View Full Version : Specialization vs. Spellcasting Prodigy
Hello,
as a forum newbie and D&D 3.5 newbie, who's trying to not mess up his Wizard too much, I came upon the following comparison/question:
Spellcasting Prodigy enables me to memorize spells as if my INT were +2 higher. Which means, I can memorize +1 spell per spell level. (Corrections if I'm wrong would be greatly appreciated.)
Specialization does exactly the same, except for some minor details: One slot has to be used for school X, learning school X from scrolls or recognizing spells from school X is a bit easier. Did I forget anything?
Now, when searching the web for advice on Wizard builds, they usually say that specialists are better than generalists. But they hardly ever tell me to choose Spellcasting Prodigy. Why is that so? Is skipping two whole schools really less of a sacrifice than using up my starting feat? What do I miss?
Rumo
OldTrees1
2013-09-28, 08:24 PM
+2 Int does not translate to +1 spell per level.
16 Int gives 1 extra 1st, 2nd and 3rd level spells
18 Int gives you the same as 16 Int + 1 extra 4th level spell
20 Int gives you the same as 18 Int + 1 extra 1st and 5th level spells
22 Int gives you the same as 20 Int + 1 extra 2nd and 6th level spells
Biffoniacus_Furiou
2013-09-28, 08:27 PM
Spellcasting Prodigy doesn't give you +1 spell per spell level, it counts your ability score as two points higher (18 to 20 for example) and then you determine bonus spells per PHB page 8, Table 1-1. It typically only gives you one more spell per day of a specific level up to 19 in the stat, or two or maybe three more spells per day of different levels if your stat is effectively 20 or higher.
Luckmann
2013-09-28, 08:31 PM
And more importantly, they're not mutually exclusive in any way.
Hello,
as a forum newbie and D&D 3.5 newbie, who's trying to not mess up his Wizard too much, I came upon the following comparison/question:
Spellcasting Prodigy enables me to memorize spells as if my INT were +2 higher. Which means, I can memorize +1 spell per spell level. (Corrections if I'm wrong would be greatly appreciated.)
Specialization does exactly the same, except for some minor details: One slot has to be used for school X, learning school X from scrolls or recognizing spells from school X is a bit easier. Did I forget anything?
Now, when searching the web for advice on Wizard builds, they usually say that specialists are better than generalists. But they hardly ever tell me to choose Spellcasting Prodigy. Why is that so? Is skipping two whole schools really less of a sacrifice than using up my starting feat? What do I miss?
Rumo
The reasoning is that some of the schools are either not nearly as good as the others, easily replicated, highly situational or all of the above at the same time. Enchantment for example is made up almost entirely of spells that get no selled by vast swaths of enemy types and pretty much everything at high level. Contrast this with say... Conjuration which allows you to summon in incredible numbers of minions many of which with their own spell effects, obviate travel, combine with divination for an ambush that hunts people rather than hoping they blunder into it, bypass anti-magic fields, and get spell effects from banned schools you actually like with summoned minions. If you like I'll even get into which schools are good ban choices and why focused specialists are even better than specialists.
jaybird
2013-09-29, 01:35 AM
If you like I'll even get into which schools are good ban choices and why focused specialists are even better than specialists.
This I have to disagree with. Sure, you can lose Enchantment and Evocation without too much pain, but what's the third school you want to lose? Conjuration and Transmutation aren't options. Abjuration has the Dispel and Protection lines. Illusion has the Blur and Invisibility lines, not to mention Shadow X. Necromancy has brutal debuffs like Shivering Touch, Bestow Curse, and Ray of Exhaustion.
Jeff the Green
2013-09-29, 02:27 AM
This I have to disagree with. Sure, you can lose Enchantment and Evocation without too much pain, but what's the third school you want to lose? Conjuration and Transmutation aren't options. Abjuration has the Dispel and Protection lines. Illusion has the Blur and Invisibility lines, not to mention Shadow X. Necromancy has brutal debuffs like Shivering Touch, Bestow Curse, and Ray of Exhaustion.
Either focused diviner (with splats there are enough Divinations to cast 3/day/level) or ban Necromancy or Abjuration. Losing dispelling hurts, but it's far from crippling (especially if you have another caster, as nearly everyone is able to dispel), and Conjuration, Transmutation, and Illusion all have decent debuffs.
It's not a no-brainer like specializing is, but it also doesn't make you weaker.
This I have to disagree with. Sure, you can lose Enchantment and Evocation without too much pain, but what's the third school you want to lose? Conjuration and Transmutation aren't options. Abjuration has the Dispel and Protection lines. Illusion has the Blur and Invisibility lines, not to mention Shadow X. Necromancy has brutal debuffs like Shivering Touch, Bestow Curse, and Ray of Exhaustion.
Necromancy debuffs usually are no-sold by undead in general as well as death wards which are also common. The school DOES have the ability to res me in a personal dimension upon death set beforehand as a contingent effect and astral projection, but quite frankly I'm already getting UMD up so my familiar can use magic charge items to double my action economy. This means I can just buy scrolls for those two spells. Plus I'm not just getting the benefits of another layer of specialization. I'm also getting access to the abrupt jaunt ACF which is huge defense low levels, and it's at no cost as I was gonna take obtain familiar for something that scales with my arcane prestige class of choice anyway.
Thanks a lot for the explanation! Our DM allowed me to take back Spellcasting Prodigy, as I had been under several wrong impressions when I chose it, and take Improved Initiative instead.
I would also recommend focused specializing all over conjuration, banning enchantment, evocation, and necromancy, taking the abrupt jaunt ACF that trades your familiar for the privilege of short range tactical teleportation that can be done outside of your turn in response to enemies declaring actions, Taking the spontaneous divination ACF that trades a wizard bonus feat for the right to turn unused slots into divination spells to not waste resources at the end of the day, Taking a bunch of ranks in UMD despite the high cost, getting a hummingbird familiar through obtain familiar for even higher initiative and better action economy, and possibly getting into a nice prestige class if you want to get ridiculous up in here.
Other than that we can start talking about what spells are tasty to have, why, and what spell is best for what situation.
I would also recommend focused specializing all over conjuration, banning enchantment, evocation, and necromancy, taking the abrupt jaunt ACF that trades your familiar for the privilege of short range tactical teleportation that can be done outside of your turn in response to enemies declaring actions, Taking a bunch of ranks in UMD despite the high cost, getting a hummingbird familiar through obtain familiar for even higher initiative and better action economy, and possibly getting into a nice prestige class if you want to get ridiculous up in here.
Other than that we can start talking about what spells are tasty to have, why, and what spell is best for what situation.
Thanks for the advice. Yes, I already am a conjurer, with Enchantment and Evocation being banned. But I prefer to keep Necromancy. My Level 3 guy just loves False Life, and there are a few nice things to come on the ray front too, AFAIK. Also, I am intending to become a Mage of the Arcane Order later, and banning another school from the Spell Pool would somewhat defeat its purpose.
Unfortunately I didn't know of the possibility to take Obtain Familiar later. Right now I'm considering to ask my DM for another takeback in that field, as I didn't summon the familiar yet, and he had not informed me about this alternative. What makes me hesitate is, that I personally find this ability broken and unfair. Avoid 4 attacks per day unless flat-footed? I find that almost distasteful. Well, on the other hand, if that nasty Dwarf last Friday had succeeded in his Will Save and then smashed my skull, I would have found that even less tasteful. Food for thought I suppose. :)
As I just leveled up, my first level 2 spell picks will probably be Web and Invisibility, with False Life soon to come ... as soon as I can pay a scriber. Good idea? What I don't have much of an idea about is what my first metamagic feat pick is going to be. As I want to become Guild Mage at level 7, one metamagic of my choice is among the prerequisites, and I'd rather pick a useful one. I like Alacritous Cogitation, but with this prestige class it's not really needed.
Spuddles
2013-09-29, 03:39 PM
Enchantment and necromancy are bannable if you play combat more like a videogame. If your DM allows for orthogonal approaches, enchantment and necromancy let you take totally sideways approaches to problems.
Big leftover corpse? Why not turn some of your gp into a meatwall? Enchantment is absolutely brutal with dominate person, especially on captured enemies. Just spam it on them, then interrogate the hell out of them, then use them as disposable minions.
Hello new bodyguards.
While not quite as powerful as you could be your current method isn't completely neutered in effectiveness. The best parts about your instinct as a wizard player based on your spell selection so far is that you appreciate utility and battlefield control over blasting out huge wads of damage. Now lets talk about the wonders of planar binding and why it is the best thing of all the times for mid level conjurers with the only competition coming from the teleport/planeshift spells. Teleport allows you to ambush anyone you can scry on effectively and with hilarious stacks of any buffs you like up and ready. It also allows you to obviate travel time, AND retreat in situations where you're not liking your parties chances of surviving the given situation. Plane shift allows you to visit other planes which will be incredibly important later on especially if you EVER cast the spell genesis. Like seriously look that spell up. It's hilarious. Planar binding allow you to have powerful, spell effect having minions for the action economy, and better still you get them for multiple days! A little creativity and looking through the books for good creatures to use allows you to get spells you like from banned schools, utility spells you didn't have prepared, free spells that would normally carry some cost to you to use, and just more spells to use in general.
Fax Celestis
2013-09-29, 04:00 PM
Extend is my personal favorite metamagic. It is relevant for basically every non-instantaneous spell.
Especially rope trick. Man I love rope trick. Better sleep security, AND allows you to reliably rest in a dungeon if time isn't an urgent factor and no one was alive to see you go in.
Emperor Tippy
2013-09-29, 05:16 PM
Extend is my personal favorite metamagic. It is relevant for basically every non-instantaneous spell.
Extend, Selective, and Invisible tend to be my favorite general purpose metamagics.
I usually find that invisible tends to bring up far too many confusing issues of how it interacts with things just by existing.
Spuddles
2013-09-29, 07:49 PM
I'm a really big fan of sculpt spell for getting even more mileage out of glitterdust and grease.
Agreed that is a fun metamagic. I tend to enjoy having that in rod form as well as a rod of extend used for different purposes if I'm not allowed to just be an incantator. Incantators are one of the more hilarious wizard PRCs just because free metamagic is absolutely absurdly useful. Not just free metamagic on your stuff either. There's the ability to apply persistence to friendly magic from anyone and even claim and redirect enemy spells with a skill check. I love that PRC so hard...
Emperor Tippy
2013-09-29, 08:08 PM
Agreed that is a fun metamagic. I tend to enjoy having that in rod form as well as a rod of extend used for different purposes if I'm not allowed to just be an incantator. Incantators are one of the more hilarious wizard PRCs just because free metamagic is absolutely absurdly useful. Not just free metamagic on your stuff either. There's the ability to apply persistence to friendly magic from anyone and even claim and redirect enemy spells with a skill check. I love that PRC so hard...
Want great fun, apply Selective to preexisting magic.
That wall of force or prismatic sphere blocking your way? Well make it selective to you and now you can just ignore it (and carry the party through inside a Bag of Holding or the like).
That nasty old Forbiddance effect that keeps you from teleporting inside the Church of the Burning Hate, Selective to exclude you and you can teleport in and out without any issue.
It's also a great way to deal with save-or-suck spells and the like. You just make the spell Selective to the individual that it has already hit and all the sudden they get to totally ignore it.
Yeah selective is great. As a matter of fact the things metamagic in general just does is to add another layer of options and control onto magic as a whole.
In terms of raw versatility that's like taking an ordinary burger, replacing the buns with Crispy Cream donuts, replacing the patty with high-grade cow meat of your choice, and then adding on the best onions available. This is why I love Incantators. As near as I can tell they're one of a few options wizards have that are on similar silly level to planar shepherd druids. I keep forgetting is there some kind of obvious super-cleric prestige class that puts an already extremely powerful class on steroids with minimal effort?
Fax Celestis
2013-09-29, 08:36 PM
Well, there's always Sovereign Speaker, for an absolutely ludicrous number of domains (or devotion feats, if you pick right).
Sounds about right if not quite as shatter all of existence as the other two. To be fair Incantator doesn't usually make a ten to one unconditional favorable exchange of actions with any enemies of the party happen either.
@ Spuddles: I agree with you, and actually for that reason I am a bit sad about having lost the Enchantment school. What I love about the Wizard is his approach to problems of any kind: Look into your spell book (or even better, into the Spell Pool!) and be creative.
Initially my plan had been:
6 Levels of Wizard, to reach Knowledge Arcana 8.
4 Levels of Guild Mage, to reach Spell Pool II
3 Levels of Wizard, to reach Spellcraft 15 and Knowledge Arcana 15
Archmage
Now I'm wondering, how good is the Archmage really? As far as I understand it, High Arcana is similar to metamagic, but it deletes spell slots permanently instead of making you pay each time you memorize a spell. Kind of like an All-You-Can-Eat buffet. Well, I like such buffets, if the food is good. But how good is it really?
- Mastery of Shaping: Seems nice to me, similar to sculpt spell. This one I'd consider a pro-Archmage
- Mastery of Counterspelling: As a D&D newbie I have absolutely no idea how often Counterspell comes to use.
- Arcane Reach: Touch attacks into range touch attacks (30) for a 7th level slot. Would go nice with Harm I suppose. Not sure that as Wizard I have enough important touch attacks to make it interesting though. Besides, touch attacks can also be dealt by my familiar. So unless I miss something, I'm not really impressed.
- Mastery of Elements: Changing the element of a spell sounds just great, except that I do not plan on using casting many damage spells, and I'm under the impression that most elemental spells are damage spells. Paying an 8th level slot for this does not contribute to its attractivity either.
- Arcane Fire: More direct damage. Costs a level 9 slot. Being able to turn your Wizard into a Gatling gun does sound pretty cool, I have to admit. But I would think that at that level he should have much more effective things to do virtually anytime.
- Spell Power: Seems not to affect the spells save DC. Instead damage (yay) and some other variables that seem negligible at that level.
- Spell like ability: Now that sounds interesting. Delete any one slot, get any one spell as an ability 2 times per day. Maybe that's what Archmage really is about?
One more question. It seems like Extend Spell has far more followers than Enlarge Spell. While I see the usefulness of doubling the duration of various spells, keeping myself out of the other guys's reach when Color Spraying him (yes, I'm sure there are similar examples on higher levels, too), seems very helpful to me, too. Also makes the area hit by cone-shaped spells multiple times larger, doesn't it?
Archmage is used by a number of people as a stop-gap to do certain things achievable by other methods. Many of the effects listed were correctly diagnosed by you to only really be useful to damage dealers and yes you'll usually be able to do better with your time. The ability to get sculped spells without feat expenditure is somewhat nice, as is the ability to change things into spell like abilities. While they are nice they can be gained by other methods that are cheaper than the necessary investments to get into archmage. For example incantators get free metamagic feats at no extra cost as well as the ability to apply them without costing any extra slots or changing the slot of the spell up higher. Even if they can't get rid of all costs they still mitigate them heavily. There is also conjuration to just get any spells you like from banned schools cast just by spending spell slots on various forms of summoning, calling, or binding.
As for enlarge it is pretty okay and you may even enjoy a rod of it in some circumstances. I wouldn't consider that overly necessary most of the time as range becomes much more forgiving at higher levels of magic. The enemy being near you also matters less for a focused specialist who traded his familiar for abrupt jaunt. A common tactical example of why at low level? Run up to a group of four orcs and cast color spray on them. If they all fail save the fight is over and you've won. If any pass the save they walk up and try to hit you. This gets no-sold by the teleport and doesn't stop you from repeating the process until win or just letting the party mop up afterwords. My wizards are the low level tanks of the party. I don't see any fighters eating several attacks of any type imaginable at low level with no risk of actual harm at any rate.
Fax Celestis
2013-09-29, 10:58 PM
6 Levels of Wizard, to reach Knowledge Arcana 8.
You mean five.
tyckspoon
2013-09-29, 11:21 PM
One more question. It seems like Extend Spell has far more followers than Enlarge Spell. While I see the usefulness of doubling the duration of various spells, keeping myself out of the other guys's reach when Color Spraying him (yes, I'm sure there are similar examples on higher levels, too), seems very helpful to me, too. Also makes the area hit by cone-shaped spells multiple times larger, doesn't it?
Enlarge only works on spells that have ranges defined as Close, Medium, or Long. It doesn't do anything for most cones (Color Spray, for example, has a range of 15 feet.. which is not Close, Medium, or Long, and so Enlarge does nothing for it.) Medium and Long range spells generally have sufficient range already, which just leaves Close spells as your best usage of Enlarge Spell. That's a bit too niche for most people to want to spend a feat and a spell level on.
As for Archmage.. you're thinking about it wrong, I think. It's not an awesome goal in and of itself; there are a lot of prestige classes that are easier to get into and more powerful. But with only five levels and allowing you to freely select which class feature you want from it at each level, it is excellent for finishing off a build - it's definitely better than Wizard, and a few levels of Archmage is generally better than whatever you would get from the starter levels of another prestige class. It's what you end with after you've taken another 10-level prestige and you don't have enough levels left to get at the really good stuff of a second one.
Lactantius
2013-09-30, 12:36 AM
Enchantment and necromancy are bannable if you play combat more like a videogame. If your DM allows for orthogonal approaches, enchantment and necromancy let you take totally sideways approaches to problems.
This quote totally made my day, thanks!
It tells so much about the playstyles around here and there and it helps a bit to rate banned schools, specialists and corresponding spells.
So, it also helps to compare extra spell slots vs. forsaken schools.
Honestly, I can't ready anymore reommendation for focused conjurers, familiar tricks and double cheese.
@Rumo:
I find it refreshing to see a playgrounder playing D&D pretty responsible.
My hint: read optimized builds, handbooks and stuff. Pick what you like and evaluate it those options are responsible for the sake of table balance.
Cause, not all of those tips are good for practical gaming.
Have a good time!
Endarire
2013-09-30, 12:41 AM
I'm a big fan of Wizard5/Incantatrix3/Full Casting. Archmage is handy sometimes, but is it worth the 3 feats you spend to enter, and the 13+ levels you need to wait? Maybe.
My wizards are the low level tanks of the party. I don't see any fighters eating several attacks of any type imaginable at low level with no risk of actual harm at any rate.
Isn't this seriously hurting the game balance? Level 1 Wizards being untouchable tanks because they can teleport around like the Warlocks of Quarth in Game of Thrones ... even multiple times and as a spell-like ability? I would be afraid that our Fighter and Ranger feel redundant.
You mean five.
I mean 6, but I'm sure that this is my fault. :smallsmile: My DM told me that the maximum number of ranks is 2+level. My conclusion: I have to become level 6 to raise Knowledge Arcana to 8, in order to choose the Prestige Class requiring this 8 at my next level up. Where did I go wrong?
Enlarge only works on spells that have ranges defined as Close, Medium, or Long.
Thank you, that perfectly explains why it's not nearly as good as I thought.
@Rumo:
I find it refreshing to see a playgrounder playing D&D pretty responsible.
My hint: read optimized builds, handbooks and stuff. Pick what you like and evaluate it those options are responsible for the sake of table balance.
Cause, not all of those tips are good for practical gaming.
Have a good time!
Thanks a lot! Yes, I suppose that's already the way I´ve been trying to handle it. That said, I really do value optimized build advice as someone who's into video-games and has played virtually all (A)D&D games since Pool of Radiance 1988, and I enjoy having a powerful character. As I said, the moment I get killed I might regret not having taken Abrupt Jaunt.
I'm a big fan of Wizard5/Incantatrix3/Full Casting. Archmage is handy sometimes, but is it worth the 3 feats you spend to enter, and the 13+ levels you need to wait? Maybe.
To be honest, I completely missed the three feats. It's usually what I look at first, but in this case I was so focused on counting ranks up to 15 that I didn't bother looking for more. I certainly would rather not pick those.
Why Incantatrix just to Level 3? I would have thought that after paying such a high price as losing even more spells, you want all of it ... and the upper Incantatrix levels look pretty good to me. And what does Full Casting mean?
Are there any other good Prestige Classes by the way, if you want to stick to arcane? Other than Incantatrix, Guild Mage, Archmage and Red Wizard?
TuggyNE
2013-09-30, 03:08 AM
I mean 6, but I'm sure that this is my fault. :smallsmile: My DM told me that the maximum number of ranks is 2+level. My conclusion: I have to become level 6 to raise Knowledge Arcana to 8, in order to choose the Prestige Class requiring this 8 at my next level up. Where did I go wrong?
Your DM is incorrect; it's actually 3+level.
Karnith
2013-09-30, 06:44 AM
I mean 6, but I'm sure that this is my fault. :smallsmile: My DM told me that the maximum number of ranks is 2+level. My conclusion: I have to become level 6 to raise Knowledge Arcana to 8, in order to choose the Prestige Class requiring this 8 at my next level up. Where did I go wrong?
You didn't go wrong, per se, your DM is just using a very strange house-rule (or doesn't understand the rules). Normally the maximum number of ranks that you can put into a class skill is your character level + 3. The relevant rules for this can be found here on the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/skillsSummary.htm).
Your DM is incorrect; it's actually 3+level.
That explains a lot.
Unfortunately that is not the end of the confusion on my part. As our DM has apparently set skill caps lower than they should be, I slightly suspect that he gave us not enough feats. The number of feats that I gain is still not at all clear to me. What I do understand of course is potential gain of feats related to class progression, like Wizard Level 5 and 10. And that I have a bonus feat for being human. I also know that there is another table, which I unfortunately can't find for 3.5 anywhere on the internet, that displays gain of feats related to character level progression. I know that I gain one such at 3, so maybe it's 3-6-9-...? In short, my character was granted 2 feats so far.
Made sense to me until I tested this character generator: http://dnd3rd.sourceforge.net/. It tells me that as a Human Wizard I can choose two feats at the start, which would make it three at level 3. Who is right?
@ Karnith: I suppose my DM just got the numbers wrong, because he plays so many different groups and systems. House rules are not really his style, he tends to play 100% by the book.
Emperor Tippy
2013-09-30, 07:41 AM
You gain regular feats (not bonus feats from your class) at 1 HD (level 1) and then at every HD (level) evenly divisible by 3.
So feats are as follows:
Level 1
Level 3
Level 6
Level 9
Level 12
Level 15
Level 18
See page 22 of the PHB, Table 3–2: Experience and Level-Dependent Benefits
That table also shows you max ranks for both class and cross class skills. Both you and your DM should probably review said table.
The fighter was weaker than the base wizard class by virtue of being a fighter. They're like tier 5 where wizard is tier one. In a group of people used to how the game works fighters often get traded for tome of battle classes that have actual options. Also we still let the fighter contribute. I specifically don't get a scythe just to let them be the one wacking enemies to death.
Piggy Knowles
2013-09-30, 07:47 AM
You gain regular feats (not bonus feats from your class) at 1 HD (level 1) and then at every HD (level) evenly divisible by 3.
A way I like to think of it is that all non-mindless creatures start with a feat, and then you gain an additional feat every three HD. This way the math works out without first level screwing things up...
brujon
2013-09-30, 07:56 AM
EVERY D&D character gains one feat at level one, and then one at level 3, and one at level 6, and so on until level 18, then you get into epic and epic feat progression works slightly different. These feats can be anything you qualify for.
Because you are a human, you then gain one bonus feat at level 1. This feat can be any feat you qualify for.
Because you are a Wizard, you gain one bonus feat *from the wizard bonus list* at level 5 and every 5 levels thereafter.
They all come from different places, and some have restrictions, so it's wise to differentiate them based on where you got them from, and note it that way on your character sheet, so you can know which feats came from where and when they came, should you choose to rebuild your character later.
Thanks a lot for all the help. E-mail to DM: I want one more feat! :smallsmile:
The fighter was weaker than the base wizard class by virtue of being a fighter. They're like tier 5 where wizard is tier one. In a group of people used to how the game works fighters often get traded for tome of battle classes that have actual options. Also we still let the fighter contribute. I specifically don't get a scythe just to let them be the one wacking enemies to death.
I don't mean to criticise anyone's playing style. It's just my personal opinion that this feat is not balanced for a level 1 Wizard, and that it'd better be nerfed - so I wouldn't really enjoy playing it.
My favorite types of games involve everyone including enemies being competent so no one has to play down. In that kind of game abrupt jaunt isn't OP. it's a necessary survival tool you are expected to use regularly. You also don't see homogenous groups of enemies all clumped together and weak to the same things. That's OKAY though because your party is made up of reliable, powerful people you respect on a basic level rather tHan humoring them with mop up duty.
My favorite types of games involve everyone including enemies being competent so no one has to play down. In that kind of game abrupt jaunt isn't OP. it's a necessary survival tool you are expected to use regularly. You also don't see homogenous groups of enemies all clumped together and weak to the same things. That's OKAY though because your party is made up of reliable, powerful people you respect on a basic level rather tHan humoring them with mop up duty.
Yes, I see that in this kind of environment it makes much more sense to go for perfection than in the one I'm in. It's a little group, 3 players, with my wife being completely new to roleplaying (and having diced absurdly bad stats for her Elven Bow Ranger) and the Fighter friend who has 30+ years of roleplaying experience, but never got in touch with D&D before. The DM does a great job, has tons of knowledge and experience (apart from some numbers stuff), but optimizing advice definitely isn't his forte.
And your environment makes my play style just a bit overpowering if the characters notice and are offended by consistent coup de grace duty. I would recommend introducing the lot of them to more powerful options slowly to widen their options in play over time. Your kind of group especially needs someone to set up the prey for easy hunting. Conjurers excel at this practice.
Your kind of group especially needs someone to set up the prey for easy hunting. Conjurers excel at this practice.
As I said above, just leveled up, Web and Invisibility learned. :smallsmile:
Chronos
2013-09-30, 09:26 AM
I think you might be overlooking something in the Archmage's reach ability. It doesn't just make touch attacks into rays; it makes all touch spells into rays. This is relevant because this means that you can apply metamagics such as Persist and Split Ray onto them which you couldn't put onto touch spells, and there are a lot of buffs that benefit from that.
I think you might be overlooking something in the Archmage's reach ability. It doesn't just make touch attacks into rays; it makes all touch spells into rays. This is relevant because this means that you can apply metamagics such as Persist and Split Ray onto them which you couldn't put onto touch spells, and there are a lot of buffs that benefit from that.
This is helpful, thanks for pointing it out.
Another prestige class that's been crossing my mind today is the Master Specialist. Admittedly it's a long way to level 13, but then I'd have three Conjurations per day as swift actions. I'm not sure yet what I would do with that, but it sounds extemely useful. And having reached that final step, next level would be taken in Archmage. True, I would miss the Spell Pool, but take Alacritous Cogitation and buy many scrolls, and the purpose is fully served.
Actually a pretty decent plan. Not best wizard ever, but quite good at the job description.
Story
2013-09-30, 12:13 PM
I keep forgetting is there some kind of obvious super-cleric prestige class that puts an already extremely powerful class on steroids with minimal effort?
Dweomerkeeper
As for Archmage.. you're thinking about it wrong, I think. It's not an awesome goal in and of itself; there are a lot of prestige classes that are easier to get into and more powerful. But with only five levels and allowing you to freely select which class feature you want from it at each level, it is excellent for finishing off a build - it's definitely better than Wizard, and a few levels of Archmage is generally better than whatever you would get from the starter levels of another prestige class. It's what you end with after you've taken another 10-level prestige and you don't have enough levels left to get at the really good stuff of a second one.
I don't like Archmage because of the horrible feat tax if you aren't doing Master Specialist. Stuff like Divine Oracle and Paragnostic Apostle are much better at filling out a build and don't really cost you anything if Frog God's Phane is allowed.
I would be afraid that our Fighter and Ranger feel redundant.
Welcome to the Tier System. Take a look at the Druid - he starts with a pet fighter as a class feature!
I don't mean to criticise anyone's playing style. It's just my personal opinion that this feat is not balanced for a level 1 Wizard, and that it'd better be nerfed - so I wouldn't really enjoy playing it.
Technically, it's an ACF, not a feat. Anyway, Abrupt Jaunt is really powerful at low levels, but it's far from the worst thing you can do.
Lactantius
2013-09-30, 03:16 PM
Archmage is supposed to be the high level, end-of-all prestige class (excepting epic levels).
To evaluate the archmage, we must look into the history of this class.
Check the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting.
You will see how strong the archmage has been.
Then, with the 3.5-Update, the designers came to the conclusion that the save DCs are too powerful.
So, they nerfed this tool on all bases:
- spell focus/greater spell focus was reduced from +2/+2 to +1/+1. If you think about +2 each, then spell focus is a pretty impressive feat. That brings us further to reevaluate save-dependant-spells. Save-or-Dies are prime again.
- the old spellcasting prodigy (FRCS 3.0) gave you a DC boost, too.
- then, check the Red Wizard's and the Archmage's spell power. Instead of a merely +1 CL bonus, they gained astronomic high DC-boosters.
The archmage could take spell tower more than once and decide which spell slot to forgive (and thus, getting +1, +2 and +3 for a total of +6 on DCs with three high arcanas).
Now, think about the so-called "feat tax." 2x spell focus was no tax at all, it was power that lead to much more power.
My recommendation: apply older 3.0-rules in your actual game, if it fits.
For example, we houserules spell focus a bit:
spell focus gives now +1 and greater spell focus +3.
So you can reach the +4 from 3.0, but you must bee-line to greater spell focus. That's a worthy trade off, IMHO.
I would even go so far and use the old spell power of 3.0. Cause, you know, spell power of an archmage should literally give POWER.
The chain reaction is huge and impressive:
old handbooks must be rewritten since the old staples basing on save-or-sucks and save-or-dies will shine again (and treantmonk mayhap love it too, finally ;) ).
Emperor Tippy
2013-09-30, 03:32 PM
The Archmage "feat tax" often ends up actually not being one. A number of good PrC's require at least Spell Focus for one school of magic, so that is two feats that you otherwise wouldn't be taking.
Now look at what you are trading two feats for. Mastery of Elements is in all ways superior to Energy Substitution, it's a feat+ that any blaster type should have.
Mastery of Shaping is superior Extraordinary Spell Aim, it's a feat+ that greatly benefits battle field control wizards.
Spell Power is +1 CL, would you trade a feat for that?
Spell-Like Ability is trading a 9th level and a 5th level spell slot for two daily uses of a 9th level spell that can't really be taken away from you. Shangechange anyone? Or how about using it with Wish and Supernatural Transformation for 2/day XP free Wish's?
Arcane Reach is a suped up Reach Spell.
Mastery of Counterspelling makes counter-spelling quite potent as it lets you use it to attack your enemies.
What on that list isn't worth a feat? Especially when those feats actually provide minor but useful bonuses of their own and are prerequisites for other useful PrC's and feats.
And then, you can always trade away the feats once you have taken your first level of Archamge if you really want to.
Story
2013-09-30, 04:39 PM
Spell Power is +1 CL, would you trade a feat for that?
For Reserves of Strength? Absolutely.
And then, you can always trade away the feats once you have taken your first level of Archamge if you really want to.
Not everyone plays with DCFS.
Archmage is supposed to be the high level, end-of-all prestige class (excepting epic levels).[...]
My recommendation: apply older 3.0-rules in your actual game, if it fits.
For example, we houserules spell focus a bit:
spell focus gives now +1 and greater spell focus +3.
So you can reach the +4 from 3.0, but you must bee-line to greater spell focus. That's a worthy trade off, IMHO.
I would even go so far and use the old spell power of 3.0. Cause, you know, spell power of an archmage should literally give POWER.
I generally agree with you that some rule changes would be desirable. Personally I wouldn't go as far as +3, I would find a +2 bonus clearly sufficient. And I would like ACF and having a familiar to stay mutually exclusive.
But in my group, my character becoming too weak is not really a concern of mine, rather the opposite. So I don't mind a little nerfing on the Archmage front. By the way, another thought: It seems to me like choosing spell-like ability two or three times isn't the worst of all options, for a non-blaster like me.
And then, you can always trade away the feats once you have taken your first level of Archamge if you really want to.
Does anyone play like that? I mean, giving newbies the option of rechoosing their feats at one point makes sense to me. But doing this with prerequisites for other feats or prestige classes without disabling them? Sounds to me like building a table, cutting off its legs and expecting the board to stay in place.
Emperor Tippy
2013-10-01, 06:58 AM
Does anyone play like that? I mean, giving newbies the option of rechoosing their feats at one point makes sense to me. But doing this with prerequisites for other feats or prestige classes without disabling them? Sounds to me like building a table, cutting off its legs and expecting the board to stay in place.
Remove the pre-requisite for a feat and you loose access to the feat. PrC's (except from a few books), however, only require that you have the pre-requisites at the time you take the first level in the class.
And yes, people play like that. Especially when you reach higher level play.
You reach a point where the PC's are powerful and capable enough that a few extra feats just really doesn't have any real material impact on that power.
If you measure power on a scale of 1 to 1000 and have, say, a level 1 fighter that rates as a 1 on the scale than a feat that adds "1" to the fighters power level is major because it doubles his power level, but that same feat on a character who rates a 500? It's barely noticeable.
Even the best feats rarely rate more than 10 or so points on such a scale.
TuggyNE
2013-10-01, 07:06 AM
Does anyone play like that?
Tippy and his group certainly do, and there are others on this forum and elsewhere that consider that perfectly normal. But in the general scheme of things I'd guess <5% of D&D groups would be OK with DCFS. It's … pretty cheesy.
Acts you can trade feats for tend to be pretty funny though. Spontaneous divination is ridiculously good until you've reached a point where spells are literally unlimited.
Emperor Tippy
2013-10-01, 07:19 AM
Acts you can trade feats for tend to be pretty funny though. Spontaneous divination is ridiculously good until you've reached a point where spells are literally unlimited.
Except the only way to dump Spontaneous Divination after you take it is to dump off class levels until you are down to Wizard 4 and then regain them. Which you can do, and is at times recommended.
The only level you can't actually replaced under the rules as written is your first level/HD.
Thing is if I ever planned on obviating my own spont. Div. I'd probably just take the feat for easier replacement. Spont. Div. is phenomanal in mid OP though.
Piggy Knowles
2013-10-01, 07:48 AM
Tippy and his group certainly do, and there are others on this forum and elsewhere that consider that perfectly normal. But in the general scheme of things I'd guess <5% of D&D groups would be OK with DCFS. It's … pretty cheesy.
I would be OK with DCFS assuming no major shenanigans to avoid its costs, no ignoring of its fluff aspects, and no abusing things like temporary feats.
I already allow Psychic Reformation in my games, and I also have a sorcerer-only arcane version with a personal range as a bone I throw to my sorcerers (lets them pay XP to rewrite their spells known, like psions do). DCFS is basically just a more extreme, but also more expensive, version of that.
And I would NOT say that I run particularly high-op games. The one I'm currently running is solely a tier 3-4 party of medium optimization levels.
Emperor Tippy
2013-10-01, 08:03 AM
The thing is that feat shenanigans benefit the lower tiers more than the higher tiers.
A wizard with literally 0 feats is still tier 1, a Sorcerer with 0 feats is still tier 2. Both tend to have fewer options and some of the more extreme tricks are mitigated or removed but it really doesn't change all that much power wise.
It's the tier 3 and below classes where feats really can make or break the class and have a fairly massive impact on power level. A spy or scout without Darkstalker? A fighter without Power Attack? An archer without Precise Shot? An unarmed character without Improved Unarmed Strike? A Swordsage without Adaptive Style?
And then the problem is that most tier 3 and below classes really aren't actually given enough feats. Especially when you count the feats that pretty much should have just been class features in the first place.
So a few feats saved or a few extra feats? Yeah it's nice but it just tends to make the less powerful classes more well rounded and capable while generally not materially effecting the power level of the casting classes.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.