PDA

View Full Version : Specialising



Emperor Demonking
2007-11-24, 05:51 AM
What are your views on specialisation

1) if you specialise in divination what should you lose.
2) Is evocation worth keeping because of contingency.
3) If you specialise, what's best to specialise.

4) What ones should you normally drop.
5) What should you never drop.
6) Any exceptions?

7) Is it ever actually worth it


1) Probably enchantment
2) I'd probably say yes, unless your playing a high enough level.
3) Transmutation

4) Enchantment/evocation
5) Transmutation/conjuration
6) Not really

7) I'd say no.

Xefas
2007-11-24, 06:12 AM
I believe I've heard good arguments towards:

1) Evocation
2) No, you can replicate it with Shadow Evocation
3) Divination, so you only have to drop one school
4) Evocation and either Enchantment or Necromancy
5) Transmutation and Conjuration
6) Yes
7) Often

Armads
2007-11-24, 06:32 AM
1) Evocation.
2) NO.
3) Divination or Conjuration
4) Evocation, Enchantment
5) Conjuration, Transmutation
6) Not really
7) Most of the time. Focused Specialist is pretty decent, too.

Mordokai
2007-11-24, 06:42 AM
1) Enchantment.
2) No.
3) Necromancy - for pure roleplaying reasons.
4) Enchantment, evocation.
5) Conjuration and illusion.
6) No.
7) Yes.

Lord Zentei
2007-11-24, 06:48 AM
What are your views on specialisation

1) if you specialise in divination what should you lose.
2) Is evocation worth keeping because of contingency.
3) If you specialise, what's best to specialise.

4) What ones should you normally drop.
5) What should you never drop.
6) Any exceptions?

7) Is it ever actually worth it


1) Evocation or necromancy.
2) No.
3) Conjuration or transmutation.
4) Evocation and necromancy. Maybe enchantment.
5) Conjuration and transmutation.
6) No.
7) Is specialization worth it, you mean? Oh yes indeed.

Depending on which splash-books you use, necromancy can be a less attractive selection than enchantment. True, necromancy has powerful and deadly spells, most infamously Energy Drain. However, it is not the only school that has killy spells (though the no save thing on Energy Drain is really nice), and Clone can be made redundant if you have a cleric buddy, as is likely you do. On the other hand, enchantment has Dominate Person (or Monster), (Mass) Hold Person (or Monster), Geas, none of which can be really replaced by the spells of other schools.

graymachine
2007-11-24, 07:44 AM
I think that, mechanically, specialization is some tricky business, but I also think it is a wonderful tool for playing a unique, if not challenging character. I have a fellow PC that's planning on going Wizard into Alienist, with the proscribed prereqs, and is thinking about taking Evocation as his barred school to make things more interesting.

Clementx
2007-11-24, 09:14 AM
That whole greater shadow evocation trick is overlooking one thing. You automatically see through your own illusions. Which means you disbelieve greater shadow contingency, and it has no effect on you.

WhiteHarness
2007-11-24, 09:18 AM
Sometimes I'll take specialization (usually longsword or ranseur), but I usually pick up heavy armour optimization as my fighter's bonus feat at 4th level.

ZeroNumerous
2007-11-24, 09:18 AM
That whole greater shadow evocation trick is overlooking one thing. You automatically see through your own illusions. Which means you disbelieve greater shadow contingency, and it has no effect on you.

Except you can automatically fail any save or roll you wish. You choose to automatically fail your will save to disbelieve. Thus, creating Schrodinger's Contingency.

kemmotar
2007-11-24, 09:18 AM
Well...if you're going to specialize you might as well go for the master specialist PrC for maximum effect in you chosen school...maybe also take spell focus and gr. spell focus. I think that specializing although most times not worth it, if correctly done and researched can be a powerful tool.

Tempest Fennac
2007-11-24, 09:26 AM
If you wanted extra spells without giving up schools, you could try playing as a Domain Wizard: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm (you could ask your DM if he would allow you to use different spells if you don't like any of the standard domains).

Clementx
2007-11-24, 09:35 AM
Except you can automatically fail any save or roll you wish. You choose to automatically fail your will save to disbelieve. Thus, creating Schrodinger's Contingency.
"A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw." PHB 173-174.
You cast it. You know absolutely that you cast an illusion spell that is not real if you know that it is an illusion. Unless you got modify memory'ed after casting it, that is. In which case you can never know the triggering condition.

"Jesus told me the secret of the resurrection once, we was at this wedding in Cania, then I got drunk and forgot it!" Unless you're named Rufus, your greater shadow featherfall isn't going to work.

Lord Zentei
2007-11-24, 09:40 AM
"A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw." PHB 173-174.
You cast it. You know absolutely that you cast an illusion spell that is not real if you know that it is an illusion. Unless you got modify memory'ed after casting it, that is. In which case you can never know the triggering condition.

Depends on whether the DM interprets "needs no saving throw" as "definately takes no saving throw". After all, if you have an ability that allows you to automatically pass a save, or not to take it, you can always choose not to use that ability if you so wish.

Other than that, you can max out your Use Magic Device skill and buy a Wand of Contingency. It's only that one spell, after all.

kemmotar
2007-11-24, 09:42 AM
Other than that, you can max out your Use Magic Device skill and buy a Wand of Contingency. It's only that one spell, after all.

you can't use spells from your forbidden schools from items either...

Clementx
2007-11-24, 09:43 AM
you can't use spells from your forbidden schools from items either...Which is why he said UMD. This workaround I am willing to deal with, since it requires maxing cross-class ranks in a skill that is mostly redundant.

hewhosaysfish
2007-11-24, 09:45 AM
"A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw." PHB 173-174.
You cast it. You know absolutely that you cast an illusion spell that is not real if you know that it is an illusion. Unless you got modify memory'ed after casting it, that is. In which case you can never know the triggering condition.

"Jesus told me the secret of the resurrection once, we was at this wedding in Cania, then I got drunk and forgot it!" Unless you're named Rufus, your greater shadow featherfall isn't going to work.

What happens if you use greater shadow evocation to add a contingent teleportation effect on yourself? You automatically pass your save and thus nothing happens but outside observers who fail their saves see you disappear? And those that pass see you 60% disappear?
My head hurts...

Clementx
2007-11-24, 09:46 AM
What happens if you use greater shadow evocation to add a contingent teleportation effect on yourself? You automatically pass your save and thus nothing happens but outside observers who fail their saves see you disappear? And those that pass see you 60% disappear?
My head hurts...Only those targeted by a shadow spell get the save to disbelief. And SEvoc is all-or-nothing for nondamaging effects, unlike SConj.

Rad
2007-11-24, 09:53 AM
Which is why he said UMD. This workaround I am willing to deal with, since it requires maxing cross-class ranks in a skill that is mostly redundant.

UMD is not great, but it is of some use to a Wizard if he picked Item creation feats. You can make items that require spells not in your class list (amulets of natural armor?) via scrolls. It is actually one of the pluses of a Loremaster IMHO.

ZeroNumerous
2007-11-24, 10:08 AM
"A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw." PHB 173-174.
You cast it. You know absolutely that you cast an illusion spell that is not real if you know that it is an illusion. Unless you got modify memory'ed after casting it, that is. In which case you can never know the triggering condition.

What's stopping the player from saying "I forgot what spell I cast, but I remember that Evard's Black Tentacles will appear if I get in a grapple."? Nothing you say? Exactly. Memory has no stats in D&D and can be changed at the will of the player.

Clementx
2007-11-24, 10:40 AM
What's stopping the player from saying "I forgot what spell I cast, but I remember that Evard's Black Tentacles will appear if I get in a grapple."? Nothing you say? Exactly. Memory has no stats in D&D and can be changed at the will of the player.
If it doesn't have stats, it is up to the DM to adjudicate, or to assume it is the same as real life. There are no rules for getting drunk. I guess that means you can drink all the rum you want. There are no rules for sleep, or being dead. I guess that means you don't ever pass out from exhaustion or stop moving when diced into little bits.
Statements like that are why people are afraid of CharOp boards.

Idea Man
2007-11-24, 12:02 PM
The only problem I have with "forgetting" your contingency is an illusion is primarily you can't not know you don't have a regular contingency, unless you have both, in which case, you didn't need to cast the shadow evocation in the first place.

As always, you can make exceptions, with a little risk. You could cast a spell to forget the shadow-contingency is even there, but you might try to cast another one, since you don't think one is there. You could curse yourself to always fail against illusions; no need to explain the hazard there (actually, that would kind of limit the benefit of mirror image. You believe the other images are real, so you can't pass through them to hide yourself. Hmm.).

If you had a flaw to be forgetful, I would say that could work, but I would still make the caster save. On second thought, if you get a save for that reason, the player can choose to play his character as "I know I wouldn't do anything bad to myself," and just choose to fail. He's forgetful, not foolish.

Ganurath
2007-11-24, 12:29 PM
1) Evocation. I'm tempted to say Conjuration, but black onyx may be hard to come by and the school has the walls for mundane defenses and stronghold construction.
2) Evocation does very little that the party's beatstick doesn't do already. Only reason my senile lich still has it is because an uttercold fireball heals him and his skeletal minions while hurting his foes.
3) Divination and necromancy are out because those schools tend to plan in advance. Evocation is out because it's redundant next to the beatstick. Illusion and enchantment are out because they're redundant next to the skills monkey (save at lower levels, but it's not worth specializing.) So I'd go with either conjuration or transmutation, favoring the latter for reasons in Q1.
4) Evocation first, and probably conjuration second.
5) Divination.
6) If your party cleric leans toward divination like with the divine oracle, then maybe. However, I've never been opposed to getting a second opinion.
7) Anyone who doesn't specialize needs to think about whether they can play a high Int character properly.

Lord Zentei
2007-11-24, 12:35 PM
Which is why he said UMD. This workaround I am willing to deal with, since it requires maxing cross-class ranks in a skill that is mostly redundant.

Actually, come to think of it, wands can only contain 4th level and lower spells; it would have to be some other item. Still, the principle stands.

Chronos
2007-11-24, 01:24 PM
Actually, come to think of it, wands can only contain 4th level and lower spells; it would have to be some other item. Still, the principle stands.Assuming you want to keep your Contingency up continually, casting it from scrolls is going to cost you nearly 55k a year. Assuming that it never gets discharged and needs to be re-cast early, and assuming that you can even buy that many scrolls (where are all the high-level wizards who can cast evocations who scribed all of them?).

Ganurath
2007-11-24, 01:27 PM
Assuming you want to keep your Contingency up continually, casting it from scrolls is going to cost you nearly 55k a year. Assuming that it never gets discharged and needs to be re-cast early, and assuming that you can even buy that many scrolls (where are all the high-level wizards who can cast evocations who scribed all of them?).High Wis spellstitched undead?

pinkbunny
2007-11-24, 02:00 PM
7) Anyone who doesn't specialize needs to think about whether they can play a high Int character properly.


Hey! I resent that. While it's very worth it, there's the occasional mage who would want every spell open to them.
Then there's the implication that not optimizing a class starting with more power then most of the other classes to the logical extreme is stupid.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-24, 02:34 PM
1) Depending on your playstyle, either evocation (as above), necromancy (for good characters) or illusion (for less creative characters, enchantment also has will SOL effects, but you miss out on invis and shadow magic)

2) No. Illusion also has contingency. Besides, most campaigns don't reach level eleven period.

3) Conjuration, if the PHB2 special is allowed. Divination, because you only drop one school. Transmutation, because it has the most spells. Necromancy, for flavor if you're evil.

4) As above.

5) Abjuration is a must for dispels. Transmutation has way too many spells period, as does conjuration. Divination can't be droped.

6) To what?

7) It is almost always worth it. You get a significant boost in amount of spells per day, you can style yourself in a particular area, spell focus becomes better, and the master specialist presclass is nice.

Lord Zentei
2007-11-24, 02:35 PM
Assuming you want to keep your Contingency up continually, casting it from scrolls is going to cost you nearly 55k a year. Assuming that it never gets discharged and needs to be re-cast early, and assuming that you can even buy that many scrolls (where are all the high-level wizards who can cast evocations who scribed all of them?).

There are other items than scrolls, of course. You'd probably need a special brew, though.

As for other options, a Thaumaturgist can make his Summoning and Calling spells Contingent. A Red Wizard can use Craft Contingent Spell, etc.


Anyway, given that you can always choose to fail a given saving throw, and that you can always choose not to use a given ability that excuses you from having to attempt a saving throw, I'm not really sure this is at all relevant. Knowing that something is an illusion does not mean that it won't work if you want it to.

Clementx
2007-11-24, 04:10 PM
Knowing that something is an illusion does not mean that it won't work if you want it to.
Except when it comes to disbelief rolls, or in this case, the condition of not having one. By the logic of, "you don't have to know something if you don't want to", can you forgo sentience when struck by a mind-affecting spell? Can undead start breathing and benefiting from spells that only affect living targets? After all, they are just choosing not to use an advantage that is given to them by their very existence.

Ne0
2007-11-24, 04:14 PM
I refer all of you here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64398), to save Emperor Demonking the effort of filling in a new Thread title everytime he had a question.

Lord Zentei
2007-11-24, 04:15 PM
Except when it comes to disbelief rolls, or in this case, the condition of not having one. By the logic of, "you don't have to know something if you don't want to", can you forgo sentience when struck by a mind-affecting spell? Can undead start breathing and benefiting from spells that only affect living targets? After all, they are just choosing not to use an advantage that is given to them by their very existence.

The advantages you cite are due to the intrinsic nature of the creatures in question, not due to an advantage gained against a type of spell or effect that can in principle work.

Clementx
2007-11-24, 04:19 PM
The advantages you cite are due to the intrinsic nature of the creatures in question, not due to an advantage gained against a type of spell or effect that can in principle work.
The intrinsic nature of sentience is to be rooted in the past and remember what it just freaking did. I fail to see the difference. Until someone can cite a real life example (since we are dealing only with memory, which is exactly the same as real life) of someone willing themselves to lose knowledge without the advantage of traumatic brain injury, hypnotic drugs, or zen-like focus requiring years of training that no rule in DnD grants to anyone, you have no ground to stand on.

Solo
2007-11-24, 04:24 PM
The intrinsic nature of sentience is to be rooted in the past and remember what it just freaking did. I fail to see the difference. Until someone can cite a real life example (since we are dealing only with memory, which is exactly the same as real life) of someone willing themselves to lose knowledge without the advantage of traumatic brain injury, hypnotic drugs, or zen-like focus requiring years of training that no rule in DnD grants to anyone, you have no ground to stand on.

Well, there's the psychological phenomena like Dissociative amnesia and fuge (which do not require any brain injury), and the fact that people's perception of reality is selective, meaning that after witnessing an event, people will remember what they want to and forget what they do not.

In a psychological study, it was found that fans of two opposing football teams, after watching television footage of the two teams, each found more fouls with the opposing team than with their own.

It's not that the two groups did not see the same game, but rather, they saw the same game, and remembered that which they liked, and forgot about that which they disliked.

Clementx
2007-11-24, 04:30 PM
In a psychological study, it was found that fans of two opposing football teams, after watching television footage of the two teams, each found more fouls with the opposing team than with their own.
And did they will themselves to forget the name of other team? Did they will themselves to forget that they drove to the test site? What sport was playing? Because those are the degree of forgetting that is required to forget you can and have cast a lvl6 spell that took years of study to achieve to produce a lvl5 effect that is happening to you right now.

Lord Zentei
2007-11-24, 04:31 PM
The intrinsic nature of sentience is to be rooted in the past and remember what it just freaking did. I fail to see the difference. Until someone can cite a real life example (since we are dealing only with memory, which is exactly the same as real life) of someone willing themselves to lose knowledge without the advantage of traumatic brain injury, hypnotic drugs, or zen-like focus requiring years of training that no rule in DnD grants to anyone, you have no ground to stand on.

What has belief in an illusion to do with sentience? If you can will yourself to disbelieve something that you remember has just taken a truckload of hit points off of you (such as a Shadow Fireball), it certainly makes sense that you can start believing in an illusion also. By symmetry, if you can ignore what your memory and senses tell you to disbelieve you can ignore them to believe also.

As an aside, Greater Shadow Evocation is not merely a hollow illusion: it's Shadow Magic. It is stated to be 60% "real", dealing 60% damage even if you know it's an illusion -- it doesn't just up and disappar. If a careless mage caught in his own Shadow Fireball would suffer real damage, why should he not benefit from Shadow Contingency?

PS: if you really insist, you could require a Will save to believe (as a Will save is required to disbelieve). Or you could allow an Auto-hypnosis roll when the spell is cast to make it work. And you can assert that if the mage fails to believe it it is only 60% likely to succeed (in line with the fact that Greater Shadow Evocation deals 60% damage to those who know it to be Shadow Magic).

Solo
2007-11-24, 04:33 PM
And did they will themselves to forget the name of other team? Did they will themselves to forget that they drove to the test site? What sport was playing? Because those are the degree of forgetting that is required to forget you can and have cast a lvl6 spell that took years of study to achieve to produce a lvl5 effect that is happening to you right now.

You asked for examples, my dear, and I gave them. What's with the hostility?

Clementx
2007-11-24, 04:34 PM
And you can assert that if the mage fails to believe it it is only 60% likely to succeed (in line with the fact that Greater Shadow Evocation deals 60% damage to those who know it to be Shadow Magic).
I'll assert what is in the spell description.

Nondamaging effects, such as gust of wind, have normal effects except against those that disbelieve. Against disbelievers, they have no effect
Emphasis mine because everything thinks shadow evocation works the same as conjuration.

Lord Zentei
2007-11-24, 04:36 PM
I'll assert what is in the spell description.

Emphasis mine because everything thinks shadow evocation works the same as conjuration.

Well and good. Though you pointedly ignored the other points.


EDIT: in particular, the issues regarding the differences between intrinsic inability to be affected by something and an advantage that gives you resistance to something that might in principle work. Observe your own quote from before:


"A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw." PHB 173-174.

Emphasis mine. He NEEDS no saving throw, that does not mean that he may not take it if he really wants to.

Clementx
2007-11-24, 04:43 PM
You asked for examples, my dear, and I gave them. What's with the hostility?
No hostility. Just pointing out your points are valid, just like you were trying to do with me. There is no nice way to tell people they are completely wrong that do not first involve telling them that they are wrong.

Zentei, I chose not to comment on your other point because it was self-evident that since the mindless trait renders you immune to illusion, having a mind has everything to do with illusion.

Lord Zentei
2007-11-24, 04:45 PM
Zentei, I chose not to comment on your other point because it was self-evident that since the mindless trait renders you immune to illusion, having a mind has everything to do with illusion.

That was not my point. Please review it.

Solo
2007-11-24, 04:46 PM
No hostility. Just pointing out your points are valid, just like you were trying to do with me. There is no nice way to tell people they are completely wrong that do not first involve telling them that they are wrong.


Seriously, what was your point? If you weren't hostile, then say so. If you were, then say so. No need for so much babble.

But all the same, I thank you for shedding light upon your character.

Clementx
2007-11-24, 04:53 PM
Seriously, what was your point? If you weren't hostile, then say so. If you were, then say so. No need for so much babble.
"No" does not meet the minimum post length requirement. And I like using complete sentences with numerous examples to explain points in a discussion. Really, are you my English teacher?

Now I am being hostile.

Solo
2007-11-24, 04:56 PM
"No" does not meet the minimum post length requirement.
No? Really now? Works for me.


And I like using complete sentences with numerous examples to explain points in a discussion. Really, are you my English teacher?
No, but perhaps you should consider having a talk with him/her so that you will write less confusing posts.




Now I am being hostile.
Really? I noticed no difference in the tone of your posts.

Lord Zentei
2007-11-24, 05:00 PM
Now I am being hostile.

Why?

And I reiterate my point from before. If you can ignore your perceptions and memory to disbelieve something that has dealt real damage to you, why should you not be able to ignore your perceptions and memory to believe in something?

And from your own quote: a person faced with proof that an illusion is not real needs no saving throw. As opposed to being denied it, with the effect being automatically canceled. By a similar token, you can choose to not try and disbelieve if you are still required to save.

Solo
2007-11-24, 10:16 PM
Why?


"Dude, don't you think you're overreacting a little? I mean, it's just a card game."

Lord Zentei
2007-11-24, 10:17 PM
"Dude, don't you think you're overreacting a little? I mean, it's just a card game."

"Card games are serious business!" :smallannoyed:



...or so I hear. :smallwink: