Twin School Specialization?

[Getsugaru]

So I'm going to be playing in a Pathfinder RPG as a Wizard, and I like the School Abilities of two Schools. Unfortunately, as you undoubtedly know, a Wizard can only (normally) have a single Specialized School. So here's the question, Playground. Is there a way to have more than one Specialized School?

To let you know, the two schools I'm after are Divination(Foresight) and Illusion(Phantasm for 8th level, Shadow for 1st level). My DM uses ACF's in the same way as 3.5, i.e. choosing which features you do and don't use.

[Ashram]

There are no dual-school wizards in PF, as of yet. (Doubtful, in core.) This is something you'd have to ask your GM about. If anything, it would sort of be like the twin-blooded archetype for sorcerer: You can specialize in two schools, although you gain four opposition schools (Two for each school), and at any level you gain a class feature, you choose which one you gain between the two schools.

The closest you can (Kinda) come to this is taking the arcane discovery from Ultimate Magic that removes one of your opposition schools.

[Darthteej]

The loss of four schools is NOT worth it anyway, no matter what the circumstances.

[Shadowknight12]

The loss of four schools is NOT worth it anyway, no matter what the circumstances.

Focused Specialist/Incantatrix begs to differ. Evocation, Necromancy, Enchantment and (regrettably) Illusion can all be safely barred without a true impact on your power or versatility as a wizard. You miss out on the most flavourful, creative and (allegedly) fun spells, though. But you're still god.

[Ashram]

The loss of four schools is NOT worth it anyway, no matter what the circumstances.

That was my suggestion, although all of the archetypes for Ultimate Combat oppose four schools since you're doing something other than vanilla wizard things.

[Getsugaru]

Forgot to mention that we are allowed to use 3.5 stuff, but no 3rd party.
:mitd: "Aww. Why no third Party?"
"Because it's broken and unfair to everyone, even yourself."

[Shadowknight12]

Forgot to mention that we are allowed to use 3.5 stuff, but no 3rd party.
:mitd: "Aww. Why no third Party?"
"Because it's broken and unfair to everyone, even yourself."

Honestly, just pitch it to your DM. As mentioned before, losing half of the schools of magic (even if you pick the worst half) is quite balancing, since suddenly you can have a beguiler, a warmage and a necromancer (or abjurer) in the party feeling unique because they know that you can't (reliably) duplicate their shticks (okay, you can still use Conjuration to humiliate the warmage, but seriously, don't do that).

Just ask your DM if you can do it, simple as that.

[Ashram]

Of course, in Pathfinder you don't ban schools, so there's nothing saying you can't use a spell from an opposed school, you just obviously pay the double spell slot cost.

Anyway, the "No 3rd party stuff" is fair, but how about homebrew with GM consent? Considering that's what this'd be, basically. I'd also throw in some kind of penalty like the twin-blooded sorcerer archetype does, something like a -2 to something because of how much mental strain it takes to be a specialist in more than one school.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Actually there is a way to get dual specialization in 3.5, sadly it is exclusive for Changeling and the schools they specialize are Illusion and Transmutation. They only have to Ban 3 schools, more details are in RoE.

I am actually going to play one as a gish in an upcoming pbp game, I banned Evocation, Enchantment and Necromancy.

[Psyren]

The loss of four schools is NOT worth it anyway, no matter what the circumstances.

In Pathfinder, you don't really "lose" schools, they just become harder to prepare. This definitely makes more sense to me flavor-wise than some arbitrary ban by the Laws of Magic.

And as others have noted, even in 3.5 there are builds that lose 4 schools and are still very much worth it.

[ThiefInTheNight]

Focused Specialist/Incantatrix begs to differ. Evocation, Necromancy, Enchantment and (regrettably) Illusion can all be safely barred without a true impact on your power or versatility as a wizard. You miss out on the most flavourful, creative and (allegedly) fun spells, though. But you're still god.
No, he's right: there is no reason why this character should be a Focused Specialist. Being a regular Specialist and keeping Illusion would be a much more optimal choice.

Really, Focused Specialist is rarely worth it. Focused Conjurers and Focused Transmuters are really the only ones that have enough spells-to-cast-every-day from every single spell level to consider it...

[Shadowknight12]

No, he's right: there is no reason why this character should be a Focused Specialist. Being a regular Specialist and keeping Illusion would be a much more optimal choice.

Really, Focused Specialist is rarely worth it. Focused Conjurers and Focused Transmuters are really the only ones that have enough spells-to-cast-every-day from every single spell level to consider it...

You completely missed the point of my post. I wasn't suggesting Focused Specialist to the OP at all. I was merely replying to a post that said that losing four schools of magic wasn't worth it. Then I posted a very simple build that proves that assertion wrong. It had nothing to do with the OP and more to do with disproving a false generalisation.

[ThiefInTheNight]

You completely missed the point of my post. I wasn't suggesting Focused Specialist to the OP at all. I was merely replying to a post that said that losing four schools of magic wasn't worth it. Then I posted a very simple build that proves that assertion wrong. It had nothing to do with the OP and more to do with disproving a false generalisation.
I know that, but you're still wrong. Focused Specialist is not worth it to an Incantatrix.

[Shadowknight12]

I know that, but you're still wrong. Focused Specialist is not worth it to an Incantatrix.

Are you trolling this thread? Because it seriously sounds like you are. A Focused Conjurer or Focused Transmuter is going to find plenty of spells to fill their spell slots at any given level, because all-purpose Conjurations and Transmutations are a dime a dozen. This becomes abysmally truer when you include other splatbooks, and specially Spell Compendium. A Focused Diviner/Incantatrix bans three schools, even, not four.

There's just no way you can sustain that claim, unless you say "Core only." And even then it's a moot point, since core only rendered the Focused Specialist option unavailable.

[ThiefInTheNight]

Are you trolling this thread? Because it seriously sounds like you are.
What? What on earth gave you that idea?


A Focused Conjurer or Focused Transmuter is going to find plenty of spells to fill their spell slots at any given level, because all-purpose Conjurations and Transmutations are a dime a dozen. This becomes abysmally truer when you include other splatbooks, and specially Spell Compendium. A Focused Diviner/Incantatrix bans three schools, even, not four.
Yeah, that's great, but it's not worth giving up Illusion for it. Evocation and Enchantment are no great loss, but Necromancy is nice and an Incantatrix doesn't even have the option of losing Abjuration (which is a valid option if you're partied with a Cleric, since Clerics gain most of the best Abjurations anyway). Losing a 4th school is not worth another 2 spells/day/level, even if you have spells to put in them.

And Focused Diviner makes no sense, because unlike Conjuration or Transmutation, Divination doesn't have any spells worth casting 3/day at every level. There are some massively powerful Divinations, but you'd be hard pressed finding 3 for every level that you want to cast every day.


There's just no way you can sustain that claim, unless you say "Core only." And even then it's a moot point, since core only rendered the Focused Specialist option unavailable.
I absolutely can. A Specialist Incantatrix is better than a Focused Specialist Incantatrix in all cases. Period. This is because the costs of being a Focused Specialist while being an Incantatrix hurts too much.

[Shadowknight12]

What? What on earth gave you that idea?

The fact that you're making wildly inflammatory remarks with what I assume is an intent to start a flamewar.


Yeah, that's great, but it's not worth giving up Illusion for it. Evocation and Enchantment are no great loss, but Necromancy is nice and an Incantatrix doesn't even have the option of losing Abjuration (which is a valid option if you're partied with a Cleric, since Clerics gain most of the best Abjurations anyway). Losing a 4th school is not worth another 2 spells/day/level, even if you have spells to put in them.

What? Are you joking? Illusion is half-Enchantment, half-defence. The Enchantment half has the exact same problems as Enchantment, and is therefore just as useless/useful depending on the kind of campaign you're in (and therefore just as bannable). The defence half can be replaced by Divination, Abjuration and Transmutation. Even Invisibility and all its derivations can be reliably duplicated by either Transmutation or Conjuration.

Necromancy is a fetish, that's what it is. If you're into it, you'll never ban it. If you're not into it, you can actually realise that it's a subpar option in most cases and also easily duplicated by Conjuration. Not to mention that clerics make far better necromancers than necromancers.


And Focused Diviner makes no sense, because unlike Conjuration or Transmutation, Divination doesn't have any spells worth casting 3/day at every level. There are some massively powerful Divinations, but you'd be hard pressed finding 3 for every level that you want to cast every day.

That's only true for core only. And like I said, if you say "core only," you make focused specialist impossible anyway. Outside core, there are plenty of Divination spells worth preparing more than once.


I absolutely can. A Specialist Incantatrix is better than a Focused Specialist Incantatrix in all cases. Period. This is because the costs of being a Focused Specialist while being an Incantatrix hurts too much.

That is objectively false. A wizard is only as good as the spells it can cast. More spells (of the right kind, i.e., Conjuration and Transmutation) is always objectively better than less. A wizard doesn't need to have access to as many schools as possible. It only needs access to the ones that matter (Conjuration, Divination, Universal and Transmutation). Sacrificing the worst three or four schools of magic to gain the benefits of Incantatrix AND about as many spells as a sorcerer is, in fact, objectively better than being a simple Specialist.

[Siosilvar]

Losing a 4th school is not worth another 2 spells/day/level, even if you have spells to put in them.

Here's what you should do, if you're serious about this. You should make another thread (because it's off-topic here).

In this thread, we'll find spells of one school that can't be replaced with two spells of another school.

Here's the first one: contingency. Without Craft Contingent Spell, there's no way I can think of to get contingent spells outside of Evocation and Shadow Evocation. Celerity comes close, but has the drawback of daze on the next round, requiring a slot the day you use it instead of a few days beforehand, and requiring you not to be flatfooted (to use the immediate action). However, it does offer more flexibility in what you can do. Add foresight, and you won't be flat-footed, but foresight is a ninth-level spell, so it comes a bit late in play to be useful.

[Psyren]

FS Illusionists have plenty of spells to fit into the bonus slots also, and arguably FS Abjurers. So that just leaves Necromancers, Enchanters and Diviners, which are all poor schools to specialize in anyway, never mind focused specialization.

RE: Contingency - even if you couldn't simply replace it with a feat (never mind a feat that comes online before you would have gotten contingency anyway), it's not enough of a benefit on its own to keep evocation when you're strapped for schools.

[faceroll]

Why are you guys arguing irrelevant 3.5 rules? This is PF- I bet a wizard that had to ban all his school would still be pretty ok.