I've been playing PF for a few years now, but one thing I've never figured out is Wizard stat blocks - specifically, why they're referred to by their chosen school.
We get a lot of examples of this in the NPC Codex, starting on Page 178. There, we have characters like "Gnome Enchanter 2", "Human Diviner 4", "Elf Transmuter 5", and "Halfling Evoker 7". You get the same phrasing in their spell blocks - they don't have Wizard spells, they have Enchanter, Diviner, Transmuter (etc.) spells. I don't recall seeing any other class written this way. I'm curious about this - I've never seen a rule saying to write Wizards this way, or a list of the correct names. It just... happens. And if people didn't know the game well enough, they might dig through the books looking for a Diviner class when they really want a Wizard. Does anyone know why this happens?
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Maybe they do it to save space as it is vital information. I wish they would write sorcerers in the same way.
I'd never noticed the spell list description before.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Imagine looking for a NPC to throw quickly into a group of mercenaries. You want to throw in a wizard, maybe someone specialized in evocation, around level 8.
Now look through every Gnome, Elf, Human and Dwarf Wizard in the game to realize that they are mostly Necromancers and Illusionists.
Unlike a lot of other classes, Wizards started with the schools in the Players Handbook and its very rare that another school gets added, unlike the dozens of bloodlines for sorcerers. Its very easy to refer to the wizards by school and it gives decent information of what to expect from this wizard, which is useful when you want a quick NPC to bulk up an encounter.
"Wizards started with the schools in the Players Handbook " ?!?
You know that originally, wizards were supposed to be generalists, right? school specialisation was introduced in AD&D2, and made more systematized in 3.xx, though even there it was accompanied by stiff penalties (I mean, there were no discoveries then to let you study your forbidden schools, yes, forbidden).
to say that "Wizards started with the schools" is a grave misinterpretation of D&D history.
Also, I'm bothered that generalists are such weaksauce in this version, let's not speak of D&D5 where they have done away with generalists altogether.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Actually there was one school in 1st edition AD&D and that was illusionist. They were a completely separate class that was then merged into the wizard class in 2nd edition. That is also probably the source of the tradition referring to the specialist by the school.
Klorox wrote: "Wizards started with the schools in the Players Handbook " ?!?
You know that originally, wizards were supposed to be generalists, right? school specialisation was introduced in AD&D2, and made more systematized in 3.xx, though even there it was accompanied by stiff penalties (I mean, there were no discoveries then to let you study your forbidden schools, yes, forbidden).
to say that "Wizards started with the schools" is a grave misinterpretation of D&D history.
Also, I'm bothered that generalists are such weaksauce in this version, let's not speak of D&D5 where they have done away with generalists altogether.
Sorry, I should of said "Pathfinder Core Rulebook". Anyways, the schools were around since the beginning of Pathfinder so its fairly natural for the writers to use them.
And back in the AD&D days Wizard were suppose to be Wizards. They had no competition, other than Illusionists and that was more of a specialty that Gnomes could explore. Or if you look back far enough, the only version of wizard a gnome could be. The rest of the schools were based on the Illusionist as a template when they were created much later.
Actually I find the Universalist Wizard in Pathfinder to be the best wizard in Pathfinder. While the school doesn't really offer any powerful options, it lacks weaknesses. Being able to cast any spell at its regular level is a very subtle advantage, but one that I appreciate. Also the instant meta magic at later levels is handy.
Then again I'm one of the few wizard players I've seen that is content to sit on the sideline and let the rest of the party handle an encounter. I only step in if I see an opportunity to make a big difference, or if the rest of the party is struggling with an encounter. Try to judge the fight (i.e. KS checks to get monster info), and see if this is one I can back out of, or if I need to start early with the debuffs and reshaping the battlefield.
Illusionists were weird... I mean, they were more than just wizards specializing in illusion school... they had a number of unique spells, and more importantly, the entrance requirements were the stiffest after the paladin, meaning they were not really a competition for wizards, though they were extremely dangerous (I won a high level arena game with an illusionist made up for the occasion, squishy as hell in spite of the devenisove spells and items he used, but who needs the HP of a barbarian when you can oneshot the opposition.)
Well, you might of had trouble against a Bard...
...once upon a time the most powerful class in D&D.
Bards were a very special case, and I oughgt to know, I played one from 1st level fighter to 14th lvl bard... then again, I don't remember that there were bards in that arena game, possibly not enough XP allowance for them to be an interesting option... and I guess even a simple druid might have gotten at me in a bad way, but I was lucky.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
