Specialist vs. Generalist

[MesiDoomstalker]

Ok, so I expect this to turn into a violent flame war about which is better. I'm almost literally asking for that but I'd rather not have it degrade to that. I'm going to make a Wizard for an upcoming camapaign and I'm stuck on whether to specialize (in Transmutation, thats already decided) and gain the sweet feats/abilites for them at the cost of some flexibility or be a Generalist and have tons of flexibility (I particularly like 1st level Elf sub level and the 1st level feat that grants extra spells in my spell book each level for free but I can't remember what its called off the top off my head). I've never played a Wizard and on either front, I want to avoid the super-stinky-gouda-cheese. Regular cheddar is just fine :smalltongue: If the helpful playgrounders give me the common options for Specialists and Generalists respectivly so I can better weigh my options.

[Circle of Life]

The only acceptable* generalist wizard is an elf generalist, which you already seem to have caught onto.

That said, transmutation specialist wizards are... meh. You can do worse, but you can also do much better, pretty much regardless of the role you're trying to fill by doing so.

A common choice is to be a Focused Specialist (Complete Mage) Sudden Conjuration (PHB2) wizard, which gives you oodles of conjuration spells (do anything that isn't illusions, pretty much) and the ability to teleport 10 feet as an immediate action (because wizards needed more "screw you, fighter" options, right?) Int mod times per day.

*From a strictly power gain/loss viewpoint. You can play a normal generalist if you really want to, but it will be decidedly lackluster.

[Psyren]

Treantmonk had a nice treatise on how Generalists (and Diviners) only offer the illusion of versatility as opposed to the real thing. (Elven Generalists being the notable exception.)

He was mostly arguing for the even more "restrictive" Focused Specialist, but the argument applies just as well to regular Specialist vs. Generalist. Give it a read here (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19864630/Focused_Specialist_is_better_than_you_think) and we can debate after if you like.

[Flickerdart]

Specialization in either Transmutation or Conjuration without banning the other is exactly like being a Generalist but with more spells - 90% of all the good spells are in either one of these two schools.

Banning Evocation is nearly painless (Wall of Force, Forcecage and Contingency). Enchantment is useless at higher levels of play when everything is immune to mind-affecting, and Necromancy is generally better done by Clerics or has that nasty Death tag, which brings us back to the whole immunity thing. Banning these won't bring you too much pain. The effectiveness of Illusion depends largely on whether or not you want Shadow Evocation or if you love the Image line of spells. Abjuration can also be lost, especially with another friendly spellcaster in the party, but it'll hurt.

However, if you start at higher levels, you will likely have enough spell slots that the ones you get from specializing don't matter. You do lose out on the nifty class features - but that means going into Incantatrix or similar PrCs that have to sacrifice schools won't hurt you as badly as usual.

[NNescio]

The only acceptable* generalist wizard is an elf generalist, which you already seem to have caught onto.

That said, transmutation specialist wizards are... meh. You can do worse, but you can also do much better, pretty much regardless of the role you're trying to fill by doing so.

A common choice is to be a Focused Specialist (Complete Mage) Sudden Conjuration (PHB2) wizard, which gives you oodles of conjuration spells (do anything that isn't illusions, pretty much) and the ability to teleport 10 feet as an immediate action (because wizards needed more "screw you, fighter" options, right?) Int mod times per day.

*From a strictly power gain/loss viewpoint. You can play a normal generalist if you really want to, but it will be decidedly lackluster.

Transmutation is better than Conjuration at higher spell levels.

[Greenish]

You can play a normal generalist if you really want to, but it will be decidedly lackluster.Only when compared to specialist wizards. Compared to lesser mortals, well, still a wizard.

[MesiDoomstalker]

The only acceptable* generalist wizard is an elf generalist, which you already seem to have caught onto.

That said, transmutation specialist wizards are... meh. You can do worse, but you can also do much better, pretty much regardless of the role you're trying to fill by doing so.

A common choice is to be a Focused Specialist (Complete Mage) Sudden Conjuration (PHB2) wizard, which gives you oodles of conjuration spells (do anything that isn't illusions, pretty much) and the ability to teleport 10 feet as an immediate action (because wizards needed more "screw you, fighter" options, right?) Int mod times per day.

*From a strictly power gain/loss viewpoint. You can play a normal generalist if you really want to, but it will be decidedly lackluster.

I saw that option and instantly disliked it. I sacfrice two different kinds of flexibilty (another school and a general spell slot) for two slots for my specialty school. This is completly pigeon-holing me into my specialization and I don't like playing one-trick ponies (NOTE: I realize that by no means any single school is a one trick pony (except maybe Evocation :smalltongue:)) The reason I wish to avoid gouda level cheese is because my character will be nerfed, unfairly targeted, miscelanious DM fiat or plain forcibly-scrapped if I do. I put a lot of effort into characters and rather not have my DM making me redo it for being overtly too powerful.

Also, I want to play a Transmuter if I specialize, so thats not changing. So the Sudden Conjurer option is automatically out.

On that note, thank you for your suggestions. If I came off as harsh, it was not intentional, simply my own reactions to the options given.

[Randomguy]

Either way, you'd be pretty powerful. Who else is in your party? In general, evocation can be banned safely without giving up too much versatility, since most spells are just different ways of doing damage and conjuration has lots of those, too. Besides, doing damage is what fighters are for and shadow evocation can mimic some of the better spells.

Necromancy is also in general a good choice to ban, since it has only a few useful spells if you're not going to be raising an undead army.

If you see a spell from a banned school that you like, you can get it with the spell versatility alternate class feature and treat it as a transmutation spell, but choose well, since you only get a few.

This way you should have almost as much flexibility as a generalist.

If the option comes up though, be a domain wizard. You get the extra spell slots without a big loss in versatility.

[NeoSeraphi]

Incidentally, the feat you're referring to is Collegiate Wizard (Complete Arcane, if I recall correctly)

[Eldariel]

Transmutation is better than Conjuration at higher spell levels.

Conjuration does have Gate, Maze, Plane Shift, Teleports, etc. Regardless of which is better, there should be little trouble efficiently filling the specialist slots with spells you want anyways every day every level. Though of course, Transmuters are far from "meh".

[Hiro Protagonest]

If you play a Transmuter, you want to pick up that Spell Versatality variant in UA and the SRD. It trades away your bonus metamagic feats (probably the only one you'll want is Extend Spell, and you can afford using a feat slot) for the ability to treat any spell as a Transmutation, so if you banned Enchantment but absolutely have to have Hold Person, you can.

[Circle of Life]

Transmutation is better than Conjuration at higher spell levels.

I would disagree with that on the basis that you lose your gigantic "screw you grapple/forcecage/brute/archer/ray spells/et cetera" option, though a properly paranoid wizard can, of course, make up for that without too much strain.


Only when compared to specialist wizards. Compared to lesser mortals, well, still a wizard.

You know how sometimes you think something is so blindingly obvious that nobody would ever feel the need to point it out? It never seems to work that way. :smalltongue:


Also, I want to play a Transmuter if I specialize, so thats not changing. So the Sudden Conjurer option is automatically out.

Go forth and transmute to your heart's content. It's a valid option, just one I don't favor quite as strongly as the others.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Treantmonk had a nice treatise on how Generalists (and Diviners) only offer the illusion of versatility as opposed to the real thing. (Elven Generalists being the notable exception.)

He was mostly arguing for the even more "restrictive" Focused Specialist, but the argument applies just as well to regular Specialist vs. Generalist. Give it a read here (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19864630/Focused_Specialist_is_better_than_you_think) and we can debate after if you like.

Interestingly enough, this is what sparked my own internal debate between the two. That being said people are biased whether they like it or not and I've seen good arguments for both. So in such cases as this I go to personal experience....which is all my friends playing Evokers (specialists or not, they degrade into this) and barely keeping up in damage with my Melee characters. So I went here for those who now the options and run theoretical scenarios in my head.


Specialization in either Transmutation or Conjuration without banning the other is exactly like being a Generalist but with more spells - 90% of all the good spells are in either one of these two schools.

Banning Evocation is nearly painless (Wall of Force, Forcecage and Contingency). Enchantment is useless at higher levels of play when everything is immune to mind-affecting, and Necromancy is generally better done by Clerics or has that nasty Death tag, which brings us back to the whole immunity thing. Banning these won't bring you too much pain. The effectiveness of Illusion depends largely on whether or not you want Shadow Evocation or if you love the Image line of spells. Abjuration can also be lost, especially with another friendly spellcaster in the party, but it'll hurt.

However, if you start at higher levels, you will likely have enough spell slots that the ones you get from specializing don't matter. You do lose out on the nifty class features - but that means going into Incantatrix or similar PrCs that have to sacrifice schools won't hurt you as badly as usual.


Transmutation is better than Conjuration at higher spell levels.

We are starting at 10th, so I'll have quite a few spell slots to work with and Conjuration is starting to degrade compared to Transmutation.


Only when compared to specialist wizards. Compared to lesser mortals, well, still a wizard.

Point taken! :smallbiggrin:

[MesiDoomstalker]

Either way, you'd be pretty powerful. Who else is in your party? In general, evocation can be banned safely without giving up too much versatility, since most spells are just different ways of doing damage and conjuration has lots of those, too. Besides, doing damage is what fighters are for and shadow evocation can mimic some of the better spells.

Necromancy is also in general a good choice to ban, since it has only a few useful spells if you're not going to be raising an undead army.

If you see a spell from a banned school that you like, you can get it with the spell versatility alternate class feature and treat it as a transmutation spell, but choose well, since you only get a few.

This way you should have almost as much flexibility as a generalist.

If the option comes up though, be a domain wizard. You get the extra spell slots without a big loss in versatility.

My party dynamic is currently unkown. My DM tells me about a new camapaign first and early because he knows how much time and effort I put in so he gives me ample time. Thats part of the reason I want flexibility so I don't have to alter my build too much to cover holes in the party dynamic. Doesn't that option force me to take all the other parts of the alternate feature prior to that? I can't remember them off the top of my but I remember feeling underwhelmed. Also, Domain Wizard will get him insta-banned. My DM is usually flexible but has come to realize I optimize well and the rest don't so I'm avoiding Super-Stinky-Gouda-Cheese.


Incidentally, the feat you're referring to is Collegiate Wizard (Complete Arcane, if I recall correctly)

Thank you! :smallbiggrin:


If you play a Transmuter, you want to pick up that Spell Versatality variant in UA and the SRD. It trades away your bonus metamagic feats (probably the only one you'll want is Extend Spell, and you can afford using a feat slot) for the ability to treat any spell as a Transmutation, so if you banned Enchantment but absolutely have to have Hold Person, you can.

See above: doesn't that make me take the other features?

EDIT: I found it on SRD and I give up my metamagic/creation feats (I don't like either much and would only take extend anyways if I was a Transmuter with an rod of lesser extend as back up) and my familiar which I use like V up until recently (aka only when I remember :smalltongue:) so thats fine.

[Flickerdart]

No, you can choose which of the features you want to trade.

[Keld Denar]

Here is my current FS Conjourer (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=103401) for a really high optimization game. He's 15, and as you can see, I have NO problem with finding high level Conjourations between a few special gems and metamagic'd spells.

Although one thing to note is that he is loaded for Inevitable hunting, so most of his spells don't have SR, and he's not packing Waves of Exhaustion, Split Ray Stun Rays, or any other spells that don't work on constructs.

[MesiDoomstalker]

No, you can choose which of the features you want to trade.

Well, unless I'm reading the quote from SRD wrong, I think your wrong by RAW.


Although these abilities allow the creation and customization of variant classes, a character cannot, for example, take a few levels of conjurer using the rapid summoning variant and then "multiclass" into regular conjurer levels. These variants all follow the normal rules for multiclassing by specialist wizards.

That sounds like if I use the alternate variant, I have to use it too its fullest. And the other two options are underwhelming even if I don't use my familiar to his fullest potential.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Here is my current FS Conjourer (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=103401) for a really high optimization game. He's 15, and as you can see, I have NO problem with finding high level Conjourations between a few special gems and metamagic'd spells.

Although one thing to note is that he is loaded for Inevitable hunting, so most of his spells don't have SR, and he's not packing Waves of Exhaustion, Split Ray Stun Rays, or any other spells that don't work on constructs.

That many classes will get the character insta-banned.

[Circle of Life]

Because each variant requires the loss of an existing ability, you can use more than one of these variants at the same time. By choosing among the variant abilities presented for each specialist, you can easily customize the way that magic works in a campaign, in a geographic region of a campaign, for a school of magic, or even for a single spellcaster. Players can easily create unique and interesting characters using these variants.

Bolding mine.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Ah, I forgot that. :smallredface: My bad. I would then ignore the other ones.

[Hiro Protagonest]

That sounds like if I use the alternate variant, I have to use it too its fullest. And the other two options are underwhelming even if I don't use my familiar to his fullest potential.

You can take Spell Versatility without Transmutable Memory and Enhance Attribute.

Edit: double swordsage'd!

[Elric VIII]

If you play a Transmuter, you want to pick up that Spell Versatality variant in UA and the SRD. It trades away your bonus metamagic feats (probably the only one you'll want is Extend Spell, and you can afford using a feat slot) for the ability to treat any spell as a Transmutation, so if you banned Enchantment but absolutely have to have Hold Person, you can.

There's also a feat in some FR book that allows you to learn one spell of any banned school (don't remember the name) and use spell-trigger items of that school.

There's Diversified Casting in Dragon 325 that gives you the ability to learn 3 chosen spells from a banned school (although you do not automatically learn them) and you can use spell-trigger items of those spells, only.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Ok heres another quesiton: Good PrC's for specialists and Generalists?

[NNescio]

Ok heres another quesiton: Good PrC's for specialists and Generalists?

Master Specialist.

Incantrix is also a good choice for anything, and you can dial back the 'cheese" as long as you don't (ab)use free metamagic too much.

Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil is a stellar choice on an Abjurer chassis.

Shadowcraft Mage is the go-to PrC for illusionists.

Mage of the Arcane Order gains access to a spellpool, letting you swap (or 'loan') prepared spells for another spell (temporarily, and you only gain the spell at the start of your next turn), which works very well for a specialist.

Archmage lets you trade out specialist slots for assorted bennies.

Paragnostic Apostle also gives some nice bennies if you have ranks invested in various Knowledge skills.

Fatespinner can be qualified for easily, and is useful if you like using spells with save DCs (i.e. Transmutation SoDs).

Wayfarer Guide works as a one-level dip for Conjurers who want to improve their Teleportation spells.

Malconvoker is the premier summoning PrC, 'though most Conjurers would be hesitant of taking this due to the costs involved. It's only worthwhile if you intend to summon a lot.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Master Specialist.

Master Generalist.

Okay I made that up. :smalltongue:

[hangedman1984]

I saw that option and instantly disliked it. I sacfrice two different kinds of flexibilty (another school and a general spell slot) for two slots for my specialty school.

you'd be amazed how much versatility you don't loose versus the increase in power

[MesiDoomstalker]

Master Specialist.

Incantrix is also a good choice for anything, and you can dial back the 'cheese" as long as you don't (ab)use free metamagic too much.

Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil is a stellar choice on an Abjurer chassis.

Mage of the Arcane Order gains access to a spellpool, letting you swap (or 'loan') prepared spells for another spell (temporarily, and you only gain the spell at the start of your next turn), which works very well for a specialist.

Archmage lets you trade out specialist slots for assorted bennies.

Paragnostic Apostle also gives some nice bennies if you have ranks invested in various Knowledge skills.

Fatespinner can be qualified for easily, and is useful if you like using spells with save DCs (i.e. Transmutation SoDs).

Wayfarer Guide works as a one-level dip for Conjurers who want to improve their Teleportation spells.

Malconvoker is the premier summoning PrC, 'though most Conjurers would be hesitant of taking this due to the costs involved. It's only worthwhile if you intend to summon a lot.

Don't particularly like Master Specialist abilities for Transmuter (or other schools frankly).

Where is Incantrix? I keep hearing about it but not sure where it is.

I'm probably banning Abjuration (no self-buffing for me! but Dispel Magic will be my first Transmutified spell.)

I might dip into Archmage if I can spare a feat slot for a two spell focuses. Unfortunatly I don't see that happening.

Not sure about Knowledge skills, honestly. My DM is sketchy on how he uses them so they aren't very useful. Better to invest in cross-class skills frankly.

Where is Fatespinner?

Again, I'd be a Transmuter.

See above.

[dextercorvia]

Don't particularly like Master Specialist abilities for Transmuter (or other schools frankly).

Where is Incantrix? I keep hearing about it but not sure where it is.

I'm probably banning Abjuration (no self-buffing for me! but Dispel Magic will be my first Transmutified spell.)

I might dip into Archmage if I can spare a feat slot for a two spell focuses. Unfortunatly I don't see that happening.

Not sure about Knowledge skills, honestly. My DM is sketchy on how he uses them so they aren't very useful. Better to invest in cross-class skills frankly.

Where is Fatespinner?

Again, I'd be a Transmuter.

See above.

Incantatrix is in PGtF. Fatespinner is in CArc.

[Keld Denar]

That many classes will get the character insta-banned.

Wow...your DM...thats a dumb reason. Several PrCs doesn't make a PC any less than of a wizard than a wizard 20. I fail to see the problem.

Incantatrix is in PGtF. You can't have banned Abjuration going into it, and it makes you ban another school of magic. In return, you get near infinite cosmic power and complete mastery over all things metamagic. If your DM has a problem with a single character having more than 1-2 PrCs, he's gonna have a HUGE problem with Incantatrix. Its probably the strongest PrC in the game.

So yea, if you don't like Master Specialist, and just about everything else is gonna be too strong and instabanned, then you'd probably be best off sticking to straight wizard.

EDIT: and besides, I was just linking the character so you can see that even a Focused Specialist can have a broad depth of spells without much overlap even at high levels.

[ericgrau]

In core it's a trade-off. Once you start adding more and more spells you can find replacements though and specialists basically get something for practically nothing. I suppose you could do it out of preference, as a generalist still isn't the worst thing in the world. Or to fulfill the requirement for something like elven generalist. Orr to be a scroll monkey who has every spell imaginable ready to use.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Wow...your DM...thats a dumb reason. Several PrCs doesn't make a PC any less than of a wizard than a wizard 20. I fail to see the problem.

Incantatrix is in PGtF. You can't have banned Abjuration going into it, and it makes you ban another school of magic. In return, you get near infinite cosmic power and complete mastery over all things metamagic. If your DM has a problem with a single character having more than 1-2 PrCs, he's gonna have a HUGE problem with Incantatrix. Its probably the strongest PrC in the game.

So yea, if you don't like Master Specialist, and just about everything else is gonna be too strong and instabanned, then you'd probably be best off sticking to straight wizard.

EDIT: and besides, I was just linking the character so you can see that even a Focused Specialist can have a broad depth of spells without much overlap even at high levels.

He isn't used to optimization and has attributed having more than one PrC as a sign of super-game-breaking-optimization. Last I heard, he was thinking of limiting us to one PrC, per character, ever. And I also don't like Incantrix AND he wouldn't allow it. So ya, won't happen either way.

[Circle of Life]

So... what DO you want then? You don't want a PrC that makes you a better transmuter, you don't want a PrC that makes you better at making transmutation spells do interesting things... So go archmage or straight wizard, I guess?

It seems like people are throwing suggestion after suggestion at you while you shoot them down without clarifying WHY they are unsuitable.

[MesiDoomstalker]

So... what DO you want then? You don't want a PrC that makes you a better transmuter, you don't want a PrC that makes you better at making transmutation spells do interesting things... So go archmage or straight wizard, I guess?

It seems like people are throwing suggestion after suggestion at you while you shoot them down without clarifying WHY they are unsuitable.

Things that aren't super cheese. Which has been suggested and I shoot down because it would get shot down when I run it by my DM.

[NNescio]

Transmuter 7/Loremaster 8/Archmage 5.

Simple Low*-OP build, with all classes from Core.

(*Relatively speaking. Mostly because Loremaster is kinda 'meh'.)

Alternatively, try Transmuter 3/Master Specialist 4/Loremaster 8/Archmage 5

Still Low-OP.

Can be improved slightly with Transmuter 3/Master Specialist 4/Loremaster 4/Fatespinner 4/Archmage 5, if you like to use SoDs.

If you want to go a bit further, ditch Loremaster and take five levels of Transmuter to get another ACF:

Transmuter 5/Master Specialist 3/Fatespinner 4/Paragnostic Apostle 3/Archmage 5

[Sudain]

What do you want your wizard to do? What role are you trying to accomplish?

Your highly interested in transmutation and IIRC, non-evocation ka-boom spells. But what else? Are you trying to be battle field control? Are you trying to buff? Trying to debuff? Once we know that we'll have a better idea of how to help.

I'd suggest going specialist personally as it allows you to be consistatnly good at one thing(and have more spells to do it to boot). You also have to account for your party members; they want some consisantcy in what you are going to do so they can plan and work with/around you. You wouldn't want a tank who was wildly random.

Don't discount the lower level spells. At level 1 you can get unseen servant. While it may not scream "Over powered mage!", it's not supposed to. But it will remain useful long after mage armor/shield. And you will still have it at level 20. I would highly suggest picking your Level 1-3 spells very carefully because they are going to be your bread and butter all through your career.

[Olo Demonsbane]

You could go with an Elven generalist with the domain wizard ACF. Rather cheesy though.

[Keld Denar]

Things that aren't super cheese. Which has been suggested and I shoot down because it would get shot down when I run it by my DM.

You are a wizard. You are by definition "super cheese". The rest is just details.

Honestly, just go Wizard20. You'll get some nice bonus feats, and you won't have to worry about jumping through hoops for prereqs to PrCs. Its simple enough that even your DM can't shoot it down.

[Acanous]

Generalists are useful in one kind of campaign: The kind where you start above level 5, your DM is going to be winging everything and it's all coming at you.
If there's ever a plot and a plan, you can safely play a specialist wizard with zero loss.


Master Specialist is a perfectly valid, non-cheesey option for any specialist wizard. There's 3 great abilities that fit your theme, it gets rid of dead levels with some neat secondary abilities, and you can feel like a real colligeate wizard ;)

[TroubleBrewing]

Its simple enough that even your DM can't shoot it down.

There's a weird sort of inversely-sensical principle when it comes to DMs: They ban complex builds that look scary but actually aren't, while allowing "simple" builds like Wizard 20, which looks relatively harmless, but is the furthest thing from it.

I'm willing to bet the DM of the OP would ban something like Monk 2/Barbarian 1/Fighter 2/Fist of the Forest 3/Frostrager 5/Deepwarden 2, but would be totally cool with Druid 20.

I was about to add "not that there's anything wrong with that" at the end, until I thought about it. This is silly. This whole "anti-PrC" policy is silly. It's entirely based in willful ignorance and a refusal to read and understand the basic game functions. Banning builds based solely on the number of PrCs they have is ridiculous, on the same scale as banning a car from a race based on how many components its engine has! Some cars require more parts than others, but do not necessarily function as well as a simpler car would! There is no sane reason behind requiring players to limit themselves in the number of PrCs their build can contain.

Banning certain PrCs, fine. Incantatrix, Planar Shepard, Dweomerkeeper, and the Thrallherd all usually get hit with the banhammer in my games. All they really do is give vast, awesome, mind-blowing power to classes that already posses world-shattering abilities. But banning a build solely based on number of classes is both foolish and makes the DM in question look not just a little silly.

[Chess435]

Ok, so I expect this to turn into a violent flame war about which is better. I'm almost literally asking for that but I'd rather not have it degrade to that.


:confused: And you've been on these forums for 5 months? There are almost no flame wars on these wonderful forums. Ever. Honestly, the people on this site are some of the nicest on the internet, to the point where "Playgrounder" is synonymous with "Friendly Advice Dispenser". :smallbiggrin:

[MesiDoomstalker]

There's a weird sort of inversely-sensical principle when it comes to DMs: They ban complex builds that look scary but actually aren't, while allowing "simple" builds like Wizard 20, which looks relatively harmless, but is the furthest thing from it.

I'm willing to bet the DM of the OP would ban something like Monk 2/Barbarian 1/Fighter 2/Fist of the Forest 3/Frostrager 5/Deepwarden 2, but would be totally cool with Druid 20.

I was about to add "not that there's anything wrong with that" at the end, until I thought about it. This is silly. This whole "anti-PrC" policy is silly. It's entirely based in willful ignorance and a refusal to read and understand the basic game functions. Banning builds based solely on the number of PrCs they have is ridiculous, on the same scale as banning a car from a race based on how many components its engine has! Some cars require more parts than others, but do not necessarily function as well as a simpler car would! There is no sane reason behind requiring players to limit themselves in the number of PrCs their build can contain.

Banning certain PrCs, fine. Incantatrix, Planar Shepard, Dweomerkeeper, and the Thrallherd all usually get hit with the banhammer in my games. All they really do is give vast, awesome, mind-blowing power to classes that already posses world-shattering abilities. But banning a build solely based on number of classes is both foolish and makes the DM in question look not just a little silly.

This is the DM I have. Among our group only one other can DM competently (I've tried my hand and failed miserably as have others, but we are learning) and the other competent DM has already DM'ed the last three games. Ironically, the current one is far more lenient. The prior DM would of built my Wizard for me and probably would of made him a Diviner with random spells, Transmutation banned, and a bunch of high cost metamagic feats or item creation feats. Our group is set in its ways and one of said ways is the PrCs are a solo deal. You get one or your a munchkin. Followed swiftly by the Ban hammer.

On that note, I have talked to the DM and he allowed certian "Generic" PrCs as ok to dip in. Mainly, Master Specialist and Archmage as well as any PrC focused for a certain school, which I wouldn't have to focus completly on either. 3 levels of Master Specialists nets me an extra Transmutation spell, Skill Focus Spellcraft, and Greater Spell Focus (Transmutation) and when I get high enough, a signle High Arcana, sacrificing a 7th level spell to give all my awesome, Touh-ranged Transmutations a range of Close. There were a few others but none that appealed to me or seemed reasonable for me to attempt to enter for the early level benefits. And the number of dead casting levels in Master Transmorgfists is deeply concerning.

[HunterOfJello]

Specialists get some very badass choices for alternate class features and their extra spells per day really stack up in the end considering the fact that they get a bonus spell per level.

There's an interesting post somewhere in one of the handbooks where the different types of wizards were compared and a Focused Specialist came out surprisingly far ahead based on the standards presented.

At the end of the day, you're going to have some way cooler builds as a specialist than you are likely to ever have as a generalist.

[LordBlades]

The order(power wise) is probably Focused Specialist>Elven Generalist>Regular Specialist>Regular Generalist. Elven Generalist and Regular Specialist are around the same power level IMO.




You get one or your a munchkin. Followed swiftly by the Ban hammer.


Lol. So Fighter/Rogue/Duelist/Shadowdancer is more 'munchkin' than Druid 20? :tongue:

[dextercorvia]

The order(power wise) is probably Focused Specialist>Elven Generalist>Regular Specialist>Regular Generalist. Elven Generalist and Regular Specialist are around the same power level IMO.


I happen to feel it is more like Focused Specialist>Elven Domain Generalist>Conjuration or Transmutation Specialist>Elven Generalist>Other Specialist>Domain Generalist>Regular Generalist.

But, as you say depending on your specialty, Elven Generalist and regular Specialist are close in power.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Lol. So Fighter/Rogue/Duelist/Shadowdancer is more 'munchkin' than Druid 20? :tongue:

I don't try to understand my DM's logic. But as far as I can tell, its him reacting to my optimization attempts and finding the similiarities, which between 3 extremly varied characters is multiple PrC's. I hesitate asking him to join the forums here as I fear he will see the various arguments here in this thread and those elsewhere and go Banhammer-happy in over-reaction. It would subside once I help the others in optimization department. The thing is, he is a very good DM and I'm good at restraining my self from hogging the spot light. Thats why I like Transmutation, its (mostly) about making others awesome. I don't get direct spotlight unless I start Polymorphing everybody.

[Keld Denar]

Yea, at the risk of being "you're having fun wrong guy", that sounds like pretty bad reasoning. One of the strengths of the 3.5 system is the modular leveling system. Its pretty unique, as far as gaming systems go, and is very flexible and allows for a lot of customization.

Even if you don't lead your DM to the forum, consider printing off a couple of threads and showing them to him. There have been a couple of Class =! Job threads, as well as Schneeky's Immutability of Fluff thread that are pretty interesting reads.

But yea, your DM's logic flawed in the same manner that the multiclass XP penalty system is flawed. It punishes people for playing things like a Fighter2/Barbarian6/Ranger4 while rewarding people for playing a Druid12. He's welcome to hold whatever convictions he wishes, but he should at least be informed of this flaw.

So yea, my best suggestion to you is to ignore PrCs and just go Wiz20. That way, if he sees you doing something he considers "overpowered" or "broken" (I HATE the word broken, HATE HATE HATE HATE) he'll see that its the basic aspects of the class that cause the problem, and not any number of PrCs.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Yea, at the risk of being "you're having fun wrong guy", that sounds like pretty bad reasoning. One of the strengths of the 3.5 system is the modular leveling system. Its pretty unique, as far as gaming systems go, and is very flexible and allows for a lot of customization.

Even if you don't lead your DM to the forum, consider printing off a couple of threads and showing them to him. There have been a couple of Class =! Job threads, as well as Schneeky's Immutability of Fluff thread that are pretty interesting reads.

But yea, your DM's logic flawed in the same manner that the multiclass XP penalty system is flawed. It punishes people for playing things like a Fighter2/Barbarian6/Ranger4 while rewarding people for playing a Druid12. He's welcome to hold whatever convictions he wishes, but he should at least be informed of this flaw.

So yea, my best suggestion to you is to ignore PrCs and just go Wiz20. That way, if he sees you doing something he considers "overpowered" or "broken" (I HATE the word broken, HATE HATE HATE HATE) he'll see that its the basic aspects of the class that cause the problem, and not any number of PrCs.

Well I'm not going to chain-Gate Solars and others who've played Wizards have done what I plan to do in combat, but with much less frequency. The difference between my Wizard the Wizards played by my companions is the ratio of Evocation spells to other spells.

[Circle of Life]

Unless you intend to use all those nice Transmutation slots for spamming Disintegrate, you're still going to be breaking the fundamental principles of the game on a round-by-round basis. It's inherent to playing a non-blasty wizard. The only thing different about taking a PrC when doing this is that you get actual class features.