[3.5] The godly Batman Wizard and his tools - analysis and development

[Lactantius]

LogicNinja and Treatmonk brought many incentives and idead to the question how to build a good wizard without being totally overpowered.
As Treant said: never accept the status quo but instead develop the class more and more - but all within the practical optimization.

That all sounds great and I like to discuss some general, some specific topics around the wizard build with you, right here! :smallsmile:

Ideally, we get many feedbacks and suggestions to evolve the class and find new ways to handle it.
I will post some thesis, arranged by topics.
Have fun and contribute!

Topic 1: The fluid and comfortable style of playing a wizard
Something that I find annoying many times is the fact that a wizard player is forced to rethink, plan and allocate his spell slots every single day. Again and again! I tend to play more dynamical and fluid which means that I like to cast more “on demand,” like a spontaneous caster. Some you would propose to play a sorcerer instead, but one fact I really, really dislike is the limit to one, two dozen of spells for your whole lifetime. I like to test new spells and I like to deliver exotic spells. This is even more important if you allow a good pool of sourcebooks with many different spells.
So, the goal of Topic 1 is to check if a wizard needs some more spontaneity or if his basic abilities are good enough. There are some features which support spontaneity and I want to rate them to find out if there are worth their costs (opportunity costs include feats and prestige classes).

Basic ability: rememorize open slots within 15 minutes.
The ability itself sound very flexible and awesome, but I’m skeptical. The fact that you must invest 15 minutes for each slot seems very circumstantial. And what we don’t want in a dynamic and fluid gameplay is a circumstantial barrier. Don’t get me wrong: I can deal with 15 minutes for rememorizing. But it limits our idea of casting on demand. It depends too much on the adventure setting. Does the party have time to make a pause for the wizard? Are the players in a rush or can they choose the timing and pacing themselves? If the adventure forces the players to rush (e.g. in a dungeon crawl or by getting to plot target X within Y minutes/hours/days ).
After all, the basic ability is pretty good if you have no time problem.
So, take a look at the “enhancers:”

Spontaenous Divination (alternative class feature, Complete Champion): I must admit, I was really excited and hyped as I saw this feature the first time. Casting a whole school on demand without caring for open slots? That sounds too awesome!
Then, I looked at each divination spell and I wonder why I should keep divinations in reserve. One fact is that most divination spells are utility spells. Utility spells are cast out of combat and if we assume you have no time problem, you can deliver utility spells with your wizard basic ability (rememorize open slots). I admit, there are some spells in the divination school that I want to cast right now. Those spells are assay spell resistance, unluck, battlemagic perception, true seeing, see invisibility or true strike. But if those spells are that important, I would memorize them normally in the first place.
I don’t see the advantage after all. So, I can really live good without spontaneous divination.

Spellpool (Guild Wizard of Waterdeep, Magic of Faerun or Mage of the Arcane Order, Complete Arcane):
The spellpool has some selling features which makes it interesting, but let’s see.
Pro:
1.) Access to spells which you have not learned yet. This can be really good at the start of a wizard’s career when your own spell book is small yet. Personally, I like to collect as many spells as possible, so this advantage diminishes after a time. But if you don’t learn and scribe many spells into your own spellbook, it is a really strong argument.

2.) Time: you can use your open slots much faster than with the basic ability. 1 full round prevents the useage in combat (but not completely, we will look at that) but is way better than hanging around 15 minutes per spell. But hey: didn’t we determine that you can use your basic ability all the time if time is no problem? Why should I need the spellpool then if I can handle utility spells normally? Well, one thing people oversee is that you keep a called spells X( X = caster level) minutes in your mind. In other words, you could use the spellpool just before combat starts; if you can decide when combat starts. I like it, though I must admit it is circumstantial.

Con:
1.) Opportunity costs: you must invest in a class and therefore cannot invest into another class in the same time. I wonder if I should bet the spellpool class feature if I can get another feature in the same time, especially if the spellpool gets redundant or doesn’t make the job better than the basic ability.

2.) Access to core only. The feature allows only PHB spells, which is okay, but another limit.

3.) Called spells per day rely on the spell grades. You can call spell grades equal to half your caster level. So, even at level 10 you can call 5 grades. Not impressive, sorry.

I did evaluate my spells and asked myself: Do I need a feature like the spellpool for that or can I handle it with a good selection of daily spells and open slots? My conclusion: I found only a few spells which would profit from a spellpool. The limits are too narrow to justify this investment: faster than 15 minutes (and needed!) but not so fast that you can use it in combat effectively. So, if you have the situation that you need a utility spell fast, then the spellpool could be good. If not, it just sucks.

Uncanny Forethought (Exemplars of Evil): the new pop star for spontaneous wizards. And there is a reason for that: You can rememorize very fast. A full round may sound slow and a -2 penalty to your caster level seem bad, but still: you can use open slots in combat. If you place the really important spells on your spell mastery list, you can cast the spells normally (so, swift action spells are good candidate for this or spells which need every point of your caster level, like the dispel line). For all other spells, the -2 is not that worse, especially if you reach certain levels. You can use this ability times per day equal to your intelligence modifier. That’s no real limit. You maybe start with INT 18 or 20, so you can use this ability 4-5 times – more than you have open slots (I assume you use one open slot per grade, maybe one more at the lower grades). Since your intelligence will rise, you will be able to backup all open slots at each spell grade.

The Cons:
1.) Opportunity costs: well, generally I always have the problem that I have not enough feats for my wizard. Metamagic, item creation, improved initiative, elven spell lore, arcane disciple, extraordinary spell aim, the 3 feats for the archmage. The list goes on and on. You see the problem: we must invest 2 feats for that feature, which really hurts.

2.) Exchangeable by magic items: the uncanny forethought feat can be substituted by some means if you use runestaves, eternal wands or pearls of power. The runestaff is even better since it does not rely on open slots, it can also use prepared slots. But be careful: many people think they can use a whole bunch of runestaves. But the rules say that you can be attuned to only one runestaff at the same time. But since you can customize your own runestaff, you gain spontaneity for 5-6 spells. I use a runestaff to keep circumstantial spells online or for spells I could need more than 1 time per day. For example, dismissal and banishment are circumstantial. But if you need them, you REALLY need them. So, I keep those spells in reserve with a runestaff. Example #2: you have had cast your dispel magic spell yet, since you must deal with some enemy spellcasters. With a runestaff, you can apply another dispel magic.

Final conclusion: uncanny forethought is nice, but the feat costs are steep. I prefer to get a class feature emulated by items and invest your rare feats for other good stuff.
I’m not sure if it is cost-efficient to get spontaneous casting with feats, alternative class features or prestige classes. I’m reluctant to invest these rare resources if I can handle the problem otherwise. Most time, a good daily spell list companied by open slots can help. Even a focused specialist helps here, since your spell palette is broader now.

Which leads us to Topic 2: the focused specialist and the loss of schools.
Frankly speaking, most specialist wizards are not a decision for one special school, but for more slots per day and against expendable schools. I wish the system would do it in another way, but we got to live with it. So, Topic 2 is nothing more than a try to break it down mathematically. Treantmonk made a good analysis around the focused specialist and he really likes him. His mathematical conclusion was like: losing stuff we don’t care about (enchantment, evocation) vs. stuff which makes us stronger (more spell slots).

LogicNinja disagreed. I wonder what’s really important: more slots or more schools. The idea of having many slots to have more options available sounds strong, but on the other hand, if you don’t need more durability, you could live with 1 slot less per grade. Again, we talk about circumstances. How many slots per day so I need after all? Is the party in hurry? Is the pacing of the adventure fast (like, Red Hand of Doom)? And even if you can choose the time by yourself: you still have more slots, which make your daily spell list broader. Especially the higher slots gain a real boost. You double up your highest spell grade, which is very strong. So, a focused specialist is not about gaining just another “+1 slot per level,” it’s about the quality of the higher level slots.

Then, we have the barred school. Barred is absolutely. You cannot cast those spells ever again, period. I don’t consider stuff like these 3 feats from the Lost Empires of Faerun source book or maximizing UMD with Loremaster and stuff to act like a rogue (even if you are a wizard!).
Furthermore, I think the rating of the schools is spongy. There are some assumptions and ideas I don’t share. For example, people recommend substituting evocation spells by using shadow evocation. It sounds easy, but I disagree. We invest a way higher spell slot to get the same result. Sometimes, it is even harder to get access to the higher spell slots. One classic candidate is the spell contingency. I admit, I hesitate to ban evocation just because of this one spell. It is just an awesome emergency spell. Now people say you just should use greater shadow evocation to emulate the effect. Sounds fair. But there is a little problem: contingency is Level 6, greater shadow evocation is Level 8. To use Level-8-spell, you must be a 15th-level-caster. Many campaigns end before reaching that level. Even if you play to level 15+ consider that you could use contingency at Level 11, but now, you have to wait 4 (!) levels to use it because you banned evocation. Sorry, I cannot accept the statement that the evocation school is easily substituted. Furthermore, I find some gems in this school are a heavy loss besides contingency: otiluke’s resilient sphere, shatter, gust of wind and bigby’s grasping hand are very strong spells. The give you versatility or can deal with a threat. Gust of wind can counter all those nasty fog spells. Shatter is an opener to many object-focused problems. Bigby’s hand controls the strong enemy (BBEG, nasty monster etc). The resilient sphere is either another emergency spell to avoid your party mate getting killed or a way to stop the enemy. I can’t see how easy it is to drop schools, even though I would try to do so. A pure diviner would be a good choice, since you get slots while barring only one school.
So, we must mathematically compare the gain of slots (which means: gain of actions, gain of different answers to a problem) and the loss of schools (which means: loss of actions, loss of different answers to a problem). Where is the real gain? Can you substitute a lost school really that easy? Reiterate: I need contingency, I need contingency….

Topic 3: The Cycle Magic or: how to use your spell slots effectively
Topic 1 and 2 shared the problem who to allocate your spell resources on a day-to-day basis. Even if you optimize your slots per day and your way to cast spontaneous, you never have enough spell slots. What, if we could free some slots by outsourcing the according spell to another day?
That what I call cycle magic. Maybe this is no new thing, but I haven’t found articles within the op-boards which deal with it that way so I just make a start right here, right now.

Cycle magic has one prerequisite: you need small portions of downtime between your adventuring days. We call this Day 1 and Day 2. Day 1 is the outsourced day. Here we cast our spells which last long enough to supply Day 2. Remember that the rules don’t force us to use a real, 24-hours-day. A wizard can rest 8 hours and continue. Day 1 and Day 2 can both be within one “real” 24-hours-day. Just remember the “recent casting limit” rule and you are fine.
What we do here now is to cast spells with a long duration at Day 1 so that they still exist in Day 2. Some spells can be used with their plain basic duration, some need to be extended. Prime candidates are spells with the duration or 24 hours, 1 hour per caster level, etc. Since extend spell is your friend, you should invest in a rod of lesser restoration, maybe even 2 of them. The feat itself is a good choice for higher levels as soon as you want to use Grade 4+ with cycle magic. Open slots help a lot, since you can rememorize a spell with extended on it into the open slot. Another good idea is to rememorize rary’s mnemonic enhancer to transfer 3 spell grades into Day 2. If you apply this style, you can save a lot of slots for Day 2.

The following spells, sorted by duration, are useable with cycle magic:

24 hours: anticipate teleportation, greater anticipate teleportation, attune form, create magic tattoo, detect scrying, energy immunity, evacuation rune, hidden lodge, ice castle, mordenkainen’s private sanctum, mind blank, greater resistance, superior resistance, suspended silence, screen;

1 day/level: dimensional lock, enduring scrutiny, marked object;

1day/level (D): force chest, illusory script, nystul’ magic aura, sequester;

1 hour / level: spymaster’s coin, mordenkainens faithful hound;

1 day/level or until discharged: contingency;

1 day/level; see text: dream casting, shrink item;

1 hour/level: ability rip, chain of eyes, elemental body, greater magic weapon, nondetection, overland flight, planar tolerance, portal beacon, refusal, greater scrying, tenser’s floating disk, unseen servant;

1 hour/level (D): disobedience, false vision, mage armor, greater mage armor, passwall, phantom steed, mass phantom steed, rope trick, shadow walk, statue;

1 hour/level or until discharged: moment of prescience, protection from arrows;

1 hour/level, see text: prying eyes, greater prying eyes;

1 hour/level (D) or until expended: energy absorption, heart of air, heart of earth, heart of fire, heart of water;

12 hours or until awakened: vigilant slumber;

12 hours (D): reflective disguise (mass), seeming;

2 hours/level (D): alarm, attentive alarm, forcecage, guards & wards, hallucinatory terrain, leomund’s secure shelter, leomund’s tiny hut, mordenkainen’s magnificent mansion, mount;

4 hours/lev (D): greater alarm;

4d12 hours; see text: control weather;

4d12 weeks: fimbulwinter;

60 days or until discharged: leomund’s secret chest;

8 hours (D): obscure object;

8 hours/level (D): improved portal alarm;

Maybe you find more spells to apply. Maybe not all spells in this list make profit of cycle magic. But that’s up to your creativity.
After all, it is a good idea to share your spell reservoir with 2 Days. I found this easy to manage in scenarios where the characters can influence the pacing of the game, like in city adventures or any other scenario where you can make a rest between the action. Even in a normal pacing this could be nice, especially if you have unused, open slot left.

If you want to go one step further, you could apply persistent spell to them (without using incantatrix or DMM cheese). You can focus on certain schools and minimize the metamagic costs. The combination of extend spell, persistent spell and metamagic school focus (abjuration) could be fine if you focus on the long lasting abjuration buffs. If you want to avoid the limit to open spell slots in Day 1, you could use the feat versatile spellcaster. Now, you can extend your spells at Day 1 even with prepared slots. Finally, some spells support the cycle magic idea. Shalantha’s Delicate Disc outsources one spell for another day.


Well.......

I know that I have questioned some absolute statements (like: ban evocation), but I want to question the status quo to evolve further.
All three topic are open for discussion, suggestions, ideas and feedback!

[Eisenfavl]

Level dip in Hathran + continuous acorn(s) of far travel to abuse it and ye olde sanctum spell gives you 100% spontaneity advantage.
Needs flaws to pull off 90% of the time though.

[Myth]

Hathran has such severe fluff limitations as per the FR setting that this is hardly a general solution.

[JeminiZero]

Spontaenous Divination (alternative class feature, Complete Champion): I must admit, I was really excited and hyped as I saw this feature the first time. Casting a whole school on demand without caring for open slots? That sounds too awesome!
Then, I looked at each divination spell and I wonder why I should keep divinations in reserve. One fact is that most divination spells are utility spells. Utility spells are cast out of combat and if we assume you have no time problem, you can deliver utility spells with your wizard basic ability (rememorize open slots). I admit, there are some spells in the divination school that I want to cast right now. Those spells are assay spell resistance, unluck, battlemagic perception, true seeing, see invisibility or true strike. But if those spells are that important, I would memorize them normally in the first place.
I don’t see the advantage after all.

There main advantage is that you DON'T have to memorize them to access them. You can devote your slots to other things, and then spontaneously convert if the situation arises where they are needed (and some div spells are very situational indeed). This effectively expends the range of situations your Wizard is prepared for (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0800.html).

Take for example a level 3 conjurer. He has 3 level 2 spell slots, what should he prepare in them? If he anticipates invisible foes, he has to devote at least one slot to See Invis. But with Spontanous Div, he can instead prepare something else generally useful (like Web), and just convert it to See Invis if he does meet said invisible foe. (And if he instead meets a group of goblins thugs, he can use Web instead).

[Lactantius]

There main advantage is that you DON'T have to memorize them to access them. You can devote your slots to other things, and then spontaneously convert if the situation arises where they are needed (and some div spells are very situational indeed). This effectively expends the range of situations your Wizard is prepared for (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0800.html).

Take for example a level 3 conjurer. He has 3 level 2 spell slots, what should he prepare in them? If he anticipates invisible foes, he has to devote at least one slot to See Invis. But with Spontanous Div, he can instead prepare something else generally useful (like Web), and just convert it to See Invis if he does meet said invisible foe. (And if he instead meets a group of goblins thugs, he can use Web instead).

Granted, See Invisibility is one of those few, few combat divinations which you need fast.
But the other - say- 95% of divination spells are out of combat at all and therefore useable with open slots. Where is the advantage of Spont. Div. then?
And as conjurer, you can deal with the invisible problem with another spell like glitterdust.
So even in this situation you would have your bases covered.

@Scottzar:
I mentioned the term of "practical optimization" which was created by Treantmonk out of a good reason: I don't like cheese which is theoretical supercool, but not an option at practical gaming.
I want to optimize in a way that I can do my stuff pretty good. But I don't wanna challenge my DM with absurd stuff or overshadow the rest of the party. It is enough that I play a Tier 1, maybe Tier 0 Character (goint for Iot7V, but at least without master specialist since I want to specialize as Diviner).
That's why I can't accept such hints like Hathran + cheesy acorns + sanctum spell. But thanks! ;)

[JeminiZero]

Granted, See Invisibility is one of those few, few combat divinations which you need fast.
But the other - say- 95% of divination spells are out of combat at all and therefore useable with open slots. Where is the advantage of Spont. Div. then?


Two things:
1) Spontaneous Div is essentially bought as a feat (technically an ASF but in exchange for a feat). And like all other feats it does not have to be all powerful. It just has to be worth that feat you spent. While most of Divination is utility, not all of it. IMHO there are more than enough combat spells that I think it is worthwhile (True Casting, True Strike, See Invis, Unluck, Assay SR, True Seeing, maybe Moment of Prescience).
2) Sometimes you might find yourself needing utility spells without prep time (e.g. you encounter some possibly hostile natives shouting at you in a language you do not understand. They are not going to wait 15 minutes for you to prepare tongues and detect thoughts. You need to communicate NOW!)

[Lactantius]

Thanks for the feedback!

My response:


1) Spontaneous Div is essentially bought as a feat (technically an ASF but in exchange for a feat). And like all other feats it does not have to be all powerful. It just has to be worth that feat you spent. While most of Divination is utility, not all of it. IMHO there are more than enough combat spells that I think it is worthwhile (True Casting, True Strike, See Invis, Unluck, Assay SR, True Seeing, maybe Moment of Prescience).

I haven't argued about the opportunity cost of this ability (say, paying with a feat). My problem is that spontaneous divination received so much hype and glory which I cannot comprehend.
It sounds powerful since it says: "You can instant cast a whole school of magic."
But if we look closer, we see that most spell of this school are out-of- combat-spells. Spells I cast out-of-combat have no need for action economy or time problems since we have no combat rounds. So, I can rememorize 95% of all divination spells just by using open slots. In this cases, spontaenous divination has no advantage.
There may be some rare indidences where speed out of combat is important. But let's be honest: the cases where you need a non-combat-divination spell within 1 round (instead of within 15 minutes) are very low.

So, this feat only helps for the other 5% of combat-divinations. Granted, see invisibility, true strike, assay spell resistance and even battlemagic perception are precious combat spells.
But on the other hand: if those spells are that important, then I can memorize them normally in the first place or even keep a scroll ready just in case of.


2) Sometimes you might find yourself needing utility spells without prep time (e.g. you encounter some possibly hostile natives shouting at you in a language you do not understand. They are not going to wait 15 minutes for you to prepare tongues and detect thoughts. You need to communicate NOW!)

As mentioned above, I found this cases very, very circumstantial. And if I plan to take a feat, I compare the usability vs. the cost.
For example, if I would play a campaign with very few fights, I would rethink to get a feat like Improved Initiative since a initiative check will rarely be made. Same with this feat: if I have only a few circumstances to make use of spontaenous divination, then I just could skip this feat and take another one which give me more usabilities.


Finally, I would like to see some feedback to the cycle magic idea. :smallsmile:

[Emperor Tippy]

I won't go so far as to say never specialize, but you should avoid it most of the time. Much of the advantage can be had with Domain wizard (if it's allowed) without the cost.

Specializing outside of Divination (which really lost it's appeal after Spontaneous Divination came out) simply isn't worth it. One more spell slot per level of spells simply isn't that valuable.

---
The use of open spell slots is to solve those totally unanticipated problems out of combat. Sometimes you just need to be able to do things like cast Control Weather, but you aren't going to prepare it as a standard option.

The use of Spontaneous Divination is that you never have to waste any spell slots on things like see invisibility, true seeing, analyze dweomer, etc. and can (at the end of the day) dump all your unused spell slots into divination's to better prepare for tomorrow or the like. The reason that it is so powerful is that it technically turns the Wizard into an arcane spontaneous casting class, which opens up a number of feats and PrC's that otherwise couldn't be accessed without a level dip into Sorcerer or the like.

---
In high level play (access to 9th level spells) you have Shapechange and that will free up a ton of spell slots. Ice Assassin also frees up spells by simply making Ice Assassins of yourself, that effectively doubles your spell slots.

---
Basically, as a wizard your power is built on your preparations and your versatility. Do everything you can to expand your options and choices.

[macdaddy]

I honestly don't know why you guys all hate on Specialist wizard or focused specialists.

I think that the bonus spell slots more than make up for the loss of the prohibited schools.

A focused specialist Conjurer, not including intelligence bonus spells, has an significant advantage in spell slots over a regular wizard or a a specialist wizard. And unlike a domain wizard, those spell slots are significantly more flexible.

Would I do this with any school? obviously not. But Conjuration is a school that is MADE for this (possibly transmutation as well). It has a wide variety of spells that cover many areas (battlefield control, damage, save or die, save or suck). You give up evocation (big whoopdie doo, you can get contingency from either the craft contingent spell fear, or shadow evocation), you give up enchantment/charm (has what, 2 good spells?), and then you can forgo necromancy (losing enervation and some of the Ray debuffs is a pain, but not that significant).

I have made a focused specialist conjurer/beguiler/ultimate magus and gave up evocation, enchantment, and illusion. I get access to some good illusion/enchantment spells from beguiler, and take the craft contingent spell feat to get contingency. Even if I didn't, taking levels in Loremaster and getting a pimped out UMD still provides you with the ability to easily use wands of xxx.

All this moaning about losing spells of this or that school is fallacy. There are very few spells out there that don't have a similar or duplicated effect via another school or a feat. Worst case is you add on levels that allow UMD and then gain access to it via Scroll/Wand/Staff. Realistically most of the spells you *want* are things that don't get used frequently (like contingency).

[Emperor Tippy]

I honestly don't know why you guys all hate on Specialist wizard or focused specialists.

I think that the bonus spell slots more than make up for the loss of the prohibited schools.

A focused specialist Conjurer, not including intelligence bonus spells, has an significant advantage in spell slots over a regular wizard or a a specialist wizard. And unlike a domain wizard, those spell slots are significantly more flexible.
A specialist wizard get's 9 more spell slots at level 20. The bonus spells known are worthless as class features, you can just buy them with gold. A focused specialist gets 18 additional daily spells at level 20, still not worth it.

Domain wizards get 9 bonus spells as well, and with the Abjuration or Transmutation domains you pick up a chunk of spells that are useful every day.


Would I do this with any school? obviously not. But Conjuration is a school that is MADE for this (possibly transmutation as well). It has a wide variety of spells that cover many areas (battlefield control, damage, save or die, save or suck). You give up evocation (big whoopdie doo, you can get contingency from either the craft contingent spell fear, or shadow evocation), you give up enchantment/charm (has what, 2 good spells?), and then you can forgo necromancy (losing enervation and some of the Ray debuffs is a pain, but not that significant).
Give up Evocation and you loose out on some of the best defensive spells in the game. The force line alone is almost worth keeping the school on it's own. Give up enchantment and you loose out on sleep, touch of idiocy, hideous laughter, suggestion, Feeblemind, Irresistible Dance, and Dominate Monster (and that's just in core). Give up Illusion and you loose Shades, the Shadow Evocation line, Simulacrum, Greater Invisibility, Displacement, Mirror Image, Blur, and Magic Aura. Again, that's just core.

Nothing you pick up from specializing (outside of a few specific builds) is worth the lost capabilities.


I have made a focused specialist conjurer/beguiler/ultimate magus and gave up evocation, enchantment, and illusion. I get access to some good illusion/enchantment spells from beguiler, and take the craft contingent spell feat to get contingency. Even if I didn't, taking levels in Loremaster and getting a pimped out UMD still provides you with the ability to easily use wands of xxx.
And a generalist could use UMD to fake the 18 spell slots you gained, UMD really isn't worth discussing.


All this moaning about losing spells of this or that school is fallacy. There are very few spells out there that don't have a similar or duplicated effect via another school or a feat. Worst case is you add on levels that allow UMD and then gain access to it via Scroll/Wand/Staff. Realistically most of the spells you *want* are things that don't get used frequently (like contingency).
No, most of the spells you want in the schools you dumped are things that do get used frequently. Give up Evocation and you loose out on Resilient Sphere, pretty much the best personal defensive spell in the game. You loose out on Force Cage, which can single handedly win a large chunk of encounters. Give up Illusion and you loose out on virtually all of the spells that grant miss chance. Give up Enchantment and you loose out on a large chunk of the save or loose spells in the game.

Giving up schools is virtually never worth it, I will go so far as to say that going focused specialist drops a wizard from a tier 1 class to a tier 2 class. The difference between tier 1 and tier 2 is versatility, and you are giving that up for no real gain.

[Sudain]

Remember that the rules don’t force us to use a real, 24-hours-day. A wizard can rest 8 hours and continue. Day 1 and Day 2 can both be within one “real” 24-hours-day. Just remember the “recent casting limit” rule and you are fine.

Sorry, just lost on where this comes from.


Spell Selection and Preparation
Until she prepares spells from her spellbook, the only spells a wizard has available to cast are the ones that she already had prepared from the previous day and has not yet used. During the study period, she chooses which spells to prepare. If a wizard already has spells prepared (from the previous day) that she has not cast, she can abandon some or all of them to make room for new spells.

When preparing spells for the day, a wizard can leave some of these spell slots open. Later during that day, she can repeat the preparation process as often as she likes, time and circumstances permitting. During these extra sessions of preparation, the wizard can fill these unused spell slots. She cannot, however, abandon a previously prepared spell to replace it with another one or fill a slot that is empty because she has cast a spell in the meantime. That sort of preparation requires a mind fresh from rest. Like the first session of the day, this preparation takes at least 15 minutes, and it takes longer if the wizard prepares more than one-quarter of her spells.

I read this to mean if I prepair web and I want to re memorize detect thoughts later that day(for whatever reason), I am unable and need to wait until my next morning to do so. Do you read it this way too?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Spellpool is also 'limited spontaneity' for Wizards. Do you absolutely, positively need that spell RIGHT NOW and don't have a scroll/wand/etc? This lets you do that.

Also, another advantage of a generalist vs specialist wizard is that wizards can make scrolls for situational spells much easier than anyone else. They pick up the feat as a bonus feat at 1st level, and it generally costs very little in the way of xp to make them.

Having scrolls of situational spells is one of the things that makes the Batman Wizard quite strong... yes, he does have his bat shark repellent, just in case he happens to end up getting dumped into the ocean full of sharks. In the middle of a land-locked campaign setting. Any time you say "He can't possibly have memorized that spell today", Batman Wizard's response is "Maybe not, but I've got the scroll right here".

Remember, a Wizard has as many spells in his spellbook as he has the cash to fill it up with. And he can scribe a scroll of any spell that is in his spellbook that is not in a prohibited school.

A specialist wizard reduces the amount of scrolls he can scribe, and thus what he can be reasonably expected to have on hand. I also am not a big fan of relying on cross-class UMD ranks.

[Sudain]

I have made a focused specialist conjurer/beguiler/ultimate magus and gave up evocation, enchantment, and illusion.
Good build, I dropped necromancy in favor of evocation personally.


Take the craft contingent spell feat to get contingency.
Works for contingency, but not so much about other spells, like the wall and force lines.


Even if I didn't, taking levels in Loremaster and getting a pimped out UMD still provides you with the ability to easily use wands of xxx.

D20SRD:

Spells of the prohibited school or schools are not available to the wizard, and she can’t even cast such spells from scrolls or fire them from wands. She may not change either her specialization or her prohibited schools later.

Most DMs I know wouldn't let UMD bypass this.

Reasoning:
D20SRD for UMD:

Use a Scroll
If you are casting a spell from a scroll, you have to decipher it first. Normally, to cast a spell from a scroll, you must have the scroll’s spell on your class spell list. Use Magic Device allows you to use a scroll as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list. The DC is equal to 20 + the caster level of the spell you are trying to cast from the scroll. In addition, casting a spell from a scroll requires a minimum score (10 + spell level) in the appropriate ability. If you don’t have a sufficient score in that ability, you must emulate the ability score with a separate Use Magic Device check (see above).
It's on the class list as is. We just have another class feature that prohibits it's use.


Emulate a Class Feature
Sometimes you need to use a class feature to activate a magic item. In this case, your effective level in the emulated class equals your Use Magic Device check result minus 20. This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature. If the class whose feature you are emulating has an alignment requirement, you must meet it, either honestly or by emulating an appropriate alignment with a separate Use Magic Device check (see above).
Again, we already have the class feature - we just have something else that prohibits our use of the spell. Are you trying to emulate not having the specialization, which you knew explicitly prohibited use of some spells, which you voluntarily took? Are you inviting the DM to pimp slap you?



Giving up schools is virtually never worth it, I will go so far as to say that going focused specialist drops a wizard from a tier 1 class to a tier 2 class. The difference between tier 1 and tier 2 is versatility, and you are giving that up for no real gain.


To me the focused specalist is worth it because I'm in a group to do a job(battlefield control, blasting, buffing, etc...). So my spell slots are spoken for already. If I specalise I need to drop 2-3 schools to get free spell slots. I do some number crunching and focus in a school that does the most for my job. I just shift the spells I use to do my job/purpose into those dedicated/focused slots. The freed up normal wizard slots are now free to be 'versatile', albet from a reduced possible spell selection. To me, that's worth the trade off.

My group put it to me like this: "We bring in a fighter to fight. The rogues does rogue stuff. They do that, are reliable and so we can plan and work with that. We bring you in to do a specific job. So do that job reliably. If you can't you are fired - which in our business usually means dead." I was too busy trying to do too many things so I got fired.

Note: If my job is to be a generalist("Anything magic comes along you deal with it..." then that is a very different job description from "Make our foes kneel at our feet and kiss our bums" or "Make us bigger, better, stronger") then I'd be very cautious about taking any specializations at all because of the reduced spell list.


The bonus spells known are worthless as class features, you can just buy them with gold.

Maybe I'm cheap, but my wallet weeps at this notion. I have not yet been able to figure out how to make gold a renewable resource. It's like there is some arbitrary greater deity(DM) that's taken a personal interest in my life in making sure my wealth(WBL) matches my party members.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Works for contingency, but not so much about other spells, like the wall and force lines.There are other wall spells which are nearly as effective. There are also other means of battlefield control that don't involve building walls of force.


D20SRD:

Most DMs I know wouldn't let UMD bypass this.Really? I would. You can't cast the spell, and it's not on your spell list, so you can't normally use those types of magic items. However, UMD allows you to bypass that restriction.


To me the focused specalist is worth it because I'm in a group to do a job(battlefield control, blasting, buffing, etc...). So my spell slots are spoken for already. If I specalise I need to drop 2-3 schools to get free spell slots. I do some number crunching and focus in a school that does the most for my job. I just shift the spells I use to do my job/purpose into those dedicated/focused slots. The freed up normal wizard slots are now free to be 'versatile', albet from a reduced possible spell selection. To me, that's worth the trade off.

My group put it to me like this: "We bring in a fighter to fight. The rogues does rogue stuff. They do that, are reliable and so we can plan and work with that. We bring you in to do a specific job. So do that job reliably. If you can't you are fired - which in our business usually means dead." I was too busy trying to do too many things so I got fired.That depends on what the scope of your 'job' is. There's parties where the 'job' of the Wizard is "Anything the rest of us can't do mundanely... we need you to do" pretty much covers everything but blastomancy, since the beatsticks can dish out damage. So banning Evocation in that situation is entirely worth it. Conjuration has better battlefield control, and Contingency is available for a feat.


Maybe I'm cheap, but my wallet weeps at this notion. I have not yet been able to figure out how to make gold a renewable resource. It's like there is some arbitrary greater deity(DM) that's taken a personal interest in my life in making sure my wealth(WBL) matches my party members.

There's plenty of ways to get more spells in your spellbook that don't involve spending money.

Many wizard guilds have a spell-swap program wherin you can exchange permission to scribe spells from one spellbook to another. Basically, instead of paying for permission to scribe spells with gold, you're paying with services of an equal value.

Speaking of wizard guilds, there's this handy dandy little quote:


In most cases, wizards charge a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks. This fee is usually equal to the spell’s level × 50 gp.

Most wizard guilds have extensive libraries of spells which are able to be copied from for this rate. Considering the highest spell level is 9th, that's a maximum of 450gp. For a 9th level spells. Dirt cheap for the WBL value...

[Emperor Tippy]

To me the focused specalist is worth it because I'm in a group to do a job(battlefield control, blasting, buffing, etc...). So my spell slots are spoken for already. If I specalise I need to drop 2-3 schools to get free spell slots. I do some number crunching and focus in a school that does the most for my job. I just shift the spells I use to do my job/purpose into those dedicated/focused slots. The freed up normal wizard slots are now free to be 'versatile', albet from a reduced possible spell selection. To me, that's worth the trade off.
It's really, really not. You are dropping from Tier 1 to Tier 2 if you go focused specialist, you simply give up two much.


My group put it to me like this: "We bring in a fighter to fight. The rogues does rogue stuff. They do that, are reliable and so we can plan and work with that. We bring you in to do a specific job. So do that job reliably. If you can't you are fired - which in our business usually means dead." I was too busy trying to do too many things so I got fired.
Your job as a wizard is to do everything that someone else can't or isn't doing, and often at the drop of a hat. Your fighter die and you need damage? A wizard should be able to deal it. Your bard go away and you need a social interaction to come off successfully? A wizard should be able to deal with it. Your rogue get lost on the road to life and you need a door unlocked or traps found and disarmed? A wizard should be able to do it. Your cleric go to visit his god and your party needs healing? A wizard should be able to provide it.

That is your role, to fill in any hole or weak-spot that appears; and do so as rapidly as possible (if not instantly). You are also the party transport, the party house, the battlefield controller, and a dozen other roles.


Maybe I'm cheap, but my wallet weeps at this notion. I have not yet been able to figure out how to make gold a renewable resource. It's like there is some arbitrary greater deity(DM) that's taken a personal interest in my life in making sure my wealth(WBL) matches my party members.
You're a wizard, you should be dropping the percentage of your WBL devoted to weapons into spells (or at least the useful ones at each level). Most 9th level spells are under 4,000 GP. Picking up a handful to make up for the free ones lost by not being a specialist is easy and cheap.

[Sudain]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sudain
Works for contingency, but not so much about other spells, like the wall and force lines.
There are other wall spells which are nearly as effective. There are also other means of battlefield control that don't involve building walls of force.
Absolutely - there are multiple ways of skinning that particular cat. Just pointing out craft contingency only covers one loss of that school.


Quote:
D20SRD:

Most DMs I know wouldn't let UMD bypass this.
Really? I would. You can't cast the spell, and it's not on your spell list, so you can't normally use those types of magic items. However, UMD allows you to bypass that restriction.
Here's my reasoning why not:
D20SRD for UMD:


Use a Scroll
If you are casting a spell from a scroll, you have to decipher it first. Normally, to cast a spell from a scroll, you must have the scroll’s spell on your class spell list. Use Magic Device allows you to use a scroll as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list. The DC is equal to 20 + the caster level of the spell you are trying to cast from the scroll. In addition, casting a spell from a scroll requires a minimum score (10 + spell level) in the appropriate ability. If you don’t have a sufficient score in that ability, you must emulate the ability score with a separate Use Magic Device check (see above).
It's on the class list as is. We just have another class feature that prohibits it's use.


Quote:
Emulate a Class Feature
Sometimes you need to use a class feature to activate a magic item. In this case, your effective level in the emulated class equals your Use Magic Device check result minus 20. This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature. If the class whose feature you are emulating has an alignment requirement, you must meet it, either honestly or by emulating an appropriate alignment with a separate Use Magic Device check (see above).
Again, we already have the class feature - we just have something else that prohibits our use of the spell. Are you trying to emulate not having the specialization, which you knew explicitly prohibited use of some spells, which you voluntarily took?




To me the focused specalist is worth it because I'm in a group to do a job(battlefield control, blasting, buffing, etc...). So my spell slots are spoken for already. If I specalise I need to drop 2-3 schools to get free spell slots. I do some number crunching and focus in a school that does the most for my job. I just shift the spells I use to do my job/purpose into those dedicated/focused slots. The freed up normal wizard slots are now free to be 'versatile', albet from a reduced possible spell selection. To me, that's worth the trade off.

My group put it to me like this: "We bring in a fighter to fight. The rogues does rogue stuff. They do that, are reliable and so we can plan and work with that. We bring you in to do a specific job. So do that job reliably. If you can't you are fired - which in our business usually means dead." I was too busy trying to do too many things so I got fired.

That depends on what the scope of your 'job' is. There's parties where the 'job' of the Wizard is "Anything the rest of us can't do mundanely... we need you to do" pretty much covers everything but blastomancy, since the beatsticks can dish out damage. So banning Evocation in that situation is entirely worth it. Conjuration has better battlefield control, and Contingency is available for a feat.
Absolutely - if my job is to be a generalist then reducing my spell list is a poor idea. Usually I get to pick a specific role rather than being a generalist, so for me it's worth it.


Many wizard guilds have a spell-swap program wherin you can exchange permission to scribe spells from one spellbook to another. Basically, instead of paying for permission to scribe spells with gold, you're paying with services of an equal value.


Most wizard guilds have extensive libraries of spells which are able to be copied from for this rate. Considering the highest spell level is 9th, that's a maximum of 450gp. For a 9th level spells. Dirt cheap for the WBL value..

Yup, I have not been lucky enough to have DMs that permit that with out some foustain bargain. This certainly helps makes spells easier to locate and put into my spell book(theoretically), but does not help me cast them which is what we are discussing.

[Flickerdart]

There are ways (Transmutation ACFs, Arcane Transfiguration, Shadow spells, Limited Wish) to replace schools lost due to specialization. Even if you do not use them, the greater versatility is often pointless when you cannot memorize all those extra spells you theoretically know. A wizard ought to be able to deal with many problems, sure - but he ought to be able to deal with them without dilly-dallying for a day to prepare a new set of slots.

[Sudain]

Your job as a wizard is to do everything that someone else can't or isn't doing, and often at the drop of a hat.

<snip>

That is your role, to fill in any hole or weak-spot that appears; and do so as rapidly as possible (if not instantly).

I'm sorry, I can't agree with that. That is A role. That is one way to play, which may or may not be effective. But it is very chaotic and going in several different directions at once. I can liken it to a fighter trying to master all weapons, and tactical feats at once because they are a "Man at arms - they should be able to deal with anything and everything marital". I tend to get better results when I do one or two things and do them damn well. <me thinks of the Iron Chef Challenges>

Again in my group they are resourceful and don't need me to deal with everything for them. If I loose versatility that they don't want anyway for a tangible gain, is better on a practical level?



You are also the party transport, the party house, the battlefield controller, and a dozen other roles. Tried that once; rather than let me use Lemonds Secure shelter the party instead decided to hunt triceratops, animate them as skeletons, affix a hammock in in between their rib cages and use them as walking houses. True story - it made me cry because I went out of my way to learn that spell for the good of the party. There are multiple hats wizards can to wear yes; but not all have to be worn by us.



You're a wizard, you should be dropping the percentage of your WBL devoted to weapons into spells (or at least the useful ones at each level). Most 9th level spells are under 4,000 GP. Picking up a handful to make up for the free ones lost by not being a specialist is easy and cheap.
I agree, and I do try to keep scrolls/wands/potions on hand for the odd case. What my point was spell slots are free, scrolls/potions/wands are not. Effect for effect spell slots are also a better choice. The spell slots allow me to do my job better than just blowing gold on consumables.

[Piggy Knowles]

Tried that once; rather than let me use Lemonds Secure shelter the party instead decided to hunt triceratops, animate them as skeletons, affix a hammock in in between their rib cages and use them as walking houses. True story - it made me cry because I went out of my way to learn that spell for the good of the party.

I don't have too much to contribute to this discussion, but honestly? If I had been in your place, and as I was getting ready to cast Leomund's Secure Shelter, the party pulled out their undead triceratops hammocks, I would have gladly stepped aside. Their way may not be as practical, but it is MUCH cooler.

[Darth Stabber]

This is why I tend to favor spont casters. I fully realize that wizard is stronger than any spont caster, and I know how to do it, but it takes so much effort. With cleric and to an even greater extent druid, it's not too hard since those classes have the chassis to fall back on hitting things if your spells aren't quite right. Added to that they tend to have more general utility spells, and better options for spontaneous conversion (cleric's cure or spontaneous domain, and druid's SNA). The Druid's wild shape and animal companion only add to this fallback plan ability (I realize that most druids use these as a primary plan, but that doesn't blunt my point any).

The past couple years I have greatly favored beguiler and dread necromancer given their awesome flavor, actual class abilities, and thematic (if weaker) spell lists. And even with out those I still would rather play a sorcerer since it saves me a great deal of table time and head ache. Yes I can play a batman wizard, but there is so much micromanaging of options and every time my character wakes up I spend too much time agonizing over spell prep. Even if I am just eyeballing a spell compliment it's still a slowdown, unless every session only covers 1 day in game. With sorcerer(or psion or a limited list caster (like DN)), I wake up, meditate and I'm on my merry way. Even with cleric or druid I can write a reliable daily list and the time it takes to make context specific edits is still a rather short period of out of game time. With a wizard your spells are your only feature (familiar hardly counts, and that is usually traded away for something to do with your spells anyway), and any spell that isn't useful is painful. Wizard is much more optimizable, and easier to optimize, but it comes with costs associated with it.

My usual ban on tier one classes when I am GMing actually kills two birds with one stone. PCs wake up ready to go, and I reduce the chance of overpowered crazyness taking over.

[Sudain]

I don't have too much to contribute to this discussion, but honestly? If I had been in your place, and as I was getting ready to cast Leomund's Secure Shelter, the party pulled out their undead triceratops hammocks, I would have gladly stepped aside. Their way may not be as practical, but it is MUCH cooler.

lol Yup, that's what I did. I tried keeping it memorized for a few days to sell shelter to a few travelers but most travelers were scared away by the undead triceratops so I couldn't make a sales pitch.

[Soren Hero]

Give up Evocation and you loose out on some of the best defensive spells in the game. The force line alone is almost worth keeping the school on it's own. Give up enchantment and you loose out on sleep, touch of idiocy, hideous laughter, suggestion, Feeblemind, Irresistible Dance, and Dominate Monster (and that's just in core). Give up Illusion and you loose Shades, the Shadow Evocation line, Simulacrum, Greater Invisibility, Displacement, Mirror Image, Blur, and Magic Aura. Again, that's just core.



No, most of the spells you want in the schools you dumped are things that do get used frequently. Give up Evocation and you loose out on Resilient Sphere, pretty much the best personal defensive spell in the game. You loose out on Force Cage, which can single handedly win a large chunk of encounters. Give up Illusion and you loose out on virtually all of the spells that grant miss chance. Give up Enchantment and you loose out on a large chunk of the save or loose spells in the game.



Are there any really good evocation spells outside of core above 7th level? I always thought that most of the evocation school could be replaced with Greater Shadow Evocation. And as far as enchantment goes, I always read that most are mind-effecting, which for higher level play means most enemies are going to have immunities to it. I would think that in most high op games, mind blank would be a constant, making the enchantment almost useless. I could be mistaken however.

[Hirax]

Are there any really good evocation spells outside of core above 7th level? I always thought that most of the evocation school could be replaced with Greater Shadow Evocation. And as far as enchantment goes, I always read that most are mind-effecting, which for higher level play means most enemies are going to have immunities to it. I would think that in most high op games, mind blank would be a constant, making the enchantment almost useless. I could be mistaken however.

Mindrape is the only spell I really miss when I ban enchantment (my go-to banned school) as an Incantatrix, which is probably the only time giving up a school is worthwhile from a strictly fluffless optimization standpoint. Dominate monster (and charm person for mindbender qualifcations) can be retrieved if you spend a feat on planar touchstone (catalogues, charm domain), but mindrape can't be retrieved easily. Mother cyst offers a great alternative, however, in necrotic cyst+necrotic tumor, which bypasses mind-affecting immunity, though it can only be used on living creatures.

Evocation has binding chain of fate (Waterdeep), arguably the best SoD spell in the game because it AMFs and dimensionally anchors a target for rounds/level. Instant refuge (Spell Comp.) is another great evocation spell that frees up your contingency spell for other things. Telekinetic sphere (PHB) can also be quite nice. Detonate (PHB2), while not being particularly optimal, is awesome. Invoke Magic (LoM) can be a lifesaver if you've somehow slipped up and found yourself in an AMF.

[Malachei]

Are there any really good evocation spells outside of core above 7th level?

I would not ban Evocation. It is much better than its reputation. Also, Shadow Evocation can't duplicate everything. A good example of an outstanding evocation above 7th level is Invoke Magic, which, IMO, is one of the best spells in the game.

[Lactantius]

Wow, many responses!
I try to replay as good as I can ;)

@Domain Wizard:
as I mentioned, this topic is under the assumption of the practical optimization (TM). This includes stuff which is applicable at the gametable AND not absurdly overpowered.
Domain Wizard is such a feature and therefore no option.
Same goes for stuff like planar touchstones or chaotic spell recall. Long way, short speak: I would luke to include only stuff which is reasonable and not only an adademic appraoch.

@Evocation, Enchantment and sustitutes:
I always hear the counterargument of shadow evocation (against evocation) and mind blank/undeads (against enchantment).
The truth is that thise arguments are very, very weak.
Contigency alone is worth the evocation school. Counterargue: use greater shaodow evoaction. My argument: not all groups play until level 15 and farther. But level 11 (for contingency) is possible.
I can continue with resilient sphere, instant refuge, force cage or shatter and gust of wind. Evocations is the school I ban AFTER enchantment and necromancy.
Necromancy gets the his since I tend to play good-aligned casters and it just fits the theme of him (though, necromancy must not be evil themed at all). But I don't miss necromancy.

Enchantment is a top school and I just ban it cause I'm too lazy to work with mind-affecting stuff (requires creativity and compassion).
But it is still very strong.
Not all enemies are undead or plants. Not all enemies have a level-8-buff online (and even at high level play, there is dispel magic).
Imagine playing with a campaign including many humanoids, like a city campaign or political intrigue. Now, enchantment is a top school.


@Specialist Stuff:
I would like to support the generalist, but I really don't see how they make the race against focused specialists, unfortunately.
In core only games maybe, but as soon as you have more source books available, the unique position of each spell school diminishes. You can just substitute the spell effect with another school and therefore afford to forego a whole school of magic.
Secondly, we have plus TWO slot each grade.
Most critics say that it is only 9 (or 18 with focused specialist) extra spell slots. The truth is that you cannot just count the slots and that's it.
The real advantage is the quality of those slots.
Slot of higherspell grades are worth much more than lower spell grade slots.
That's why focused specialist don't get weaker at higher levels, they get stronger.
I took a closer look at some level points (5,9,13 and 17). Each time, the top quality of those extra 3rd, 5th, 7th and 9th level spell slots is priceless.
I can't find any adequate power that the generalist has that would equalize this advantage.
Even if you argue that you get clear with the pool of generalist spell slots per day (and say that those extra focused spec. slots dont come to action), you can argue that a focused specialist can do so much more with his extra slots. He can afford more utility and crowd control at lower levels, he has nearly twice as much high level spells as a generalist and he just can make use of spell spontaenity (by using a spellpool, open slots, runestaves or uncanny forethought).
At the end, the focused specialist has that advantage what a generalist SHOULD have: versatility and flexibility.

The price he pays is a loss in school he dont need to cast in the first place.

[Malachei]

Contigency alone is worth the evocation school. Counterargue: use greater shaodow evoaction. My argument: not all groups play until level 15 and farther. But level 11 (for contingency) is possible.
I can continue with resilient sphere, instant refuge, force cage or shatter and gust of wind. Evocations is the school I ban AFTER enchantment and necromancy.

I agree with your selection, I'd ban Enchantment and Necromancy, as well. Also, Shadow Evocation's usability for contingeny depends on whether your DM agrees you can voluntarily fail your save against your own illusion. Its been debated on this board, if I find the time to dig up the link, I'll post it.

Focused specialist: I prefer playing generalists for various reasons, but the point about the higher spell levels is a good one.

[Emperor Tippy]

@Specialist Stuff:
I would like to support the generalist, but I really don't see how they make the race against focused specialists, unfortunately.
In core only games maybe, but as soon as you have more source books available, the unique position of each spell school diminishes. You can just substitute the spell effect with another school and therefore afford to forego a whole school of magic.
Not really true at all. Picking up entire schools that you have banned is difficult, and you loose out on more good spells the more sources come into play.


Secondly, we have plus TWO slot each grade.
Most critics say that it is only 9 (or 18 with focused specialist) extra spell slots. The truth is that you cannot just count the slots and that's it.
The real advantage is the quality of those slots.
Slot of higherspell grades are worth much more than lower spell grade slots.
That's why focused specialist don't get weaker at higher levels, they get stronger.
I took a closer look at some level points (5,9,13 and 17). Each time, the top quality of those extra 3rd, 5th, 7th and 9th level spell slots is priceless.
I can't find any adequate power that the generalist has that would equalize this advantage.
Even if you argue that you get clear with the pool of generalist spell slots per day (and say that those extra focused spec. slots dont come to action), you can argue that a focused specialist can do so much more with his extra slots. He can afford more utility and crowd control at lower levels, he has nearly twice as much high level spells as a generalist and he just can make use of spell spontaenity (by using a spellpool, open slots, runestaves or uncanny forethought).
At the end, the focused specialist has that advantage what a generalist SHOULD have: versatility and flexibility.

The price he pays is a loss in school he dont need to cast in the first place.
The slots really aren't worthwhile for what you give up. With 36 Int and Elf Generalist you are already throwing around 7 9th level spells, 6 8th, 6 7th and 6 6th level spells at level 20. Shapechange negates the need to prepare Foresight, Astral Projection, and dozens of other spells.

You shouldn't be running out of spell slots in the first place beyond level 5 or so, and at level 20 it shouldn't even be a concern. Especially when you use things like an Ice Assassin copy of yourself to handle much of the utility casting and non personal range buffing.

The extra spells simply aren't worth what you loose to get them.

[darksolitaire]

You shouldn't be running out of spell slots in the first place beyond level 5 or so, and at level 20 it shouldn't even be a concern.


You never run out of spell slots if you assume that the character exits in vacuum. However, if you actually build character to be played as per PO standpoint of the OP, you can safely assume to be low on slots few times in campaign.

[Malachei]

(...) Ice Assassin (...)

I wonder if you ever become bored of repeating this over and over again.


(...) at level 20 (...)

If the character is not created at level 20, your numbers don't apply for the largest part of his career.

Being in favor of generalists myself, I still think you need to take more care to develop good arguments. Whether a character will be low on spell slots depends on many factors. There are a lot of games in which characters run out of spell slots, at least concerning their higher level spell slots.

[Axier]

There is a feat somewhere that lets you spontaneously cast a spell you have mastered via Spell Mastery by sacrificing a prepared spell, but it counts as prepared I think, and its usable to times = to your INT modifier... I used it to preform Kobold cheese once.

Either way:

1. Preform Kobold cheese, starting with 30 INT

2. Turn from Sorcerer to Wizard, then get some spontaneous casting and "free scrolls" from redeculous Kobold cheese templates.

3. ????

4. Profit, while dodging D&D books and DM rage.

[Emperor Tippy]

You never run out of spell slots if you assume that the character exits in vacuum. However, if you actually build character to be played as per PO standpoint of the OP, you can safely assume to be low on slots few times in campaign.

{{Scrubbed}}

Even at level 20 you can win most encounters literally without casting a spell. You simply shapechange into whatever you need for that round.

Between scrolls, shapechange, Ice Assassins/Simulacrums, gate, and fast time planes you really won't be running out of spells.

[darksolitaire]

Only if you are being an idiot, carrying the entire weight of the party, or trying to fight dozens of encounters per day.


That's a bit harsher then I expected.:smallamused:

[Emperor Tippy]

I wonder if you ever become bored of repeating this over and over again.
Not really, it works.


If the character is not created at level 20, your numbers don't apply for the largest part of his career.
Sure they do. At level 1 a Grey Elf Generalist with 18 base Int has 4 first level spells per day while a human focused specialist has the same (and a Grey Elf FS has 5 first level spells). At 5th level the Generalist with a +4 Headband of Intellect has 4 third level spells while the human FS with a +4 headband also has 4 third level spells.

Keeping up with an FS as a generalist really isn't that difficult, regardless of level. And an FS can't keep up with a generalists versatility until high levels, and usually only with a significant feat or level investment. MotAO is nice for FS's but it's a 7 level investment to get 7-9th level spells, and you still only get 1-2 higher level spells out of it per day. That is 7 levels of PrC's you aren't getting. The Generalist could complete Initiate of the Seven Fold Veil for the same level investment, as just one example.


Being in favor of generalists myself, I still think you need to take more care to develop good arguments. Whether a character will be low on spell slots depends on many factors. There are a lot of games in which characters run out of spell slots, at least concerning their higher level spell slots.
{{Scrubbed}} Sorry but I play wizards all the time, and in every level range, and it's incredibly rare that I face a situation where spell slots are a concern. Of more concern is choosing which spells to pick for the day, which more spell slots really doesn't change and is the biggest advantage of the spell pool.

---
If you want to recover lower level spell slots you just get a resetting trap of Mage's Lubrication and drop it in your Bag of Holding or Portable Hole; that gives you unlimited spell slots of 5th level or lower.


That's a bit harsher then I expected.:smallamused:

*shrug* It's the truth. You have a party, you shouldn't be expending more than 20% of your available spells on an equal CR fight. If you effectively solo an encounter than it's technically a ECL+4 fight or a very difficult encounter and you should be fighting only one of those per day.

If it's a weaker encounter then you should be throwing around your lower level spells and creatively using them to do things like control the battlefield or hinder the enemy. It's that difficult encounter where you have to drop a Celerity, disjunction, time stop, Forbiddance/Dimensional Lock, Prismatic Sphere combo or the like. If you need to pull things like that out more than 3 or 4 times per level (as opposed to just futzing around and using higher level spells because you feel like it) then your DM isn't throwing appropriate encounters at you.

[Malachei]

Only if you are being an idiot, carrying the entire weight of the party, or trying to fight dozens of encounters per day.

Even at level 20 you can win most encounters literally without casting a spell. You simply shapechange into whatever you need for that round.

Between scrolls, shapechange, Ice Assassins/Simulacrums, gate, and fast time planes you really won't be running out of spells.

You're saying someone that does play the game your way is an idiot.


Then they aren't playing their wizard intelligently. Sorry

What is that supposed to mean?

[Emperor Tippy]

You're saying someone that does play the game your way is an idiot.
No, most of the stuff I mention doesn't require expending my spell slots. I will, for example, carry 4-5 Ice Assassins of myself around with me and let them nova the encounter if it's needed. I will, for example, use Shapechange for all of my teleportation, plane shift, utility, etc. needs throughout the day; if I really feel like being cheesy then I will use a Zodar form to use Wish to fake all the lower level spells I need. I also keep a collection of scrolls on me at all times to handle a high level nova routine so that it is always available if necessary. And thanks to Astral Projection I can recover those scrolls at any time.


What is that supposed to mean?
Exactly what it says. Does you game allow Shapechange and your wizard still, ever, cast Plane Shift or Greater Teleport from his own spell slots? {{Scrubbed}}

To play a wizard intelligently is to use lower level spells to achieve a higher level result. Resilient Sphere on yourself, for example. Tiny Hut to provide your entire party with total concealment. There are hundreds of low level spells that can be used to great effect even in high level play.

You also prepare in advance. Take the 6th level spell Delicate Disk, it let's you store a 5th level or lower spell for later use and you can store the spell indefinitely. It has a 200 GP material component, but you can get around that relatively easily and even if you don't it's still dirt cheap. You can prepare and store hundreds of those. Mnemonic Enhancer comes to mind, especially if you read it as 3 castings allowing you to prepare a 9th level spell. Greater Invisibility is another good choice, as is Resilient Sphere, Dimension Door, Remove Curse, and dozens of other spells.

EDIT: There is also doing things like taking the Maximize Breath Weapon feat and then shapechanging into the oldest dragon you can as your standard damage move in combat. With your ability to shift into another form every round you can throw out 120 or so damage every round at no cost. End your turn by shifting into a Chronotyryn and you can still pick up a full rounds worth of actions to use items or cast spells before using your extra Free action to shift back into a dragon form to repeat again the next round. If you need the feat for something else, it's only a Chaos Shuffle to shift it to whatever you need.

[Darth Stabber]

On banning necromancy
Oh, would not do that at the start of my career. As a ban for incantrix or other classes that ban another school from higher level, it's a fine choice, so long as you already the delicious enervation, shivering touch, and possibly animate dead. Not that animate dead is a great spell, but it gives you permanent minions for fairly cheap (it's nice to have the option on the table even if you don't think you'll use it). Shivering touch kills many thing for just a 3rd lvl slot, and two it gets most things. Enervation is a big heavy hitter, even without metamagic, but when combined with incantrix, a slaymate (who doesn't want an undead baby powering up their magic) and possibly thesis spell it bomes death to anything that breathes no save, just suck.

On banning evocation
Evocation's quality is directly proportional to how many non-core books you have contingency, windwall, force cage, and resilient sphere. Srd or core only:GONE, I'll miss you, but gone. Completes: maybe I won't specialize. Any official book I can get my grubby little mitts on, I CAN'T BAN YOU, I'm sorry I've spent all these years mocking you.

On banning enchantment
Mindrape and what ever the SpC version is called, shock and awe is cool at low levels. Nothing here is so cool that I can't do without it, especially when the feat shape soulmeld (planar ward) renders half of the school unusable, and a pulse is a prerequisite to be affected by anything it offers. Illusion targets the same save (both schools hammer will almost exclusively), and yet illusions work on undead/constructs/mindless critters. Worse than evocation.

On banning illusion
Too many great tools for the creatively inclined, and generally better than it's biggest competitor (ench). Hurts too much, keeping this.

[Emperor Tippy]

Giving up Enchantment means loosing Feeblemind.

Disjunction+Quickened Feeblemind is one of the absolute best ways in the game to shut down a caster.

Enchantment is filled with save or loose spells and spells that have effects that can't really be replicated outside the school. It's also incredibly powerful in any social or politically focused game.

And loosing Mind Rape is a real kicker, it's a great way to interrogate an enemy (or there staff). Drop them unconscious or asleep and they don't even get a save.

It's one of the better schools to give up but loosing it still hurts.

[Southern Cross]

Which is why I'd recommend that Collegiate Wizard (pg. 181 of Complete Arcane) only be taken by generalists. For those who don't have Complete Arcane, a wizard with this 1st-level feat starts with 6 + Int mod spells, and gains four free spells each level, in addition to a +2 bonus on all Knowledge (arcana) checks.

[Supermouse]

Well, I followed the discussion till now, and noticed a little thing that may have gone unnoticed:

Only specialist Wizards (conjurers, to be more precise) get Abrupt Jaunt.

As we all know, Abrupt Jaunt = Win (and books being thrown at you).


Also, many generalist assumptions are based on the fact that you are an elf Generalist, so you can get that extra slot at your highest level. It somewhat limits your options (maybe someone wants to be human or strongheart halfling to get an extra feat, or something else).

At last, I know it sure hurts to forego 2 or 3 schools, but I also think that it, along with the ACFs, make for pretty flavorful Wizards, instead of the bland "everything and the kitchen sink" can-do-anything Wizard.

[Emperor Tippy]

Well, I followed the discussion till now, and noticed a little thing that may have gone unnoticed:

Only specialist Wizards (conjurers, to be more precise) get Abrupt Jaunt.

As we all know, Abrupt Jaunt = Win (and books being thrown at you).
Greater Dimension Door. Either persist it or use a Mage's Lubrication trap to regain it after use. Celerity to make it an immediate action. Abrupt Jaunt is not worth 2 full schools of magic.


Also, many generalist assumptions are based on the fact that you are an elf Generalist, so you can get that extra slot at your highest level. It somewhat limits your options (maybe someone wants to be human or strongheart halfling to get an extra feat, or something else).
Elves get 3 more feats than humans or strongheart halflings (thank you Chaos Shuffle). Even without Elf Generalist you still won't run out of spells.


At last, I know it sure hurts to forego 2 or 3 schools, but I also think that it, along with the ACFs, make for pretty flavorful Wizards, instead of the bland "everything and the kitchen sink" can-do-anything Wizard.
Flavor has nothing to do with class features. If your whole thing is being the best damn Abjuration master in the world and you become a focused specalist (Abjuration) Incantatrix (giving up a total of 4 schools of magic) then that's fine, but calling yourself a wizard is stretching it a bit.

I never said that specializing didn't make for powerful characters, it does. I said that with FS wizards drop to Tier 2, and they do.



Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potencially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.
A focused specialist is pretty much spot on for tier 2.

[Supermouse]

OK, I didn't knew about Chaos Shuffle, so I went for a look at it.

It requires two 8 lvl spells, so you can only get the extra feats at lvl 15, at least.
Also, Persisted Dimension Door with Celerity is another high level thing.


So, I see 2 problems with your approach: the first one is that it is for high level, and many campaigns don't go untill high level.

The second one is that things like Abrupt Jaunt are made to help the squishy wizard survive a little bit on the low levels, as a strong sneeze can kill him. And, as I said, your approach is high level.

And the versatility of a specialist or FS is relative to his chosen school.
Surely an Abjurer, Evoker or Necromancer is somewhat limited, but an Transmuter, or, in the case of Abrupt Jaunt, an Conjurer, are pretty versatile, as both schools are both powerfull and versatile. If you chose well your barren schools, you can remain in T1, as per the Tiers explanations.

Also, 6 spells each level plus INT bonus spells is nothing to sneeze at.

[Emperor Tippy]

OK, I didn't knew about Chaos Shuffle, so I went for a look at it.

It requires two 8 lvl spells, so you can only get the extra feats at lvl 15, at least.
You can pay a caster, buy scrolls, or gate wish up scrolls. Buying scrolls it costs 8,500 GP to per feat switched. Paying a caster it costs 4,900 per feat switched.


Also, Persisted Dimension Door with Celerity is another high level thing.
Use a Craft Contingent set to go off if you say "Bippity Boppity Boo" instead if you have a problem with persisting it.


So, I see 2 problems with your approach: the first one is that it is for high level, and many campaigns don't go untill high level.
Which is irrelevant. It's also not all that high level.


The second one is that things like Abrupt Jaunt are made to help the squishy wizard survive a little bit on the low levels, as a strong sneeze can kill him. And, as I said, your approach is high level.
Abrupt Jaunt is nice, it is not remotely worth 3 (or even 2) full schools of magic.


And the versatility of a specialist or FS is relative to his chosen school.
Surely an Abjurer, Evoker or Necromancer is somewhat limited, but an Transmuter, or, in the case of Abrupt Jaunt, an Conjurer, are pretty versatile, as both schools are both powerfull and versatile. If you chose well your barren schools, you can remain in T1, as per the Tiers explanations.
No, you really can't. At least not without abusing things like Ice Assassin, Shapechange, etc. The big difference between Tier 1 and Tier 2 is versatility. Tier 1 is always having the solution to the problem, Tier 2 is having all of the power of Tier 1 and being able to pull off any given area as well as Tier 1 but not being able to do it all in the same build.


Also, 6 spells each level plus INT bonus spells is nothing to sneeze at.
It's nice, no question, an addition 2 spell slots per level is not however worth giving up 3 schools of magic.

[Malachei]

At least not without abusing things like Ice Assassin, Shapechange, etc.

I like that statement.


It's nice, no question, an addition 2 spell slots per level is not however worth giving up 3 schools of magic.

This is exactly my point. It is nice, but IMO, the price is underestimated. Often the argument pro specialization is that outside of core, a school gains versatility becomes less of a restriction. However, I'd say vice versa, the schools you lose also become much more valuable outside core.

However, I think Abrupt Jaunt is indeed a very powerful ability, and may save the wizard's life through the low and mid levels. I also see it banned in a number of games.

I'd also like to point out that chaos-shuffling away elven martial proficiency may fly in your game, but I think it would be banned in many. Following the statement of yours I quoted in the first part of my post (the one about abuse, which I like), I think we can leave this out of the picture. Of course, we can now argue for thirty posts about whether chaos shuffling might be a standard tactics of a not-all-that-high-level wizard, but would you consider your position invalid if we'd take out Ice Assassin, chaos shuffle and similar fu?

I use none of these and I'd still prefer generalists over specialist, and, while we're at that, even human generalists over human focused specialists.

[Lactantius]

Thanks for your input - especially EmperorTippy, whose statements I will comment.

First: please, please, remember that the whole discussion works under the premise of practical optimization. This can include some borderline stuff, but generally we don't include cheesy stuff or very rare stuff. Also remember that the WBL is a fundamental part of character creation and development. There may be campaigns where money is no limit at all, but here we assume that money is such a limiting factor like the number of feats, class levels and spells per day. So, reconsider the usage of costly spells like ice assassin or gate. Even high level scrolls are very expensive, not to speak of the craft contingent spell feat.

Secondly, I will comment your arguments en detail. I would like to be on your side to support the generalist, but the raw mechanics favor the focused specialist and I will explain that now.

Argument 1: A Grey Elf (Level 1) has as many spells as a FS.
Speakng of raw numbers, this is true. But we must determine two things:
first, you use things that favor your position but which are a) not core and b) not a standard for character creation. With c) I would also restrict those cheesy or at least "nearly-cheesy" stuff. I know that c) is a subjective thing, but I for myself work with the premise do use a wizard slight or medium optimized and If i find a rule which just is not right, I recognize it and just say "no."
a) is about core/non-core. You cannot bolster an argument by concentrating it to one special build/race selection etc. A elf generalist is nice, no doubt, but it is not a standard. Even if you choose it, you give up CON (with a d4-HD-class) and a feat (vs. human wizards).
b) is about setting standards. The best standard is to use open slots for races, prestige classes and feat selection. Personally, I choose a race because I want to play the race, not only because of its attribute modifiers and stuff. That's why many OP guides fail already at Step 1 if they recommend strongheart halflings, humans or ilumians for wizard. I make my character choice first and THEN I look for mechanical stuff, not otherwise.

But let's focus to your comparison.
To verify my argument that you but the comparion in your favor, I settle another comparison which is more realistic within the PO-premise.
I take some realistic spots at the character development:
Level 5, Level 10 and Level 16.
Under real development I settle the headband of Intellect with +2 for level 5, +4 for level 10 and +6 for level 16. I also took level 16 to use an appropriate INT-modifier (assuming in all cases a starting INT 18 and 4 times an INT boost to reach a basic INT of 22 at level 16).
I also found your comparion at level 5 with a headband +4 strange. Remember the WBL. I found it hard to believe that any wizard can use a 16,000-gp-item with a whole wealth of 9,000 gp at level 5. So, this spells/day-argument failed since it does not apply and it keeps the spells/day of the (elf)generalist as low as it is.

Now, at level 5, you already compared the elf generalist (remember that this was in your favor) with a FS.
You neglected (besides WBL-violation) the fact that the FS has way more level-1-spells and level-2-spells since the elf generalist get only one extra spell of his highest level (here: level 3).
Our basic chassis gives us the following spells/day (ignoring cantrips):
basic: 3, 2, 1.
elf generalist: 3, 2, 2.
focused specialist: 5, 4, 3.
Both get by a +2-item (leads to INT 20): 2, 1, 1
summarized:
elf generalist: 5, 3, 3
focused specialist: 7, 5, 4.
If we reduce the elf-factor, the generalist has 5, 3, 2.
Result: double as much spells at level 2 and 3 as a generalist, 2 more level-1-slots for more utility (and so, more versatility).

Let's go to level 10.
basic: 4, 4, 3, 3, 2.
elf generalist: 4, 4, 3, 3, 3.
focused specialist: 6, 6, 5, 5, 4.
Both get a +4-item (leads to INT 24, including 2 INT-points at leve 4 and 9): 2, 2, 2, 1, 1
summarized:
elf generalist: 6, 6, 5, 4, 4.
focused specialist: 8, 8, 7, 6, 5.
If we reduce the elf-factor, the generalist has: 6, 6, 5, 4, 3.
Result: at level 10, the value of level-1- and level-2-spells diminishes (even though they still have their value) and level 3-5 are the backbones of a medium level wizard. Exactly this important spell slots are way higher: we have a +50%-boost at level 3 and 4 and nearly double as much spells of our highest (and most precious) level we can cast.
I emphasize this to show up the fallacy made when using the word "versatility."
Our generalist friend can theoretically cast all 8 spell schools. In reality, his slots are very limited to fulfill this task. Meanwhile, Mr. focused specialist has 10 extra spells to use. He can create more open slots (and therefore gaining more utility) or he can use more daily routine spells each day. For example, he could use the complete heart-of-[element]-row with one slot each from level 2 - 5. This is one daily routine a generalist cannot afford without reducing his slot amount even more.
So, in practical terms, we can use +5 open slots (if we wish), one extra level -spell and the row called heart of air, earth, fire and water.

Now, considering higher level with level 16. I neglect your (Emperor Tippy) level-20-assumption since it is not practical at all. I would even say that reaching level 20 is a possible, but not a routine or standard thing. That's why your basics considering ice assassin, gate or shapechange fail (not talking about the WBL-problems you get by using your 5 ice assassins and wasting 80,000 gp and 20,000 XP).
At level 16, we reached (with a +6-item and level ups) INT 28.

basic: 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1.
elf generalist: 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2, 2.
focused specialist: 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 4, 3.
Both get a +6-item and 4 INT-level-ups: 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1.
summarized:
elf generalist: 7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 4, 3, 3.
focused specialist: 9, 8, 8, 8, 8, 6, 5, 4.
If we reduce the elf-factor, the generalist has: 7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 4, 3, 2.
Result: Double as much 8th-level spells as the generalist. Nearly double as much 7th-level-spells. Tough we are at high level, spell grades 3-6 are still very, very important backbones. We get at least +2 slots in each grade. Priceless.
Again, the generalist has a theoretical braod access with 8 schools. In reality, this access is limited by his number of slots.
The focused specialist banned 2-3 schools, but can use 5-6 schools to equalize that. The debuff-theme of necromancy is substituted by using crowd control from other school. The enchantment-control is substituted by other control mechanisms (too many to recitate them here). Even evocation is equalized.
In practical terms, I don't see how Mr. focused specialist lost the versatility-duel to the generalist.
He keeps at Tier 1 since he lost only theoretical/academic flexibility, but in reality, he gained it by applying more spells per day.

Cheesy stuff like chaos shuffle, lucubration traps or the polymorph-line receive just one word: "No."

Furthermore, our goal is to keep a fluid, developing character, not a theoretical level-20-archmage.
With a focused specialist, we have sweet spots at each level since we have more fuel for our one and only class ability: spellcasting.
And spellcasting is nor only a feature, it is what our chacater excels at.
If you argue that wizards don't need so many slots each fight, then I must say: mayhap, but what if he wants to do it?
I call it the "Joy of casting."
So, I don't like the "use only 2-3 BFC spells in the combat"-premise. I Prefer to keep personal freedom. Mayhap 2-3 BFCs are enough, but maybe I just want to cast more (maybe because I like to cast once/round?).
Maybe I wanna use more out-of-combat spells?
I have this personal freedom since the spells/day limit is no real limit anymore.

[Emperor Tippy]

I like that statement.
*shrug*
I've never claimed that those spells were anything but brokenly powerful. Their actual power in most games that use them tends to be far less than what they are theoretically capable of simply because of the practicalities of the game.


This is exactly my point. It is nice, but IMO, the price is underestimated. Often the argument pro specialization is that outside of core, a school gains versatility becomes less of a restriction. However, I'd say vice versa, the schools you lose also become much more valuable outside core.
Agreed. Specializing is actually much better in core only. Especially if you specialize in divination and only have to give up 1 school.


However, I think Abrupt Jaunt is indeed a very powerful ability, and may save the wizard's life through the low and mid levels. I also see it banned in a number of games.
Agreed, it's certainly nice. It's just really not worth what you give up to get it.


I'd also like to point out that chaos-shuffling away elven martial proficiency may fly in your game, but I think it would be banned in many. Following the statement of yours I quoted in the first part of my post (the one about abuse, which I like), I think we can leave this out of the picture. Of course, we can now argue for thirty posts about whether chaos shuffling might be a standard tactics of a not-all-that-high-level wizard, but would you consider your position invalid if we'd take out Ice Assassin, chaos shuffle and similar fu?
Leaving aside Chaos Shuffle (I do consider it mostly allowed), yes I would agree. In point of fact, the more of the broken stuff you remove the more the generalist gains compared to the specialist because the specialist looses many of the ways to fake having the versatility of a generalist.


I use none of these and I'd still prefer generalists over specialist, and, while we're at that, even human generalists over human focused specialists.
I prefer generalists in pretty much every circumstance. For wizards, from a mechanical view point, I don't think humans are worth it (especially core only). There are to many ways to effectively pull a free feat if it's critical for your build and loosing out on the racial Int bonus is significant; that's 1 point less for your save DC's, 20 fewer skill points, 1 less 9th and 5th level spell at level 20.

@Lactantius
I don't feel like going line by line.
1) Specialists loose more in core only games because they loose most of the ways to increase versatility and make up for the lost schools.
2) I don't care whether something is core only or not, it's a stupid distinction.
3) We appear to have different definitions of what constitutes practical optimization.
4) I never said that specialists didn't get more spell slots (although they don't if you go domain wizard), I've said that the extra spell slots simply aren't as useful as you keep positing.
5) To hit something specific, the heart of X line is nice but that's about it. There is also nothing stopping a generalist from using all 4. In point of fact it only requires 2,350 to cast the entire line from scrolls. And thanks to astral projection (shapechange, cast it yourself, planar bind a nightmare) you will never actually expend those scrolls. There are plenty of ways to effectively pick up more spell slots, to the point of it being trivial to get unlimited 5th level or lower slots.

[Lactantius]

What a pity. I like to keep a creative and evolving discussion around, but it sounds to me like you see it as a controversial discussion.

Unfortunately, it looks to me like you don't engage to the arguments which could lead to new approaches and views.

To shorten this up, my statement is that I like wizards with the premise "Always prepared."
Either as generalist or as specialist, all ways are fine for me as long as they fulfill this objective.
Since all inD&D evolves around ressources (slots and gold) and these ressources are limited, the only evolving way (without breaking the game) is to extend these limits.
The generalist does this not; even if he should do so.

[Emperor Tippy]

What a pity. I like to keep a creative and evolving discussion around, but it sounds to me like you see it as a controversial discussion.

Unfortunately, it looks to me like you don't engage to the arguments which could lead to new approaches and views.
No, I just don't feel like getting into an indepth discussion about generalists vs. specialists. Especially when we aren't going to agree on the ground rules and what's allowed or not allowed. I know several ways to get effectively unlimited spells of various levels, from the moderately powerful all the way up to insane game breakingly powerful ways (how would you like every single spell in the game that can be made to qualify for Persistent Spell, persisted without even taking the feat and with unlimited 9th level spell slots? Note that they doesn't use Ice Assassin either). When playing at level 15+ I expect the party wizard to be carrying around an immediate resetting trap of Mage's Lubrication in a bag of holding. It's a mere 43,000 GP (including the bag) and it gives them unlimited out of combat spell recovery.


To shorten this up, my statement is that I like wizards with the premise "Always prepared."
Either as generalist or as specialist, all ways are fine for me as long as they fulfill this objective.
Since all inD&D evolves around ressources (slots and gold) and these ressources are limited, the only evolving way (without breaking the game) is to extend these limits.
The generalist does this not; even if he should do so.
There are plenty of ways to effectively extend your resources. Minions, scrolls, items, spells, feats, etc. Most of them don't have costs anywhere near as high as specializing.

Going FS you give up 3 schools for an addition 18 spells per day. A full third of those are first, second, or third level and can be had dirt cheap from a wand if you really plan on casting them that much. Anyways, 18 extra spells spread over the expected 4 daily encounters is an additional 4.5 spells per fight. What in the world are you doing that is causing your fights to last long enough that you can actually get another 4 rounds of spells off? You aren't using quicken because without meta reducers it's taking up a minimum of a 5th level slot, time stop requires the expenditure of a 9th level spell, the other ways to pull off extra spells cast in a round involve shapechange.

That means burning them either outside of combat or on long duration buffs. Most of the nice buffs that last 10/minutes a level or longer are higher than 4th level.

And this is all assuming a focused specialist. If you just specialize then it's a mere 9 extra spells, for the price of two schools.

[opticalshadow]

im quiet intrested int his little discussion, but it seems to me the problem is the level on which these things are going to happen. as a debater i know that when a topic comes up, and two forces cant seem to counter argue, because of intangible liabilities, the only way to move forward is with example.

so id like to make an oppertunity to do so. now OP i think has an idea of character that no DM would say no to, he also wants a character that out right doesnt say "i got this noobs" while ET is willing to push it farther, allowing more leway with his rulings adn a bit more disreguard to his team. i know no DM would allow alot of things you said under the "its just op rule", myself id allow it, but the wizard would be mad, because i run my capaigns under the "im going to go as strong as you" everyone loves maxed lesser shivering touch arrows, until their being fired back at them.

as far as FS vs Gen, lets also account for high level of play things at those levels. its said time and again a wizard has no reason to have tons of spells. but its assueming just party related tasks. i know for example i play dread necro alot. after level 10 or so, i had buisness going on, was trying to build a city for teh dead and evil, had two lairs fulyl up and running. i didnt want to break teh game with the amount of undead i had, so i put them to use behind the scenes. it rarely ever came up between anyoen but me and the dm. but i was thigns ic ould do. a wizard could too, if you stop thinking interms of combat.

so lets do this instead of arguing bits and parts. first off, since this is op's topic, have OP denote which books are allowed, denote any exceptions to rules. PRactical optimazation (what id say no DM would turn down) and both make a wizard. or better both make two wizards, a FS and a Gen each, witht he same goals, which need to be agreed on (what it can acheive)

the wizards will need build progress at levels 5-10-16-20 each progress level to include its legal WBL, and what its spending on, aswell as spells it learned. then you compare them, they need to prove themselves better. then using those characters as controls, have the bored (including each toher) provide scenarios for them to complete.

it sounds liek alot, but theroy doesnt become fact until its tested. if you both roll your characters, you can prove their worth, more so if you both create each character, you can work around the therotical limitations. sure you can craft continguent spell, but thats a specific cost of both xp and gold that the other might not have. and sure the gen can gain more slots, but its also a cost the other wont have.

[Big Fau]

Giving up Enchantment means loosing Feeblemind.

Disjunction+Quickened Feeblemind is one of the absolute best ways in the game to shut down a caster.


Assuming you are constantly facing casters at level 17. And Disjunction is a really horrible spell. It should not exist, let alone be used.

[Emperor Tippy]

Assuming you are constantly facing casters at level 17. And Disjunction is a really horrible spell. It should not exist, let alone be used.

Feeblemind is the best way to shut down any caster type. It can also screw over a whole lot of other builds/creatures. If you don't like disjunction, use a quickened targeted dispel aimed at their mind blank instead.

And disjunction, or something like it really should exist. With all the defensive spells in the game there needs to be a way to rip them all off rapidly.

[Myth]

Interesting. You Tippy seem to be very strict on following the DMG for the appropriate level encounters and max encounters per day, yet you consider Chaos Shuffle, Astral Projection and Ice Assassin abuse viable and Disjunction necessary.

How would you feel if I as your DM regularly fried all your gear via Disjunction or sent Ice Assassins of yourself at you? And no, your private demiplane and your astral projection won't save you from a DM who means business.

[Emperor Tippy]

Interesting. You Tippy seem to be very strict on following the DMG for the appropriate level encounters and max encounters per day, yet you consider Chaos Shuffle, Astral Projection and Ice Assassin abuse viable and Disjunction necessary.

How would you feel if I as your DM regularly fried all your gear via Disjunction or sent Ice Assassins of yourself at you? And no, your private demiplane and your astral projection won't save you from a DM who means business.

I expect you to regularly throw out disjunctions and chain greater dispels + shatter. I expect you to throw Ice Assassins and everything else at me as well. I also have counters for them.

When have I ever said that only the players should use these abilities? I am one of this boards biggest proponents of playing monsters and enemies competently and to their stats.

There is very much a reason that I regularly say that an entire level 20 campaign can consist of nothing more than getting around the defenses of an equal level wizard and permanently killing him. We are talking 10+ game sessions and it still requires, in large part, DM fiat.

[Malachei]

Tippy: Are you playing play-by-post?

[Big Fau]

I expect you to regularly throw out disjunctions and chain greater dispels + shatter. I expect you to throw Ice Assassins and everything else at me as well. I also have counters for them.

When have I ever said that only the players should use these abilities? I am one of this boards biggest proponents of playing monsters and enemies competently and to their stats.

There is very much a reason that I regularly say that an entire level 20 campaign can consist of nothing more than getting around the defenses of an equal level wizard and permanently killing him. We are talking 10+ game sessions and it still requires, in large part, DM fiat.

Then please bear in mind that not everyone plays the game the way you do. That is something you haven't done in this thread.

[Emperor Tippy]

Tippy: Are you playing play-by-post?

Nope, at least not at the moment. It tends to take way too long to get anything done. As I also already have an established real life group I have no real reason to.


Then please bear in mind that not everyone plays the game the way you do. That is something you haven't done in this thread.
I never said that they did, and I have done so in this thread. People ask questions and state perceived problems, I respond with answers or ways to solve those problems.

Disjunction isn't a problem, in point of fact a big part of the reason people bitch about how overpowered wizards are in high level play is because they don't use it. All those persistent spells? Gone in the first round. Is your build too focused on magic items of one kind or another? Possibly gone.

The big complaint about Disjunction is that it destroys magic items/wealth. The counter to that, out of character, is that the players are always supposed to have WBL regardless of what they are up to. In character they can use Gate/Wish to regain their magic items, or the DM can say they found a voucher in the Dragons lair to Sigil's Magic Item Mart for an amount exactly equal to the replacement cost of whatever they lost.

[Oscredwin]

I like that. A gentleman's agreement to be able to break the game to get up to WBL and no further. Then rust monsters and sundering giants are an option again.

[Emperor Tippy]

I like that. A gentleman's agreement to be able to break the game to get up to WBL and no further. Then rust monsters and sundering giants are an option again.

My IC reason for WBL is that magic items work by interacting with the creature using them and that a creatures body/soul/magic can only support so many magic items before they explode rather spectacularly. The stronger a creature the more magic items it can support before going boom. Items stored in extra-dimensional spaces carried by a creature count against this limit thanks to interactions with the storage space.

This means that at level 20 the PC's will all have 760,000 GP worth of magical items on their persons. There base might have vaults filled to the heavens with a few hundred million worth of magical items that they might or might not use at some point in the future but they are inconvenient enough to stop the players from totally re-outfitting themselves at the drop of a hat during the day/an adventure (what do you mean we can only access our vault between the hours of midnight and one AM? Well you are the ones who wanted to time lock it's plane to make sure that no one stole your stuff).

[Suddo]

My IC reason for WBL is that magic items work by interacting with the creature using them and that a creatures body/soul/magic can only support so many magic items before they explode rather spectacularly. The stronger a creature the more magic items it can support before going boom. Items stored in extra-dimensional spaces carried by a creature count against this limit thanks to interactions with the storage space.

This means that at level 20 the PC's will all have 760,000 GP worth of magical items on their persons. There base might have vaults filled to the heavens with a few hundred million worth of magical items that they might or might not use at some point in the future but they are inconvenient enough to stop the players from totally re-outfitting themselves at the drop of a hat during the day/an adventure (what do you mean we can only access our vault between the hours of midnight and one AM? Well you are the ones who wanted to time lock it's plane to make sure that no one stole your stuff).

I like this idea. Though back on topic.

So I tend to agree with Tippy, although I didn't before hand, and I think when one argues with someone who has played as much as he has you should set the ground rules.
Here's a list:
Lets say Core, Completes and Races. These tend to be the least controversial books.
WBL kind like how Tippy makes it out to be.
Lets also make it around level 15. And no use of scrolls higher level than what you can create, this should remove a large part of the 9th shenanigans.
Let's also ban Celerity.
Now we can actually argue more factual things. I'd also love to suggest to Tippy to try and argue this without use of Elvish Generalist, just to make it interesting.

I should also state originally I thought that Abjurant Jaunt was worth 2 banned spell schools but on further inspection I do have to agree that it isn't past probably 5th or so.

[Emperor Tippy]

Celerity isn't in Core, Completes, or Races. And no spell compendium or fiendish codex?

Also what are we trying to make builds for?

Lack of Domain Wizard, flaws, Incantatrix, and Elf Generalist hurt of course but it's not a game breaker by any means.

[Lactantius]

@Optical Shadow:
yes, I already made a pretty good comparison at those important level spots.
We don't need to substantiate each feat, spell or class feature to do so.
It gets better: my approach is pretty "easy-going," without the demand to call in very special spells (Ice Assassin, Shapechange, Mage's Disjunction) to establish a general, easy to applicable build which is playable in many rounds.
Tippys approach is very specialized and depends on specific features like exactly spell X, abusing WBL and getting infinite gold online.

I claim that my approach will have a better chance to get an approval by my DM and my group members.
I think if you start to optimize a Tier-1-class, this is the most important and very first step: to adjust the range of optimization.
D&D is a team-based-game in which each team member contributes to the success. If the persist-abusers (like: incantatrix, DMM cleric), the polymorph-abusers don't start to rethink how far they should go, then the game is broken before it even begun.
I admit that there are gaming groups which like this very, very, very high op level of play. Mayhap there are fellow members and the DM who enjoy it that those Tier-1-fellows rule the table and that the DM is enforced to make a race for ressources, tactics and limit-breaking.
I do not like this style. That's why I insisted on the term of practical optimization.
I know that people use this term in different kind of ways. It can only be so, otherwise Tippy would not say that his used mechanics are far away from real optimization.
But that's oky for him and his group. But here, I would like to keep up a certain "common sense." IF you read a mechanic and get the feeling that this is very, very strong and it could change the scenarion, then it actually is and you should not use it.
That's why I use celerity (but no chance to get immune vs the daze-effect, cause you gotta live with it if you gain the time advantage in Round 1).
That's why I use draconic polymorph, to use a strong creature, but not to abuse it to get insane amounts of natural armor or a ridiculous base intelligence.
That's why I use persistant spell, but only within the limits it should stay in - say: able to pay the +6; maybe +5 if you invest in some reducers.

So, my comparion should up a pretty good optimization without going too far. That's what the game is all about.

I don't try to exploit WBL by outsourcing magic items and stuff (which is btw against the rules which include ALL belongings the character has, not only what he is wearing on adventures).
I don't toss around with scrolls from level 6-9 because I know that it is very hard to finance them. scribing is for level 1-4, maximum level 5 for those rare needed spells (like break enchantment).
Same goes for craft contingent spell. Although a nice feature, it is not financable. Just calculate the stuff by using around 2-5 spells and reuse those spells after the contingency has been triggered. The formula is horrible expensive and IMHO only created for major villains (since craft cont. spell gets better for one-shots or 1-2 encounters; the more often you need CCS, the unpayable it gets).

I also do not share the opinion about mage's disjunction. The spell needs a tweak IMHO since it punishes the non-casters which depends on their equipment. So said, MD is a killing weapon held by the wizard to kill those fighters, rogues and stuff.

About Tippys question why I need so many spells/fight:
well, the wheel turns around and we come back to the main central point: our group optimizes slightly or up to medium level, but not higher.
Our dwarven fighter was already happy going for the hammers of moradin, and even then, he did not take the class because of its class features alone, he took the hammer because he wanted to play an elite dwarf fighter from the spine of the world.
Heck, I even gave his dwarf some OP hints to use some levels as ordained champion instead of the pure cleric/fighter-approach.

Our party cleric is a multiclass character mixing cleric and rogue levels. From a OP-view, this is weaker since he lost 3 levels of spellcasting (Rogue 3/Cleric3 so far).
But he is a cleric of Tymora and want to emphasize the "adventurer style" which comes along with the aspects of Tymora.
He is going for Rich Burlew's Divine Trickster which can be found on this page.

And that's already our party. 3 men.
I am the wizard and since I am Tier 1 and my fellows are around ~ Tier 3-4, I would not bend my optimization level too far.
That's why I'm cautious if I read such strange stuff like acrons of far travel, high level spells which substitutes the own spell slot ressources etc.
I prefer a fluid way.
The character must flow and work on each level, not only at a certain target level (like, level 15+).

Since we are only 3 characters and since we don't mass exploit, our fights take indeed longer. Last session we had a difficult encounter which took around 10-12 rounds (at ECL 5!).
Suddenly, the demand for more spell slots is very high for combat spells.
Furthermore, a reserve feat gets stronger, albeit called weak by the community.
Plus, I like to cast because I CAN.
I cast alot out of combat or utility. And this luxury is only payable with FS' extra slots.
Next, If i give up something I don't use in the first place (enchantment and necro), I have no real loss.

[Darth Stabber]

I claim that my approach will have a better chance to get an approval by my DM and my group members.
I think if you start to optimize a Tier-1-class, this is the most important and very first step: to adjust the range of optimization.
D&D is a team-based-game in which each team member contributes to the success. If the persist-abusers (like: incantatrix, DMM cleric), the polymorph-abusers don't start to rethink how far they should go, then the game is broken before it even begun.
I admit that there are gaming groups which like this very, very, very high op level of play. Mayhap there are fellow members and the DM who enjoy it that those Tier-1-fellows rule the table and that the DM is enforced to make a race for ressources, tactics and limit-breaking.
I do not like this style. That's why I insisted on the term of practical optimization.
I know that people use this term in different kind of ways. It can only be so, otherwise Tippy would not say that his used mechanics are far away from real optimization.
But that's oky for him and his group. But here, I would like to keep up a certain "common sense." IF you read a mechanic and get the feeling that this is very, very strong and it could change the scenarion, then it actually is and you should not use it.
That's why I use celerity (but no chance to get immune vs the daze-effect, cause you gotta live with it if you gain the time advantage in Round 1).
That's why I use draconic polymorph, to use a strong creature, but not to abuse it to get insane amounts of natural armor or a ridiculous base intelligence.
That's why I use persistant spell, but only within the limits it should stay in - say: able to pay the +6; maybe +5 if you invest in some reducers.

So, my comparion should up a pretty good optimization without going too far. That's what the game is all about.

I don't try to exploit WBL by outsourcing magic items and stuff (which is btw against the rules which include ALL belongings the character has, not only what he is wearing on adventures).
I don't toss around with scrolls from level 6-9 because I know that it is very hard to finance them. scribing is for level 1-4, maximum level 5 for those rare needed spells (like break enchantment).
Same goes for craft contingent spell. Although a nice feature, it is not financable. Just calculate the stuff by using around 2-5 spells and reuse those spells after the contingency has been triggered. The formula is horrible expensive and IMHO only created for major villains (since craft cont. spell gets better for one-shots or 1-2 encounters; the more often you need CCS, the unpayable it gets).

I also do not share the opinion about mage's disjunction. The spell needs a tweak IMHO since it punishes the non-casters which depends on their equipment. So said, MD is a killing weapon held by the wizard to kill those fighters, rogues and stuff.


Craft contingent spell is one method for sepecialists banning evo to get contngency, as ooposed to the shadow evocation route, if you're keeping evo, there's no need to bother. If your keeping illusion you can just wait. If you're losing both, well you might want it. Either way your really only using to cast celerity.

Either way, I don't see how dodging celerity dazing is so broken, wilders usually spend a lot of effort learning to dodge dazing, and no one complains about that.

It may seem like disjunction affects non casters harder, but it's really good for wiping away multiple layers of caster protections, and it's the only good way of doing so (GDM will leave too many alone). The effect is powerful and simple, trying to "fix it" would likely render it useless.

And by stating that you use "common sense" is a bad argument and insulting. You are ipso facto stating tippy has no common sense, which is probably untrue, and "common sense" is not an arguement, it's indefineable and therefore a logical fallacy.

I'm not saying that I want to GM for tippy (too much winning), but he's got a firm understanding of the rules, and the "rules abuses" being complained about (most of which are completely in line with obvious intended use (celerity, Feeblemind, disjunction, shapechange, contigency). I'll admit ice assassin is fishy, but that's actually how the spell works.

[Myth]

Well considering that I ban Wish abuse, chain-gating, candle of invocation abuse etc. I don't see how my players would get any means to replace 20th level WBL just like that. I don't allow any means of infinite loops, and stupid things like selling Walls of Iron on the market to get gold.

So, you're pro Disjunction so long as the DM fiats your loot back to you somehow. What if you get what you get, and I still fry your gear?

Also I fail to see how you will deal with Ice Assassins of yourself. Everything you have, they have. And there can be a lot more of them. The whole point is that you are using the nukes and you expect to be nuked back by the DM, but just enough so it's fun, and not nuked into all oblivion.

In this case the DM has an infinite supply of nukes, who are intelligent and can make newer, better nukes as you somehow avoid the previous barrage. I don't see how this will end well for the player.

[Emperor Tippy]

Well considering that I ban Wish abuse, chain-gating, candle of invocation abuse etc. I don't see how my players would get any means to replace 20th level WBL just like that. I don't allow any means of infinite loops, and stupid things like selling Walls of Iron on the market to get gold.
There are hundreds of ways to get free money.


So, you're pro Disjunction so long as the DM fiats your loot back to you somehow. What if you get what you get, and I still fry your gear?
Then the DM needs to re-balance encounters and challenges to compensate for lower wealth. WBL isn't how much wealth you should have gained by that point in your career, it's how much wealth you should have at that point. The game presupposes that every level 20 character (that doesn't have VoP) will have 760,000 GP worth of gear at any given point in time. Get hit with disjunction? The DM is supposed to compensate by giving you enough (useful) treasure to get you back up to 760,000 GP worth of gear in short order. The PC's having less gear should be a plot point, not a random event.


Also I fail to see how you will deal with Ice Assassins of yourself. Everything you have, they have. And there can be a lot more of them. The whole point is that you are using the nukes and you expect to be nuked back by the DM, but just enough so it's fun, and not nuked into all oblivion.

In this case the DM has an infinite supply of nukes, who are intelligent and can make newer, better nukes as you somehow avoid the previous barrage. I don't see how this will end well for the player.
Because it is, by the rules, impossible to cause me any harm. I also lack the ability to cause the Ice Assassin copies of me any harm (at least without manipulate form abuse), but that doesn't really matter all that much.

[MukkTB]

Emperor Tippy is at the far edge of practical optimization. He also plays mostly from mid to high level and has spent a lot more time than most of us would even care to mastering the game rules. For his play style he is correct. Even with the disjunction thing he is correct. If the DM hits the party in the wallet he either should provide an opportunity to get it back later or drop the challenge level of the encounters for the party until they earn it back 'the hard way.' Its not the DM's job to torture the players or arbitrarily kill them.


Now lets talk about mid optimization at lower levels. 1-6 lets say. Is it worth being a specialist wizard over a generalist? The specialist gains 1-3 extra spells at this level. In exchange he loses access to certain schools. I'd think the generalist is more optimized. A generalist wizard will have enough spells to fight through the standard 4-5 encounters per day. He just has to be careful to cast the right ones. He can carry a couple scrolls or a cheap wand if he runs dry. He shouldn't need them often if the DM isn't overloading him on encounters. The versatility isn't made up for by the few extra spells.

Now lets look at alternate cases to the mid op 4-5 encounter per day play style.

#1 The DM drops many encounters per day so that a day of adventuring is a test of endurance. (Low level, mid op)
1 more of your highest level spell is useful for a 5-6 encounter per day thing. But that's not how you do endurance. I'm not entirely sure what the solution is at low level. If I were in that situation I'd look to long duration buffs, and try to find safe places to hang my pointy hat hiding out from the encounters of the DM trying to kill me. I'd make some NPC friends who might protect me. I'd sneak and hide and pay attention to the RP aspects closely. I wouldn't try to power directly through the problem at low level. At any rate the extra couple spells from specializing do not solve the problem and the loss of versatility is painful enough to make generalist > specialist.

#2 The party is tier 3 or lower. (Low Level, mid op)
This is permission to run wild if you want. You can outshine everyone else within the first couple levels specialist or not. Its not really needed though. By restricting your spell selection you can move yourself closer to the tier 3 magic users. It would be more in keeping with the spirit of how the party seems to want to play. It really just depends on your goals. The thing about being the only tier 1 in a low tier party is that one of these things will happen.
A The DM targets you specifically with the hardest challenges. The monsters all try to kill you first. Ect.
B The DM lets you run around dominating everything and the other party members get to watch you play.
C You spend your time buffing and enabling other party members to shine.
D You artificially limit your own power some other way by becoming a specialist blaster or something.
Specialist caster or not just depends on which case you think would be most fun.

[Emperor Tippy]

The best way to deal with endurance runs is simply to not cast when you don't need to. Can your fighter/rogue/factotum/swordsage/etc. party members deal with the fight with minimal risk without your help? If yes then you simply hang back and let them fight the encounter.

As a wizard you should be stepping in when one of the following occurs 1) the party lacks a critical ability for dealing with the enemy efficiently (such as against an incorporeal enemy at low levels) or 2) the enemy stands a fair chance of actually killing a party member if you don't intervene. Otherwise, and absent special circumstances (say dealing with an enemy before he can raise an alarm), you should let the rest of your party deal with as much of the encounter(s) as you can.

Buy/make a wand of Fell Drain Magic Missile if you want to plink away at enemies in most fights. You would be amazed how many people forget to pick up immunity to magic missile and it's a no attack roll, no save, negative level (assuming you can beat the enemies SR) from long range.

In higher level play you contribute as much as possible with your long duration buffs and the like (shapechange, Ice Assassin, Simulacrum, etc.) and actually cast as few new spells as possible. At least until/unless you pick up a Mage's Lubrication trap to carry around, and then you just limit yourself to your 5th level or lower spell slots and throw them around like candy.

[Darth Stabber]

Buy/make a wand of Fell Drain Magic Missile if you want to plink away at enemies in most fights. You would be amazed how many people forget to pick up immunity to magic missile and it's a no attack roll, no save, negative level (assuming you can beat the enemies SR) from long range.

I'm really surprised those aren't considered standard adventuring gear for any character who can use them. My last archivist went through two of them to great effect (we fought a cult of tharizdun, they dropped a divine scroll of Magic missile, and the warlock had craft wand to go with my fell drain. And having a warlock alongside your archivist is awesome during down time, got a bunch of spells that way.)

[Flickerdart]

Mage's Lubrication
If you know what I mean :smallwink:

[Suddo]

Celerity isn't in Core, Completes, or Races. And no spell compendium or fiendish codex?

Also what are we trying to make builds for?

Lack of Domain Wizard, flaws, Incantatrix, and Elf Generalist hurt of course but it's not a game breaker by any means.

Sorry I always forget a couple of books. Yeah PHB2 and Spell Compendium. What's great in Fiendish Codex?

I personally just want to see your build ideas within the context of what my next game is going to allow. The DM personally disallows ACF but I want to see what ACF you think are good beyond Elvish Generalist and Domain Wizards.

[Darth Stabber]

Sorry I always forget a couple of books. Yeah PHB2 and Spell Compendium. What's great in Fiendish Codex?

I personally just want to see your build ideas within the context of what my next game is going to allow. The DM personally disallows ACF but I want to see what ACF you think are good beyond Elvish Generalist and Domain Wizards.

Abrupt jaunt for conjurers!

[Suddo]

Abrupt jaunt for conjurers!

Yeah but Tippy argued against that being worth and right now I'm tending to agree with him.

[Emperor Tippy]

Sorry I always forget a couple of books. Yeah PHB2 and Spell Compendium. What's great in Fiendish Codex?
Embrace/Shun the Dark Chaos.


I personally just want to see your build ideas within the context of what my next game is going to allow. The DM personally disallows ACF but I want to see what ACF you think are good beyond Elvish Generalist and Domain Wizards.
Spontaneous Divination and Elf Generalist are the two really good wizard ACF's.


Yeah but Tippy argued against that being worth and right now I'm tending to agree with him.
It's worth a 5,500 GP magic item (Shadow Cloak from Drow of the Underdark). Double if you make it slotless. Buy 3 or 4 if you want to use it a dozen times a day from some reason.

All told, Abrupt Jaunt is worth at best around 50K GP.

[Suddo]

Embrace/Shun the Dark Chaos.

Of course. Yeah I tend to think that is a tad too good, specifically with the Marital Profs from Elfs.

Edit:
Do you think that Spontaneous Divinatoin is worth it if the DM plays limits the amount you can augury? Say that either gods bore of your questions or something similar. That and that they make the gods less than omnipotent meaning that if you actively try and break their visions its your fault.

Edit:
While I'm at it. You say that being a Grey Elf is better than a Human. I tend to disagree with this due to Able Learner and several other Human feats. Beyond Elven Generalist is the +2 Int still worth it?

[Darth Stabber]

While I'm at it. You say that being a Grey Elf is better than a Human. I tend to disagree with this due to Able Learner and several other Human feats. Beyond Elven Generalist is the +2 Int still worth it?

The benefits of able learner in a wizard build are questionable. And the other human feats are even more questionable, especially given that wizards already have a ton of feats they already need/want a lot more, especially if going for PRCs. The extra human feat will probably be used on something without human as a prereq. The +2int makes up for the human skill points, and if stats are rolled it gives you a better option to assign an otherwise questionable roll to int and do alright. Also the int is more spells, better save DCs, and better knowledge and spellcraft checks (which the human skill points don't make up for, though the difference is rather small). And if you allow chaos shuffle it's free stuff to shuffle away, making up for the feat you didn't get, and even if you can't shuffle it the extra profs you can use them for a spellstoring brilliant energy weapon. Personally I prefer deep imaskari, since a dex hit is easier to stomach than con, and spell clutch is cute if not great.

[Emperor Tippy]

Do you think that Spontaneous Divinatoin is worth it if the DM plays limits the amount you can augury? Say that either gods bore of your questions or something similar. That and that they make the gods less than omnipotent meaning that if you actively try and break their visions its your fault.

Yes, it's effectively trading a feat for (for practical purposes) almost as many extra spell slots as specialization gives you. Without Spontaneous Divination you are going to prepare True Strike, See Invisibility, Arcane Sight, True Seeing, etc. You might not end up casting the spells but you will prepare them, and any spell that you prepare but don't cast is a wasted spell slot. With SD you can load those slots (even if you know, for example, that you are going to be casting True Seeing later in the day) with other spells that might or might not become useful so that you have them on hand if you need them.

And at the end of the day you can burn all your remaining spells on divinations. Have some magic unknown magic items lying around and unused 6th level spells? Turn them into Analyze Dweomer's. Have an 8th level slot left? Cast Moment of Prescience before you go to sleep so that you don't have to cast it the next day.

[Suddo]

Yes, it's effectively trading a feat for (for practical purposes) almost as many extra spell slots as specialization gives you. Without Spontaneous Divination you are going to prepare True Strike, See Invisibility, Arcane Sight, True Seeing, etc. You might not end up casting the spells but you will prepare them, and any spell that you prepare but don't cast is a wasted spell slot. With SD you can load those slots (even if you know, for example, that you are going to be casting True Seeing later in the day) with other spells that might or might not become useful so that you have them on hand if you need them.

And at the end of the day you can burn all your remaining spells on divinations. Have some magic unknown magic items lying around and unused 6th level spells? Turn them into Analyze Dweomer's. Have an 8th level slot left? Cast Moment of Prescience before you go to sleep so that you don't have to cast it the next day.

I thought so. You do have to take Wizard 5 to get it right?

[Emperor Tippy]

Edit:
While I'm at it. You say that being a Grey Elf is better than a Human. I tend to disagree with this due to Able Learner and several other Human feats. Beyond Elven Generalist is the +2 Int still worth it?
Humans get 1 extra feat and 1 extra skill point per level.

The Int provides the same amount of skill points as being human does, and an elf nets 3 feats over a human with Chaos Shuffle (and even without it, would you spend a feat to get a +2 untyped bonus to Int as a wizard?).

Grey Elf also let's you qualify to take Faerie Mysteries Initiate. That let's you trade Con to HP for Int to HP. With your SAD (compared to most classes with large HD) you can often end up with more HP than anyone else (at level 20 with maxed Int you get +13 HP per HD, for an average of 15.5 HP per HD).

The Dex bonus also helps your AC (and unlike fighter types you can't switch to heavier armor to up your AC), your ranged touch attacks, and your Reflex Saves.

Able Learner isn't an issue. Most of the time when building a wizard you have a harder time figuring out what to spend your skill points on. You max concentration, spellcraft, put a point into each knowledge skill so that you can make checks with a DC over 10, and then pour the rest into whatever you feel like. You can make up for low skill ranks in most skills with one spell or another. And you can always pay a psion to psychic reformation you so that you can redistribute all your skill points if you find see a problem.


I thought so. You do have to take Wizard 5 to get it right?
Yep, but unless you are using Master Specialist you aren't going to be PrCing out of wizard until level 6 anyways. And MS requires that you be specialized.

MS also isn't worth it unless you are going to stay in it for a while. You have to have 3 levels of wizard before you qualify to take it which means that your first MS level will be at ECL 4. That means only 2 levels before you meet the qualifications for the good PrC's most of the time, which means you have netted a grand total of 1 free spell for your spellbook. If you take the first 3 levels you break even on net feats for a non MS wizard (you spent one to get in, missed the Wiz 5 bonus feat, and gained two feats from MS).

MS just really isn't that good. Oh, the Major School Esoterica are very nice and in the right builds they can be good, and MS is better than straight wizard levels, but compared to your other PrC choices?

Conjuration is the best specialty, hands down, for MS. It's effectively unlimited free Quicken for your conjurations and you were always going to be preparing conjurations so you don't have the problem of looking for things to fill your excess slots with. You can make a down right nasty mailman using a Conjuration MS. Wiz 3/MS 10/Incantatrix 7 giving up illusion, necromancy, and enchantment before spending 3 feats to buy back one of them (illusion is my preference). Thanks to not needing Quicken you get to lop off 2 +0 meta reducers that you would otherwise be including.

[NNescio]

Conjuration is the best specialty, hands down, for MS. It's effectively unlimited free Quicken for your conjurations and you were always going to be preparing conjurations so you don't have the problem of looking for things to fill your excess slots with. You can make a down right nasty mailman using a Conjuration MS. Wiz 3/MS 10/Incantatrix 7 giving up illusion, necromancy, and enchantment before spending 3 feats to buy back one of them (illusion is my preference). Thanks to not needing Quicken you get to lop off 2 +0 meta reducers that you would otherwise be including.

I thought Major School Esoterica can only be used up to three times a day. Is there some trick involved?

[Emperor Tippy]

I thought Major School Esoterica can only be used up to three times a day. Is there some trick involved?
You would be correct, now I feel stupid. :smallannoyed:

Re-read MS when typing that post and missed the line about them only being 3/day. That makes MS even worse. It's best capstone ability is effectively just a limited greater rod of quicken. You should not be able to buy a 10 level PrC's capstone ability for 170K GP.

[Big Fau]

You should not be able to buy a 10 level PrC's capstone ability for 170K GP.

Do bear in mind that the PrC was printed when WotC finally started to understand the system they wrote, whereas the rod was printed at 3.X's birth and was not play tested properly.

[opticalshadow]

@lact

i agree with you, i was simply offering the one excersie that would diffnitivly prove one statement either way.

i also dont think tippy is incorrect, but he does seem to be working outside what id concider practical optimazation. theres alot of thigns he brings up that are simply not allowed in nearly any group ive been, or known of. onyl groups that play specifically to challange players, with the intent on trying to kill them.

now, in his experience his group may be the norm, and i wont argue that, because im not him, and i cant know what he conciders normal or practicle. which is why i also suggested a set of rules to better define the idea.

[Emperor Tippy]

Do bear in mind that the PrC was printed when WotC finally started to understand the system they wrote, whereas the rod was printed at 3.X's birth and was not play tested properly.
Nah, Greater Rod's of Quicken are balanced. It's spending a quarter of 20th level WBL to get three spells off faster. You could do the exact same thing with 3 belts of battle for about 1/6th the cost.

MS should remove the 3/day limit on Major School Esoterica. That wouldn't make MS spectacular but it would put it inline with most other wizard PrC's. And considering that you have to give up 2 schools of magic to get in, and then 10 levels of not taking better PrC's the change to Major School Esoterica wouldn't be out of line.

Hell, a 2 level dip into Shadowcraft Mage and 1 feat let's you pretty much get a superior version of MS's illusionist capstone (and pick up HiPS as a bonus). For 3 feats and 2 levels you can completely duplicate the MS capstone (Eschew Materials, Sanctum Spell, Still Spell, and Shadowcraft Mage 2).

[Big Fau]

Hell, a 2 level dip into Shadowcraft Mage and 1 feat let's you pretty much get a superior version of MS's illusionist capstone (and pick up HiPS as a bonus). For 3 feats and 2 levels you can completely duplicate the MS capstone (Eschew Materials, Sanctum Spell, Still Spell, and Shadowcraft Mage 2).

You are comparing a balanced and flavorful PrC to a flavorful yet utterly broken PrC...

For what it's worth, I feel that is kinda unfair.

[Darth Stabber]

Master specialist is pretty good for enchanters, the minor esoterica denys save bonuses due to being threatened/attacked, and no bonuses on saves for orders against it's nature, so that ain't bad, not great, but not bad. And the major esoterica forces a second save the next round if they pass, which is nice against those lucky crit save (and you shouldn't need it more than 3/day). Plus "free" greater spell focus and +2CL isn't bad. It's still not great, but it's a worthy option. The conjuration abilities are better, but conjurers also get more mileage out of other PRCs, meaning that it will take more to tempt them into taking this class. Now having said all that, optimizers are unlikely to pick to pick enchantment as a speciality, making the point moot for this discussion. Just an aside for those who care.

The necromancer abilities aren't too bad either, if you are aiming at making hordes of the walking dead, but since that's territory much better covered by clerics and dread necromancers the PRC kinda falls flat. If they had actually focused the necromancer esoterica on what wizard necromancy is actually good at (debuffing and killing) we might have something to talk about.

[Emperor Tippy]

It's not exactly bad, there are just lots of better things you could be spending your precious, precious levels on.

Basically, the opportunity costs are high.

[Darth Stabber]

It's not exactly bad, there are just lots of better things you could be spending your precious, precious levels on.

Basically, the opportunity costs are high.

True, especially considering it's 10/10 casting. It's also a nice trick for getting the Skill focus(spellcraft) requirement of archmage knocked out early (at the cost of a more useful bonus feat from wizard5). So it you plan on going archmage you've got a great way to spend a level. If spellcraft counted as a knowledge (I know it doesn't, but if you think about it, it really should) it would be great to take the 2lvl dip and pop over to loremaster (since loremaster's only obnoxious requirement is skill focus any knowledge). As a GM I might allow it, but I am fairly permissive. MS also has the nice distinction of rediculously lenient prereqs, with all of them being things you might/probably have anyway. If I wasn't starting a PRC till 7, taking 1lvl of MS would be a no brainer, but I can't really think of why I would do that.

[NNescio]

True, especially considering it's 10/10 casting. It's also a nice trick for getting the Skill focus(spellcraft) requirement of archmage knocked out early (at the cost of a more useful bonus feat from wizard5). So it you plan on going archmage you've got a great way to spend a level. ...

Or Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil, which otherwise has several annoying prereqs. MS seems made for Iot7fV, and both classes are abjuration PrCs. Imagine a newbie playing an Abjurer. Spell Focus: Abjuration is an intuitive choice which also happens to be a shared requirement for both PrCs. MS gives you the exact two feats you need to finish qualifying for Iot7fV. And since MS can be qualified for after Level 3, you have precisely enough room to finish both PrCs. Heck, you can pick up MS and finish it, then do the same for Iot7fV afterwards, and you'd only need to pick just one feat in your whole career. Abjurer 3/MS 10/Iot7fV 7 is a simple, elegant, and flavorful build.

(And if you have a less than permissive DM, the build only involves two relatively well-known splatbooks and no settings-specific material, with the fluff being open-ended and fairly nonrestrictive.)

'course, there's a lot of room for improvement, and most of the levels in MS are unnecessary. Buffers might be interested in subbing levels out for War Weaver. If early-entry shenanigans are in play, one can take a level in Cloistered Cleric for Divine Defiance and the Inquisition domain (the latter can also be gotten through Planar Touchstone). Archmage is at least viable in most Wizard builds, and here it gives Arcane Reach and Mastery of Counterspelling.

Still, as 10/10 casting PrCs go MS is somewhat on the weaker end, and past a certain point more free metamagic is probably better than the Iot7fV's defensive options.

[Suddo]

i also dont think tippy is incorrect, but he does seem to be working outside what id concider practical optimazation. theres alot of thigns he brings up that are simply not allowed in nearly any group ive been, or known of. onyl groups that play specifically to challange players, with the intent on trying to kill them.

I completely disagree. Sure his ways may be on the high-op extreme but he isn't wrong. Giving up 2 schools of spells isn't worth a couple of spells. Even if you consider your spells precious. If you are doing something specific sure but if you are just being a wizard, the godly batman wizard which the title presents, then you can't argue that once you leave core 2 schools are worth it. And even in core its hard. I mean present him with rules to work in and I bet he'll spew out a decent argument.

[darksolitaire]

I completely disagree. Sure his ways may be on the high-op extreme but he isn't wrong. Giving up 2 schools of spells isn't worth a couple of spells. Even if you consider your spells precious. If you are doing something specific sure but if you are just being a wizard, the godly batman wizard which the title presents, then you can't argue that once you leave core 2 schools are worth it. And even in core its hard. I mean present him with rules to work in and I bet he'll spew out a decent argument.

And I disagree with you. There are many ways to skin a cat, and the more sources available, there less there is reason to stick to your schools. For example, you can find battlefield control from Abjuration, Conjuration, Evocation, Transmutation and Illusion.

But anyway, this thread seems operate outside optimization level where I can claim any expertise, so I'll probably stick to reading it for now.

[Lactantius]

@Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil:
this prestige class is the goal of my current build (which is also the reason for this discussion since I want to find the better result between FS and Gen).

Again, a good example for low/medium op. Io7V is considered very powerful, and I reevaluated it to find out if it is too strong for our group.
Most discussions tangled around the fact that it is too cheap if combined with the master specialist.
Well, since I dont like the master specialist route (too focused), I go for the Io7V by paying all 3 feats.
But I must admit two things:
1.) Effectively, the MS route gives you only +1 feat since you wouldn't gain the bonus feat at wizard 5.
2.) The class progression for level spots 4 - 9 (where you would progress as master specialist) is - speaking of gained powers - pretty low IMHO.
What do you gain there?
a) minor school esoterica for dispels. Well, the same bonus type can be achieved by buying a dispelling chord. It gives +2 and is en par with 5 levels as MS. Even at MS 6, i doubt that the difference of +1 is worth 6 spent class levels.
b) extra spell: if it would include all abjuration spells, it would be sweet since you could choose a cleric or druid spell. But since this is not the case, its a worthless class feature.
c) CL +1. CL is always nice, but for abjurations it means mostly a slightly longer duration of the spell, which is insignificant.

Many would say that the go MS till level 10 to get another cheesy feature (AMF on the fighter, etc).
I don't like that route since I would like to get the Io7V as early as possible, so we can take only 6 levels as MS, maybe 7 if we take proc. apprentice and start the MS at level 3.
Then, we would gain the moderate school esoterica which is strong, but circumstantial (requires the casting of an abjuration in combat to work).
Furthermore, i can dip at level 6-9 for some good prestige classes like MoAO, Fatespinner, Divine Oracle (without otyughs hole cheese) or Paragnostic Apostle. Or a mix of some of those PrC.
If fits better the theme of the character to get more new, different powers (which leads again to the big goal of versatility) instead of a full specializiation in one thing.

So, we are looking again for practical optimization.
That means:
- Yes, we take a Tier-1-class with a strong PrC, good spell selection and good class features.

- Yes, we discuss about the question how many spells/day you need and what price it would be to sacrifice a magic school.

- No, we don't use stuff which vialote the one most important thing which defines playing D&D: the social contract.
That's what I mean, DarthStabber, if i talk about the common sense.
The rules of playing are not defined by the letters in your rulebook alone and what they could allow RAW.
Instead, the rules of playing are defined by what the fellow players want, what game style they prefer and what limit of optimization is good (= common sense) for the sake of all players.
Sure, if a group likes the gaming style of loading up weapons of mass destruction and make a warfare race with the DM (while the other players minions observate this spectacle in applause and awe), then the options of Tippy are legitimate.
My experience at many gaming tables is that most players don't want this style. The like to keep it low, keep the flow. If there is a player which sees D&D more as a opt. race vs. the DM and the fellow players, then usually he does not fit in the group and wanders on to the next round.

I would even go that far that the general power of the wizard class is not that dangerous at the practical gaming as it is postulated in academic discussions at the message boards.
It's all about options, using them and how far you go without having the urgent feeling that this using just does not feel right and within the spirit of the game.

There is no infinite money making source, even if the rules could make it happen.
Plus, the social contract is above the RAW, a thing people tend to forget when they make claims and rights to take a feature.
No, there is no such right. A DM just can say "No," and that's it.

Maybe this describes what I understand under a practical optimization.


@Specialists vs. Generalists:
well, I'm pretty open minded for new ideas and would like to see ways to gain a bit more with the generalist.
What I have read so far are those arguments:
1.) A generalist gives enough spells per day to cover the 4-5 encounters.
2.) Losing 2 or more schools is a crucial cut for a wizard which would lower their overall power from Tier 1 to Tier 2.
3.) The extra slots of specialists are only marginal at best and not worth mentioning.
If I forgot an argument, just add it ;)

I try to answer all those 3 arguments within one answer. Mathematically, this could be right. But there are some handicaps within this argument:
- As Tippy said, you are restricted to use 4-5 spells each battle, not more.
- You cast very cautious and careful since you can't afford to run out of spells too fast.
- You are enforced to a certain gaming style. Maybe that's my main problem. I have played wizard lonh enough to know the drawbacks of this class. One is the boring and time-taking process of preparing the spell selection each day. As I started to generate a new wizard, I had the idea to play him smooth and with a certain flow. Planning should still be part of this class (since it works well with the academic and scientific theme), but at the gaming table, it should run smoother.
Then I searched for features which would support a smoother and not so much planned through spell selection.
I found three features that would make this idea happen.
a) get a bit of spontaenous casting to have the ability to hold back to preparation until you actually need the certain spell.
Tools: open slots, spellpool, uncanny forethought or spontaneous divination. Its up to you to say which is the best option.

b) generate a daily-routine-spell list which inclused spells I would use each day without a second thought. So, this slots are not wasted at the end of the day.

c) get more slots to have more freedom over many different spells. That's what lead me to the question: (focused) specialist yes/no?

d) at medium level, the wizard could afford those features by using adequate items. Biggest winner is here the runestaff IMHO.
He can even use prepared spell slots and make the problem of wasted slots non-existent. Even more, a runestaff can keep those circumstantial spells online (for example: dismissal, banishment, assay spell resistance).
You get the idea.
Even more, it makes spontaenous divination useless. As we found out, the utility divinations can be cast with open slots. The combat divinations can now be sustitutes by runestaves or even wands.

e) the idea of cycle magic.
As presented before, it is a good idea to outsource extra spell slots and use them the following day.
This fits with the rules of "recent casting limit" since we took a 8-hour-break after we had cast our long time buffs.


Well, all those points make the wizard more accessible and easier to play.

For our specialist-discussion, I would not say that the spell loss leads us to Tier 2 (and even if it would, it is no real problem).
If I take a good look at the avaiable spells and verify what I would lose, the loss is not such a decisive loss at all.

To shorten it up:
Giving up enchantment means losing charms, dominates, symbols and power words. Some control spells are strong (feeblemind, dominate, hold, ottos dance) but they are exchangeable. The other schools have many spells which do the control-job, too.
Giving up necromancy means losing the ability to create and buff undead creatures and to debuff the opponents.
If I would like to focus on creating undead, I would go for the dread necromancer in the first place. So, this is irrelevant.
The debuffs are pretty good and not that easy to substitute. But if we take a closer look, we find many spells that change the conditions of the opponents by blinding, dazing, stunning, ability-reducing, nauseating, grappling, entangling them or just hindering their movement.
So speaken, summons and tactical area control spells fulfill this job good enough to substitute the necromantic debuffs.

Therefore, I cannot see how a wizard has less versability to deal with a problem by giving up enchantment and necromancy. Even evocation is exchangeable, if you use contingency-subs.
So, I don't see how the wizard is Tier 2 now and why the lost school are still better than the extra spell slots.

One of the argument was: "It is only 9 or 19 extra spells per day."
I alreasy tried to explain that it is not only the numer alone that counts.
It's the quality of the spell slots.
A FS can apply his highest available spell two times more than a generalist, mostly doubling up the ressources.
A FS can use more of the stronger spell grades (3-5) and has not the problem of the generalist to memorize spell A or spell B for the 4th-level-spell-slot. He just takes both. That's real spontaneity and versatility IMHO.
We must forget the idea that the generalist can tailor his spell selection because of the assumption he would use massive divinations,scry, teleport and come back later. Instead, we must deal with the real adventure scenarios: usually, the party is on the move and gets into the combat suddenly. So, a wizard should work under these conditions.
Sure, it is nice if we can plan the assault on the BBEG by planning, scrying and gathering information. But that's just the icing on the cake, not the daily adventure routine scenario.

Remember what I said about running the wizard smoother and more fluid?

I think it works better with the mechanisms I showed up, especially by taking as much spell slots as you can.
There are never too many slots. Even if you have slots left, you can outsource them to day 2 with cycle magic.

Well, if you can show me why I sould not specialize (by showing up the lost and really, really needed spells), I would reconsider it.
A alternative could be a pure diviner since it has some features of both approaches: +1 extra slot/grade and only 1 lost school.

Thoughts?
Comments?

[Malachei]

Plus, the social contract is above the RAW

Actually, RAW include certain things you may call "social contract". An example: See DMG, p. 13 "Keeping Game Balance"

The DMG even addresses "Metagame Thinking" and thereby the issue that for some aspects of optimization, characters would need to know the game stats of monsters etc.

[Emperor Tippy]

So, we are looking again for practical optimization.
That means:
- No, we don't use stuff which vialote the one most important thing which defines playing D&D: the social contract.
That's what I mean, DarthStabber, if i talk about the common sense.
The rules of playing are not defined by the letters in your rulebook alone and what they could allow RAW.
Instead, the rules of playing are defined by what the fellow players want, what game style they prefer and what limit of optimization is good (= common sense) for the sake of all players.
Sure, if a group likes the gaming style of loading up weapons of mass destruction and make a warfare race with the DM (while the other players minions observate this spectacle in applause and awe), then the options of Tippy are legitimate.
Who said anything about making warfare with the DM? I sure didn't. The DM's job is to run the world that the players interact with and make sure that the group has fun.

My experience at many gaming tables is that most players don't want this style. The like to keep it low, keep the flow. If there is a player which sees D&D more as a opt. race vs. the DM and the fellow players, then usually he does not fit in the group and wanders on to the next round.
D&D is not an optimization race vs. the DM, and what I have proposed isn't part of one. In point of fact what I have proposed is good roleplaying. You are a wizard and having chosen to go adventuring. This is a profession that kills upwards of 90% of it's members inside of a year, with most being lucky to make it through one adventure. To simply make it to level 5 by adventuring means, IC, that you are one of the baddest mother ****** around; that you are intelligent, ruthless, paranoid, and lucky. To go beyond that point means 1) that you have a goal sufficiently powerful (or are insane enough) to risk not just your life but the utter destruction of your soul to achieve and are willing to give up the life of luxury that you could be living instead, 2) that as a wizard you are already a genius and could be one of the smartest entities on the planet. Do you really think that such a wizard is going to take any risk that he can mitigate?

By the time you make it to level 20 you are more intelligent than many gods, you have survived years of constant warfare against creatures of legend, your exploits have broken vast empires and rose others to take their place, you are a full legend in your own right. The only way you survive every day is by being paranoid and careful enough that your enemies can't kill you that day.


I would even go that far that the general power of the wizard class is not that dangerous at the practical gaming as it is postulated in academic discussions at the message boards.
It's all about options, using them and how far you go without having the urgent feeling that this using just does not feel right and within the spirit of the game.
You can play the most balls out powerful wizard around and if you choose not to, not dominate the game. There is nothing like Cindy ignoring the fight with a great wyrm red dragon to play with a wolf cub that wandered into the area.


There is no infinite money making source, even if the rules could make it happen.
Plus, the social contract is above the RAW, a thing people tend to forget when they make claims and rights to take a feature.
No, there is no such right. A DM just can say "No," and that's it.

Maybe this describes what I understand under a practical optimization.
The DM should always say 'no' if something doesn't belong.


@Specialists vs. Generalists:
well, I'm pretty open minded for new ideas and would like to see ways to gain a bit more with the generalist.
What I have read so far are those arguments:
1.) A generalist gives enough spells per day to cover the 4-5 encounters.
It gives more than enough at higher levels because you can use multiple methods to get far larger numbers (unlimited 5th level and lower, shapechange, IA, etc.)

2.) Losing 2 or more schools is a crucial cut for a wizard which would lower their overall power from Tier 1 to Tier 2.
A FS is a crucial cut that dumps a wizard into Tier 2. Just specializing doesn't unless you go, say, evoker and bar Conjuration and Transmutation. But giving up 3 (or more) schools is just too much lost versatility.

3.) The extra slots of specialists are only marginal at best and not worth mentioning.
If I forgot an argument, just add it ;)
Oh they are nice, they just aren't worth what you give up to get them.


I try to answer all those 3 arguments within one answer. Mathematically, this could be right. But there are some handicaps within this argument:
- As Tippy said, you are restricted to use 4-5 spells each battle, not more.
Most fights, at any level, are over within 5 or so rounds anyways. To be casting dozens of spells in most fights you need to be messing with time.

- You cast very cautious and careful since you can't afford to run out of spells too fast.
You should be doing that with any caster of any type.

- You are enforced to a certain gaming style. Maybe that's my main problem. I have played wizard lonh enough to know the drawbacks of this class. One is the boring and time-taking process of preparing the spell selection each day. As I started to generate a new wizard, I had the idea to play him smooth and with a certain flow. Planning should still be part of this class (since it works well with the academic and scientific theme), but at the gaming table, it should run smoother.
Then I searched for features which would support a smoother and not so much planned through spell selection.
I found three features that would make this idea happen.
a) get a bit of spontaenous casting to have the ability to hold back to preparation until you actually need the certain spell.
Tools: open slots, spellpool, uncanny forethought or spontaneous divination. Its up to you to say which is the best option.

b) generate a daily-routine-spell list which inclused spells I would use each day without a second thought. So, this slots are not wasted at the end of the day.
Wizards (and any caster without a very limited spells known list) do involve more book keeping than most other classes. A and B are fine, and I recommend (when you have the time) reading through the various books you have and listing down (with spell level, school, book, and page number) what spells (and items) you see that could be useful and writing out a short summary for each with when you think it would be useful. Give it a ranking as well (say 0-10 with 0 being spells so worthless that you can't envision them ever being useful and 10 being things like shapechange, ice assassin, time stop, and other spells that are pretty much must haves and the only reason not to take it is (possibly) for balance reasons). Then write up your general purpose spell list (this is what you prepare when you aren't doing something specific) and a few other spell packages for common situations (underwater, on another plane, in the underdark, fighting large groups of enemies, social situations/politics, undead, etc.). That way you can rapidly prepare a spell list tailored to your situation.

I also recommend that you go and make a physical copy of every spell that you have prepared (as in scan in the page, crop the spell, paste it in a document with your other spells, and print it). This one cuts down on book work immensely.

The easiest way to is to go and buy cheap 1 inch binders for each member of the group and then copy every feat, every common use spell, every magic item that you have, and every rule that you regularly refer to to paper and place them in the binder. Every time you level grab another character sheet and write up a new one (don't erase your old one) and put it in the book, this lets you revert your characters very rapidly if you get negative levels or the like.

My group can and does go entire games with no one opening a single book (the DM has the binder filled with monsters, pre made characters, etc.) and it flows a whole lot smoother.


c) get more slots to have more freedom over many different spells. That's what lead me to the question: (focused) specialist yes/no?
It's trading more freedom for more focus. What you have to give up to get those slots is a ton of versatility.


d) at medium level, the wizard could afford those features by using adequate items. Biggest winner is here the runestaff IMHO.
He can even use prepared spell slots and make the problem of wasted slots non-existent. Even more, a runestaff can keep those circumstantial spells online (for example: dismissal, banishment, assay spell resistance).
You get the idea.
Even more, it makes spontaenous divination useless. As we found out, the utility divinations can be cast with open slots. The combat divinations can now be sustitutes by runestaves or even wands.
Divinations can't be cast with open slots, at least not if you need them now. That also requires that you leave a lot of open slots. And yes, runestaves do improve things a lot for a specialist.


For our specialist-discussion, I would not say that the spell loss leads us to Tier 2 (and even if it would, it is no real problem).
If I take a good look at the avaiable spells and verify what I would lose, the loss is not such a decisive loss at all.

To shorten it up:
Giving up enchantment means losing charms, dominates, symbols and power words. Some control spells are strong (feeblemind, dominate, hold, ottos dance) but they are exchangeable. The other schools have many spells which do the control-job, too.
Please name any spell besides feeblemind that can drop a caster to 1 Int or Cha. Most save or loose spells actually aren't save or loose against a caster. Please name a spell that can do the same thing as dominate and isn't part of enchantment. Please name any spell that can do the same thing as Mind Rape.

Enchantment is filled with spells that aren't easy to replace. The reason it's one of the weaker schools is that most of it is mind affecting and gets stopped cold by a lot of common creature types and Mindblank; not because it's abilities can be easily replicated from other schools.


Giving up necromancy means losing the ability to create and buff undead creatures and to debuff the opponents.
If I would like to focus on creating undead, I would go for the dread necromancer in the first place. So, this is irrelevant.
The debuffs are pretty good and not that easy to substitute. But if we take a closer look, we find many spells that change the conditions of the opponents by blinding, dazing, stunning, ability-reducing, nauseating, grappling, entangling them or just hindering their movement.
So speaken, summons and tactical area control spells fulfill this job good enough to substitute the necromantic debuffs.
Necro gives you almost all of the offensive ability reducers and a fair amount of utility that can't be easily replicated in other ways; it is however the best school to give up.


Therefore, I cannot see how a wizard has less versability to deal with a problem by giving up enchantment and necromancy. Even evocation is exchangeable, if you use contingency-subs.
So, I don't see how the wizard is Tier 2 now and why the lost school are still better than the extra spell slots.
Contingency isn't the big thing in Evocation. You can fake that (better) with Craft Contingent. It's the force line and Invoke Magic that are the big losses. Evocation also has the best personal defensive spell in the game in Resilient Sphere.


One of the argument was: "It is only 9 or 19 extra spells per day."
I alreasy tried to explain that it is not only the numer alone that counts.
It's the quality of the spell slots.
A FS can apply his highest available spell two times more than a generalist, mostly doubling up the ressources.
At 2 extra spells (FS) that would be a 50% increase (at best). If you are an Abjuration specialist and aren't willing to use Disjunction then those extra 9th level slots really aren't a big gain. The only 9th level Abjurations that are generally useful are Disjunction, Prismatic Sphere, and Srinshee's Spell Shift. A few more may or may not be useful. This isn't like Transmutation specalisits who pick up extra uses of shapechange and time stop.


A FS can use more of the stronger spell grades (3-5) and has not the problem of the generalist to memorize spell A or spell B for the 4th-level-spell-slot. He just takes both. That's real spontaneity and versatility IMHO.
We must forget the idea that the generalist can tailor his spell selection because of the assumption he would use massive divinations,scry, teleport and come back later. Instead, we must deal with the real adventure scenarios: usually, the party is on the move and gets into the combat suddenly. So, a wizard should work under these conditions.
Sure, it is nice if we can plan the assault on the BBEG by planning, scrying and gathering information. But that's just the icing on the cake, not the daily adventure routine scenario.
You don't need to tailor your spell list, especially not after level 15+. And unlimited 5th level or lower spell slots is easy. Get a trap of Spell Engine and you can alter your entire spell list on the fly.


Remember what I said about running the wizard smoother and more fluid?

I think it works better with the mechanisms I showed up, especially by taking as much spell slots as you can.
There are never too many slots. Even if you have slots left, you can outsource them to day 2 with cycle magic.

Well, if you can show me why I sould not specialize (by showing up the lost and really, really needed spells), I would reconsider it.
A alternative could be a pure diviner since it has some features of both approaches: +1 extra slot/grade and only 1 lost school.

Thoughts?
Comments?
Divination specialist is a waste with spontaneous divination.

[Lactantius]

Some nice ideas and input, Tippy, cool!
Especially the feedback about bookkeeping and how to improve it are fine.
My whole idea of getting spontaenous casting and widen up the spell slots base on the idea to be flexible and don't get a headache by memorizing each day again.
On the other hand, you still refer to stuff I barred out. This does not help to evolve the discussion and find a good consens.
I would be cool to keep spells like ice assassin, shapechange or your weird traps out since it does not help finding a common base, y'know?
I read your postings that way that you play the game with heavy opt. modifiers, but you should recognize that some (if would even say many) people don't push the game THAT far.
That's what my comment about the race and warfare vs. the DM was: sure, maybe your group has a great time and a good focus on roleplaying.
But if you bring in questionable spells, you change the settings wholly.
You don't need to emphasize this approach with charcacter background and development. Not all wizards are played out the way you do, so there is no general assumption that they would learn all most powerful spells in any D&D-book to fulfill this job.
Not all wizards go for world domination or another race vs. the god's intelligence.
What I criticize here is that your general assumption is that we reach high level play, whatever happens. You also argue that a wizard player can pick dangerous (or even broken) spells without hindrance.

Again, this may be fine with your campaign. But here, we try to find a common base, playable for anyone and not restricted by applying certain stuff.

Well, if be woth agree to this common base, we could reach a consenus. Who knows, we all learn new stuff and find another style to play D&D. That's the great thing about it, n'est-pas? ;)

Okay, under this assumptions, I go again through the arguments. All readers are welcome to participate since I see there much evolving potential in this thread..

Argument 1: costs of banning school vs. getting extra spell slots.

We consider enchantment, evocation and necromancy as those magic school we would ban.

Concerning enchantment, I already made a short list which includes the most signature spells in this schools.
We have mostly control spells which are mind-affecting. Although powerful, they suffer some drawbacks:
a) they are binary. Either the target saves or it saves not. There is no medium success. To apply enchantments effectively, I would go so far to optimize your save DC with things like spell focus (enchantment).
b) Immunity. No doubt: immunity vs. mind-affecting is hard to deal with. But I wouldn't go THAT far to assume that most enemies are immune against enchantments.
The immunity of creatures (undeads, plants, oozes etc) is annoying, but not the real problem. Special creatures depend on the campaign and how often they are used. Even if you assume the typical crypta crawl, you would have to deal with the typical undeads like wights, skeletons or shadows. Those creatures need to be overcome by other measures than enchantment anyway, so this argument is pretty moot IMHO.
Second immunity sources are spells/spell-like-abilites.
I cannot share the fear of mind blank since this is a very special spell, available only to special class types (wizards or clerics with certain domains) under special circumstances (level 15+).
More likely is the protection from [alignment] spell since it is only level 1 and available to many classes. But even there are limits. PvE (and even its bigger brother, the magic circle) have a limited duration. So, they are no all-time-available anti-enchantment-tool.
So, I wouldn't be so harsh with the enchantment school.
Personally, I would consider to keep the school if i know which road the campaign will take. If we talk about a city campaign with lots of humanoids, politics and intrigue, enchantment is a valid choice.
Also if you consider certain character concepts like the "bargaining summoner" (TM), better known as the Malconvoker. He can make really good use of charms and dominates to control mighty fiends.

Generally, enchantment is a powerful school which has its applicability in- and out-of-combat. The problem is that you can get control effects by crowd control spells or debuffs from other schools.
Tippy proposed feeblemind and mindrape.
Mindrape is another one of those spells which dont help us at all. It is level 9, it is from a questionable source (BoVD) and its purely evil. Furthermore, even if you allow all those factors, I would find better useage for my 9th-level-slot. So, sorry, but mindrape does not fulfill the prerequisites of practical optimization.
Feeblemind is a good spell and pretty nasty, I agree. But even then, the spell is binary, again. A wizard confronted by this spell has 2 good defenses online against ist: a) protection vs. mind affecting, b) SR and c) the saving throw.
a) is easy to get, as we already argued: protection from [alignment]. Divine your opponent in the first place to apply it correctly (but frankly, evil is in most adventures the winner's choice).
SR is not a standard for the wizard, but neither is the example using a quickened feeblemind. We would be - again - at high level (how many level20-chars do you actually play, Tippy?) and if we are at this high level, having SR is no deal. Same goes for very high will saves. The -4 penalty will not change the fact that we have a good will save progression until level 17+, we have +5/+6 resistance bonus (by a cloak of using superior resistance) and we could get even better with luck bonus (robe of the vagabond, CC) or cleric's buffs.
So, feeblemind still keeps strong, no doubt. But please, under more real circumstances like casting feeblemind normally (non-quickened) between level 9-13.
Even this spell is exchangeable if we look for specific spellcaster disablers.
I find reciprocal gyre (CA-Version) pretty good for such cases. Even with 2 saves, this spell is pretty nice. The saves can be opt. at the first place if you go the Io7V route since you would have spell focus and greater spell focus. You could even apply spell enhancer, just to be sure.
Anyway, even if the target saves, he gets half damage.
At medium level, this is very much since the target will have many buffs online. Since the hp of wizards are low enough, this could lead to an instant kill or at least force the enemy wizard to heal/defend/run. The secondary effect is a real disabler. So, all in all, this is a real wizard disabler. You could even apply it to noncaster who got buffed. Arcane Sight is pretty much the standard at medium level, so you should know when to apply this spell and when not. Ideally, I would use this spell for my abjuration runestaff since it is one of those tools you don't need often (and therefore don't memorize it), but if you need it, you really need it.

Back to the enchantments.
Sooo...
we have managed to replace the school's effect with other spells. Sure, certain aims cannot be duplicated. Maybe there are times - like our city campaign example - you just want or need to control another human.

But for combat purpose, you can live without it.

Looking for Necromancy, Tippy agreed that it can be neglected easily.
Frankly, you cannot get other ability reducers that easy. But that's not the goal. The goal is more abstractly to debuff and deny the opponent. You can do that if you look for combat conditions and how to get them. Summons give grapple, glitterdust/fogs/grease/web give movement-penalty, stinking cloud/cloudkill give nauseating/poison and so on.
That's the whole idea.

We also agree that banning evocation is hard (even if assuming that everyone could afford craft contingent spell to substitute it).
Personally, I would not ban evocation and therefore, I would go for diviner or focused diviner specialist so that it only matters if I ban one or two school (enchantment or enchantment and necro).

Where are we now?
We analyzed the schools and their worth to find out if they are a real loss or not. Sure, you lose some abilites by giving up schools; that's just fine and the whole idea of giving something up.
But the more sourcebooks you use, the more substitutes you find.
We have made our examples, but here some others:
- Magic Missile, Teleport or Fireball can be achieved with the raiment of the four item set.
- Eternal Wands allow to use forbidden schools. That allows cheap, low level spells like Heroism (Level 2, if you take it from the bard's spell list),
Ray of Enfeeblement, Ray of Exhaustion, Touch of Idiocy/Ray of Stupidity, False Life or Halt Undead.
- spells like voice of the dragon give use skill boosts and another forbidden spell (suggestion).

The more sources, the more substitutes, the less the worth of the lost school.

Comparing this with extra slots (which, remember, we don't get by shapechanging or setting lucubration traps) leads me to the result that the extra slots are the better choice.

As Tippy said himself, it is all about versatility. Versatility comes with options. Options come with the applicability of many different spells anytime you need them. Many different spells can be cast with many different slots. The fallacy is that people believe that many different spells would be achieved by having many (=all) different schools available.
Well, if you find a legit way to have all schools anytime online with adequate spell ressources (slots) to cast them, I would like to hear those ways (as long as they don't include cheesy stuff like shapechange, remember).

Tippy said to this topic:

At 2 extra spells (FS) that would be a 50% increase (at best). If you are an Abjuration specialist and aren't willing to use Disjunction then those extra 9th level slots really aren't a big gain. The only 9th level Abjurations that are generally useful are Disjunction, Prismatic Sphere, and Srinshee's Spell Shift. A few more may or may not be useful. This isn't like Transmutation specalisits who pick up extra uses of shapechange and time stop.

- my reaction to getting 50% at each slot is: "Wow, what a powerful tool! Now, I can memorize 5x 5th-level-spells at level 10 instead of 3x. Same goes for my other spell slots.
- Oh, and an abjurer would find a very good no-brainer for 9th-level-slot: Maw of Chaos. Always useful.

So yes, Tippy: those extra slots are a very big gain.
Extra slots give us endurance which - I admit - depends on the campaign structure. Does the party have many downtimes to rest? Or is the party under pressure? Is the clock ticking (as in RHoD)?
Besides endurance, we achieved versatility.
Yes, we achieved that thing other's would say we would have lost by banning schools. So, even if you fight only 1-2 encounters, you can make use of those unneeded slots by applying spontaneous magic or open slots.