Is the domain wizard variant a pure power-up for generalist wizards? [Archive]

ezekielraiden

2019-02-02, 03:34 AM

Do generalist wizards lose anything by becoming domain wizards? Because I was not under the impression that generalist wizards were weak and in need of a power-up.

Playing just a Generalist--not taking Elven Generalist or the like--is generally understood to be strictly worse than any kind of Specialist (to the point that Focused Specialist is still considered worthwhile, but costly). That said, being a Domain Wizard is also understood to be strictly better, for the right domains (Conjuration and Transmutation, of course)--you get more-or-less the same effect, since the bonus slot is almost certainly going to go to the spell of that level for those domains, but at far lower cost, because you don't lose access to schools for doing it.

For this reason, Domain Wizard is frequently nixed. It might be workable if the Transmutation and Conjuration domains were dropped, since it would encourage casters who like other nice types (e.g. Evocation, Abjuration, or Illusion) to actually 'focus' on those instead of always dropping into the ideal picks.

Crake

2019-02-02, 03:42 AM

Playing just a Generalist--not taking Elven Generalist or the like--is generally understood to be strictly worse than any kind of Specialist (to the point that Focused Specialist is still considered worthwhile, but costly). That said, being a Domain Wizard is also understood to be strictly better, for the right domains (Conjuration and Transmutation, of course)--you get more-or-less the same effect, since the bonus slot is almost certainly going to go to the spell of that level for those domains, but at far lower cost, because you don't lose access to schools for doing it.

For this reason, Domain Wizard is frequently nixed. It might be workable if the Transmutation and Conjuration domains were dropped, since it would encourage casters who like other nice types (e.g. Evocation, Abjuration, or Illusion) to actually 'focus' on those instead of always dropping into the ideal picks.

The thing is, domain wizard is always strictly better, because compared to a generalist wizard, it loses absolutely nothing, and gains an extra spell slot and an extra spell known per spell level. Whether you pick fire, evocation, abjuration, whatever, it's still just strictly better than generalist. There is quite literally no reason to pick generalist wizard when domain wizard is an option, even if you're forced into a specific domain for some reason, it's just straight up better.

RoboEmperor

2019-02-02, 03:44 AM

Crake

2019-02-02, 03:55 AM

That's unearthed arcana for you. Just like flaws are strictly better. Or spell points are strictly better.

Well, flaws and spell points aren't strictly better. Most of the flaws are pretty big hits that I find more often than not I'd rather not take them, even if they're something my character doesn't do much, like shaky on a melee fighter or something.

Spell points give you greater access to your higher level spells, but worse access overall, if you convert spell slots into spell points, the spell point system actually gives you less. It also gives you less than psions get power points, so in many ways, it's just straight up worse.

RoboEmperor

2019-02-02, 03:59 AM

Well, flaws and spell points aren't strictly better. Most of the flaws are pretty big hits that I find more often than not I'd rather not take them, even if they're something my character doesn't do much, like shaky on a melee fighter or something.

That's because you're not trying to cram multiple things into your build. Nothing wrong with that but a build with more things crammed into it is stronger than a build with less things crammed into it.

Spell points give you greater access to your higher level spells, but worse access overall, if you convert spell slots into spell points, the spell point system actually gives you less. It also gives you less than psions get power points, so in many ways, it's just straight up worse.

What?
1. I'd gladly give up 100% of my lower level spell slots for a couple of most casts of higher level spells. Spell points does this even better than Versatile Spellcaster.
2. This turns wizards into ultra sorcerers. Change out spell knowns every day. Cast everything spontaneously. This alone makes this variant strictly better than sorcerers. Literally no reason to go sorcerers with spell points.

Crake

2019-02-02, 04:15 AM

That's because you're not trying to cram multiple things into your build. Nothing wrong with that but a build with more things crammed into it is stronger than a build with less things crammed into it.

I've found a feat or two extra at level 1 rarely makes a huge deal of difference.

What?
1. I'd gladly give up 100% of my lower level spell slots for a couple of most casts of higher level spells. Spell points does this even better than Versatile Spellcaster.
2. This turns wizards into ultra sorcerers. Change out spell knowns every day. Cast everything spontaneously. This alone makes this variant strictly better than sorcerers. Literally no reason to go sorcerers with spell points.

Well, see, the thing is, many lower level spells also suddenly become much more expensive, for example, you want to cast an orb of fire? That doesn't cost 7 spell points for a 4th level spell slot, it costs 15 spell points for scaled-to-15d6 spell.

But as I said, ultimately, psionics gives you more spell points for the same system, and StP erudite does you one better than preparing your spells at the start of the day, instead preparing spells as you feel like casting them.

RoboEmperor

2019-02-02, 04:27 AM

I've found a feat or two extra at level 1 rarely makes a huge deal of difference.

My cleric build
1 Fell Animate
H Divine Metamagic:Fell Animate
D1 Extend Spell - From Planning Domain
3 Persistent Spell
6 Divine Metamagic:Persistent Spell
9 Eschew Materials
12 Craft Wondrous Item
15 Demon Mastery
D16 Scribe Scroll - From Rune Domain via Contemplative
18 Extract Demonic Essence

With Flaws
1 Fell Animate
H Divine Metamagic:Fell Animate
D1 Extend Spell - From Planning Domain
F Persistent Spell
F Divine Metamagic:Persistent Spell
3 Scribe Scroll
6 Eschew Materials
9 Craft Wondrous Item
12 Demon Mastery
15 Extract Demonic Essence
18

Notice
1. DMM:Persistent Spell came online 5 levels earlier. 5 levels. I repeat 5 levels earlier
2. Because Extract Demonic Essence is gotten at 15, I can use half priced Wishes at level 17 instead of 18.
3. Because I can grab Scribe Scroll as a feat, I get a bonus domain from Contemplative for Spell Choice. Like Animal for Shapechange.

I think this is a huge power boost. Don't you? Bonus Domain + Bunch of stuff gotten much earlier.

edit:Don't check the power level at 20. Check the power level at 6. You'll notice the difference in power is that much bigger.

Crake

2019-02-02, 05:00 AM

RoboEmperor

2019-02-02, 02:31 PM

You were perfectly capable of getting DMM persist at level 1 without flaws, and considering that you don't have extra turning, there's really no point in having two different DMM feats so early, since there's practically no way you're gonna be able to use them both. You need 7 turn attempts just to persist a single spell, and then 4 more to fell animate something. Even with the undeath domain for an extra 4 turn attempts, you'd need 18 cha to be able to use them both, which I just don't see a cleric having at level 1.

I only need one DMM per day. (extended) DMM Persist for normal, if I find a nice creature I knock it out and DMM Fell Animate it the next day. And I could've gotten Extra Turning at 3 instead of getting Eschew Materials.

And honestly, why are you wasting all those feat slots on extract demonic essence and all it's requirements when you can, y'know, DCFS them in and out when necessary.

Because that's not allowed in the games I'm in. I've yet to see a DM allow it.

My point is my early game got significantly stronger with flaws. Not just a minor boost.

ExLibrisMortis

2019-02-02, 02:40 PM

Flaws are really nice for bringing a character concept together at low levels. I have played a crusader 1/monk 1/incarnate 1 with Combat Reflexes, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Midnight Dodge, and Karmic Strike. Really fun build, but hard to do without at least one flaw.

Crake

2019-02-02, 03:02 PM

I only need one DMM per day. (extended) DMM Persist for normal, if I find a nice creature I knock it out and DMM Fell Animate it the next day. And I could've gotten Extra Turning at 3 instead of getting Eschew Materials.

Because that's not allowed in the games I'm in. I've yet to see a DM allow it.

My point is my early game got significantly stronger with flaws. Not just a minor boost.

"Significantly" stronger. Getting a relatively tiny zombie at early levels isn't a huge power boost (after all, you're limited by your HD, so you can't even use CL boosters to get stronger zombies/skeletons), and after level 5 the only thing it's doing is saving you a relatively small amount of money. If you go by the AEG, feats are worth about 10,000gp, with an extra 5000gp per prerequisite, and you've spend two of them on this, so you'd need to save about 20,000gp on animate dead for fell animate to be worth it, which is the equivilent of 800HD worth of animated creatures. Honestly, i think you'd probably just be better off getting a rod of fell animate to hold onto and use to coup de grace with, rather than actually waste two feats on it, it's a +3 adjustment, which only costs 14,000gp for a minor (you're coup de gracing enemies with your fell animate inflict light wounds that you spontaneously converted), much cheaper than the estimated 20,000gp from two feat slots, and gives you the added benefit of being able to do it on the fly, rather than waiting till a non-adventuring day. You still need to convert more than 560HD worth of creatures for it to actually be cost effective though, which I honestly don't see happening in most games.

Basically, what I'm saying is those two feats aren't really doing a huge deal for your character, so as I said, relatively minor power boost. All you're doing with fell animate is saving yourself a few levels waiting until animte dead, plus forcing your party to have to deal with keeping an enemy restrained, and unconscious, since fell animate can't be used to raise an already dead creature, wheras animate dead, you can just kill them, and stuff their corpse into a bag or something.

Flaws are really nice for bringing a character concept together at low levels. I have played a crusader 1/monk 1/incarnate 1 with Combat Reflexes, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Midnight Dodge, and Karmic Strike. Really fun build, but hard to do without at least one flaw.

This is honestly what I've found it to be more useful for, and generally speaking the flaw drawbacks actually hurt. You're basically looking at -1hp/level (hurts), -3 to a save (hurts), -6 initiative (hurts baaad), -2 to an ability score (if you meet the prerequisite, also hurts), -4 spot/listen (can very easily be the difference between being part of a surprise round and not, tantamount to having a 20% chance to have -infinity initiative, hurts), -2 ranged/melee attack/-1AC (all will eventually come up at some point. Even wizards have melee/ranged touch attacks, and if you take this you're forced to basically give up half the touch spells in the game, including some fairly potent ones on both sides, -1AC is also sucky).

Basically, all of the drawbacks from flaws suck and short of enabling a wombocombo at level 1, or as ExLibrisMortis said, enabling a character concept at early levels when I know the game isn't going to go long, I would rather not have the permanent drawbacks and just let my character get better over time rather than having it all at level 1. It's an upgrade with a cost, which is why I don't agree that it's a straight upgrade. There are costs associated with taking flaws, unlike with domain wizard over generalist, there's 0 cost involved there. Likewise, spell points, there's a cost involved, you get less stamina overall (and singificantly less than a psion of equal level) at the benefit of having better access to your highest level spells.

RoboEmperor

2019-02-02, 03:12 PM

"Significantly" stronger. Getting a relatively tiny zombie at early levels isn't a huge power boost (after all, you're limited by your HD, so you can't even use CL boosters to get stronger zombies/skeletons), and after level 5 the only thing it's doing is saving you a relatively small amount of money. If you go by the AEG, feats are worth about 10,000gp, with an extra 5000gp per prerequisite, and you've spend two of them on this, so you'd need to save about 20,000gp on animate dead for fell animate to be worth it, which is the equivilent of 800HD worth of animated creatures. Honestly, i think you'd probably just be better off getting a rod of fell animate to hold onto and use to coup de grace with, rather than actually waste two feats on it, it's a +3 adjustment, which only costs 14,000gp for a minor (you're coup de gracing enemies with your fell animate inflict light wounds that you spontaneously converted), much cheaper than the estimated 20,000gp from two feat slots, and gives you the added benefit of being able to do it on the fly, rather than waiting till a non-adventuring day. You still need to convert more than 560HD worth of creatures for it to actually be cost effective though, which I honestly don't see happening in most games.

Basically, what I'm saying is those two feats aren't really doing a huge deal for your character, so as I said, relatively minor power boost. All you're doing with fell animate is saving yourself a few levels waiting until animte dead, plus forcing your party to have to deal with keeping an enemy restrained, and unconscious, since fell animate can't be used to raise an already dead creature, wheras animate dead, you can just kill them, and stuff their corpse into a bag or something.

You can KO your entire undead control on one guy. That's nothing to sneeze at. At level 1 you can use fell animate onto a 2hd guy which results in a 4hd zombie. If you add DMM on top of that it's really strong. Remove DMM and you're strong just not really strong. At level 2 you can raise a 4hd creature for an 8hd zombie.

The original point I was making is that Flaws are strictly better than no flaws. I don't know about martial characters but for spellcasters it is strictly better. You were saying it wasn't. I was proving you wrong.

Particle_Man

2019-02-03, 01:24 AM

I would choose the abjuration domain myself. Banishment, dispel magic and greater dispel magic are nice spells to have an extra caster level in.

I mean I would take that if a dm allowed domain wizards at all, but would totally understand a dm not allowing domain wizards.

Crake

2019-02-03, 02:23 AM

You can KO your entire undead control on one guy. That's nothing to sneeze at. At level 1 you can use fell animate onto a 2hd guy which results in a 4hd zombie. If you add DMM on top of that it's really strong. Remove DMM and you're strong just not really strong. At level 2 you can raise a 4hd creature for an 8hd zombie.

The original point I was making is that Flaws are strictly better than no flaws. I don't know about martial characters but for spellcasters it is strictly better. You were saying it wasn't. I was proving you wrong.

Just want to point out that while fell animate does in fact say you can target a single creature who's HD is equal to double your character level, it does then go on to state that you cannot make more than twice your CL in undead HD per casting, so at level 1, you could at most make a 2HD zombie, even though for some reason the feat mentions targetting a creature who's HD is no more than twice your own. Seems to me like the writers had a bit of a brain fart on that one, but I believe the intent was that the resultant zombie can have no more than twice your own HD, the writer probably forgot that zombies double their HD.

That aside, I disagree with you that flaws are "strictly better", because there are drawbacks involved, and those drawbacks are intended to balance the choice. Now yes, some feat choices are very strong, but the balancing forces still remain, wheras the domain wizard has no such balancing forces, and is a pure and simple upgrade with no downside or loss of any kind over a generalist. Elven generalist is likewise such a choice. It loses absolutely nothing, and only gains.

JMS

2019-02-03, 09:44 AM

The original point I was making is that Flaws are strictly better than no flaws. I don't know about martial characters but for spellcasters it is strictly better. You were saying it wasn't. I was proving you wrong.

Not going to argue on whether flaws are a power boost or not (I think they are), but they are not strictly better, since they do have a downside. Of course, something like a ghost taking a -4 penalty to Climb and Move Silently? That's almost strictly better (have you seen ghosts climb in game? Also, incorporeal, so no Move Silently needed.), but on most characters flaws do have a downside.

StreamOfTheSky

2019-02-03, 11:39 AM

I love flaws, I don't care if they're considered a power boost. Way too many feats out there, too few feat slots. I find they're actually more useful for non-casters than casters, since martial feats tend to come in "feat chain" format while as a wizard can typically nab his ultimate techniques like Quicken Spell with no pre-req feats at all.
They also devalue Humans as a racial choice a bit, which is a huge plus for me. In games w/o flaws, at least half the party is always human, because...they need to be humans.

But as for those spell points....ugh, why even in a thread about something else entirely must they haunt me?

Spell points give you greater access to your higher level spells, but worse access overall, if you convert spell slots into spell points, the spell point system actually gives you less. It also gives you less than psions get power points, so in many ways, it's just straight up worse.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=15043304&postcount=32

As for less raw spells per day, you're right... A Druid 20 w/ Vancian has 349 points worth of spells and a Wizard 20 has 324, by my calculations vs. 232 gained by the spell points system. (The sorcerer 20 is by far the biggest loser, going from 486 to only 249 and gaining basically nothing for it, but the system screwing over Sorcerers was one of my complaints, so...)
However, that's generally considered worth it for the ability to go nova with top level spells more times per day. Also, the spell points from ability bonus seem to track identically with Vancian. For example, a level 20 caster with a 26 casting stat gets 80 points worth of slots in Vancian and 80 points worth of slots in spell points system, and it seems to be consistent for any example (feel free to calculate them all out if you want....). So the higher you min-max your casting stat, the less of a % loss you'll feel, since you're getting 1-for-1 on the bonus points.
Also, if you're going to bring up the lower amount of spells per day, I'm gonna bring up option #2 for adjudicating metamagic, where you just get the feat's use 3/day each without any increased spell point cost. That...can easily close the gap a lot, too.

Crake

2019-02-04, 12:31 AM

I love flaws, I don't care if they're considered a power boost. Way too many feats out there, too few feat slots. I find they're actually more useful for non-casters than casters, since martial feats tend to come in "feat chain" format while as a wizard can typically nab his ultimate techniques like Quicken Spell with no pre-req feats at all.
They also devalue Humans as a racial choice a bit, which is a huge plus for me. In games w/o flaws, at least half the party is always human, because...they need to be humans.

But as for those spell points....ugh, why even in a thread about something else entirely must they haunt me?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=15043304&postcount=32

As for less raw spells per day, you're right... A Druid 20 w/ Vancian has 349 points worth of spells and a Wizard 20 has 324, by my calculations vs. 232 gained by the spell points system. (The sorcerer 20 is by far the biggest loser, going from 486 to only 249 and gaining basically nothing for it, but the system screwing over Sorcerers was one of my complaints, so...)
However, that's generally considered worth it for the ability to go nova with top level spells more times per day. Also, the spell points from ability bonus seem to track identically with Vancian. For example, a level 20 caster with a 26 casting stat gets 80 points worth of slots in Vancian and 80 points worth of slots in spell points system, and it seems to be consistent for any example (feel free to calculate them all out if you want....). So the higher you min-max your casting stat, the less of a % loss you'll feel, since you're getting 1-for-1 on the bonus points.
Also, if you're going to bring up the lower amount of spells per day, I'm gonna bring up option #2 for adjudicating metamagic, where you just get the feat's use 3/day each without any increased spell point cost. That...can easily close the gap a lot, too.

The thing about psions vs spell points is you'll actually find that many of the psionic augmentations are actually equivilent to making the powers higher level abilities, which spellcasters would have to prepare and cast as a higher level spell, costing more spell points anyway. Take dominate for example. Psionic dominate affects humanoids by default, but you can affect other creature types by augmenting it. Conversely, if you wanted to affect a giant with a dominate spell, you would HAVE to use dominate monster, which costs 17 spell points, vs psionic dominate only costing 13. Hell, for 17 power points, a psionic dominate spell can affect the same variety of creature types for the same duration, PLUS affect 2 creatures instead of 1.

That is on top of the multitude of psionic powers that actually don't need to be augmented at all for the same reasons that spells don't, like aura sight, ubiquitous vision, touchsight, read thoughts, and so on. Sure something like vigor provides 5 temporary hp/power point, but show me a 1st level spell that scales like that?!

RoboEmperor

2019-02-04, 12:37 AM

The thing about psions vs spell points is you'll actually find that many of the psionic augmentations are actually equivilent to making the powers higher level abilities, which spellcasters would have to prepare and cast as a higher level spell, costing more spell points anyway. Take dominate for example. Psionic dominate affects humanoids by default, but you can affect other creature types by augmenting it. Conversely, if you wanted to affect a giant with a dominate spell, you would HAVE to use dominate monster, which costs 17 spell points, vs psionic dominate only costing 13. Hell, for 17 power points, a psionic dominate spell can affect the same variety of creature types for the same duration, PLUS affect 2 creatures instead of 1.

That is on top of the multitude of psionic powers that actually don't need to be augmented at all for the same reasons that spells don't, like aura sight, ubiquitous vision, touchsight, read thoughts, and so on. Sure something like vigor provides 5 temporary hp/power point, but show me a 1st level spell that scales like that?!

This point is moot because spells > powers. This "flexibility" is not worth the severely restricted powers list compared to spell lists. I clammed up because StP is the best of the best, but if we're comparing non-stps to normal wizards there is no contest that wizards win. And spell points is a straight up power up to wizards.

Crake

2019-02-04, 01:30 AM

This point is moot because spells > powers. This "flexibility" is not worth the severely restricted powers list compared to spell lists. I clammed up because StP is the best of the best, but if we're comparing non-stps to normal wizards there is no contest that wizards win. And spell points is a straight up power up to wizards.

Well, again, it's not, for the reasons I've already outlined. It is a gain in power at the expense of sustainability. If you were able to replicate the same amount of casting as a regular caster, but then could ALSO just use all your powers to cast higher level stuff, then yeah, it would be a straight upgrade, but you can't, so it isn't.

RoboEmperor

2019-02-04, 01:39 AM

Well, again, it's not, for the reasons I've already outlined. It is a gain in power at the expense of sustainability. If you were able to replicate the same amount of casting as a regular caster, but then could ALSO just use all your powers to cast higher level stuff, then yeah, it would be a straight upgrade, but you can't, so it isn't.

The difference of agreement here is.

Me: -1 +10 = straight up power up
You: -1 + 10 =/= straight up power up because there is a -1.

Flaws are a significant net increase in power.
Spell Points are a significant net increase in power because more castings of "spells that ends encounter by themselves" > "more castings of lower level spells"

But because of the disproportionately weaker downside you say it's not a straight up power up even though I can't for the life of me think of a single optimizer who wouldn't take the above options.

ezekielraiden

2019-02-04, 01:42 AM

The thing is, domain wizard is always strictly better, because compared to a generalist wizard, it loses absolutely nothing, and gains an extra spell slot and an extra spell known per spell level. Whether you pick fire, evocation, abjuration, whatever, it's still just strictly better than generalist. There is quite literally no reason to pick generalist wizard when domain wizard is an option, even if you're forced into a specific domain for some reason, it's just straight up better.

My reasoning is: there's never really a reason to be a generalist anyway, because specialization is always better than generalist too (excluding special cases like Elven Generalist). Therefore, generalist was never really a choice to begin with. My notion was not to make generalist tempting, because I don't believe you can; instead, I wanted to make stuff like an Abjurer actually worthwhile in the face of Conjuration or Transmutation specialties (which are head and shoulders above the rest). So I'm saying maybe replace (most/all?) other specializations with domains. That way, Conjurers and Transmuters noe pay the price of forbidden schools, while other types of specialist simply get bonus spells. Specializing in the best schools is then more costly, but maybe possibly just a little more balanced.

RoboEmperor

2019-02-04, 01:48 AM

My reasoning is: there's never really a reason to be a generalist anyway, because specialization is always better than generalist too (excluding special cases like Elven Generalist). Therefore, generalist was never really a choice to begin with. My notion was not to make generalist tempting, because I don't believe you can; instead, I wanted to make stuff like an Abjurer actually worthwhile in the face of Conjuration or Transmutation specialties (which are head and shoulders above the rest). So I'm saying maybe replace (most/all?) other specializations with domains. That way, Conjurers and Transmuters noe pay the price of forbidden schools, while other types of specialist simply get bonus spells. Specializing in the best schools is then more costly, but maybe possibly just a little more balanced.

I only go generalist. Sure, less spells per day, but the out of combat shenanigans I wanted to pull in my games needed access to all the spell schools except divination, and you can't ban divination, so I end up going generalist.

Crake

2019-02-04, 01:49 AM

My reasoning is: there's never really a reason to be a generalist anyway, because specialization is always better than generalist too (excluding special cases like Elven Generalist). Therefore, generalist was never really a choice to begin with. My notion was not to make generalist tempting, because I don't believe you can; instead, I wanted to make stuff like an Abjurer actually worthwhile in the face of Conjuration or Transmutation specialties (which are head and shoulders above the rest). So I'm saying maybe replace (most/all?) other specializations with domains. That way, Conjurers and Transmuters noe pay the price of forbidden schools, while other types of specialist simply get bonus spells. Specializing in the best schools is then more costly, but maybe possibly just a little more balanced.

Specialization is not better then generalist when your goal is to be able to cast as many spells as possible. Generalist has it's place, some people would rather maintain access to all schools, rather than gain an extra spell slot per level. If you want to balance the school specs though, you could do what they did in earlier editions, which was have certain schools cost more/less forbidden schools to specialize in.

Luccan

2019-02-04, 02:00 AM

The more I think about it, the more I like Domain Wizard. It sets up the idea that every wizard is some kind of specialist, there are just some specializations that are more costly than others, because magic is weird so even the nerds of magic can't completely predict how it will turn out. Maybe your conjurer never quite had the same knack for it as some of his peers, but he's still better than non-conjurers and can still use spells from other schools. And maybe they can accurately predict some: dedicated Pyromancers never seem to run into schools they can't cast from.

Crake

2019-02-04, 02:05 AM

The difference of agreement here is.

Me: -1 +10 = straight up power up
You: -1 + 10 =/= straight up power up because there is a -1.

Flaws are a significant net increase in power.
Spell Points are a significant net increase in power because more castings of "spells that ends encounter by themselves" > "more castings of lower level spells"

But because of the disproportionately weaker downside you say it's not a straight up power up even though I can't for the life of me think of a single optimizer who wouldn't take the above options.

I think the issue is that you're putting the bonuses and penalties on the same scale

-1 +10 = 9, so you're right, that's a pure power up. However, something like a flaw isn't -1+10, it's A-1, B+10. So A is weaker, but B is stronger. This is not a straight upgrade. Domain wizard on the other hand is just A+10. Spell points are likewise A-5, B+10, where A is sustainability, but B is power. This makes it not a straight upgrade. A straight upgrade means it's purely better in ever way, but as I have demonstrated, that is not the case with both flaws and spell points.

RoboEmperor

2019-02-04, 02:26 AM

I think the issue is that you're putting the bonuses and penalties on the same scale

-1 +10 = 9, so you're right, that's a pure power up. However, something like a flaw isn't -1+10, it's A-1, B+10. So A is weaker, but B is stronger. This is not a straight upgrade. Domain wizard on the other hand is just A+10. Spell points are likewise A-5, B+10, where A is sustainability, but B is power. This makes it not a straight upgrade. A straight upgrade means it's purely better in ever way, but as I have demonstrated, that is not the case with both flaws and spell points.

A 7th level wizard with 18 int has
4 0th
5 1st
4 2nd
3 3rd
2 4th

Same wizard with spell points have 49 points. A 4th level spell costs 7 points. So he can cast Black tentacles 7 times.

1 black tentacle ends an encounter and is not replicateable by using multiple 1st level spells. 7 castings = 7 encounters. The normal wizard has 2 tentacles, so he needs to win 5 encounters with his lower level spells. Now I know not all encounters can end with a black tentacle, but for the sake of argument lets say the wizard only faces encounters that can be stopped with a single casting of black tentacles, and in this scenario Spell Points resulted in an increase in sustainability. And an increase in versatility and power. Where's this downside?

Sometimes the normal wizard might last longer, but IMO most times he won't.

I've never seen pathetic, feeble, and inattentive ever hurt a wizard so that's a -0 for flaws.

Crake

2019-02-04, 02:40 AM

A 7th level wizard with 18 int has
4 0th
5 1st
4 2nd
3 3rd
2 4th

Same wizard with spell points have 49 points. A 4th level spell costs 7 points. So he can cast Black tentacles 7 times.

1 black tentacle ends an encounter and is not replicateable by using multiple 1st level spells. 7 castings = 7 encounters. The normal wizard has 2 tentacles, so he needs to win 5 encounters with his lower level spells. Now I know not all encounters can end with a black tentacle, but for the sake of argument lets say the wizard only faces encounters that can be stopped with a single casting of black tentacles, and in this scenario Spell Points resulted in an increase in sustainability. And an increase in versatility and power. Where's this downside?

Sometimes the normal wizard might last longer, but IMO most times he won't.

Yeah, of course if we say for the sake of argument that the spell you're referring to will end encounters, casting that spell more times is better. But sometimes web can be just as effective as black tentacles, or perhaps even more so. The fact is, even lower level spells can be very useful and game changing. How often do you know psions to just nova all their power points on their highest level powers? Personally, not often.

I've never seen pathetic, feeble, and inattentive ever hurt a wizard so that's a -0 for flaws.

Just because you haven't seen it happen, doesn't mean it doesn't. Feeble means -2 initiative, which is pretty painful (I wonder, have you actually be considering that initiative is a dex check and is thus hurt by that?), -2 concentration (painful at early levels), and -2 to climb/jump/tumble/balance, which could be dangerous in the right circumstances. Pathetic is just painful in general, about the best case scenario for pathetic is -2 strength, but at that point you're getting awfully close to a ray of enfeeblement away from just collapsing to the floor under the weight of your gear, or a single shadow touch away from dead. Dex/con/wis means -1 to it's associated save, AC, and/or hp, and cha is probably second place, but it makes binding and charming tough.

RoboEmperor

2019-02-04, 02:55 AM

We're gonna need more than rough estimates to see whether the SP build or the wizard build lasts longer because of the sheer amount of spells and stuff out there. But they're close in sustainability and the wizard build loses in power and versatility.

Just because you haven't seen it happen, doesn't mean it doesn't. Feeble means -2 initiative, which is pretty painful (I wonder, have you actually be considering that initiative is a dex check and is thus hurt by that?), -2 concentration (painful at early levels), and -2 to climb/jump/tumble/balance, which could be dangerous in the right circumstances. Pathetic is just painful in general, about the best case scenario for pathetic is -2 strength, but at that point you're getting awfully close to a ray of enfeeblement away from just collapsing to the floor under the weight of your gear, or a single shadow touch away from dead. Dex/con/wis means -1 to it's associated save, AC, and/or hp, and cha is probably second place, but it makes binding and charming tough.

I did forget about initiative being a dex check. My bad. Yeah that is painful.

-2 to concentration/climb/jump/tumble/balance are jokes unless you are planing a build with defensive casting or something like that. At which point pick a different flaw that makes it a -0. That's the main complaint of flaws right? It being a -0 because you build it your PC in a way so that it is. No offensive touch spells? Noncombatant and murky eyes.

Pathetic is literally a 2 point buy trade for a feat. That can't ever be more than a -0.1 or the like unless you're doing some sort of severe MAD build like a unarmed fist wizard or the like. While it is painful for such a build, for a normal wizard it's a -0.

Stuff like Specialist Wizard or Focused Wizards definitely have a huge enough downside that it's not a straight up better, but I say the downside of flaws and SPs are too little to not be straight up better.

Crake

2019-02-04, 03:03 AM

We're gonna need more than rough estimates to see whether the SP build or the wizard build lasts longer because of the sheer amount of spells and stuff out there. But they're close in sustainability and the wizard build loses in power and versatility.

I did forget about initiative being a dex check. My bad. Yeah that is painful.

-2 to concentration/climb/jump/tumble/balance are jokes unless you are planing a build with defensive casting or something like that. At which point pick a different flaw that makes it a -0. That's the main complaint of flaws right? It being a -0 because you build it your PC in a way so that it is. No offensive touch spells? Noncombatant and murky eyes.

Pathetic is literally a 2 point buy trade for a feat. That can't ever be more than a -0.1 or the like unless you're doing some sort of severe MAD build like a unarmed fist wizard or the like. While it is painful for such a build, for a normal wizard it's a -0.

Stuff like Specialist Wizard or Focused Wizards definitely have a huge enough downside that it's not a straight up better, but I say the downside of flaws and SPs are too little to not be straight up better.

See, the thing is, when you say something like that bolded statement, what you seem to not realise is that the cost isn't "a penalty I'll never encounter", it's "never being able to use offensive touch spells, or if you do, being terrible at them". Admittedly, murky eyes is a pretty terrible flaw, because concealment and miss chances don't really come up particularly often, but MOST of the other flaws are pretty universal. But ultimately, the time will come when you say "Damn, X spell would have been nice, but I have non-combatant, so I'm gonna get something else". That is the flaw. For example, I have a melee magus with shaky in one of my games, and every time there's ranged combat, he gets grumpy, because he purposefully didn't pick ranged spells because of shaky, and thus had no good ranged options.

Ultimately, I'd say that for the most part, the flaws are decently penalizing enough that taking them is enough of a downside to warrant saying that they aren't an automatic pick. Even murky eyed can result in horrible :feelsbadman: moments.

RoboEmperor

2019-02-04, 03:05 AM

See, the thing is, when you say something like that bolded statement, what you seem to not realise is that the cost isn't "a penalty I'll never encounter", it's "never being able to use offensive touch spells, or if you do, being terrible at them". Admittedly, murky eyes is a pretty terrible flaw, because concealment and miss chances don't really come up particularly often, but MOST of the other flaws are pretty universal. But ultimately, the time will come when you say "Damn, X spell would have been nice, but I have non-combatant, so I'm gonna get something else". That is the flaw. For example, I have a melee magus with shaky in one of my games, and every time there's ranged combat, he gets grumpy, because he purposefully didn't pick ranged spells because of shaky, and thus had no good ranged options.

Ultimately, I'd say that for the most part, the flaws are decently penalizing enough that taking them is enough of a downside to warrant saying that they aren't an automatic pick. Even murky eyed can result in horrible :feelsbadman: moments.

You know what, good argument, I will concede for now. I might steal your argument for a Pro-Flaw thread in the future :)

Crake

2019-02-04, 03:15 AM

You know what, good argument, I will concede for now. I might steal your argument for a Pro-Flaw thread in the future :)

Sure thing! Glad I could get you to see things my way, that's the reasoning I use to allow flaws in my game, and honestly, when I'm a player offered flaws, I'll tend to um and ah over it for ages before deciding, because while we talk about numerical downsides, there's also the roleplaying perspective, where the downsides may very well jive negatively with your character concept. Naturally, there are some feats that are just insanely good, like the aformentioned divine metamagic, and thus the penalties don't balance out very well, but the penalties still exist, and I'd say that's more an issue with the feat's power, than the flaw's penalties.