Pathfinder Prohibited Schools

[Aotrs Commander]

I am considering whether to import Pathfinder's prohibited school rules (i..e double slots to prepare opposition spells, ability to use prohibited wands and stuff) into my predominantly 3.5-spell-based houserules (to be supplemented with some choice PF spells), which include the existance of stuff like Focussed Specialist1.



Should I?



1Which might strongly suggest retaining the no-use of prohibited schools.

[legomaster00156]

Obviously, it makes Wizards stronger. It's entirely dependent on your particular table whether that is a good thing.

[Aotrs Commander]

Perhaps, then a tangent question - does anyone actually use the double-spell slots thing? I can see the ability to use any scrolls/wands being considered the best part of the deal1, but does the ability to load at double-slots actually mean people use it in practise? (My own experience is entirely with Pathfinder Kingmaker (where I have decided that, on actual use, giving the wizards the school powers won't make them more powerful, really), but there I look at it and go "nope.") It seems like it's situational enough it might not ever come up in a campaign (at which point, it's not going to have much impact-balance-wise).



1On reflection, I'm not sure we ever remember currently to rigidly enforce the prohibition on scrolls now (at least, beyond scrolls that the wizard buys himself) - though to be fair, we are very terrible at using consumables as a group, so not remembering to check what school a treasure-found scroll that actually gets USED is also probably an event that tends to non-existance.)

[HeraldOfExius]

Perhaps, then a tangent question - does anyone actually use the double-spell slots thing? I can see the ability to use any scrolls/wands being considered the best part of the deal1, but does the ability to load at double-slots actually mean people use it in practise? (My own experience is entirely with Pathfinder Kingmaker (where I have decided that, on actual use, giving the wizards the school powers won't make them more powerful, really), but there I look at it and go "nope.") It seems like it's situational enough it might not ever come up in a campaign (at which point, it's not going to have much impact-balance-wise).

Does only preparing them during downtime for the sake of crafting scrolls and wands count? There's a penalty for crafting things with spells from one of your opposition schools, but still being able to prepare the spells lets you make spell completion/trigger items where you can't ignore the prerequisites. If you're just going to be lounging around town for a week, you might as well ensure future access to any utility spells you might want from an opposition school.

Would I actually prepare any of them outside of downtime? Probably not, especially when just using the previously mentioned items is an option.

[Psyren]

1Which might strongly suggest retaining the no-use of prohibited schools.

You have several options here:

1) Keep 3.5's hard ban on prohibited schools.
2) Port in PF's soft ban.
3) A hybrid system - such as bringing in the soft ban for regular specialists, but things like Focused Specialist and Master Specialist get a hard ban on one of their prohibited schools, or add additional schools to their soft ban, or even both.

Just keep in mind that anything that doesn't impose the 3.5 hard ban is a buff to specialist wizards, and decide if that's what you want.

For us we just used the normal PF soft ban (#2), but wizards aren't actually all that popular in our games anyway, it's been a long time since somebody's played one.

[Tiktakkat]

In the realm of "obscure 3.5 stuff to do things" there are 3 feats from Lost Empires of Faerun that un-prohibit schools for specialist wizards..

Spell Reprieve lets you learn and cast 1 spell for a prohibited school. You can take it multiple times for the same prohibited school, but mostly you just need it once so you can take;
Item Reprieve lets you use spell completing (scrolls) and spell trigger (wands) items from a banned school. It has to be for the same school as the one used for Spell Reprieve. You can then take;
Arcane Transfiguration makes the prohibited school no longer prohibited at all.

Yes, that is 3 feats to get one of two (or three for focused specialists) prohibited schools back, minimum of 10th level, or 2 feats to get item use for one prohibited school back, minimum of 5th level.

I would also note that UMD exists for prohibited school items no matter what, though it can have "consequences" until around 10th level as well.

[Aotrs Commander]

You have several options here:

1) Keep 3.5's hard ban on prohibited schools.
2) Port in PF's soft ban.
3) A hybrid system - such as bringing in the soft ban for regular specialists, but things like Focused Specialist and Master Specialist get a hard ban on one of their prohibited schools, or add additional schools to their soft ban, or even both.

Just keep in mind that anything that doesn't impose the 3.5 hard ban is a buff to specialist wizards, and decide if that's what you want.

For us we just used the normal PF soft ban (#2), but wizards aren't actually all that popular in our games anyway, it's been a long time since somebody's played one.

I think if I was going to do it, I would beconsidering option 3 (soft ban, plus hard ban for focussed specialists et al); while we do use a lot of wizards, we also don't tend to use a lot of scrolls. Whether that would change is an interesting question.

(Speaking for myself, were we ever to go back to my Necromancer/Pale Master, I can't particularly see me having a desperate urge to learn or use enchantment/illusion spells except for MAYBE invisibility, and I'm pretty sure I'd want to be using that off a scroll if I was going to use it, and then there's not much difference to using a potion, so... Eh?)



The soft-cap seems to be a sort of option whereby while you have the ability in theory, in practise, you have better things you can be doing. (Like the PF cleric domain powers; I've been dead-set on not porting those in, but having been playing Kingmaker, I have thus far throughly failed to ever use the ones I had anyway, so I might well add them in as an ACF. (Wizard school powers too; they seem to have a little more utility, but the vast majority of them aren't better than spells, so it's kind of like the high stat point buy we use - it doesn't make SAD character worse, just rounds MAd character bit, and I think the same applies.)) So, on the one hand, I can see adding in the soft cap may have no appreciable effect to our regular game-play other than once in a blue moon, but on the other, it is a boost to specialists.



I want to talk it over with my group to see what they reckon, but so far, I've not managed to get them all in once place (and trying to do it by email gets maybe one reply and mostly silence...)

[Psyren]

Yeah, a hybrid system (#3) seemed like an interesting option to me too, hence proposing it :smallsmile: I was playing around a bit in the design space that PF opened up.

[Kish]

It's worth noting that Pathfinder has Thassilonian Specialists (https://aonprd.com/ArchetypeDisplay.aspx?FixedName=Wizard%20Thassilon ian%20Specialist). They have not only true barred schools, but fixed barred schools determined by which school they specialize in. In exchange, they gain a duplicate of the spell in their bonus slot at each level (so a wrath-wizard, a Thassilonian evoker, who prepared Fireball in their level 3 bonus slot can cast two Fireballs that day because of that).

[Arkain]

What if instead of increasing slot requirements or outright banning schools completely, there's a penalty to caster level in addition to the usual penalties to spellcraft? Say -2 for prohibited schools, maybe -3 for focused specialists if you want to go that way. Might also fit the "I focused more on this and neglected some other things" flavor better than hard bans. Essentially, scrolls would be slightly harder to use in the early levels, items a bit trickier to craft and spells would require the same slots, but end up weaker and implicitly one spell level lower for the most part, as you cannot cast a spell if you don't have the minimum caster level required. Suppose you choose to prohibit evocation, thus you cannot use Magic Missle until level 3, Scorching Ray until 5, Fireball until level 7 etc. Likewise, you'd have to roll higher on caster level checks to use a scroll. But hopefully the odd Fireball, Invisibility, Heroism, Charm X or what have you will still be memorized every now and then, instead of ignored or becoming consumable only.
Certainly not flawless, however. Aside from differences in how caster level affects various schools and their spells, problems may arise once caster level boosts enter the scene. On the other hand, since caster level shenanigans probably don't occur during the early levels, it might be perfectly okay to have overcome one's early deficits for a cost at that point, bringing the prohibited schools up to "normal" performance.

[Endarire]

Having played a 3.5 Wizard who transferred to PF1 about 10 years ago who used the double slots rule, I think it's fair.

This means you needn't be so paranoid about which schools you oppose. You weren't about to use them much anyway, and now you can, if you're willing and able to invest more resources than normal, prepare and cast spells from those schools. In a typical game for a typical player, the 'soft ban' of double slots is better.

[upho]

Perhaps, then a tangent question - does anyone actually use the double-spell slots thing? I can see the ability to use any scrolls/wands being considered the best part of the deal1, but does the ability to load at double-slots actually mean people use it in practise?Though it's been a very long time since I last saw a wizard in play outside of me briefly playing the occasional NPC, my experiences are very similar to yours. I can only remember one time when one of the two PF wizards PCs I have seen in play for 10+ levels used double-slots to prepare a spell for a purpose other than crafting during downtime. Although the spell was admittedly very useful that one time.

And I think at least the last of these two wizards was actually making pretty good use of scrolls otherwise. At least in comparison to my group in general, which seems to view scrolls found after early levels as some kind of fiddly fantasy versions of paper money with a labor-intense form of watermarking, money best spent quickly - unless someone happens to notice the GM emphatically jumping up and down while screaming protests - before one might find a need to read up on their spells again or they end up buried beneath the trash at the bottom of handy haversacks... :smallamused:


For us we just used the normal PF soft ban (#2), but wizards aren't actually all that popular in our games anyway, it's been a long time since somebody's played one.That's pretty much exactly the case in our games as well. Do you know of or suspect any particular reason(s) for why wizards have fallen out of fashion in your games?

In the case of my games, I think the main reason is that there are still so many far more recent classes the players want to try out. And to a lesser extent probably that most people associate the story, setting and related houserules of both my latest games primarily with things distant from the D&D wizard.


What if instead of increasing slot requirements or outright banning schools completely, there's a penalty to caster level in addition to the usual penalties to spellcraft? Say -2 for prohibited schools, maybe -3 for focused specialists if you want to go that way. Might also fit the "I focused more on this and neglected some other things" flavor better than hard bans. Essentially, scrolls would be slightly harder to use in the early levels, items a bit trickier to craft and spells would require the same slots, but end up weaker and implicitly one spell level lower for the most part, as you cannot cast a spell if you don't have the minimum caster level required. Suppose you choose to prohibit evocation, thus you cannot use Magic Missle until level 3, Scorching Ray until 5, Fireball until level 7 etc. Likewise, you'd have to roll higher on caster level checks to use a scroll. But hopefully the odd Fireball, Invisibility, Heroism, Charm X or what have you will still be memorized every now and then, instead of ignored or becoming consumable only.
Certainly not flawless, however. Aside from differences in how caster level affects various schools and their spells, problems may arise once caster level boosts enter the scene. On the other hand, since caster level shenanigans probably don't occur during the early levels, it might be perfectly okay to have overcome one's early deficits for a cost at that point, bringing the prohibited schools up to "normal" performance.Hmm... Just throwing out an idea from the top of my head: How about if a spell of a prohibited school must be prepared in a slot at least one level higher than the minimum level of the slot a generalist wizard could prepare the spell in, but the spell is otherwise cast normally. That way, I think you can avoid the issue with CL affecting spells and schools so differently along with clunky/complicated mechanics, while still making it notably more costly and demanding to use spells of prohibited schools.

I guess you could also apply a tiered version of this effectively "partially delayed casting progression", saying for example 1st-3rd level spells take up slots one level higher, 4th-6th level spells slots two levels higher, and 7th level spells slots three levels higher, while 8th and 9th level spells can't be prepared.

For spell trigger/completion items, you could combine the above with, say, that you must have a slot of the appropriate (higher than normal) level before prohibited spells of the associated level are treated as being on your wizard spell list at all. Which also makes the delayed progression far less easily bypassed, of course. Spontaneously, I also don't think this would risk rendering prohibited spells cast from slots (or items) unable to meet their purposes, nor affect different prohibited schools to notably different degrees.

Anyhow, I definitely need to sleep off some of the champagne I can feel bubbling through my head, and then think about this a bit more carefully before I dare say whether it could actually be a good solution.

[Psyren]

That's pretty much exactly the case in our games as well. Do you know of or suspect any particular reason(s) for why wizards have fallen out of fashion in your games?

I don't think they were ever really in fashion with us, save for early on in PF's life. Between the Vancian casting, needing to acquire scrolls and juggle multiple spellbooks at high levels, people just find the session-to-session bookkeeping unneccessarily tedious, and the school powers tend to be pretty meh as well when compared to "sexier" things like Hexes and Exploits. When core was all we had they were more popular, but now...

There's also the challenge aspect - when optimized they are the most powerful class in the game, but the folks who can optimize them well are usually playing alongside other folks who don't optimize as much. So often it's more fun to grab a weaker class like Alchemist and optimize the heck out of that than it is to intentionally hold back a T1. At least, that's the impression I get.

[upho]

I don't think they were ever really in fashion with us, save for early on in PF's life. Between the Vancian casting, needing to acquire scrolls and juggle multiple spellbooks at high levels, people just find the session-to-session bookkeeping unneccessarily tedious, and the school powers tend to be pretty meh as well when compared to "sexier" things like Hexes and Exploits. When core was all we had they were more popular, but now...Most of these things have been mentioned by my players as well. Especially the wizard's tedious bookkeeping and relative lack of meaningful class features beyond casting.

And at least personally, I also find especially hexes to be a lot sexier in terms of both fluff an crunch than school powers. Contrary to the experiences shared by a few other GMs here in the Playground, at least so far I've also found hexes easier to balance for than the wizard's more numerous spells, and witches to be overall less disruptive in play than wizards. Though I suspect a large part of the latter is a result of the witch being less prone to slow down the game by giving my players choice paralysis, additional combatants to control and/or reasons to go dumpster-diving for the perfect spell(s) to prepare on the fly (thankfully no Fast Study for witches).


There's also the challenge aspect - when optimized they are the most powerful class in the game, but the folks who can optimize them well are usually playing alongside other folks who don't optimize as much. So often it's more fun to grab a weaker class like Alchemist and optimize the heck out of that than it is to intentionally hold back a T1. At least, that's the impression I get.Oh yes, this has also been mentioned quite a few times by those in my group who are the most capable of/interested in opting especially classes offering a wide variety of meaningful options. (Probably a major reason why they seem to really like most Paizo-made 6/9 casters and most DSP classes/archetypes, and approve of my current game slowing down full caster progression after 5th level).

[Aotrs Commander]

So, still not managed to get all of the group together, but I spoke to the other DM this evening of the players that where there tonight, and he immediatly said he liked the idea, so we will be going with it. (I.e. soft cap for normla specialiss, hard cap for focussed specialists.) Thanks for the input, folks!

[Arkain]

On the notion of wizards, I'd say it's a mixture of frustration and a weird kind of boredom for me. As already mentioned, the class itself isn't too exciting, its main feature being spells, even in PF1. Add to that the constant (re-)negotiation and limitation (and at times also retconning) of spell availability as well as the actual difficulty of both playing an optimized caster and holding yourself back appropriately and I'd probably rather not when I could play something I find much more interesting on both narrative and ludic levels instead. That's me, however. In terms of most people I've played with my impression was that many were both not very experienced in the system and simply more attracted to the fluff notions of playing sorcerers or other casters, rather than wizards, in combination with the tedium that is spell books.


Hmm... Just throwing out an idea from the top of my head: How about if a spell of a prohibited school must be prepared in a slot at least one level higher than the minimum level of the slot a generalist wizard could prepare the spell in, but the spell is otherwise cast normally. That way, I think you can avoid the issue with CL affecting spells and schools so differently along with clunky/complicated mechanics, while still making it notably more costly and demanding to use spells of prohibited schools.

I guess you could also apply a tiered version of this effectively "partially delayed casting progression", saying for example 1st-3rd level spells take up slots one level higher, 4th-6th level spells slots two levels higher, and 7th level spells slots three levels higher, while 8th and 9th level spells can't be prepared.

For spell trigger/completion items, you could combine the above with, say, that you must have a slot of the appropriate (higher than normal) level before prohibited spells of the associated level are treated as being on your wizard spell list at all. Which also makes the delayed progression far less easily bypassed, of course. Spontaneously, I also don't think this would risk rendering prohibited spells cast from slots (or items) unable to meet their purposes, nor affect different prohibited schools to notably different degrees.

Anyhow, I definitely need to sleep off some of the champagne I can feel bubbling through my head, and then think about this a bit more carefully before I dare say whether it could actually be a good solution.

I'm a bit undecided here. On the one hand, not using double slots is also more friendly towards effects such as metamagic, so say an extended Heroism doesn't eat two level 4 slots, but only one level 5 one instead. On the other hand, I vaguely recall that roughly speaking the idea is that a new spell level should be roundabout twice as powerful as the previous one, which you could then read as "2 slots of spell level n ≈ 1 slot of spell level n+1". In this sense whether I expend a higher slot or two lower ones, I'd end up at the same relative sacrifice of power, changing relatively little, besides a belated access to spells if a higher level slot is required. This tells us little about the game reality of a possible scarcity of slots and (un-)willingness to use said slots, however. In this sense, maybe a single higher slot seems more attractive than two of equal level.
That said, it truly seems tricky to find disadvantages to specialization that are neither too insignificant nor too big.