| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards seem likely to have extra/early proficiency with a chosen school, if such a thing works under the new system. We do know that proficiency is used for spell save DCs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That may be the new Spell Focus/Penetration method considering all we've seen so far.
Perhaps making it a simple way to branch out with thematically appropriate abilities. Something like:
Sense Undead
Prerequisite: Spell Focus (Necromancy) [Expert Level]
Benefits: As a Free Action once per round you may reach out with your arcane senses to find to the taint of undeath. You are aware of any undead within 60ft of yourself, but only possess vague sense of their location.
Kinda but not exactly reminding me of Sphere's of Power which I do fancy.
I like this idea.
I really don't like this idea, we don't know how many proficiency increments get each level but I suspect not enough to cover 8 schools of magic. I really hope Paizo improves the generalist Wizard instead of killing it.
I really don't like this idea, we don't know how many proficiency increments get each level but I suspect not enough to cover 8 schools of magic. I really hope Paizo improves the generalist Wizard instead of killing it.
The only thing you spend proficiency increments on is skills.
The idea here would probably be like Fighter's weapon proficiencies, where you'd have one school that advances earlier than the others.
This or something like it would be awesome. I enjoy picking a specialization for my characters and being rewarded with abilities that fit that concept. As long as such a new system is not too prohibitive on characters in general, I think it improve roleplaying and add more value to the choices that people make, as well as making two given magic users of the same level pretty unique from each other.
I really don't like this idea, we don't know how many proficiency increments get each level but I suspect not enough to cover 8 schools of magic. I really hope Paizo improves the generalist Wizard instead of killing it.The only thing you spend proficiency increments on is skills.
The idea here would probably be like Fighter's weapon proficiencies, where you'd have one school that advances earlier than the others.
OK that sounds better, I can get behind that
You know, one of the design goals was to provide common nomenclature for similar concepts. That is why all class abilities are now introduced in a feat format. They were always kind of the same thing, so you may as well call them the same thing.
Weapon attack is now covered by a proficiency so AC should be covered as a proficiency as well. (I know I read someone mention that somewhere, but I haven't seen it confirmed.) What's another d20 roll that uses the exact same type of system, but the defender rolls instead of the attacker? Saving throws, of course! Accordingly I ask are saves now covered by proficiency? Reflex is now the dodge proficiency? Will is now a WIS-based proficiency? Are we going to get STR-, INT-, and CHA-based saving throw proficiencies?
Sorry. That's a lot of questions.
You know, one of the design goals was to provide common nomenclature for similar concepts. That is why all class abilities are now introduced in a feat format. They were always kind of the same thing, so you may as well call them the same thing.
Weapon attack is now covered by a proficiency so AC should be covered as a proficiency as well. (I know I read someone mention that somewhere, but I haven't seen it confirmed.) What's another d20 roll that uses the exact same type of system, but the defender rolls instead of the attacker? Saving throws, of course! Accordingly I ask are saves now covered by proficiency? Reflex is now the dodge proficiency? Will is now a WIS-based proficiency? Are we going to get STR-, INT-, and CHA-based saving throw proficiencies?
Sorry. That's a lot of questions.
Reflex is reflex proficiency. Will is will proficiency. Fortitude is fortitude proficiency. From the sound of it, they're not adding extra saves.
Reflex is reflex proficiency. Will is will proficiency. Fortitude is fortitude proficiency. From the sound of it, they're not adding extra saves.You know, one of the design goals was to provide common nomenclature for similar concepts. That is why all class abilities are now introduced in a feat format. They were always kind of the same thing, so you may as well call them the same thing.
Weapon attack is now covered by a proficiency so AC should be covered as a proficiency as well. (I know I read someone mention that somewhere, but I haven't seen it confirmed.) What's another d20 roll that uses the exact same type of system, but the defender rolls instead of the attacker? Saving throws, of course! Accordingly I ask are saves now covered by proficiency? Reflex is now the dodge proficiency? Will is now a WIS-based proficiency? Are we going to get STR-, INT-, and CHA-based saving throw proficiencies?
Sorry. That's a lot of questions.
Thank you!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't like this idea, we don't know how many proficiency increments get each level but I suspect not enough to cover 8 schools of magic. I really hope Paizo improves the generalist Wizard instead of killing it.
I want the generalist wizard to die in a fire. It's the most problematic and least flavorful class in the game. It gets to pick all the best spells from every school without any regard to the feel of the character or a style of magic. Even deities are bound to flavor - no god short of a monotheistic "everything god" simultaneously holds the power to stop time, control minds, polymorph anything, throw meteors, gate in demons, break enchantments, create super-undead slaves, create unassailable illusions, know anything, and rewrite reality. I want Paizo to require specialization.
I really don't like this idea, we don't know how many proficiency increments get each level but I suspect not enough to cover 8 schools of magic. I really hope Paizo improves the generalist Wizard instead of killing it.I want the generalist wizard to die in a fire. It's the most problematic and least flavorful class in the game. It gets to pick all the best spells from every school without any regard to the feel of the character or a style of magic. Even deities are bound to flavor - no god short of a monotheistic "everything god" simultaneously holds the power to stop time, control minds, polymorph anything, throw meteors, gate in demons, break enchantments, create super-undead slaves, create unassailable illusions, know anything, and rewrite reality. I want Paizo to require specialization.
The generalist Wizard is one of my favorites concepts, the exclusion of it would be a deal breaker for me and I think many others. But I'm not too worry about the generalist dying, after all vancian will be the core magic system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want Paizo to require specialization.
I agree that this would be an excellent way to limit wizards further than PF2.0 already seems to be doing. Past mid levels (heck, even past level 6 or so) an arcane spellcaster in PF1.0 so far outclasses all other classes in the game that people have been complaining about it for years.
Some method of limiting a given wizard character's access to spells would be a welcome addition to the game. Limiting access by limiting the number of spell schools you can choose spells from would be a great and flavorful way to limit wizard powers and make each wizard character more unique.
I know some players who particularly like playing wizards would be seriously miffed by the idea of not being able to cherry pick all the coolest spells, but I think they'd get used to the idea over time.
I want Paizo to require specialization.I agree that this would be an excellent way to limit wizards further than PF2.0 already seems to be doing. Past mid levels (heck, even past level 6 or so) an arcane spellcaster in PF1.0 so far outclasses all other classes in the game that people have been complaining about it for years.
Some method of limiting a given wizard character's access to spells would be a welcome addition to the game. Limiting access by limiting the number of spell schools you can choose spells from would be a great and flavorful way to limit wizard powers and make each wizard character more unique.
I know some players who particularly like playing wizards would be seriously miffed by the idea of not being able to cherry pick all the coolest spells, but I think they'd get used to the idea over time.
No, we wound not. The generalist wizard is a popular concept that appears in lots of media.
No, we wound not. The generalist wizard is a popular concept that appears in lots of media.
And I'm sure that, as a wizard, you enjoy being exponentially more powerful than any other single character in your party. But that doesn't necessarily mean that limiting wizards in their choices of spells by spell school isn't a valid approach to dealing with the quadratic wizard conundrum.
I also fail to see how you can claim that in "media", you're able to determine which characters are generalists and which ones are specialists.
No, we wound not. The generalist wizard is a popular concept that appears in lots of media.And I'm sure that, as a wizard, you enjoy being exponentially more powerful than any other single character in your party. But that doesn't necessarily mean that limiting wizards in their choices of spells by spell school isn't a valid approach to dealing with the quadratic wizard conundrum.
So now you are just making up assumptions about me with zero basis?
I also fail to see how you can claim that in "media", you're able to determine which characters are generalists and which ones are specialists.
Maybe not for all media, but certainly there are examples, Harry Potter, The Wheel of Time, or The Magicians comes to mind.
No, we wound not. The generalist wizard is a popular concept that appears in lots of media.And I'm sure that, as a wizard, you enjoy being exponentially more powerful than any other single character in your party. But that doesn't necessarily mean that limiting wizards in their choices of spells by spell school isn't a valid approach to dealing with the quadratic wizard conundrum.So now you are just making up assumptions about me with zero basis?
I also fail to see how you can claim that in "media", you're able to determine which characters are generalists and which ones are specialists.Maybe not for all media, but certainly there are examples, Harry Potter, The Wheel of Time, or The Magicians comes to mind.
All of which are infinitely less powerful than a high level D&D wizard. Generalism works okay when it's low powered, even though it still suffers in flavor... But at higher power levels a generalist wizard is God in all but name.
But at higher power levels a generalist wizard is God in all but name.
I don't have a problem with that, that is part of the appeal, high level characters should feel like gods.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really like the idea that a spellcaster ends up proficient at different levels in different schools.
A specialist might just be someone who chooses an extra level of proficiency in one school at the cost of being untrained in another?
Or maybe only a specialist can reach Legendary in their preferred school?
I'm excited to see how it works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are two major issues. The first is that a generalist wizard gains essentially unlimited access to power at the cost of, at most, slightly lower DCs and maybe not having some minor perks like the various Summon boosting feats. The second is that specialist wizards are still fully capable of branching out into generalist territory. Nothing is stopping my evoker who has invested everything in his build into evocation from preparing Haste and an important divination spell we need and doing it as well or better than literally any other caster who might be preparing that spell today. This is what makes wizards so broken, their ability to prepare any spell they damn well please with little regard for limitations or build. Sorcerers have similar issues, albeit less versatile, but I can build a super enchantment focused sorcerer and still take fireball as one of my third level spells known, and it's still an extremely effective option.
That is why I love this idea. Provide actual limits and a balancing act. Lock abilities and powerful spells behind proficiency gates. Make it a choice between power and versatility, rather than getting both for no cost whatsoever.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think school proficiency is an excellent way of breaking up the wizard's class features into modular chunks consistent with the design ethos that we've seen so far in PF2. I would love to see the wizard class feats be different "school powers" gated behind a level of proficiency in a school of magic. And, in this way, I think we can safely satisfy those who like generalists and those who like specialists.
Consider that there are 8 schools of magic. Let's assume that every wizard starts "trained" in all of them, but that "trained" is not sufficient to acquire any class feats related to that school (only the ability to cast spells of that school). If we give wizards a total of 8 increases to their spell proficiencies over the course of their career (starting with a smaller number and gaining one every so often) then that would be enough to do any of the following:
- 2 legendary schools + 1 master school
- 2 legendary schools + 2 expert schools
- 1 legendary school + 2 master schools + 1 expert school
- 1 legendary school + 1 master school + 3 expert schools
- 4 master schools
- 3 master schools + 2 expert schools
- 2 master schools + 4 expert schools
- 1 master school + 6 expert schools
- 8 expert schools
So the more you specialize the better the school-related class feats you can pick, but the more you have to forsake other schools. Or you can be competent at all of them in exchange for being weaker overall, especially if your save DC is tied to your proficiency in a school.
EDIT: It could also work to give the option to start "untrained" in 2 schools (can't cast spells from them at all) in exchange for an extra proficiency bump to start with.
I think school proficiency is an excellent way of breaking up the wizard's class features into modular chunks consistent with the design ethos that we've seen so far in PF2. I would love to see the wizard class feats be different "school powers" gated behind a level of proficiency in a school of magic. And, in this way, I think we can safely satisfy those who like generalists and those who like specialists.
Consider that there are 8 schools of magic. Let's assume that every wizard starts "trained" in all of them, but that "trained" is not sufficient to acquire any class feats related to that school (only the ability to cast spells of that school). If we give wizards a total of 8 increases to their spell proficiencies over the course of their career (starting with a smaller number and gaining one every so often) then that would be enough to do any of the following:
- 2 legendary schools + 1 master school
- 2 legendary schools + 2 expert schools
- 1 legendary school + 2 master schools + 1 expert school
- 1 legendary school + 1 master school + 3 expert schools
- 4 master schools
- 3 master schools + 2 expert schools
- 2 master schools + 4 expert schools
- 1 master school + 6 expert schools
- 8 expert schools
So the more you specialize the better the school-related class feats you can pick, but the more you have to forsake other schools. Or you can be competent at all of them in exchange for being weaker overall, especially if your save DC is tied to your proficiency in a school.
EDIT: It could also work to give the option to start "untrained" in 2 schools (can't cast spells from them at all) in exchange for an extra proficiency bump to start with.
That doesn't work for archetypes or even other classes with concepts that doesn't have anything to do with schools of magic. I really hope Paizo doesn't implement anything like this just for the sake of limiting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a significant enough edit that I thought it was worth another post. I think it would also be interesting if in the paradigm I described above, your proficiency in a school gated the highest level of spell you can learn from a school. Note that this doesn't necessarily preclude you from using higher level spell slots for "upcasting" lower level spells of those schools or augmenting them with metamagic. So, hypothetically, a high-level expert in evocation might be able to cast an empowered fireball, but it would take a master of evocation to even prepare a chain lightning, or one might have to be a legendary evoker to use a meteor swarm. (examples pulled from nowhere for illustrative purposes)
With 10 levels of spells you can divide them up with trained giving access to levels 1-2; expert 1-5; master 1-8; legendary: all. So it rewards a fair bit of specialization, while at the same time not necessarily requiring it.
That doesn't work for archetypes or even other classes with concepts that doesn't have anything to do with schools of magic. I really hope Paizo doesn't implement anything like this just for the sake of limiting.
Unless, of course, they actually implement schools of magic as a standard part of being a spellcasting class, oriented the wizard's class feats around improving specific schools, and oriented other casters around non-school based casting improvements.
That doesn't work for archetypes or even other classes with concepts that doesn't have anything to do with schools of magic. I really hope Paizo doesn't implement anything like this just for the sake of limiting.
I don't think it doesn't work with archetypes. Consider how many PF1 archetypes trade away your specialty school and/or give you extra opposition schools. Under this system that would be as simple as trading away one (or more if necessary) of your proficiency increases (either starting or gained).
The wizard has also always been pretty different in how it approaches magic compared to other classes, so other classes would naturally have to work differently. The sorcerer, for example, learns a very few spells total, so it would probably make sense for them to get automatic proficiency increases as they go. They're just that good at the small amount of magic they know. This wold probably go similarly for most spontaneous casters.
Divine casters could, theoretically, also get increases automatically, but in a different way. Clerics/Oracles/etc. usually have an area of concern. They could be more proficient with spells from their area of expertise, one less with more general spells, and two steps less with spells that run contrary to their patron's interests.
That doesn't work for archetypes or even other classes with concepts that doesn't have anything to do with schools of magic. I really hope Paizo doesn't implement anything like this just for the sake of limiting.I don't think it doesn't work with archetypes. Consider how many PF1 archetypes trade away your specialty school and/or give you extra opposition schools. Under this system that would be as simple as trading away one (or more if necessary) of your proficiency increases (either starting or gained).
The wizard has also always been pretty different in how it approaches magic compared to other classes, so other classes would naturally have to work differently. The sorcerer, for example, learns a very few spells total, so it would probably make sense for them to get automatic proficiency increases as they go. They're just that good at the small amount of magic they know. This wold probably go similarly for most spontaneous casters.
Divine casters could, theoretically, also get increases automatically, but in a different way. Clerics/Oracles/etc. usually have an area of concern. They could be more proficient with spells from their area of expertise, one less with more general spells, and two steps less with spells that run contrary to their patron's interests.
I just don't like your approach, as the others presented it feels like limiting just for the sake of limiting. I prefer to see class features/feats to reflect the concept I'm trying to make.
Idea: At level 1, wizards get access to one or two schools of magic, the rest are treated as opposition schools as per PF1. Wizards can gain the other schools of magic as non-opposition schools through class feats as they level, as the Opposition Research Arcane Discovery from Ultimate Magic.
So to be a generalist wizard, all of your class feats for the first several levels (half/most of a normal character's career) go to picking up the other schools, while a specialist would pick up a few other schools to be more well-rounded and the rest of their class feats go to other things available to wizards.
This is by far the worst idea I have read in this thread.
I'm actually hoping that Paizo takes the next step and removes opposition schools, they already gave the first step by softening it in the transition from 3.5 to PF.
But at higher power levels a generalist wizard is God in all but name.I don't have a problem with that, that is part of the appeal, high level characters should feel like gods.
It's not good for a multiplayer game when some characters become Gods and others don't. In Harry Potter, and to a lesser extent Wheel of Time those with magic are just straight up better than those without which can make a good story but it is bad game design.
It's not good for a multiplayer game when some characters become Gods and others don't. In Harry Potter, and to a lesser extent Wheel of Time those with magic are just straight up better than those without which can make a good story but it is bad game design.But at higher power levels a generalist wizard is God in all but name.I don't have a problem with that, that is part of the appeal, high level characters should feel like gods.
Then the problem is for the characters who are limited, we should aim to improve them so all characters feel like gods at higher levels instead of nerfing the ones that already work.
I'd like to change my idea: Wizards get access to one school at level one. All other schools are opposition schools as per 3.5. There is never access to other schools.
I know you are just trolling but I feed one more time. Wizards get at will spells and there are no longer material components?
Then the problem is for the character who are limited, we should aim to improve them so all characters feel like gods at higher levels instead of nerfing the ones that already work.It's not good for a multiplayer game when some characters become Gods and others don't. In Harry Potter, and to a lesser extent Wheel of Time those with magic are just straight up better than those without which can make a good story but it is bad game design.But at higher power levels a generalist wizard is God in all but name.I don't have a problem with that, that is part of the appeal, high level characters should feel like gods.
There are no mechanics that are as versatile as a full spell list. Therefore that would mean making everyone a spellcaster.
If you require specialization the evoker can be God of Fire, the illusionist can be God of Illusions, the cleric God of Healing, the fighter God of War, and the rogue God of Thievery.
With unrestricted generalist wizards you have Gods of War and Thievery for some characters while the wizard can be God of anything given a day to prepare.
EDIT: typos and capitalization, stupid phone typing.