PDA

View Full Version : Let's... What should a Wizard's role(s) be?



Endarire
2014-07-22, 02:03 AM
Greetings, all!

Having played and worked with a lot of D&D 3.5 and D&D in general, as well as many other RPG systems, I'm wondering about the best roles for a Wizard. While a Wizard may go by many other names such as Sorcerer, Diviner, Enchanter, Illusionist, Shaman, or the like, the notion is still the same.

The Wizard is a class that generally plays by more magical rules than his counterparts. In D&D 3.5 at low levels, in the iconic Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/Rogue band, the Fighter and Rogue are just expected to deal physical damage and handle things physically. The Cleric can buff and heal his team so they can keep on whacking things (or otherwise doing what they were doing). The Wizard? He lives and dies by his spells. Sure, he could take pot shots with a ranged weapon, but unless he's specialized in it, people don't expect reliable damage out of him. (I'm aware of the Grapplemancer by Frank & K which turns the Wizard into a grappler, but that is far from standard.) By this measure, a Wizard is expected to be doing magicky thingies, and not much else. (Maybe flex his smarts in his wide breadth of knowledge, or something.)

In some games, the Wizard is a glass cannon (emphasizing blasting), pulled out to save the party from boss battles and other difficult encounters, or to quickly get through fights with many mobs. In some games, the Wizard is more subtle, never throwing anything as overt as a fireball - instead, summoning, buffing, gathering information, gaining minions magically, and doing other magicky thingies whose visual effects, if any, are low-key or happen 'behind the scenes' out of the purview of the typical person.

In some games, a Wizard is the (or very close to the0 most powerful character due to spiky effectiveness and packing the most interesting special effects. In the games I've played, rarely is a Wizard a low-tier character or downright bad if played well.

Why is this? Why is a Wizard basically an embodiment or a channeler of some of the world's most powerful magic at the expense of so much else, when other classes rely on mundane means for much longer? Why is magic generally so powerful that it requires a specialist (who tends to forsake everything but spellcasting) to wield it well? (Is it because we as players and humans believe magic should be better than non-magic?)

Is a Wizard basically a catch-all problem solver, gaining abilties fit for a system that no other class seems thematically or/and mechanically viable or fit to use?

What other points am I missing here that should be addressed?

BWR
2014-07-22, 02:54 AM
The wizard's role should be what the setting and the story wants it to be. If you want wizards to be basically unbeatable with a little prep, then that's what they should be. If you want them to be world-threatening megalomaniacs who somehow manage to lose to an overly muscled thong-clad guy with a sword, then that's what they should be. If you want them to provide limited but useful aid in a wide variety of situations, then that's what they should be. If you want them to be able to casually blast apart mountains but little else, then that's what they should be.

Problems occur when authors/game designers are unclear on what they want wizards to be and fail to think through the consequences of whatever powers they give wizards.

Gettles
2014-07-22, 04:11 AM
What ever the Wizard's role is the most important thing is it has to be a defined role. Burn it with fire, that is fine. Illusions can be great, raising undead, sure. What it should never be is EVERYTHING AT ONCE. That is were you get problems, once the defined role Wizard becomes the summoning/flying/undeading/burning/mind-controlling/anything else that can be imagined then the question becomes why do non-wizards exist.

BWR
2014-07-22, 04:56 AM
What ever the Wizard's role is the most important thing is it has to be a defined role. Burn it with fire, that is fine. Illusions can be great, raising undead, sure. What it should never be is EVERYTHING AT ONCE. That is were you get problems, once the defined role Wizard becomes the summoning/flying/undeading/burning/mind-controlling/anything else that can be imagined then the question becomes why do non-wizards exist.

You realize that certain games do focus on magicians with non-magicians being support at best?

Gettles
2014-07-22, 05:15 AM
You realize that certain games do focus on magicians with non-magicians being support at best?

Yes, but even then the everything and the kitchen sink wizard annoys me. I'd rather one able to do a couple of specific things well as opposed to just able to be like Cartman in the ninja episode of South Park where they have the "I have the power to have all the powers I want." It just seems dull to have someone with no weaknesses.

Lord Raziere
2014-07-22, 05:17 AM
You realize that certain games do focus on magicians with non-magicians being support at best?

yeah, but most games- including DnD- are not expected to be a part of them.

really, I agree with him, and I like things like Mage: The Awakening or Ars Magica. do anything wizard is kinda bland- even a Mage from Awakening has a Path, a focus, while Ars Magica has magic it focuses on, and its important for all the wizards in such games to have roles to differentiate each other and specialize in so that everyone is useful in different ways. so yeah, even in Wizard-focused games its important for Wizards to have an area of clear specialization, not only for limiting their power, but also differentiating themselves from the Wizards around them and thus everyone has something different to contribute to the group. PC groups are pretty much almost always a bunch of specialists coming together to do things for a greater goal in some way anyways.

Kaeso
2014-07-22, 06:29 AM
What I think is a big problem that ails DnD 3.5e is that there aren't multiple kinds of wizard, there's just the wizard. This means that the cleric gets some healing and other nifty tricks and the wizard.... gets everything else.

In a more balanced DnD, I propose multiple spellcasters which would all be referred to as wizards, but there be no wizard class. "Wizard" would simply mean "anyone who uses arcane magic" (perhaps in that same way "cleric" would mean "anyone who uses divine magic"). So you have summoners, illusionists, enchanters, diviners/oracles, necromancers etc. etc. All of them would be wizards, none of them would have wizard as a class, all of them would have different spell lists.

For the more generalist wizards, there should perhaps be some inter-wizard multiclassing system that makes them jacks of all trades but masters of none.

Airk
2014-07-22, 08:43 AM
You realize that certain games do focus on magicians with non-magicians being support at best?

Yeah, but even in Ars Magica, trying to be a Wizard Who Does Everything (aka a generalist) is a quick way to suck at everything. Unless they've changed the rules bigtime in the newer editions, you just don't have enough points - even after a bunch of study - to spread them across all the categories and expect to be decent at anything. This is because Ars Magica has so MANY categories of magic.

So even the games that "focus on magicians" don't really let them do everything.

LibraryOgre
2014-07-22, 12:29 PM
Yeah, but even in Ars Magica, trying to be a Wizard Who Does Everything (aka a generalist) is a quick way to suck at everything. Unless they've changed the rules bigtime in the newer editions, you just don't have enough points - even after a bunch of study - to spread them across all the categories and expect to be decent at anything. This is because Ars Magica has so MANY categories of magic.

So even the games that "focus on magicians" don't really let them do everything.

I find the "Wizards can do anything" tends to be more common in games where wizards are not the focus... because, when wizards are the focus, there's more nuance to their abilities, with the need to differentiate Wizard A from Wizard B.

My position is the fallback of "What do you want wizards to do?" I think you make a more interesting world when you remove the 3.x-style generalist classes, because your wizards do need to rely on others to cover their problems (or, in Xykon's case, need to simply have a philosophy of power that lets them run over problems rather than solve them). The generalist made more sense when resources were more limited (fewer slots, fewer scrolls, fewer wands, fewer magic items in general), because the limited resources required more careful logisitics.

Tyrrell
2014-07-22, 12:34 PM
Yeah, but even in Ars Magica, trying to be a Wizard Who Does Everything (aka a generalist) is a quick way to suck at everything. Unless they've changed the rules bigtime in the newer editions, you just don't have enough points - even after a bunch of study - to spread them across all the categories and expect to be decent at anything. This is because Ars Magica has so MANY categories of magic.

So even the games that "focus on magicians" don't really let them do everything.
The newest edition (it's 10 years old now and has at least half again as much support as any prior edition, so perhaps new is the wrong word for it) has given even fewer points for starting magi and added some powerful virtues to enable extreme specialization ("I have a magical focus in left handed asthmatic tree frogs and, believe it or not, I kick ass!!!").
So yes, exactly as you say.

Spore
2014-07-22, 02:30 PM
Highly trained in a single school of magic. Necromancers get to fill all spell slots with necromancy spells, except some. Generalists would be MUCH weaker (as in less spell slots, so guys like Gandalf have high level magic but not many slots). Or Generalists should have to dabble with (essentially free) material components. Not to the point where it's tedious but imho a wizard should have a small array of standard actions spells. All other spells should be incantations of various lengths.

Wizards are essentially scientists from movies. And I have had enough of those hacking astro chirurgeon chemists.

Craft (Cheese)
2014-07-23, 04:05 PM
To echo other posters here, it really depends on the setting: Problems only arise when what wizards are mechanically capable of doesn't match their role in the setting.

That said, I personally prefer wizards with two properties.

First, the mantra "anything, but not everything" applies here. A flying wizard is okay. An invisible wizard is okay. An incorporeal wizard is okay. But a flying, invisible, incorporeal wizard makes things very silly very fast. There needs to be restrictions and differentiation between wizards; Not necessarily a *class-based* distinction mind you, but something that prevents every wizard from having every spell available to them at once.

Second, I actually find it most interesting to play spellcasters who can use their spells to avoid or escape from combat, but can't directly* use their powers offensively. Sure, roasting things to death with fire or blasting them with lightning or force-choking them with telekinesis is occasionally amusing, but it becomes too easy to rely on these tricks and start solving every problem you come across with brute force. If magic with direct combat applications is available, then it should be more costly than more subtle types of spells. And under no circumstances will I play a wizard who can't do anything but kill things.

*I have nothing against using such spells indirectly, of course. For example, making an illusory floor over a pit, then luring an enemy to try walking across it. So long as the indirect trick is situationally dependent enough that you can't just spam it over and over to solve every problem, it's fine. If you *can* reliably use the trick over and over to solve every problem, then it's just as bland and boring as blasting and needs to be patched somehow.

Cronocke
2014-07-23, 04:46 PM
Greetings, all!

Having played and worked with a lot of D&D 3.5 and D&D in general, as well as many other RPG systems, I'm wondering about the best roles for a Wizard. While a Wizard may go by many other names such as Sorcerer, Diviner, Enchanter, Illusionist, Shaman, or the like, the notion is still the same.

The Wizard is a class that generally plays by more magical rules than his counterparts. In D&D 3.5 at low levels, in the iconic Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/Rogue band, the Fighter and Rogue are just expected to deal physical damage and handle things physically. The Cleric can buff and heal his team so they can keep on whacking things (or otherwise doing what they were doing). The Wizard? He lives and dies by his spells. Sure, he could take pot shots with a ranged weapon, but unless he's specialized in it, people don't expect reliable damage out of him. (I'm aware of the Grapplemancer by Frank & K which turns the Wizard into a grappler, but that is far from standard.) By this measure, a Wizard is expected to be doing magicky thingies, and not much else. (Maybe flex his smarts in his wide breadth of knowledge, or something.)

In some games, the Wizard is a glass cannon (emphasizing blasting), pulled out to save the party from boss battles and other difficult encounters, or to quickly get through fights with many mobs. In some games, the Wizard is more subtle, never throwing anything as overt as a fireball - instead, summoning, buffing, gathering information, gaining minions magically, and doing other magicky thingies whose visual effects, if any, are low-key or happen 'behind the scenes' out of the purview of the typical person.

In some games, a Wizard is the (or very close to the0 most powerful character due to spiky effectiveness and packing the most interesting special effects. In the games I've played, rarely is a Wizard a low-tier character or downright bad if played well.

Why is this? Why is a Wizard basically an embodiment or a channeler of some of the world's most powerful magic at the expense of so much else, when other classes rely on mundane means for much longer? Why is magic generally so powerful that it requires a specialist (who tends to forsake everything but spellcasting) to wield it well? (Is it because we as players and humans believe magic should be better than non-magic?)

Is a Wizard basically a catch-all problem solver, gaining abilties fit for a system that no other class seems thematically or/and mechanically viable or fit to use?

What other points am I missing here that should be addressed?

Everyone else has said most of what needs to be said about wizards... in games and settings besides D&D 3.5.

But the sad truth about D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder is that the wizard basically is the best class in the game, tied comfortably with the cleric and druid. Nothing else rivals the combination of power and flexibility that these three classes put out. What is a wizard in these games? Whatever he chooses to be.

You want to deal direct damage? There's loads of those spells.

You want hordes of loyal minions? There's loads of those spells, both for summoning and for raising the dead.

You want to control minds? Enchantment's got you covered.

You want to drive people to madness with visions of the impossible, and fool their senses so they no longer know what's even real? Illusion has loads of those spells.

You need a force field in a hurry? Abjuration is great for that, and has several spells that will stack.

Need to be someone else? Transformation has you covered, to the point of letting you turn into a dragon and eat people if you so desire.

Even at first level, a wizard has loads of options for what he can be - the illusionist, the summoner, the stunner/disabler, etc. And the higher level he gets, the more powerful he gets, and the more choices he has.

So, in summary... yes. The wizard is the catch-all of the game. He shares that role with the cleric and druid, and the sorcerer copies his schtick, but the mundane classes and the partial casters can't do a thing that these four can't duplicate, or even outperform them at.

Slipperychicken
2014-07-23, 06:18 PM
I think the wizard should be able to learn different schools of magic, but he should have to distribute some scarce resource to advance them, and has strong benefits to be gained if he only uses one school. So a dedicated Evocation-wizard with no points in other magic-types might be awesome at blasting (and some other things like manipulating the winds and water), but unable to use other magic types. A generalist with points in every school would be more versatile, but have far weaker effects than a dedicated specialist, forcing him think more carefully, subtly. and tactically, tailoring a different approach to each encounter. Such a system would enable more character concepts, differentiate magic-users, and put inherent boundaries on their power.

Also, I think there are a lot of effects like flight which are way too strong, at least at the level they're given. Maybe a wizard could sprout wings and fly as a Transmutation capstone (at the very end of that school's progression), summon a flying mount as a powerful Conjuration, or Evoke powerful winds to carry him around. For other examples, an instant death effect might be a capstone for a Necromancer, or "true" invisibility might be a capstone for an Illusionist (other invisibility/non-detection powers would exist, but they'd act on the minds of observers, allowing them to resist).

tl;dr: The wizard should be able to cover a number of roles (i.e. nuker, healer, support, etc), but needs to either pick one of them to excel at, two to be decent at, or suck at all of them.

Anderlith
2014-07-23, 08:45 PM
I've always thought that the Wizard is the guy with the plan.

Anyone can throw damage. & you can play a wizard this way
Anyone can build a sneak. & you can play a wizard this way

But where I think a Wizard should shine is prep work. He should know everything he can about something & then use his power efficiently & effectively to take out the opposition. He holds a lot of power in his hands but it is potent yet limited. A wizard should be judged on how well they direct their resources, not by which "School" or "Path" they follow

Lord Raziere
2014-07-23, 09:52 PM
I've always thought that the Wizard is the guy with the plan.

Anyone can throw damage. & you can play a wizard this way
Anyone can build a sneak. & you can play a wizard this way

But where I think a Wizard should shine is prep work. He should know everything he can about something & then use his power efficiently & effectively to take out the opposition. He holds a lot of power in his hands but it is potent yet limited. A wizard should be judged on how well they direct their resources, not by which "School" or "Path" they follow

a philosophy which leads to the 3.5 wizards we have now, their godlike capabilities, Batman clones, and being able to do anything. we don't need more. you already have this. me, I don't want to be the guy with the plan, I want to be the guy with FIRE!!! FIRE!!! FIRE!!! or illusions and trickery, or figuring out the ways they can use the power of Silver Magic to benefit the people around them. why want Mr. Utility Belt rehashing magical batman yet again?

that and if the wizard is a scientist, then Schools are their degree. just like a scientist being proficient in all forms of scientific knowledge is ridiculous and stupid, so is a wizard knowing all the spells in one form or another. and unlike a scientist, omni-disciplinary wizard leads to just being a generic reality warper. they don't actually need to plan, they just need to find Spell A to fit into Weakness B and cast it. if I want to play the guy with plan, I'd think of a more Rogue or Warlord type, someone who can't just instantly solve all their problems with a spell, and instead have to make plans and use their creativity to strategize and defeat their foes- either one is certainly more Batman than a wizard, because Batman is just a normal guy who either goes around sneaking and using little devices or commanding a team of people like him to go around and defeat crime (I mean Batgirl, Robin and who know how many League contacts he has? Batman ain't a wizard, he is a Rogue with good connections)

I mean, I can see why people like Batman, but come on, there are other character concepts out there for wizards y'know..... your conception of a wizard only allows for ONE character.

the concept of specialized wizards, allows for a lot more than just Batman. I'd rather go for the one that gives me more options than less, character concept wise.

Slipperychicken
2014-07-23, 10:52 PM
a philosophy which leads to the 3.5 wizards we have now, their godlike capabilities, Batman clones, and being able to do anything. we don't need more. you already have this. me, I don't want to be the guy with the plan, I want to be the guy with FIRE!!! FIRE!!! FIRE!!! or illusions and trickery, or figuring out the ways they can use the power of Silver Magic to benefit the people around them. why want Mr. Utility Belt rehashing magical batman yet again?


We can have both if we ensure that Mr. Utility Belt's versatility is balanced out by each of his tools being weak, so that his real strength derives from his ability to pick up an area where his teammates are slacking, or to give the specialists a helping hand (more like 3.5's Factotum than the Wizard). Say the archer goes down: you still have the generalist's modest blasting-magic to fall back on. Or if the healer doesn't show up that session, the generalist can sort-of cover for him. His abilities and damage are better than nothing, but they still leave much to be desired.

Basically the balance I see is as follows: A specialist evoker can throw fireballs which blow enemies out of the water and bring down weather effects to debuff enemies, while a generalist can only deal a small amount of damage or give slight debuffs. An illusionist can bewilder and confuse large groups of enemies (potentially to the point of attacking each other), while the generalist's illusions aren't half as convincing or wide-reaching. A transmuter can lay down large buffs and potent CC, but the generalist can only give small buffs. A summoner or necromancer can call forth a strong minion or several weaker ones, while the generalist can only get one or two weak ones. The fighter-type guys can be relied upon to hold the line and deal damage while inflicting a list of nasty status effects (i.e. wound, bleed, poison, trip, throw, blind, stun, deafen, grab, restrain, knock-back, hamstring, slow, fear)... yeah, the generalist can't cover so well for the tank, he's still a squishy wizard.

Lord Raziere
2014-07-24, 01:30 AM
ok, that is possible slipperychicken. now let us think: what mechanic could we use to make sure that difference is enforced? would each spell have "Generalist" and "Specialist" modes? would the two kinds of wizards have different spell lists entirely? would they be subclasses of the wizard, or two different classes? how would you implement this?

Anderlith
2014-07-24, 01:33 AM
Woah now. I don't want it being said that I think a Wizard should be able to do everything under the sun. I think that they should specialize too. I just think that the mark of a good wizard is his ability to plan ahead. I once played a Sorcerer (& in reflection I wish I knew about the Factotum class when I made him), who had a spellbook, holy symbol & a crossbow. I pretended to be a cleric &/or a rogue, &/or a wizard, changing focus whenever I felt the need. I barely cast any spells, & when I did I always made another excuse for it. The other player's had no idea what I was. I had a bunch of nifty alchemical items or just plan old equipment that was useful. I succeeded in my role because I was always prepared & that didn't always include casting a bunch of spells.

All my other Wizards or spellcasters use magic to boost their abilities & strategies not replace them. If you focus on being an ice wizard, then plan ahead & bring cleated boots, a snowboard, & a flaming barrel to roll down a freshly iced pathway. If you are an illusionist then make sure to bring mundane smokebombs & a Rod of Ropes. The best wizards pull of magic without reaching for the spellbook

Cronocke
2014-07-24, 03:25 AM
Woah now. I don't want it being said that I think a Wizard should be able to do everything under the sun. I think that they should specialize too. I just think that the mark of a good wizard is his ability to plan ahead. I once played a Sorcerer (& in reflection I wish I knew about the Factotum class when I made him), who had a spellbook, holy symbol & a crossbow. I pretended to be a cleric &/or a rogue, &/or a wizard, changing focus whenever I felt the need. I barely cast any spells, & when I did I always made another excuse for it. The other player's had no idea what I was. I had a bunch of nifty alchemical items or just plan old equipment that was useful. I succeeded in my role because I was always prepared & that didn't always include casting a bunch of spells.

All my other Wizards or spellcasters use magic to boost their abilities & strategies not replace them. If you focus on being an ice wizard, then plan ahead & bring cleated boots, a snowboard, & a flaming barrel to roll down a freshly iced pathway. If you are an illusionist then make sure to bring mundane smokebombs & a Rod of Ropes. The best wizards pull of magic without reaching for the spellbook

Honestly, the ability to "plan ahead" and the ability to cast spells should never be married tightly together. I played a fighter with a mere 14 Int and by the end of the game the spellcasters were going to him to ask, "What should I prepare for the coming fight?" Said fighter was effectively the Batman to the paladin's Superman, the cleric's Green Lantern, and the cohorts that we had. The cleric could effectively do anything with prep time, and the paladin could rip and tear through anything given enough time, but my fighter was the one making the game plans, and loaded himself with magic items designed not just to give him static bonuses, but also to give him new tricks and counters. Like a magical compass that gives off an invisibility purge effect around it, boots of flying, an ioun stone with continual flame cast on it, and other neat little toys that could be used in unexpected ways. Sure, his utility belt was a lot smaller than a wizard's spell list, but that's what you get when you play a mundane character in D&D/PF.

rainwise
2014-09-02, 01:17 AM
There's a game called Adventures in the Realm (http://rpgsimple.com) that sort of seems like it's trying to stay basically cannon to classic myths and common perceptions of things. (I.E. the game has trolls and fauns but no runehounds or beholders.)

It has a system where anybody can learn individual spells if they invest in doing so. The lower level spells are useful things like enchanting rope to tie or untie, lighting tiny fires, sleight of hand, etc. Whereas the higher level spells are all BOOM LIGHTNING EXPLOSION ARMY OF THE DEAD INVINCIBILITY and that sort of thing.

What this would mean for you, basically, is that a magic user would have to sort of be a balance between utility and raw power. But within that spectrum, (s)he could land anywhere.

DigoDragon
2014-09-02, 07:30 AM
My position is the fallback of "What do you want wizards to do?" I think you make a more interesting world when you remove the 3.x-style generalist classes, because your wizards do need to rely on others to cover their problems

I agree, I think picking a specific role makes for a better wizard. One of my favorite wizards had the role of 'rogue' in the party; Picked locks, move silently, backstab from the shadows, scout ahead... that was made all the more awesome when you take a look at the wizard and realize she was a bright blue unicorn with a white mane and a giant purple hat (who speaks in 'Caps Lock').

...never said she was a good rogue. :smallbiggrin:

Mastikator
2014-09-02, 08:05 AM
A wizard's role is to do the special things, special things like become invisible, or fly, or see far away places.
What a wizard's role isn't, is to use wizardry to do mundane things, ie, anything that can be accomplished without wizardry, like fighting, or traveling. Basically, a wizard might fly, but not fly faster than someone else can run, a wizard can bestow a curse upon someone, but the curse must have indirect effects, since a brute can just break someone's leg and have (in game mechanic terms) a similar "debuffing" effect as a normal curse.

A wizard should basically never be able to take away anyone's job, there shouldn't be spells that can substitute a skill or mundane ability, there should be spells that does the impossible. The wizard isn't the guy who can defeat the troll, the wizard is the guy who can speak to the dead.
You should never choose to use magic when you have the option not to use magic.

Slipperychicken
2014-09-02, 08:49 AM
Not sure why I didn't get to this sooner...


ok, that is possible slipperychicken. now let us think: what mechanic could we use to make sure that difference is enforced? would each spell have "Generalist" and "Specialist" modes? would the two kinds of wizards have different spell lists entirely? would they be subclasses of the wizard, or two different classes? how would you implement this?

If it's forced to be within the spell levels paradigm in 3.x-like casting, my first thought is the following:

Having different caster levels for each school of magic, which determines spell access (i.e. CL0 means you can't cast spells of that school, CL1 gives you first level spells and cantrips, CL3 gives second level, and so on), where you could have, say CL3 Transmutation and CL1 conjuration.
Any wizard can be a specialist or a generalist.
A specialist could only cast spells from his school because all his other schools are CL=0, but he'd get full progression for his specialist school (level = CL), plus some bonuses related to it (say an evoker would get +2 damage per die, a conjurer might get x2 duration, enchanters get +4 on save DCs, etc etc). Specialists might also get extra spells per day too.
A generalist would get a limited number of 'caster levels' or 'advancement points' each level to assign between his schools, and could raise no school's CL over 2/3 or 1/2 his level: he could have a few schools at limited progression, or all schools with sharply limited progression.
This means a generalist would always lag behind the specialists in spell levels (due to half progression, a generalist could only ever get 5th level spells in a school by level 20, and that's only if he maxed out the one school and neglected others), but would have a wide variety of low-level spells at low CL.
One could also try to be a 'faux specialist', advancing one or two school to the limit (1/2 CL, probably), while sprinkling a few CL into other schools. Not outshining the specialist at his job, but being somewhat more flexible.



Also, it would help to rebalance the schools a lot and make sure they have more clearly-defined and limited roles (i.e. Evocation is the only school which gets damage spells, Transmutation gets buffs and crowd control, Conjuration gets all the summons and teleports, Necromancy gets zombies, cure/harm and resurrections, Illusion also incorporates enchantment, and so on).