extra combat feats, and more recently we have introduced the Unchained Rogue into our games.
You have given the rogue more feats? How many? Normal rogue, with no enhancement via race gets the normal 1,3,5 feats and can get 3 combat feats (weapon focus, weapon finesse and a combat feat). To gain the Sap Master feat tree at its earliest the rogue will need to be single classed and use his 5th level feat, plus 1 of the 3 (1,3 plus one of the 2 rogue talents converted into a feat) open feats available.
If you have given the rogue more feats then you have opened up the desire to use a limited resource on something more niche.
I have worked long and hard in creating a ruleset that keeps munchkin shenanigans to a minimum and promotes a more balanced gameplay in relation to classes.
From my perspective, Sap Master is bound to cause problems, taking out key NPCs with ease and forcing a Rogue character to always sap attack their enemies during the surprise round and first round of combat, instead of killing them.
Adding feats does not lessen "munchkin shenanigans". Just fyi.
And incapacitating the enemy instead of killing is a bad thing?
If you have a NPC that you don't want to get gooned like that then give uncanny dodge...fortification...just tell them it doesn't work.
It's not that its just munchkin it creates this new subsystem of knocking out opponents that is not codified with the core rules.
Clarify please. I really don't know what you are getting at here
If I created an encounter consisting of rogues with Sap Master attacks, it would be deadly and players would feel like its GM munchkin tactics, so it's only fair that I treat it the same from a player's perspective.If you created an encounter of all Power Attacking Barbarians you have created an even more deadly encounter. At least with the Sap rogues it will only be a few attacks coming from a weak attacking combatant that is prone to missing. the PA Barbarians are gonna hit...HARD...and kill.
And finally the answer to your question I would say 5th level. The Two-Handed Fighter archetype has to wait till 15th level to get Greater Power Attack and that only increases the damage by 25%.Umm because PA is that mush more deadly?
There are so many more ways to ignore SA...and even more ways to not take SapM attacks.
Instead of modifying the game from here to kingdom come where it's only 40% of it's original self and you have to hand out a pamphlet explaining all the house rules you've come up with to "keep munchkining to a minimum", have you ever thought about, I don't know...not playing with those kinds of people?
House games aren't PFS. You're allowed to kick people out.
Munchkins aren't solved by modifying the game, they're solved by modifying the group. They're a player problem, not a system problem.
|
|
I would say the guy is playing with friends and they are having fun. Nothing wrong with that.
But for sure he is not playing under the same guidelines as most and should not assume that his issues are from the system.
To me it sounds like he got burned by the Sap Master tree and then preceded to over-react.
I would say the guy is playing with friends and they are having fun. Nothing wrong with that.
But for sure he is not playing under the same guidelines as most and should not assume that his issues are from the system.
To me it sounds like he got burned by the Sap Master tree and then preceded to over-react.
Not playing under the same guidelines as most?
House Rules are the status quo.
For 45 years, homebrew or house rules and roleplaying games has been deeply intertwined.
Dragon Magazine was a home-brew magazine and PFS is a house-ruled version of the core rules.
There are many problems with the system, if there wasn't you would never have any need for a book like Pathfinder Unchained, especially since it has redesigned the classes Barbarian, Rogue, Monk and Summoner.
And there seems to be a new culture of play-by-the-rules, in role-playing games rules are meant to bent or broken, this is the way it has always been.
An environment for creative people to be creative.
In another thread, posters were waiting on Mark Seifter to announce an errata or FAQ on the Unchained Monk (quingong powers) and Seifter said "you should be going out and unchaining your games to optimize the fun for your group, not listening to me about close interpretations of rules text!"
Now that is the spirit of role-playing games.
Still - parasitic players are solved by modding the table, not the game. Modding the game is for overall enjoyment factors, not preventing douches from being douches.
I would say the guy is playing with friends and they are having fun. Nothing wrong with that.
But for sure he is not playing under the same guidelines as most and should not assume that his issues are from the system.
To me it sounds like he got burned by the Sap Master tree and then preceded to over-react.
Not playing under the same guidelines as most?
House Rules are the status quo.
For 45 years, homebrew or house rules and roleplaying games has been deeply intertwined.
Dragon Magazine was a home-brew magazine and PFS is a house-ruled version of the core rules.
There are many problems with the system, if there wasn't you would never have any need for a book like Pathfinder Unchained, especially since it has redesigned the classes Barbarian, Rogue, Monk and Summoner.
And there seems to be a new culture of play-by-the-rules, in role-playing games rules are meant to bent or broken, this is the way it has always been.
An environment for creative people to be creative.
In another thread, posters were waiting on Mark Seifter to announce an errata or FAQ on the Unchained Monk (quingong powers) and Seifter said "you should be going out and unchaining your games to optimize the fun for your group, not listening to me about close interpretations of rules text!"
Now that is the spirit of role-playing games.
but your house rules change the game and what is overpowered in your home game May not be in others. We can agree that house rules does change the game yes?
Still - parasitic players are solved by modding the table, not the game. Modding the game is for overall enjoyment factors, not preventing douches from being douches.
Yes I agree, but different people want different things out of role-playing games.
And when you have been friends for 20+ years, modding the table is not so easy in practise.
Some people want to dominate others, while others are easy going and will fall in line with the majority.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but your house rules change the game and what is overpowered in your home game May not be in others. We can agree that house rules does change the game yes?I would say the guy is playing with friends and they are having fun. Nothing wrong with that.
But for sure he is not playing under the same guidelines as most and should not assume that his issues are from the system.
To me it sounds like he got burned by the Sap Master tree and then preceded to over-react.
Not playing under the same guidelines as most?
House Rules are the status quo.
For 45 years, homebrew or house rules and roleplaying games has been deeply intertwined.
Dragon Magazine was a home-brew magazine and PFS is a house-ruled version of the core rules.
There are many problems with the system, if there wasn't you would never have any need for a book like Pathfinder Unchained, especially since it has redesigned the classes Barbarian, Rogue, Monk and Summoner.
And there seems to be a new culture of play-by-the-rules, in role-playing games rules are meant to bent or broken, this is the way it has always been.
An environment for creative people to be creative.
In another thread, posters were waiting on Mark Seifter to announce an errata or FAQ on the Unchained Monk (quingong powers) and Seifter said "you should be going out and unchaining your games to optimize the fun for your group, not listening to me about close interpretations of rules text!"
Now that is the spirit of role-playing games.
Yes, house rules that make significant changes correspondingly change aspects of the Pathfinder game, and my house rules are no exception.
I said I would ban the Sap Master feat tree, however I never told anyone else to do it or did I tell anyone they were wrong if they used Sap Master in their games.
I consider it munchkin, and that it lacks codification with the core rules. And I gave my reasons for my statement.
Paizo does make an effort in trying to keep everything centred on the CRB, yet in their splat books there are many example of 'patches' to problems within the system rather than just alternative options. And I would definitely classify Sap Master as a patch not as an alternative. Trying to give a power boost to the Rogue instead of getting the design of the class right in the first place so all rogues can do the classic move of knocking out their opponents.
After much thought I would probably not ban it, but integrate it into a rogue and slayer's class abilities, less powerful, but it would be codified and would not be a hefty feat tax. I always collaborate on house rules and as a gaming group we would decide one way or another.
There is nothing unreliable about Sap Master, a Rogue makes a successful attack it works.
I agree, the core Rogue is a lot weaker than his peers, particularly the spell-casters, although it shouldn't validate overpowered feats.
For example, if there was a feat that doubled the damage of arcane spells if their opponents were caught flat-footed. There would be cry of outrage of how Wizards and Sorcerers are powerful enough and this feat unbalances the game.
This is why Sap Master is unbalanced and is considered munchkin.
I know this is a little late, but I feel it's relevant.
After the first round and first target it's kinda unreliable.And about the damage. A rogue deals 1d6 per 2 levels. A wizard casts a fireball at 1d6 per level. A blaster wizard can do any element to bypass most resistances. A blaster wizard with a level of dual-blooded sorcerer gets 1d6+2 per level oh hey that's what this sap-master rogue is doing to one target, but the fireball is to everyone in the area. And then the wizard can intensify, empower, and maximize it too. And he can eventually launch one of these off as a quick and a standard.
And this wizard is considered a bad and weak wizard. But a rogue doing it to one target with maybe 2 attacks(he's needing to be in attack range in the surprise round or get a move and standard otherwise he's getting nothing from the surprise round.) and it's non-lethal.
but your house rules change the game and what is overpowered in your home game May not be in others. We can agree that house rules does change the game yes?I would say the guy is playing with friends and they are having fun. Nothing wrong with that.
But for sure he is not playing under the same guidelines as most and should not assume that his issues are from the system.
To me it sounds like he got burned by the Sap Master tree and then preceded to over-react.
Not playing under the same guidelines as most?
House Rules are the status quo.
For 45 years, homebrew or house rules and roleplaying games has been deeply intertwined.
Dragon Magazine was a home-brew magazine and PFS is a house-ruled version of the core rules.
There are many problems with the system, if there wasn't you would never have any need for a book like Pathfinder Unchained, especially since it has redesigned the classes Barbarian, Rogue, Monk and Summoner.
And there seems to be a new culture of play-by-the-rules, in role-playing games rules are meant to bent or broken, this is the way it has always been.
An environment for creative people to be creative.
In another thread, posters were waiting on Mark Seifter to announce an errata or FAQ on the Unchained Monk (quingong powers) and Seifter said "you should be going out and unchaining your games to optimize the fun for your group, not listening to me about close interpretations of rules text!"
Now that is the spirit of role-playing games.
Yes, house rules that make significant changes correspondingly change aspects of the Pathfinder game, and my house rules are no exception.
I said I would ban the Sap Master feat tree, however I never told anyone else to do it or did I tell anyone they were wrong if they used Sap Master in their games.
I consider it munchkin, and that it lacks codification with the core rules. And I gave my reasons for my statement....
I'm still not seeing how it's not codified.
There is nothing unreliable about Sap Master, a Rogue makes a successful attack it works.
I agree, the core Rogue is a lot weaker than his peers, particularly the spell-casters, although it shouldn't validate overpowered feats.
For example, if there was a feat that doubled the damage of arcane spells if their opponents were caught flat-footed. There would be cry of outrage of how Wizards and Sorcerers are powerful enough and this feat unbalances the game.
This is why Sap Master is unbalanced and is considered munchkin.
I know this is a little late, but I feel it's relevant.
After the first round and first target it's kinda unreliable.And about the damage. A rogue deals 1d6 per 2 levels. A wizard casts a fireball at 1d6 per level. A blaster wizard can do any element to bypass most resistances. A blaster wizard with a level of dual-blooded sorcerer gets 1d6+2 per level oh hey that's what this sap-master rogue is doing to one target, but the fireball is to everyone in the area. And then the wizard can intensify, empower, and maximize it too. And he can eventually launch one of these off as a quick and a standard.
And this wizard is considered a bad and weak wizard. But a rogue doing it to one target with maybe 2 attacks(he's needing to be in attack range in the surprise round or get a move and standard otherwise he's getting nothing from the surprise round.) and it's non-lethal.
i dont Think that paticular wizard is considered weak any more.:)
i dont Think that paticular wizard is considered weak any more.:)There is nothing unreliable about Sap Master, a Rogue makes a successful attack it works.
I agree, the core Rogue is a lot weaker than his peers, particularly the spell-casters, although it shouldn't validate overpowered feats.
For example, if there was a feat that doubled the damage of arcane spells if their opponents were caught flat-footed. There would be cry of outrage of how Wizards and Sorcerers are powerful enough and this feat unbalances the game.
This is why Sap Master is unbalanced and is considered munchkin.
I know this is a little late, but I feel it's relevant.
After the first round and first target it's kinda unreliable.And about the damage. A rogue deals 1d6 per 2 levels. A wizard casts a fireball at 1d6 per level. A blaster wizard can do any element to bypass most resistances. A blaster wizard with a level of dual-blooded sorcerer gets 1d6+2 per level oh hey that's what this sap-master rogue is doing to one target, but the fireball is to everyone in the area. And then the wizard can intensify, empower, and maximize it too. And he can eventually launch one of these off as a quick and a standard.
And this wizard is considered a bad and weak wizard. But a rogue doing it to one target with maybe 2 attacks(he's needing to be in attack range in the surprise round or get a move and standard otherwise he's getting nothing from the surprise round.) and it's non-lethal.
Blaster wizards are considered the weakest version of a wizard. Because instead of doing damage I can just kill them with a failed save. Or I can summon a thing to do it for me, or etc... Just because this wizard can do decent damage it still isn't out single target DPSing a decent Full-attacker
Blaster wizards are considered the weakest version of a wizard. Because instead of doing damage I can just kill them with a failed save. Or I can summon a thing to do it for me, or etc... Just because this wizard can do decent damage it still isn't out single target DPSing a decent Full-attackeri dont Think that paticular wizard is considered weak any more.:)There is nothing unreliable about Sap Master, a Rogue makes a successful attack it works.
I agree, the core Rogue is a lot weaker than his peers, particularly the spell-casters, although it shouldn't validate overpowered feats.
For example, if there was a feat that doubled the damage of arcane spells if their opponents were caught flat-footed. There would be cry of outrage of how Wizards and Sorcerers are powerful enough and this feat unbalances the game.
This is why Sap Master is unbalanced and is considered munchkin.
I know this is a little late, but I feel it's relevant.
After the first round and first target it's kinda unreliable.And about the damage. A rogue deals 1d6 per 2 levels. A wizard casts a fireball at 1d6 per level. A blaster wizard can do any element to bypass most resistances. A blaster wizard with a level of dual-blooded sorcerer gets 1d6+2 per level oh hey that's what this sap-master rogue is doing to one target, but the fireball is to everyone in the area. And then the wizard can intensify, empower, and maximize it too. And he can eventually launch one of these off as a quick and a standard.
And this wizard is considered a bad and weak wizard. But a rogue doing it to one target with maybe 2 attacks(he's needing to be in attack range in the surprise round or get a move and standard otherwise he's getting nothing from the surprise round.) and it's non-lethal.
blaster wizards are considered, by some, weaker than GOD wizards, not weaker than save or die wizards. I at least consider save or die specialists the weakest and most boring form of wizardry.
blaster wizards are considered, by some, weaker than GOD wizards, not weaker than save or die wizards. I at least consider save or die...Blaster wizards are considered the weakest version of a wizard. Because instead of doing damage I can just kill them with a failed save. Or I can summon a thing to do it for me, or etc... Just because this wizard can do decent damage it still isn't out single target DPSing a decent Full-attackeri dont Think that paticular wizard is considered weak any more.:)There is nothing unreliable about Sap Master, a Rogue makes a successful attack it works.
I agree, the core Rogue is a lot weaker than his peers, particularly the spell-casters, although it shouldn't validate overpowered feats.
For example, if there was a feat that doubled the damage of arcane spells if their opponents were caught flat-footed. There would be cry of outrage of how Wizards and Sorcerers are powerful enough and this feat unbalances the game.
This is why Sap Master is unbalanced and is considered munchkin.
I know this is a little late, but I feel it's relevant.
After the first round and first target it's kinda unreliable.And about the damage. A rogue deals 1d6 per 2 levels. A wizard casts a fireball at 1d6 per level. A blaster wizard can do any element to bypass most resistances. A blaster wizard with a level of dual-blooded sorcerer gets 1d6+2 per level oh hey that's what this sap-master rogue is doing to one target, but the fireball is to everyone in the area. And then the wizard can intensify, empower, and maximize it too. And he can eventually launch one of these off as a quick and a standard.
And this wizard is considered a bad and weak wizard. But a rogue doing it to one target with maybe 2 attacks(he's needing to be in attack range in the surprise round or get a move and standard otherwise he's getting nothing from the surprise round.) and it's non-lethal.
i hear unchained's active casting system makes slinging save or dies more interesting.
i'm going to mostly avoid the sap master discussion: i've got no idea what morzadian's smoking, and i'm not sure if i want any.
I think Morzadin is concerned about 1 rounding targets, and since he knows 1 rounding PC's is not going to be liked, he does not let them do it either. He may also feel that it is too easy to do so.
pre-emptive: Before the "casters 1 round things" argument comes in. They can only do so by using resources, so they wont be able to do it as often.
Personally it is a question of "is this fun" more than a power issue. I have had players build one rounder martials. I dont tend to use the same builds against the party. The level of ease with which something is done is a factor for many people, which is why the summoner was given a do-over.
Basically it is not just about the results, but the process.
With that being said I would just use max hit points, if I needed fights to last longer.
I think Morzadin is concerned about 1 rounding targets, and since he knows 1 rounding PC's is not going to be liked, he does not let them do it either. He may also feel that it is too easy to do so.
I think a good mix of creature types solves this problem. If you have someone that you need to stick around, it's not hard to add/change things to make that work.
pre-emptive: Before the "casters 1 round things" argument comes in. They can only do so by using resources, so they wont be able to do it as often.
resources are being spent by both. I'd say the rogue has to spend more as they use two feat slots where as the wizard only has to use up a daily resource. As to often, the wizard only has to do it once to knock out the guy the GM wants to stick around. Is it really about number of KO'd or who is getting KO'd?
"is this fun"
If this was said instead of it's broken or it's munchkin, there would be MUCH less pushback.
With that being said I would just use max hit points, if I needed fights to last longer.
That works too. ;)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
blaster wizards are considered, by some, weaker than GOD wizards, not weaker than save or die wizards. I at least consider save or die specialists the weakest and most boring form of wizardry.
The thing that some people don't seem to realize is that, though blasting takes some work and resources to do well, god wizards and save or die specialists don't. In other words, you can easily play all three in one character. There is literally no reason not to.
This is one of the reasons wizards are considered a tier 1 class.
blaster wizards are considered, by some, weaker than GOD wizards, not weaker than save or die wizards. I at least consider save or die specialists the weakest and most boring form of wizardry.The thing that some people don't seem to realize is that, though blasting takes some work and resources to do well, god wizards and save or die specialists don't. In other words, you can easily play all three in one character. There is literally no reason not to.
This is one of the reasons wizards are considered a tier 1 class.
if you want your save or die wizard to make them die more than you want to make them save then you need to invest.
You, your self have a, sorcerer i know not a wizard, that can petrify most baddies because she have invested in it. But her trick is no good vs. All the creatures that ignore fortitude save stuff. She would need a second trick for them or play as a blaster or GOD vs. them.Edit: now material and new ways of thinking have changed some of the conventions about there only being one good way to do a wizard. At least IMOP.
blaster wizards are considered, by some, weaker than GOD wizards, not weaker than save or die wizards. I at least consider save or die specialists the weakest and most boring form of wizardry.The thing that some people don't seem to realize is that, though blasting takes some work and resources to do well, god wizards and save or die specialists don't. In other words, you can easily play all three in one character. There is literally no reason not to.
This is one of the reasons wizards are considered a tier 1 class.
if you want your save or die wizard to make them die more than you want to make them save then you need to invest.
You, your self have a, sorcerer i know not a wizard, that can petrify most baddies because she have invested in it. But her trick is no good vs. All the creatures that ignore fortitude save stuff. She would need a second trick for them or play as a blaster or GOD vs. them.
Edit: now material and new ways of thinking have changed some of the conventions about there only being one good way to do a wizard. At least IMOP.
All I can think of to justify your statement is spell focus and greater spell focus (which are great feats BTW on Wizards).
God Wizards don't need spell focus anyway, just metamagics and crafting feats. Plenty of feats to spare to throw at blasting or save spells.
Design Manager
|
All I can think of to justify your statement is spell focus and greater spell focus (which are great feats BTW on Wizards).
God Wizards don't need spell focus anyway, just metamagics and crafting feats. Plenty of feats to spare to throw at blasting or save spells.
That isnt true at all. GOD wizards who want to summon need Spell Focus Conjuration if only to reach Augment Summoning. Those who want to control use many spells which require saves, Glitterdust, Pits, Grease etc all need to land to have their full effect.
The real benefit to summoning spells is access to SLAs, unique movement modes, additional spells and spell lists, etc. You really don't need Augment Summoning to get the best benefits. Literally every control spell you listed has a good benefit regardless of enemy saves, so there's that as well. Wizards have the distinct benefit of being able to use their feats for whatever they want, and can still cover multiple roles like blasting, control, buffing, and debuffing all within a single build.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
God wizards don't need Augment Summoning or any of the spell focus feats to do their job. That doesn't mean they can't make good use of those options if they want to.
Really, since most of the strength of a wizard comes from his spell list and selections there aren't too many must-have feats.
blaster wizards are considered, by some, weaker than GOD wizards, not weaker than save or die wizards. I at least consider save or die specialists the weakest and most boring form of wizardry.The thing that some people don't seem to realize is that, though blasting takes some work and resources to do well, god wizards and save or die specialists don't. In other words, you can easily play all three in one character. There is literally no reason not to.
This is one of the reasons wizards are considered a tier 1 class.
if you want your save or die wizard to make them die more than you want to make them save then you need to invest.
You, your self have a, sorcerer i know not a wizard, that can petrify most baddies because she have invested in it. But her trick is no good vs. All the creatures that ignore fortitude save stuff. She would need a second trick for them or play as a blaster or GOD vs. them.
Edit: now material and new ways of thinking have changed some of the conventions about there only being one good way to do a wizard. At least IMOP.All I can think of to justify your statement is spell focus and greater spell focus (which are great feats BTW on Wizards).
God Wizards don't need spell focus anyway, just metamagics and crafting feats. Plenty of feats to spare to throw at blasting or save spells.
I guess it depends on how good you want your wizard to be at his chosen role.