PDA

View Full Version : Why go Wizard 20?



Heliomance
2008-05-02, 02:58 AM
I honestly can't work out why anyone would go more than Wiz 5. After that, why not just switch to a PrC that has full caster progression? There are enough of them. Geometer from Complete Arcane gives you everything that Wizard does, plus a few very nifty other skills. For example, each spell in a Geometer's spellbook takes up one page, no matter what level it is. Also, they can cast any spell silenced, easily. So what are the advantages of going more than Wiz 5?

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-05-02, 03:00 AM
There are none.

Tempest Fennac
2008-05-02, 03:02 AM
Some people may not want to use some PrCs due to the requirements not being worth it in their opinion, or they may stay as a Wizard for flavour reasons (alternatively, they may want the Wizard bonus feats for some reason).

Skjaldbakka
2008-05-02, 03:36 AM
An excellent question. I'll let you know when I have an excellent answer.

Laziness, maybe? Maybe they're not really into gaming, and just play to hang out with people they like. I know a few people that game because that is the only time they get to hang out with certain people.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-05-02, 03:38 AM
Some people may not want to use some PrCs due to the requirements not being worth it in their opinionFatespinner. PreReqs? Skill Points.
or they may stay as a Wizard for flavour reasonsMost PrC have more specific flavor (and better) than the Wizard base class. Yes, many won't apply, but they usually will be a better fit mechanically with a similar flavor to what the character has already.
(alternatively, they may want the Wizard bonus feats for some reason).You get more benefits(including feats) in other classes.

its_all_ogre
2008-05-02, 03:42 AM
lack of books?
i have phb, phb 2, dmg and comp adventurer.
only archmage and loremaster available so if player doesn't like them then why bother.
wizard 20 is not nerfed particularly so, why not?

Ceaon
2008-05-02, 03:47 AM
Maybe because they don't have splatbooks.
Maybe because they don't want to be overpowering the rest of their group.
Maybe because the DM won't let them.

In any case, there are almost no downsides to full casting-prestige classing a wizard.
You lose some bonus feats, you lose familiar progression and you may have to meet certain sub-par requirements. That's it.

However, this is true for almost all classes, except already flaked classes like Monk. Which you, from a power point of view, shouldn't be playing to begin with.

Comes down to this: full casting-prestige classes are powerful. Very powerful. Too powerful, even.

Tempest Fennac
2008-05-02, 03:50 AM
its_all_ogre's idea is probably right (if I'm honest, I' probably go Wizard 7/Fatespinner 2/Wayfarer's Guide 1/Fatespinner 2/ Arcane Devotee 5/ Wizard X if I had the books which detailed the classes, assuming the DM would let me use all of those PrCs).

Kurald Galain
2008-05-02, 06:00 AM
only archmage and loremaster available so if player doesn't like them then why bother.

Archmage is a very good prestige class, though.

Loremaster is easy to qualify for, since its prereqs (knowledge skills and metamagic, mostly) are things that most wizards take anyway. Wizard/Loremaster is simply better than straight wizard.

But yeah, overall the problem is that the wizard (and most other base classes) lack an incentive to go straight/20. Something like a capstone. I believe Paizo's Pathfinder is fixing this.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-05-02, 06:08 AM
Archmage is a very good prestige class, though.

Loremaster is easy to qualify for, since its prereqs (knowledge skills and metamagic, mostly) are things that most wizards take anyway. Wizard/Loremaster is simply better than straight wizard.

But yeah, overall the problem is that the wizard (and most other base classes) lack an incentive to go straight/20. Something like a capstone. I believe Paizo's Pathfinder is fixing this.WIZARDS DON'T NEED MORE!

That said, most classes need a reason to go full 20. The only Barbarians that don't PrC out only go to level 18 anyways. Rouge 20 is the weakest level ever. Paladin is a 5 level class, and Fighter is a 2 level template. Clerics and Druids are the only base classes that last 20 levels, and even Clerics should PrC most of the time. :smallmad:

Aquillion
2008-05-02, 06:12 AM
Wizards do get occasional bonus feats. It's not much, but they get them.

Oh, also: I believe wizards don't get to add the two free spells per level to their spellbook if they gain levels in a casting-advancing PRC. After all:
At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook.And "advances casting" isn't the same as advancing spells in your spellbook.

Now, sorcerers really get nothing beyond spell advancement (familiars don't count.)

Jack_Simth
2008-05-02, 06:22 AM
Comes down to this: full casting-prestige classes are powerful. Very powerful. Too powerful, even.
Pretty much. Designers want their designs to be used, and people interested in mechanical power don't dump spellcasting progression. If designers want their caster PrC's used by people interested in mechanical power, they pretty much have to make full progression PrC's. In order to make it interesting enough to have people use it away from the base class, it needs to have interesting class features. Net result? Lots of full progression PrC's with class features interesting enough that they're clearly above the power curve for the base class. An alternate method of balancing PrC abilities is needed than lost caster levels.

Reinboom
2008-05-02, 06:28 AM
An alternate method of balancing PrC abilities is needed than lost caster levels.

I wonder if the houserule of...
"You have to ban an additional school whenever you take a prestige class that enhances your full caster progression on its first level. Unless it's the master specialist."
...would work.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-05-02, 06:28 AM
One exception to the rule: Malkonverter. It loses one level, and the first 5 levels are all anyone ever takes, but that's one case where it is worth it.

And yes, that would help, though it's harsh. It depends a lot on what your power level is.

Reinboom
2008-05-02, 06:30 AM
One exception to the rule: Malkonverter. It loses one level, and the first 5 llevels are all anyone ever takes, but that's one case where it is worth it.

Malconvoker ?
Also, the 5th level of fatespinner is, arguably. And Swiftblade's losses can be, depending on the build.


And yes, that would help, though it's harsh. It depends a lot on what your power level is.

Harsh?
I ban Wizards outright in my campaigns. I don't think this is harsh.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-05-02, 06:38 AM
The Malconvoker Handbook (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=918792). It doesn't appear to have an online write-up, but essentially you are a summoner who uses evil beings to serve good. Complete Scoundrel. Great flavor, and you get a bunch of good benefits from it, like an additional evil creature with every summoning spell.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-02, 07:31 AM
its_all_ogre's idea is probably right (if I'm honest, I' probably go Wizard 7/Fatespinner 2/Wayfarer's Guide 1/Fatespinner 2/ Arcane Devotee 5/ Wizard X if I had the books which detailed the classes, assuming the DM would let me use all of those PrCs).

Why on Earth Wizard 7? That level grants you absolutely nothing.

Wizard 5/Wayfarer Guide 2/Fatespinner 4/X would be so much better.

I can occasionally see Wizard 6 for the BAB and saves, but why 7?

2) The problem with Capstones for Wizard/Sorcerer is then they suffer from Beguiler/Dread Necromancer Syndrome. Yeah it's great if I'm making a level 20 character. But if I'm level 5, there is absolutely no reason for me not to start taking levels in Mage of the Arcane Order instead of continuing Wizard. It's hard to argue for continuing to build a worse character for 14 levels in the hope that at level 20 where no one ever goes you'll get something shiny.

Classes need something good at every level or every other level if you want to discourage PrCing out.

Tempest Fennac
2008-05-02, 07:46 AM
I wouldn't be able to qualify for the Wayfarer's Guide class until level 9, and I'd lose a caster level if I took more then 1 level in that particular PrC. Also, I need 7 levels to qualify for Fatespinner. Going back to the point about Wizards getting 2 new spells when they level up, I'd probably limit my PrC class levels a lot if that rule was enforced (which it really should be).

Kurald Galain
2008-05-02, 08:01 AM
its_all_ogre's idea is probably right (if I'm honest, I' probably go Wizard 7/Fatespinner 2/Wayfarer's Guide 1/Fatespinner 2/ Arcane Devotee 5/ Wizard X if I had the books which detailed the classes, assuming the DM would let me use all of those PrCs).

I'd go for Wizard / Master Specialist / Mage of the Arcane Order / Archmage, myself. Possibly with a level of Mindbender thrown in just for the fun of it.

Saph
2008-05-02, 08:24 AM
I honestly can't work out why anyone would go more than Wiz 5

+1 BAB, +1 Fort, Ref, Will.

Well, you asked.

It's Wiz 7 that's the bad level (which, unfortunately, you pretty much have to take in a core-only game).

- Saph

JaxGaret
2008-05-02, 08:33 AM
Oh, also: I believe wizards don't get to add the two free spells per level to their spellbook if they gain levels in a casting-advancing PRC. After all:And "advances casting" isn't the same as advancing spells in your spellbook.

Now, sorcerers really get nothing beyond spell advancement (familiars don't count.)

This is widely viewed as incorrect.


When a new [PrC] level is gained, the character gains new spells per day (and spells known, if applicable) as if she had also gained a level in a spellcasting class she belonged to before she added the prestige class.

Although Wizards do not have "spells known" like the Sorcerer, this bit of rules text has convinced most people that Wizards do indeed gain their 2 free spells every time they level in a PrC.

Frosty
2008-05-02, 09:41 AM
I support taking Beuiler for 19 levels. they need the Advanced learnings badly.

Idea Man
2008-05-02, 10:42 AM
I think the simplest reason to go to wizard 20 is if your DM doesn't allow prestige classes, as they are an optional addition to the game. I've never heard of a DM who doesn't allow them, but it could happen.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-02, 11:31 AM
I wouldn't be able to qualify for the Wayfarer's Guide class until level 9, and I'd lose a caster level if I took more then 1 level in that particular PrC. Also, I need 7 levels to qualify for Fatespinner. Going back to the point about Wizards getting 2 new spells when they level up, I'd probably limit my PrC class levels a lot if that rule was enforced (which it really should be).

Whatever, then take Mage of the Arcane Order, or Geometer, or any other PrC. Wizard 5 is the last real level, occasionally level 6 if you are desperate for saves.

Chronos
2008-05-02, 11:45 AM
Even in a core-only environment, it's very easy for a wizard to qualify for Loremaster after 7 levels, and difficult not to qualify after 10 levels. What do you need? A couple of Knowledge skills, check, all wizards take knowledge skills. Three metamagic or item creation feats, you're guaranteed to get that after ten levels of wizard just from your bonus feats, and most wizards take at least one metamagic feat in a regular feat slot by level 7 anyway. Divination spells, you've got most of what you need just from the cantrips you know automatically, you can't ban divination as a specialist, and it's really easy to add a few more spells to your book. The only prerequesite that means anything is the Skill Focus: Knowledge. So you have to take one feat, that isn't entirely useless, and you get a free bonus feat a few levels into the class to make up for it.

As for losing familiar progression, most other classes will do more for your familiar than wizard levels will, anyway. Your familiar's HP, BAB, skills, and saves are all based on your own, and almost any class at all will progress those more than wizard will. The only things that need wizard (or sorcerer) levels specifically are natural armor, Int score, and the special abilities. The special abilities top out at level 13 (and are kind of lackluster anyway), and who cares about the natural armor and int? +4 natural armor and 9 int is good enough for anything a familiar is going to be doing, anyway.

Quorothorn
2008-05-02, 12:17 PM
I honestly can't work out why anyone would go more than Wiz 5. After that, why not just switch to a PrC that has full caster progression? There are enough of them. Geometer from Complete Arcane gives you everything that Wizard does, plus a few very nifty other skills. For example, each spell in a Geometer's spellbook takes up one page, no matter what level it is. Also, they can cast any spell silenced, easily. So what are the advantages of going more than Wiz 5?

Don't you need to do a little hoop-jumping for Geometer? IIRC, amongst its prereqs is 4 ranks in Disable Device, meaning you either need to be 8th level or take a level of Rogue (you certainly can't get to it from just Wiz5).

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-02, 12:40 PM
Don't you need to do a little hoop-jumping for Geometer? IIRC, amongst its prereqs is 4 ranks in Disable Device, meaning you either need to be 8th level or take a level of Rogue (you certainly can't get to it from just Wiz5).

Yes you do. You get 4 ranks by cross classing at level 5, however I think Geometer has a requirement of Knowledge Arcana 9, meaning you have to take either Wizard 6 or a level in another PrC (not that there aren't plenty).

Tempest Fennac
2008-05-02, 12:45 PM
Being as that would mean taking skills and feats whch I don't want, doing that would probably delay me inregards to qualifying for PrCs which I would actually want (eg: Geometers need 16 skill points to be invested in cross class skills which Wizards don't need).

TempusCCK
2008-05-02, 12:59 PM
Being in a game where PrC's are not allowed, I must say that Wiz 20 would probably be the power cap. However, we do havea work around in that we can create our own base classes combining the Flavor and Power Creep of PrC's, which I'm planning on doing with my arcane caster.

However, the other point brought up that you don't get your two free spells each level is interesting in that it would certainly make PrC'ing out into the really powerful stuff less inviting. "Sure you can take IoSFV, but you're not going to get those bonus spells each level, you're too busy learning about the importance of color, remember?"

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-02, 01:33 PM
Being as that would mean taking skills and feats whch I don't want, doing that would probably delay me inregards to qualifying for PrCs which I would actually want (eg: Geometers need 16 skill points to be invested in cross class skills which Wizards don't need).

I'm not wedded to Geometer here, I'm just saying there are a hundred and twelve full casting PrCs, and half of them can be entered into when you are level 5. Instead of Wizard 6 and 7, take Mage of the Arcane Order, you get your feat back and you get a spellpool.

Take anything you want, seriously, Wizard 7 is the worst level in all of D&D. It is worse then Rogue 20, it is worse then Fighter 3 and with nothing useful next level either.

Tempest Fennac
2008-05-02, 01:37 PM
Also, don't forget that I'd only bother with a PrC which I personally considered to be worthwhile. If I don't class it as being worth it, I won't take it (I'll also ignore PrCs and feats which don't fit in with my character).

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-05-02, 01:52 PM
Also, don't forget that I'd only bother with a PrC which I personally considered to be worthwhile. If I don't class it as being worth it, I won't take it (I'll also ignore PrCs and feats which don't fit in with my character).Wizard 5/Master Specialist 10/Archmage 5. Better in every way than Wizard 20. You spend 2 feats from your real slots (on spell focus, which isn't bad) and give up 3 of the bonus feats. In exchange, you get:
the ability to cast all touch spells as reach spells
free shaping on all area of effect spells
+1 CL
a bonus 9th level spell slot
Greater Spell Focus free
+2 CL in your chosen school
the minor, moderate, and major estorica
1 additional High Arcana that I didn't selectThat's a much more powerful build, and fits in the flavor of any Specialist Wizard. Unless you're a generalist, you can't not fit that flavor.

Tempest Fennac
2008-05-02, 02:01 PM
To be honest, I wouldn't bother with Master Specialist due to not wanting to give up more then 2 schools, and I consider Spell Focus to be a waste of time, and I'd probably use a Domain Wizard if I could use that variant (I don't like Archmages that much due to the prequisites, and the fact that te High Arcanas invlve sacrificing spell slots). Also, considering my tendancy to blame individual spells for full casters being overpowered, it wold by hypocritical of me to use a build which is more powerful then a standard Wizard (especially if it means taking feats and abilities which don't fit my charcter concept).

Chronos
2008-05-02, 02:11 PM
To be honest, I wouldn't bother with Master Specialist due to not wanting to give up more then 2 schoolsYou're thinking of Focused Specialist, a variant taken starting at level 1. Master Specialist doesn't make you give up any more spell slots.

And how can the fluff on either of those not fit? Both of them have as their fluff "You're really good at being a wizard".

Tempest Fennac
2008-05-02, 02:16 PM
Sorry about getting confused. What exactly does Master Specialist do? Fluff wise, the Wizard's outlook would possibly be incompatable with those (eg: they are both centered around raw power (at least I'm assuming Master Specialist is from Sstoopidtallkid's comment). Wizards who favour knowledge would be better off as Loremasters, ones who are highly religious would be better with the Arcane Devotee PrC, ones who believe in luck above everything else would be better as Fatespinners, etc.).

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-05-02, 02:16 PM
To be honest, I wouldn't bother with Master Specialist due to not wanting to give up more then 2 schoolsYou don't ever give up more than 2 schools. Are you thinking Focused Specialist?
I consider Spell Focus to be a waste of timeWhich is why I called it a weak feat. It is only in there for the prerequisites, but it is better than many prerequisites out there.
I'd probably use a Domain Wizard if I could use that variantWay overpowered, IMHO.
I don't like Archmages that much due to the prequisitesThey are pretty bad, but Master Specialist gives you one of the feats free, and the skill points are standard for any caster. Anyways, the benefits make up for it.
The fact that te High Arcanas invlve sacrificing spell slots.Most of the good ones only lose you a 5th level, which you should have a bunch of by the time you're taking Archmage levels. The build I posted loses one 6th, two 5th, one 7th, and one 9th. Not even really noticeable, as you have 6 slots at most of those levels.
Also, considering my tendancy to blame individual spells for full casters being overpowered, it wold by hypocritical of me to use a build which is more powerful then a standard Wizard (especially if it means taking feats and abilities which don't fit my charcter concept).Now that is true, but the OP was asking for a mechanical reason.

Edit: the MS fluff is "You have studied magic to the point where you get even better at spellcasting, especially with spells from the school you specialized in". It works with most concepts(read:all). Its only prerequisites are Spell Focus in your Specialist school (which you need 2x for Archmage) and it gives you Skill Focus:Spellcraft for free.

Tempest Fennac
2008-05-02, 02:38 PM
In regards to spell slots, I'd till not want to give them up due to how I'd sooner have them for spells (I'd only really be bothered about having Arcane Reach due to the others not appearing that useful to me). Besides, taking PrCs solely becase they are regarded as powerful just doesn't sound particularly fun due to how limiting it is.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-05-02, 02:48 PM
In regards to spell slots, I'd till not want to give them up due to how I'd sooner have them for spells (I'd only really be bothered about having Arcane Reach due to the others not appearing that useful to me). Besides, taking PrCs solely becase they are regarded as powerful just doesn't sound particularly fun due to how limiting it is.That was the one build i thought of that was simplest(2 PrCs, full progression in both, only 2 PreReq feats taken) not in terms of build, but in terms of power comparison, and is a pretty standard combination of classes. The slot loss is minor, but if you'd prefer a different class there are a bunch out there. That build is fine even with Wiz 10/MS 10. The Archmage was just to prove a point, that PrCing out gives you a power boost far beyond what you get as a straight Wizard. The only reason I went Archmage was to keep it close to core.

And yes, you've said you don't like to PrC because it seems dumb to do it for power, but the OP wanted a mechanical reason, not a personality one, why it is a bad idea.

Swooper
2008-05-02, 03:07 PM
Haven't got time to read the entire thread, but I'd like to point out that almost no fullcasting PrCs advance your familar. The only one I remember is the Alienist from CArc, which isn't for everybody.

Not that this is a reason to not PrC-out of wizard at the first opportunity...

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-02, 03:10 PM
Besides, taking PrCs solely becase they are regarded as powerful just doesn't sound particularly fun due to how limiting it is.

At what point are you actually making sense? Taking a level of a PrC (any PrC at all) is going to be more fun then taking a level of Wizard. Because PrCs have actual stuff.

The point here is that no matter what your concept, there is a PrC that fits it, that you can take at level 6. No matter what.

Frosty
2008-05-02, 03:16 PM
Haven't got time to read the entire thread, but I'd like to point out that almost no fullcasting PrCs advance your familar. The only one I remember is the Alienist from CArc, which isn't for everybody.

Not that this is a reason to not PrC-out of wizard at the first opportunity...

Trade away your familiar for Abrupt Jaunt, then spend a feat on Obtain Familiar. Now, your familiar advances all the time.

Chronos
2008-05-02, 03:30 PM
I've already addressed the familiar question on the first page. Every class (including Fighter or Barbarian) will advance your familiar in the features which are most important for it, and most of them will do a better job of it than Wizard (since most classes get better HP, BAB, skills, and/or saves than Wizard). What little you lose is basically insignificant.

Jack_Simth
2008-05-02, 04:11 PM
I wonder if the houserule of...
"You have to ban an additional school whenever you take a prestige class that enhances your full caster progression on its first level. Unless it's the master specialist."
...would work.
Catch: What do you do with a Sorcerer?

When I'm thinking along these lines, I generally end up thinking something more along the lines of the Archmage's costs - spell slots. Trade endurance for the PrC abilities. Something like...

The first level of a full progression PrC costs you one spell slot of your highest level (updating - if when you take the level of the PrC, your highest level spell is a 3rd level spell slot, and you later gain access to 4th level spells, you regain the lost 3rd level spell slot and immediately lose a 4th level spell slot), the second level costs you a spell slot of your next highest level (updating similarly), and so on throughout the PrC progression. If/when the PrC loses spellcasting progression, these lost slots return (so the Wiz-5/Mindbender-1 loses a 3rd level spell slot, but gains it back at Mindbender-2, where Mindbender doesn't progress spellcasting; he doesn't lose another spell slot at Mindbender-3, even though that level progresses spellcasting, as the PrC's considered balanced out now by the lost caster level). If you take multiple full progression PrC's, track lost slots from them seperately (so the Wizard-5/Loremaster-5/Mage of the Arcane Order-10 would lose five slots from Loremaster (9th, 8th, 7th, 6th, 5th) and 10 slots from Mage of the Arcane Order (9th - 0th). If the PrC spell slot penalty gets to the point where you'd be losing spell slots below 0th level, you simply lose additional cantrip slots (so the Wizard-5/Loremaster-10, who has access to 8th level spells, would lose one slot each at 8th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd, and 1st, and two 0th level spell slots; if the Wizard took two Wizard levels after that, gaining access to 9th level spells, it would again update, so the Wizard-5/Loremaster-10/Wizard-2 would be short one each at 9th to 0th).

Does a couple of things:
1) Hurts the Sorcerer less than the Wizard. This is a good thing, as the Wizard's generally considered a stronger class to begin with due to the long-term flexibility, easier access to PrC's,
2) Puts a real, mechanical cost to PrC's (bonus spell slots only hurts at higher levels).
3) Discourages "dipping" into PrC's for short periods - The Wizard-5/Mindbender-1/Loremaster-1/Mage of the Arcane Order-1/Foozlemage-1/Whatever-1 loses 5 spell slots of the highest level spell available - which will usually mean that the Wizard isn't getting any spell slots of that level.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-02, 05:12 PM
Catch: What do you do with a Sorcerer?
There's no reason why a sorcerer couldn't ban a school.



The first level of a full progression PrC costs you one spell slot of your highest level
This seems both too lenient and too complex.

The problem is more that certain prestige classes are too strong, than that people often dip into five or six prestige classes.

Quorothorn
2008-05-02, 05:13 PM
Yes you do. You get 4 ranks by cross classing at level 5, however I think Geometer has a requirement of Knowledge Arcana 9, meaning you have to take either Wizard 6 or a level in another PrC (not that there aren't plenty).

*Head-desk.* Why do I keep forgetting that max cross-class skill ranks = level-1? Why?

WWWRRRRRRRRRRYYYYYYY?

*Cough.* Yes, well.


The point here is that no matter what your concept, there is a PrC that fits it, that you can take at level 6. No matter what.

In that case, could you maybe answer a question for me? What would be an appropriate PrC for a Wizard planning to go into Loremaster at the first opportunity (so it would be a two-level dip)?

Chronos
2008-05-02, 05:59 PM
*Head-desk.* Why do I keep forgetting that max cross-class skill ranks = level-1? Why?Because it's not. Max cross-class ranks is half of max in-class ranks, and max in-class ranks are level-3. So, for instance, a 1st-level character can have 4 ranks in a class skill, or 2 ranks in a cross-class skill. A 10th-level character can have 13 ranks in a class skill, or 6.5 ranks in a cross-class (remember that those half-ranks don't help you, but they still add up). A 19th-level character can have 22 ranks in a class skill, or 11 in a cross-class.

The effect of this is that if you're maxing out a skill, you can always put exactly one skill point in it each level, after 1st. If it's a class skill, that buys one rank, and if it's cross-class, it buys 2 ranks, and either way, it brings it back up to your maximum.

Jack_Simth
2008-05-02, 06:01 PM
*Head-desk.* Why do I keep forgetting that max cross-class skill ranks = level-1? Why?

Umm... because it's not?

Max class skill ranks = Level +3
Max cross-class skill ranks = Max Class Skill Ranks / 2

Skills: If a skill is a class skill for any of a multiclass character’s classes, then character level determines a skill’s maximum rank. (The maximum rank for a class skill is 3 + character level.)

If a skill is not a class skill for any of a multiclass character’s classes, the maximum rank for that skill is one-half the maximum for a class skill.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-02, 06:24 PM
In that case, could you maybe answer a question for me? What would be an appropriate PrC for a Wizard planning to go into Loremaster at the first opportunity (so it would be a two-level dip)?

I would recommend Divine Oracle for two levels, it fits with the Flavor of every Loremaster I've ever seen, but it's earlier entry, and better. Honestly look at the class, I wouldn't recommend going into Loremaster until after picking up Divine Oracle 3, though 4 is also nice.

Note that your Skill Focus (Knowledge (Religion)) and ranks in Knowledge Religion can be used to qualify for Loremaster. So it really costs you nothing.

Swooper
2008-05-02, 06:36 PM
I've already addressed the familiar question on the first page. Every class (including Fighter or Barbarian) will advance your familiar in the features which are most important for it, and most of them will do a better job of it than Wizard (since most classes get better HP, BAB, skills, and/or saves than Wizard). What little you lose is basically insignificant.
...Damn. Teaches me to post before reading a thread fully, eh? :smallamused:

Tempest Fennac
2008-05-03, 02:35 AM
I know that there are plenty of PrCs to chose from. I'm just saying that I wouldn't want to base my feat and skill choices entirely around one which I'm not bothered about because they are more powerful then a standard Wizard.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-05-03, 03:42 AM
I know that there are plenty of PrCs to chose from. I'm just saying that I wouldn't want to base my feat and skill choices entirely around one which I'm not bothered about because they are more powerful then a standard Wizard.But that is not a mechanical reason not to go into a PrC. There is nothing keeping you in the Wizard class other than being unwilling to make a build that leaves it. Since every Wizard should qualify for certain PrCs automatically or with a minimal amount of work, Loremaster being the obvious example, as any Wizard should qualify at level 11 with an investment of one feat that you get back at the first level of the class, and in fact, other than spending that one feat, you have to qualify if you are a Core Wizard. You don't have an option.

I'm just trying to understand why, when you have classes that both match your flavor better and are more powerful, you are unwilling to put in the bit of work it takes to include one. You're already playing a Wizard, you definitely aren't afraid of planning.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-03, 04:12 AM
I know that there are plenty of PrCs to chose from. I'm just saying that I wouldn't want to base my feat and skill choices entirely around one which I'm not bothered about because they are more powerful then a standard Wizard.

Yes and my point is that if you ever intend to enter Loremaster, for any reason, even flavor, there is no reason in all existence to not take 2 levels of Divine Oracle first.

Wizard 5/Divine Oracle 2/Loremaster X is stronger mechanically while having the exact same (or better) flavor, and doesn't require investing skills or feats anywhere you wouldn't have already done going Wizard 7/Loremaster X.

And the same can be done for any Wizard ever. If you tell me the flavor of a Wizard, I will give you a PrC that is mechanically stronger and enhances that flavor that you can get into at level 5.

Why do you insist so much that better mechanics and better flavor is a bad thing?

Roderick_BR
2008-05-03, 04:38 AM
Maybe because people.... don't want to? Not everything in D&D is about power gaming *shock and horror*

Kantolin
2008-05-03, 04:39 AM
A potential option to go for several levels of wizard is if you're preparing for two or three prestige classes that all require your skill points and feats, and either can't or don't wish to be bothered with planning out the remaining few you do get that aren't required to hop in.

I see that a lot with bards aiming for sublime chord along with other prestige classes.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-05-03, 04:47 AM
Maybe because people.... don't want to? Not everything in D&D is about power gaming *shock and horror*The Wizard has about as much fluff as a Fighter. A Wizard can qualify for PrCs with much better fluff and mechanics easily. It's not that staying a Wizard is bad, per se, its more of the fact that there is so much better stuff out there. I can find a PrC for any Wizard concept that is better at representing that than the base class. It will have mechanics that improve the concept and fluff that fits the concept. I really can't understand why someone wouldn't PrC out ASAP.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-03, 04:52 AM
The Wizard has about as much fluff as a Fighter. A Wizard can qualify for PrCs with much better fluff and mechanics easily. It's not that staying a Wizard is bad, per se, its more of the fact that there is so much better stuff out there. I can find a PrC for any Wizard concept that is better at representing that than the base class. It will have mechanics that improve the concept and fluff that fits the concept. I really can't understand why someone wouldn't PrC out ASAP.

It's because they belong to the power is bad school of thought. Even if a PrC fits their character better then base Wizard levels, they won't take it if it makes them more powerful, because being useful is such a bad thing that they have to go out of their way to avoid it, even if it means being less flavorful.

After all, it's not real roleplaying unless you have an Int score of ten.

Tempest Fennac
2008-05-03, 04:54 AM
Sorry about being confusing (my last post was a responce to Chosen of Venca's last comment about my views on taking PrCs). My posts are mainly concerned with my personal views on why I wouldn't want to take PrCs (I would probably conside taking some if I thought the results were worthwhile and they fitted fluff-wise). Mechanically, I'm typically opposed to things which would make Wizards even more powerful due to not wanting to risk overshadowing everyone else.

Kantolin
2008-05-03, 04:55 AM
Sitting around thinking 'How can I make my wizard have more class abilities' is not particularly related to 'How can I nerf my wizard'.

Someone powergaming doesn't mean they're not roleplaying, but you also do not need to powergame for any particular reason. A wizard is plenty powerful without sitting around analyzing how you're going to eke out additional usefulness of the four levels before you go for loremaster or something.

Quorothorn
2008-05-03, 12:04 PM
At Chronos and Jack_Smith: Details, details, that was for roleplaying XP: Accuracy Is Not Included.


I would recommend Divine Oracle for two levels, it fits with the Flavor of every Loremaster I've ever seen, but it's earlier entry, and better. Honestly look at the class, I wouldn't recommend going into Loremaster until after picking up Divine Oracle 3, though 4 is also nice.

Note that your Skill Focus (Knowledge (Religion)) and ranks in Knowledge Religion can be used to qualify for Loremaster. So it really costs you nothing.

Hmm, never thought of looking in Complete Divine for this. That could work nicely, thanks.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-03, 12:48 PM
Hmm, never thought of looking in Complete Divine for this. That could work nicely, thanks.

{Scrubbed}

Chronos
2008-05-03, 01:27 PM
and in fact, other than spending that one feat, you have to qualify if you are a Core Wizard. You don't have an option. Well, strictly speaking, you could not take the knowledge skills, and you could take Spell Mastery for your bonus feats, but yeah, you'd have to go out of your way.

And Divine Oracle might not fit the Loremaster flavor, if the character is supposed to be more secular. A wizard might also want to leave Knowledge (Religion) for the cleric, and take other Knowledge skills instead. Still, there probably will be something that fits.

Tempest Fennac
2008-05-03, 01:44 PM
I never said I wouldn't use PrCs which fit my concept. I jsut tend to weigh the benefits against the cost of qualifying while not wanting to overshadow everyone else (eg: IotSFV would definitly be worth it, butthe PrC is too powerful). Also, don't forget that not everyone has access to every single source book, and the internet don't contain a lot of full PrCs.

Jack_Simth
2008-05-03, 02:02 PM
It's because they belong to the power is bad school of thought. Even if a PrC fits their character better then base Wizard levels, they won't take it if it makes them more powerful, because being useful is such a bad thing that they have to go out of their way to avoid it, even if it means being less flavorful.

After all, it's not real roleplaying unless you have an Int score of ten.
Edit: Exaggerating much?

Power is not, in and of itself, a bad thing - it's a significant power imbalance in the party that is.

If you've got a Wizard-5/Incantatrix-10 playing uberman in a party with a Cloistered Cleric-15, Rogue-15, and Fighter-15, and the rest of the party isn't particularly optimized, you're generally giving the DM a bad choice when it comes to combat encounters: Either the DM can challenge you, in which case, the other party members have difficulty contributing, or the DM can have encounters that you'll walk all over. Either your fellow party members are doing little more than twiddling their thumbs, or they're just taking down the stuff that managed to make all three saves on the Save or Lose spells you hit them with. Neither is a good thing from the other players' perspectives.

Now, if you're a Wizard-5/Incantatrix-10 playing uberman in a party with a Druid-5/Planar Shepherd-10, Savage Bard-5/Ur-priest-2/Mystic Theurge-3/Sublime Chord-1/Mystic Theurge +4, and a Barbarian/Frenzied Berserker, all heavily optimized, this isn't a problem. The DM just throws things +2 (or more, depending on the exact level of optimization) CR above the party level at you four times per day, and he's set.

Likewise, if you've got a party that consists of a Bard, a Monk, a Warlock, and a Dragon Shaman, none of which have been optimized significantly, the DM can do the opposite - throw stuff at you -2 (or more, depending on the exact level of non-optimization) CR below the party level at you four times per day, and he's set.

It's when the characters aren't on roughly the same power level that problems crop up.

As a base class, the Wizard is already above the power curve of the other core base classes if the Wizard is played to it's strengths. Most full progression wizard-accessible PrC's are above the Wizard's power curve. Flavor is fine. Of course, most of that is spell/feat selection and tactics to begin with. But flavor at the cost of party balance is not a good thing.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-03, 02:38 PM
Because apparently everyone else who is a "true roleplayer" refuses to either because Wizards are too powerful, or they actively refuse to look for PrCs that fit their concept.


Also, remember that, since that's the only thing that people know in real life, HARDKORE roleplayers only play commoners, sometimes expert for a high power game.

Kantolin
2008-05-03, 03:05 PM
Why don't you just go play freeform if finding a PrC that fits your concept is too much work. It's not about being powerful, it's aout actively choosing to have to have less flavor just because you are lazy.

You don't magically get more flavor by writing the word "Loremaster" on your sheet anymore than you magically are a superior roleplayer by playing a wizard with an intelligence of 10.

Yeesh. I can accept the idea that a powergamer is not necessarily against roleplaying, but there is absolutely no requirement to powergame in order to roleplay. You are also not gimping yourself to pick a slightly less powerful option when there is a more powerful option.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-03, 06:44 PM
You don't magically get more flavor by writing the word "Loremaster" on your sheet anymore than you magically are a superior roleplayer by playing a wizard with an intelligence of 10.

Yes you do. That's the point. Wizard 7/Loremaster X is inherently more flavor ful then Wizard X. Because having additional abilities is more flavorful, period.

Jayabalard
2008-05-03, 09:42 PM
Yes you do. That's the point. Wizard 7/Loremaster X is inherently more flavor ful then Wizard X. Because having additional abilities is more flavorful, period.not so. More interesting mechanically, sure, for people who enjoy that sort of thing; but that has nothing to do with the fluff side.

Rutee
2008-05-03, 10:07 PM
not so. More interesting mechanically, sure, for people who enjoy that sort of thing; but that has nothing to do with the fluff side.

Actually, it has /one/ thing to do with enhancing the fluff side. If those other abilities will help you fill out your character, then more abilities are by default more flavor (I recall someone else mentioning in another post that they could barely cram their concept spells into a Sorceror build..)

IT's also true that with those extra abilities, the /character/ is more flavorful.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-03, 10:25 PM
not so. More interesting mechanically, sure, for people who enjoy that sort of thing; but that has nothing to do with the fluff side.

Exactly what Rutee said, a character that can do everything that another character can do, plus other things is inherently a more flavorful character.

An Expert is inherently more flavorful then a Commoner.

Myshlaevsky
2008-05-03, 11:00 PM
Surely it can only be considered more flavourful if the abilities fit the flavour?

I mean, an expert isn't more flavourful than a commoner if the flavour of the character is that he is a commoner.

So, Wizard 7/Loremaster X might be more flavourful generally, but not specifically. It really depends on how much you change the fluff of the class. I can see that losing nothing, gaining x could be see to inherently add more flavour to a class (even if x is not used), but I can also see that if it's not necessary, there's no point.

As a side note, I really notice being British on these boards. I just can't use American spelling... it feels wrong.

Rutee
2008-05-03, 11:03 PM
Correct. The question is simply "Is the Commoner more accurate then the Expert". And what others have shown above is that there are PrCs that are identical, in flavor, to a normal wizard. So if a Wizard (Or more precisely, a specialist wizard) was accurate..


Surely it can only be considered more flavourful if the abilities fit the flavour?

Not really. It's like cooking. When you cook, if you add spice, you have made the end result spicier. It's not particularly relevant whether or not the spice /fits/. That's a different issue. It's still /spicier/.

Similarly, if you add abilities, you add more flavor. The question, then, is "Does the flavor fit?". And again, the flavor of some of the above wizard builds is identical

Count Chumleigh
2008-05-03, 11:13 PM
Clearly, there's a lot of definitions of "flavor" being thrown around here. And because this is the internet, each one is obviously right, and all the others are obviously wrong, and anyone who disagrees is a bad person and should feel bad.

That said, for what it's worth, I don't reckon simply having more class abilities than the next guy gives one character any more "flavor" than another. "Flavor" has more to do with description and style than mechanics in my eye; I guess you could also sort of equate it with "depth" or "personality." I can easily imagine a single-classed wizard having plenty of depth and personality to him--easily as much as the average multiclass monstrosity of magery. Remember, vanilla is a flavor, too.

And for that matter, even if something has "inherently more flavor" than something else, that doesn't mean it's a flavor everyone's going to like. There is such a thing as too much garlic, for instance.

Cheers,
--Count Chumleigh

Myshlaevsky
2008-05-03, 11:17 PM
Similarly, if you add abilities, you add more flavor. The question, then, is "Does the flavor fit?". And again, the flavor of some of the above wizard builds is identical

I was defining 'flavour' as 'flavour that fits the class' whereas you were approaching it from a more general point of view. My earlier statements takes your question as granted.

Still, with an identical flavour in concept, it's hard to imagine that there isn't an identical flavour in execution, as you've pointed out.

Rutee
2008-05-03, 11:25 PM
That said, for what it's worth, I don't reckon simply having more class abilities than the next guy gives one character any more "flavor" than another. "Flavor" has more to do with description and style than mechanics in my eye; I guess you could also sort of equate it with "depth" or "personality." I can easily imagine a single-classed wizard having plenty of depth and personality to him--easily as much as the average multiclass monstrosity of magery. Remember, vanilla is a flavor, too.
We come back to "The Wizard 20 has fewer abilities, and identical depth and personality. Further, fluffwise, /nothing/ seperates those two builds of the two classes is /identical/

Count Chumleigh
2008-05-03, 11:57 PM
We come back to "The Wizard 20 has fewer abilities, and identical depth and personality. Further, fluffwise, /nothing/ seperates those two builds of the two classes is /identical/

Respectfully, I disagree. Like Sharikov suggests, any two characters with "identical depth and personality" will have identical builds representing that "identical" depth and personality. The single-classed wizard has some reasons related to his personality, background, or what-have-you that keep him single-classed, which an almost-identical wizard who multiclasses into Loremaster clearly does not. The two characters may well have substantially similar flavors, but they are not exactly the same.

Cheers,
--Count Chumleigh

Myshlaevsky
2008-05-04, 12:01 AM
I have to say I was really supporting the case that a Wizard/X where both classes have a flavour identical to the character concept is more flavourful than a Wizard 20.

By identical flavour in concept and execution I was referring to a Wizard PrC which had the same concept of as the core class having the same, or more flavour in play as a Wizard 20. The fact that they are not exactly the same is one of the issues of this thread, I think. More abilities + same concept = more flavour. I would agree with that.

EDIT: But, If the flavour of the class fits with it being Wizard 20,then, yes, it is more flavourful. I don't really see the complexity of the argument. If it all comes down to fluff or 'personal flavour' it can be easily resolved, surely?

Count Chumleigh
2008-05-04, 12:20 AM
I have to say I was really supporting the case that a Wizard/X where both classes have a flavour identical to the character concept is more flavourful than a Wizard 20.

My apologies if I misrepresented your argument, Sharikov.


But, If the flavour of the class fits with it being Wizard 20,then, yes, it is more flavourful. I don't really see the complexity of the argument. If it all comes down to fluff or 'personal flavour' it can be easily resolved, surely?

Like I said before, this is the internet: any argument that can be resolved as reasonably as "personal flavor" quickly devolves into a shouting match because no one can tolerate the idea that someone is WRONG on the internet! (http://xkcd.com/386/)

Cheers,
--Count Chumleigh

Rutee
2008-05-04, 12:22 AM
Respectfully, I disagree. Like Sharikov suggests, any two characters with "identical depth and personality" will have identical builds representing that "identical" depth and personality. The single-classed wizard has some reasons related to his personality, background, or what-have-you that keep him single-classed, which an almost-identical wizard who multiclasses into Loremaster clearly does not. The two characters may well have substantially similar flavors, but they are not exactly the same.
They are. Look at the improved Specialist/Archmage build. The fluff for that is the same. You know why? The fluff for the improved specialist PrC is "Has studied his speciality a lot" (Which by definition any Specialist Wizard has done, by levelling up). The fluff for Archmage is "Has studied magic a lot", which, again, by definition a higher levelled Wizard has done.

NephandiMan
2008-05-04, 04:35 AM
Putting aside questions of flavored fluff, I am perplexed by the idea that either Loremaster or Archmage would interfere with a wizard's gaining two new spells in his or her spellbook with each level. While I could maybe see that with other arcane PrC's, especially ones that lack full spellcasting progression, the whole point of those two particular classes is to be even more knowledgeable, or an even more accomplished spellcaster, than a wizard normally is. Surely it would be counterproductive for either of them to give up the daily research that allows wizards to gain two new spells per level.

DirtyPacifist
2008-05-04, 04:46 AM
Putting aside questions of flavored fluff, I am perplexed by the idea that either Loremaster or Archmage would interfere with a wizard's gaining two new spells in his or her spellbook with each level. While I could maybe see that with other arcane PrC's, especially ones that lack full spellcasting progression, the whole point of those two particular classes is to be even more knowledgeable, or an even more accomplished spellcaster, than a wizard normally is. Surely it would be counterproductive for either of them to give up the daily research that allows wizards to gain two new spells per level.

They don't interfere with it. It's not only generally agreed consensus but also cleared out in the FAQ I think. The prcs' "Gain new spells when appropriate" includes the wizards gaining new spells when leveling.

I'm sure I could think some joke along the lines of "Why did the chicken go wizard 20?" but I am too lazy...

NephandiMan
2008-05-04, 04:55 AM
That's good to know. I wouldn't want something as important as spell progression to depend on a heavily-implied and seemingly commonsense ruling that nevertheless might not be RAW.

In other news, why did the chicken go to wizard level 20? Because Ur-Priest wasn't fowl enough! Wakka wakka wakka!

*casts quickened Time Stop and Dimension Door before tomatoes can be thrown*

Aquillion
2008-05-04, 05:07 AM
Putting aside questions of flavored fluff, I am perplexed by the idea that either Loremaster or Archmage would interfere with a wizard's gaining two new spells in his or her spellbook with each level. While I could maybe see that with other arcane PrC's, especially ones that lack full spellcasting progression, the whole point of those two particular classes is to be even more knowledgeable, or an even more accomplished spellcaster, than a wizard normally is. Surely it would be counterproductive for either of them to give up the daily research that allows wizards to gain two new spells per level.Here's one possible explaination: It's wrong to say that Loremaster or Archmage "try harder", and that wizards simply suck in comparison (mechanically, maybe, but...) In terms of flavor, instead look at it like this:

All three classes (wizard, archmage, loremaster) spend the same time on some sort of magical research, but the Loremaster or Archmage put their research time into different things. While the Wizard is focusing on 'practical' research and learning more spells by rote, the Loremaster/Archmage is spending their time studying hidden secrets / the base principals of magic, letting them use all spells more effectively. They can also learn just as many spells as the wizard eventually, of course (since their extra research doesn't make them "worse" at magic in any way); they just have to specifically devote time and money to doing it, because the research downtime that a wizard spends on spells, the archmage is instead spending on base principals or whatever.

Roderick_BR
2008-05-04, 12:23 PM
The Wizard has about as much fluff as a Fighter. A Wizard can qualify for PrCs with much better fluff and mechanics easily. It's not that staying a Wizard is bad, per se, its more of the fact that there is so much better stuff out there. I can find a PrC for any Wizard concept that is better at representing that than the base class. It will have mechanics that improve the concept and fluff that fits the concept. I really can't understand why someone wouldn't PrC out ASAP.
Again, because some people doesn't want to. Not all fighters are uber chargers, lock builders, with levels in that dancing PrC thing. Not all barbarians are lion toters.
I really can't understand why someone NEED to PrC out ASAP. It's not a contest. If you *want* to be powerful, fine. If you just want to keep a single and simpler class, you go all the way single class. What's wrong with that?
Looks like people are afraid of not becoming as powerful as possible. It's the whole "if you lose one spellcaster level, you suck. If you are not a full charger, you suck. If you don't optimize, and use 5 different PrCs, you suck."
It's not the optimization that is ruining D&D, it's the mentality that you NEED to optimize.

DirtyPacifist
2008-05-04, 12:59 PM
Again, because some people doesn't want to. Not all fighters are uber chargers, lock builders, with levels in that dancing PrC thing. Not all barbarians are lion toters.
I really can't understand why someone NEED to PrC out ASAP. It's not a contest. If you *want* to be powerful, fine. If you just want to keep a single and simpler class, you go all the way single class. What's wrong with that?
Looks like people are afraid of not becoming as powerful as possible. It's the whole "if you lose one spellcaster level, you suck. If you are not a full charger, you suck. If you don't optimize, and use 5 different PrCs, you suck."
It's not the optimization that is ruining D&D, it's the mentality that you NEED to optimize.

But the thing is, you don't lose anything while PrCing. You could PrC and not even use most of the abilities 90% of the time and still be better, be able to play exactly the same fluff and if you ever got the need to those abilities, you have them.

Choosing the less powerful option just because it's less powerful does not equal roleplaying.

If I was asked whether if I rather had 20 euros or 20 euros and then 10 more, I would choose the latter. Similarly, if I was asked whether to have a wizard with spells and some feats or wizard with spells, some feats and some special abilities, I would choose the latter. That's not WAAAAGH! GROK NEED TO OPTIMIZE! mentality, that's just basic logic. If a and b are both good, having both is better than just having a.


EDIT: Also, this wasn't about "Do any people do that", I'm sure some do. This is about why to do that, so a reason for it. And being simplest option doesn't really qualify (first of all, why go wizard if you want simplest solution...). If simplicity over class abilities is a valid reason, it's also a valid reason to take warrior 20 over fighter 20

Count Chumleigh
2008-05-04, 02:54 PM
But the thing is, you don't lose anything while PrCing. You could PrC and not even use most of the abilities 90% of the time and still be better, be able to play exactly the same fluff and if you ever got the need to those abilities, you have them.

Choosing the less powerful option just because it's less powerful does not equal roleplaying.

At the same time, you don't lose anything by taking another level in wizard, as opposed to PrC-ing out of it. And, really, if you're not going to use most of the Prestige Class's abilities, then there's hardly any point in taking it, especially if your character's fluff would be substantially similar otherwise.

Choosing the more powerful option just because it's more powerful does not equal roleplaying, either. Rather, choosing the mechanical options that best fit and/or represent your character's personality, background, inclinations, objectives etc.--to say nothing of the campaign's restrictions, since Prestige Classes are entirely optional to begin with--does equal roleplaying. Well, one aspect of it, at least.

Cheers,
--Count Chumleigh

Rutee
2008-05-04, 03:24 PM
Choosing the more powerful option just because it's more powerful does not equal roleplaying, either. Rather, choosing the mechanical options that best fit and/or represent your character's personality, background, inclinations, objectives etc.--to say nothing of the campaign's restrictions, since Prestige Classes are entirely optional to begin with--does equal roleplaying. Well, one aspect of it, at least.

Except again, the fluff for Master Specialist and Archmage is the exact same as the fluff for levelling up as a (Specialist) Wizard. Equal fluff. Equal roleplaying. Why choose the less powerful option?

Roderick_BR
2008-05-04, 03:25 PM
But the thing is, you don't lose anything while PrCing. You could PrC and not even use most of the abilities 90% of the time and still be better, be able to play exactly the same fluff and if you ever got the need to those abilities, you have them.

Choosing the less powerful option just because it's less powerful does not equal roleplaying.

If I was asked whether if I rather had 20 euros or 20 euros and then 10 more, I would choose the latter. Similarly, if I was asked whether to have a wizard with spells and some feats or wizard with spells, some feats and some special abilities, I would choose the latter. That's not WAAAAGH! GROK NEED TO OPTIMIZE! mentality, that's just basic logic. If a and b are both good, having both is better than just having a.


EDIT: Also, this wasn't about "Do any people do that", I'm sure some do. This is about why to do that, so a reason for it. And being simplest option doesn't really qualify (first of all, why go wizard if you want simplest solution...). If simplicity over class abilities is a valid reason, it's also a valid reason to take warrior 20 over fighter 20

Ah, don't worry with that, I doesn't equal weaker characters with good roleplaying :smalltongue: I just say that sometimes... why bother? Yes, you CAN get a stronger option. But you are not forced to. If I don't want to have to read books, white an specific fluff, get a set of specific abilities.... I don't have to. It's my typical response when I'm playing videogames, and some one asks "why didn't you do such and such". I usually just reply "because I didn't want to".
It just looks like people are saying that you SHOULD always do it. People say that if you doesn't, you suck, and will have a crappy character. That bothes me. Where's the freedom to do what the heck I want? If I want a fighter with low strength that fights with dagger, and a bad selection of feats... I'm aware it'll suck, but that's my choice. Same thing if I choose to play a non-caster in a party with casters. Or playing a straight wizard over a PrC'ed wizard.

Yes, you can get a wizard with both a and b options, but I want to have the right to play a simple a option, without people telling me I'm playing wrong.
Since when D&D started to be serious business?

Jack_Simth
2008-05-04, 03:31 PM
If I was asked whether if I rather had 20 euros or 20 euros and then 10 more, I would choose the latter. Similarly, if I was asked whether to have a wizard with spells and some feats or wizard with spells, some feats and some special abilities, I would choose the latter. That's not WAAAAGH! GROK NEED TO OPTIMIZE! mentality, that's just basic logic. If a and b are both good, having both is better than just having a.

In real life, this is generally true.

In a cooperative game, however, it isn't always so.

If I take some low/no cost PrC's that give me strong nifties, to the point where I'm overshadowing everyone else at the table, there's a problem: My character being A&B, rather than just A, is interfering with the fun factor of the other players. This is a problem. Regardless of whether I chose A&B for flavor or if I chose A&B for power, the net result is the same - I'm interfering with others' fun at the table. This is bad.

Edit: Now, if everyone else at the table is equally A&B in their field, that's fine - I'm not overshadowing everyone else at the table, so no harm no foul, the DM just has to throw tougher stuff at us. If they're not, I need to play down to roughly their level, or I'm going to interfere with their fun.

Kantolin
2008-05-04, 03:46 PM
Why choose the less powerful option?

Why are you choosing the more powerful option? What motive do you have for doing so?

I mean, master specialist isn't even core - this means you're possibly searching through the pile of arcane prestige classes, searching for one which may possibly fit your character idea. Heck, that could even result in people opting to play any of a dozen rather underpowered options and not specifically playing that one which happens to be very useful.

Once again, I'm not saying that optimization means you cannot be roleplaying - that isn't true. Simultaneously, the idea that you /must/ optimize or you cannot make a flavorful character bugs me. The idea that you're wrecking your character from a flavor perspective if you go Wizard 10 / Loremaster 10 instead of Wizard 5 / Divine Oracle 5 / Loremaster 10 is very unusual.

This isn't even stating that you need to nerf your character or anything - a wizard, even a wizard 20, is a very powerful class that's able to contribute quite well. In a cooperative game, that's all you really need.

Now, if your group is big on hyper-optimization, then go ahead. Although I'm noting that even hyper-optimization groups tend to have limits (typically infinite damage loops... or infinite anything loops).

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-04, 03:52 PM
Since when D&D started to be serious business?

When are you people going to learn. This is the Internet. Everything is srz biznis.

Aquillion
2008-05-04, 03:54 PM
Not all barbarians are lion toters.

...

It's the whole "if you lose one spellcaster level, you suck. If you are not a full charger, you suck. If you don't optimize, and use 5 different PrCs, you suck."
The thing is, your character's mechanics reflect who they are; Jaguar Totem (the default totem, the one you get if you don't pick another) is, when you get down to it, not simply worse mechanically but worse at representing the standard Barbarian.

If you take a Barbarian without some method of making a full attack on a charge, your combat style becomes very static; if your vision of a Barbarian is someone who rushes into the heat of battle with a furious battle-cry, you probably want Pounce, regardless of how you fluff it (you certainly don't need to use Lion Totem fluff if you don't want to.)

If your vision of a Barbarian is someone who runs up to a monster and hits it once, barely harming it, then stands there and trades blows with it like a lemon, then yeah, Jaguar Totem is fine for you. But the thing is, I strongly feel that Lion Totem represents Barbarians better, as most people see them. I would go as far as to say that if the designers had had their head on right, Barbarians would get it by default, and Jaguar Totem would be the varient. There may be a few people out there who don't picture their Barbarians as being good at charging into battle, but the 'default' assumption should really be that they are.

For spellcasters, it's much more serious; the effect of losing even a single caster level on a full-caster is massive. Challenges are set based on the assumption that you have your full spells. If you lose one CL, half the time you're simply not going to be able to fufill the expected caster role against specific threats -- you'll encounter something that assumes you have Disintegrate say, and whoops! You lost a CL, so you don't.

Most people are fine losing CL if they're getting a different role out of it -- if you're a gish, say, or the rare PRC like the Malconvoker that manages to let you focus well on one aspect of magic as a decent tradeoff -- but for the most part, if your character concept is a dedicated spellcaster, it's hard to justify giving up any CLs to represent that, because the implict fluff of most classes that give up caster levels is "you are not very good at magic."

As I recall, there was one horribly-designed Planescape-themed PRC that had half caster progression, whose fluff was that you were some sort of super-powerful wizard who had magical powers that other wizards feared. You got absolutely horrible things in exchange for that -- it was like the Green Star Adept, but at least the GSA tries to flavor it as a gish. This PRC was just... horribly-designed.

If you want your character to be a swordsman, you give him a sword; you don't give him an axe. If you want him to be a devoted spellcaster, you don't give up caster levels. It's as simple as that; once you've given up caster levels, your fluff is always going to contain the footnote "subpar at magic."

(I should say, though, that I don't think wizard 20 vs. full-casting PRC is as big a deal. Giving up a caster level is a huge thing that can radically change how your character plays; most full-casting PRC benefits are relatively minor. Even something powerful like IotSV is still going to be strictly secondary to your casting.)

Lots of people around here enjoy discussing the Warlock or the Rogue or gish builds or lots of other things that aren't "optimal". The thing is that the choices you're defending -- giving up CL without getting anything worthwhile in return, making a Jaguar Totem Barbarian with no clear reason why -- aren't ones that are likely to fit very many character concepts.

Count Chumleigh
2008-05-04, 03:56 PM
Except again, the fluff for Master Specialist and Archmage is the exact same as the fluff for levelling up as a (Specialist) Wizard.

I don't have Complete Mage and my Dungeon Master's Guide is in Dallas, so I cannot comment on the fluff for either class.


Why choose the less powerful option?

A few reasons. First, like a lot of people have said, because choosing the more powerful option could be ruining everyone else's fun. Or maybe I don't care to keep track of all these other abilities my character would be able to do if I took a given Prestige Class, or don't like seeing all those words, hyphens, and numbers cluttering up the "Class" line on my character sheet.

Second, because maybe, just maybe, my wizard isn't an Archmage. He might be able to cast 7th-level spells, he might have the requisite skill ranks, he might even have decided to take Skill Focus (Spellcraft) for reasons I can't begin to fathom or spend two feats on Spell Focus for two different schools of magic. But maybe he just doesn't care about magic that much. And that's not even considering whether the character cares enough about the study of magic as art enough to take the feats.

Third, and most important, because I want to. That should all the reason I'll ever need, especially in a damn game. Especially-especially since Wizard is already a powerful enough class, and taking yet another level in it in no way makes a wizard less powerful. That's the Truenamer's gig, right there.

Cheers,
--Count Chumleigh

Jack_Simth
2008-05-04, 05:23 PM
Oh - another reason to go Wizard-20:

I might actually want those bonus feats for something.

If I want to make a wizard for whom magic is as easy as breathing, I'll want a Wizard that's heavy on the reserve feats; something like...

1) Alacritous Cogitation
3) Fiery Burst
Wiz-5) Dimensional Reach
6) Heighten Spell
9) Summon Elemental
Wiz-10) Dimensional Jaunt
12) Minor Shapeshift

Alacritous Cogitation allows me to "improvise" a spell on the spot; Heighten Spell lets me not worry too much about whether or not I've got a spell of the "right" level that matches the reserve feat - I can just increase the level on one until it fits; the Reserve feats (the rest) let me throw magic around at whim. Prepare a lot of Prestidigitation and Detect Magic spells (applying Permenency to Detect Magic and Arcane Sight when it becomes an option to do so) and I've got a character that's made of magic - to the point where he doesn't have any stairs or doors in his tower - just some walls made of Permanently Invisible blocks that he looks through for making use of Dimensional Jaunt.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-04, 06:45 PM
I don't have Complete Mage and my Dungeon Master's Guide is in Dallas, so I cannot comment on the fluff for either class.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/archmage.htm



A few reasons. First, like a lot of people have said, because choosing the more powerful option could be ruining everyone else's fun.
One could always take the prestige class and not use the extra power except in a near-TPK situation. But I'm afraid it's hard to answer this without going Stormwind.

Count Chumleigh
2008-05-04, 07:10 PM
Kurald, I appreciate your concern in educating me about the Archmage, but would also like to point out that the SRD is entirely devoid of fluff text.

Cheers,
--Count Chumleigh

Rutee
2008-05-04, 07:18 PM
I don't have Complete Mage and my Dungeon Master's Guide is in Dallas, so I cannot comment on the fluff for either class.[/quote]
"You know Magic. Really, really well." Basically. Which /you do/, as a 15th level wizard. If you didn't, you wouldn't be 15th level.



A few reasons. First, like a lot of people have said, because choosing the more powerful option could be ruining everyone else's fun.
Which'd be logical, sure. But if you trusted yourself to make a straight wizard at all, do you really think you can't trust yourself with the PrC abilities?



Well, on the last, I type out character sheets on computer paper rather then using the sheets, so I can indeed fit everything easily, cheat sheet inclusive, but organization makes sense in a way; However, you're talking about a Wizard. IT was pretty much guaranteed that you were going to have a lot of writing.

[quote]Second, because maybe, just maybe, my wizard isn't an Archmage. [... ]But maybe he just doesn't care about magic that much.
Then why is he a Wiz 20? Or Wiz 10?


Third, and most important, because I want to.
Which is a fine reason, but isn't a logical reason for why one should go Wiz. 20.

Count Chumleigh
2008-05-04, 08:25 PM
"You know Magic. Really, really well." Basically. Which /you do/, as a 15th level wizard. If you didn't, you wouldn't be 15th level.

It is certainly the case that a fifteenth-level Wizard knows magic well. However, it is not the case that a given fifteenth-level Wizard necessarily has Skill Focus (Spellcraft) and Spell Focus for two different schools of magic. It is also not necessarily the case that a given fifteenth-level Wizard has the inclination or ability to learn the Archmage's unique class abilities.

It isn't that the Wizard ever lost any interest in magic, it’s just that he doesn’t care enough about it to take levels in Archmage. He might be a lazy, apathetic schlub; he might have self-esteem issues that keep him from seeking out the honor of being an Archmage; he might even be of too low a class to be permitted to study the necessary passages from The Octavo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octavo_%28Discworld%29#The_Octavo) to gain the Archmage's class abilities. Or maybe the character is perfectly content with the level of skill he has with magic already and can't be bothered to seek out knowledge above and beyond what he already knows.


[W]hy is he a Wiz 20? Or Wiz 10?

He is a twentieth-level Wizard because, well, he started out as a first-level Wizard, survived enough adventures to gain nineteen levels, and never multiclassed out of Wizard. That's what you get when you deal with a class-based system with levels.

I'm not saying it isn't feasible to have a Wizard character who does multiclass into some PrC or another. Far from it. All I'm saying is that I can easily imagine several types of Wizards who would never stray from the Wizard base class because it wouldn't be in character. At least one other poster has envisioned genuine mechanical justifications for remaining a single-classed Wizard.

Really, the only reason I'm continuing this internet argument (http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/4622/ia3yp.jpg) is because I don't care for the implication that, just because I might not take levels in a Prestige Class I don't want to, regardless of the fact that it might make my character more mechanically powerful and can easily be made to fit my character's flavor, I am somehow an illogical person or one of those "HARDKORE ROLE-PLAYER NOT ROLL-PLAYER" jerks. My Wizard character is no less a Wizard for not being a Loremaster, Incantrix, or Archmage as well.

Or, rather, he would be. If I played Wizards. Which I don't. Too much paperwork.

Cheers,
--Count Chumleigh

Jayabalard
2008-05-04, 09:32 PM
Not really. It's like cooking. When you cook, if you add spice, you have made the end result spicier. It's not particularly relevant whether or not the spice /fits/. That's a different issue. It's still /spicier/.Not necessarily. If you add spices at the wrong time, or at the wrong temperatures, you actually wind up with food that is less spicy. Most (if not all spices) are fairly volatile, so they'll burn up, or evaporate if you cook them at too high of temperatures, and they won't penetrate or be absorbed properly at too cool of temperatures.

Even if you do it with proper timing, adding more spices does not mean that you'll wind up with a dish that is actually spicier than one with the right combination of less spices and other ingredients; some flavors are water soluble, some are fat soluble, and some are alcohol soluble, so if you have the right combination of spices with the right combination of solvents, you wind up with a much spicier dish with less actual spices.

different cooking methods can also make a food more or less spicy fairly independently of the amount of spices used; using the right spices in small amounts with the right cooking method and correct balance of other ingredients gives you a food that is far more flavorful than just dumping a cartload of spices will.


Exactly what Rutee said, a character that can do everything that another character can do, plus other things is inherently a more flavorful character.

An Expert is inherently more flavorful then a Commoner.Not true. I'll agree that it's an inherently more powerful character, but power does not, in and of itself, have anything to do with the flavor. Being able to do more things does not mean that you have a more flavorful character; a straight classed fighter can be just as flavorful as a wizard with any number of PRCs, which can be just as flavorful as a straight classed wizard.

Roland St. Jude
2008-05-05, 08:51 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please keep it civil in here. Thanks.

Cuddly
2008-05-05, 08:59 PM
Which is a fine reason, but isn't a logical reason for why one should go Wiz. 20.

Uh, what?
Maximizing utility is so perfectly logical, it hurts. Simply because you fail to understand another person's utility function doesn't make it illogical.

Rutee
2008-05-05, 09:13 PM
Uh, what?
Maximizing utility is so perfectly logical, it hurts. Simply because you fail to understand another person's utility function doesn't make it illogical.

Not backing it up with /any/ logic makes it illogical. Particularly since if you want simplicity, and didn't go blaster wizard (Or conceivably, utterly straight specialist, I suppose), I must question why you made a wizard. Why not reflavor a sorcerer? It's simpler as a class.


Not necessarily. If you add spices at the wrong time, or at the wrong temperatures, you actually wind up with food that is less spicy. Most (if not all spices) are fairly volatile, so they'll burn up, or evaporate if you cook them at too high of temperatures, and they won't penetrate or be absorbed properly at too cool of temperatures.

Oh FFS. Note to self; Metaphors exist to be destroyed based on knowledge I don't possibly have, not to be simply taken as intended. Because that totally enables communication, deliberate lack of understanding.


It is certainly the case that a fifteenth-level Wizard knows magic well. However, it is not the case that a given fifteenth-level Wizard necessarily has Skill Focus (Spellcraft) and Spell Focus for two different schools of magic. It is also not necessarily the case that a given fifteenth-level Wizard has the inclination or ability to learn the Archmage's unique class abilities.
Feats are representative of a character now? I missed that memo, apparently; Thanks to DnD's ridiculous setup, I divorce feats from the process completely, except for a small number (Mostly the +2 to 2 skills useless feats, which strike me as good for representing characters due to the way they're worded), so I quite frankly don't find any step of this to possibly be against or for the character. Especially not when you can characterize things in a particular way.


It isn't that the Wizard ever lost any interest in magic, it’s just that he doesn’t care enough about it to take levels in Archmage. He might be a lazy, apathetic schlub;
1: Why is he a wizard 15 if he's so lazy and apathetic?
2: The level up process requires a fair amount of non-laziness, particularly for wizards (They had to /actually learn/ those new spells learned, after all, not like Sorcerers)


he might have self-esteem issues that keep him from seeking out the honor of being an Archmage; he might even be of too low a class to be permitted to study the necessary passages from The Octavo to gain the Archmage's class abilities. Or maybe the character is perfectly content with the level of skill he has with magic already and can't be bothered to seek out knowledge above and beyond what he already knows.

There's a title associated with classes now? When did classes start becoming IC concepts? If you want to claim some setting specific tidbit of trivia that has not a darn thing to do with the class, fine. As to the last.. /how is that possible/? Thanks to the way DnD works, he is putting his life on the line on a regular basis. I could perhaps believe a nihilist sandbagging when their efforts directly relate to their chances of living, but then why not take commoner to better reflect that


He is a twentieth-level Wizard because, well, he started out as a first-level Wizard, survived enough adventures to gain nineteen levels, and never multiclassed out of Wizard. That's what you get when you deal with a class-based system with levels.
Cute; Now answer in context. If he was not interested in, and actively studying, magic, he would not be a Wiz. 20. Full stop.

Jack_Simth
2008-05-05, 09:36 PM
There's a title associated with classes now? When did classes start becoming IC concepts? If you want to claim some setting specific tidbit of trivia that has not a darn thing to do with the class, fine. As to the last.. /how is that possible/? Thanks to the way DnD works, he is putting his life on the line on a regular basis. I could perhaps believe a nihilist sandbagging when their efforts directly relate to their chances of living, but then why not take commoner to better reflect that

With Prestige Classes, yes, there quite often is a title of some form or other associated with it. The Mage of the Arcane Order - explicitly requires you to belong to a particular orginization. Likewise, a Red Wizard of Thay and several others.

The DMG specifically says "We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign. The example prestige classes are certainly not all encompassing or definitive. They might not even be appropriate for your campaign. The best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself." It's entirely possible that there are no full progression PrC's available in a strict RAW campaign, because PrC's are explicitly something the DM ought to take a firm hand with - in which case, full Wizard is probably your best bet from a power perspective.

There's also the feat issue - I may very well have a concept that eats and absurd number of feats to make it work (say, a Wizard who's overflowing with magic, and has studied hard to keep it under control - I use reserve feats to model the "at whim" casting, take those two dragon flaws that reduce your Hide, Spot, Move Silently, and Listen with the sounds/lights not under your control; maybe go so far as to take Precocious Apprentice to power a Reserve Feat early, so I'm doing at-whim magic from level one ... but as each Reserve Feat only does a single effect, I'm going to need a rather lot of them, plus some basic item creation feats .. in which case, the Wizard Bonus Feats are tasty).

Likewise, even in a pure-core campaign, I may simply want a Pure Wizard for all the feats involved. Metamagic and item creation gets feat-intensive (especially if there is no magic shop). I could also want to take Spell Mastery several times as well, in case I'm caught without a spellbook (because I have a meanie DM, or I've been taken prisoner, whatever).

Rutee
2008-05-05, 09:51 PM
The DMG specifically says "We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign. The example prestige classes are certainly not all encompassing or definitive. They might not even be appropriate for your campaign. The best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself." It's entirely possible that there are no full progression PrC's available in a strict RAW campaign, because PrC's are explicitly something the DM ought to take a firm hand with - in which case, full Wizard is probably your best bet from a power perspective.
Except that's an idiotic and limiting rule; I have no problem with limiting PrCs to prevent abuse, naturally, but too many weak but interesting PrCs (Say, the duellist, to pick a fairly innocuous and relatively innocent example) are around that enable concepts to actually exist in an even halfway useful way. Further, if you could be trusted to make a Wizard without breaking the game, handing you Archmage capability isn't going to do things any worse.

Count Chumleigh
2008-05-05, 11:31 PM
If you want simplicity, and didn't go blaster wizard (Or conceivably, utterly straight specialist, I suppose), I must question why you made a wizard.

I don't play Wizards, but, supposing I did, I would have made one because I wanted to play a Wizard. I actually had an idea not too long for a Wizardly character-type: he's an old man--like, age category old--who was a shipping clerk for thirty-five years and dabbled in magic as a hobby. Now that he's retired, he can devote himself to his hobby full-time. Other than knowing about shipping and clerking, his magic is the only thing that really sets him apart from other people. That suggests he's a Wizard or a Sorcerer to me. Of the two classes, Wizard seems to fit the flavor best if only because I can more easily see someone whose job is bookkeeping taking up a class about bookkeeping as a hobby than I can a Sorcerer also being good at keeping records.

And there you have it. I made a Wizard because I thought up a character that would be fun to play, and Wizard fits the concept better than any other class. That said, I'm going to have enough trouble keeping track of spells know, spells prepared, and scribing from scrolls as it is (another reason I don't play Wizards: They're the only core spellcasting class that has to pay money to learn more spells, aside from normal leveling at least). The last thing I want to do is make that more difficult by keeping track of special abilities--especially ones that mess around with my spells per day like the Archmage.

Plus, I figure Lezzik Tinsmith (so I name characters I know I'm never going to play), is an amateur wizard--a gifted amateur, maybe, depending on the starting level--rather than one of them fancified professionals, and he's just tickled pink to at last be able to practice his wizarding at his own pace. Depending on his whims, he may take the requisite feats to become an Archmage, or he might not. Simply being a wizard, rather than the pursuit of pure arcane knowledge and power, is what drives him now.

(Please note that "wizard" and "wizarding" are meant to be lower-case in the above paragraph, for reasons that will be discussed below.)


Oh FFS. Note to self; Metaphors exist to be destroyed based on knowledge I don't possibly have, not to be simply taken as intended. Because that totally enables communication, deliberate lack of understanding.

Sometimes metaphors backfire on you. Lord knows it's happened to me. Such is life.

[/QUOTE=Rutee]Feats are representative of a character now? I missed that memo, apparently; Thanks to DnD's ridiculous setup, I divorce feats from the process completely, except for a small number (Mostly the +2 to 2 skills useless feats, which strike me as good for representing characters due to the way they're worded), so I quite frankly don't find any step of this to possibly be against or for the character. Especially not when you can characterize things in a particular way.[/QUOTE]

Wait. Are you saying that if I want to play a character who really likes swords, is particularly good at using swords, and even prefers swords above all other melee weapons, then taking Weapon Focus (some kind of sword) does not represent that character's interest in swords?

[/QUOTE=Rutee]1: Why is he a wizard 15 if he's so lazy and apathetic?
2: The level up process requires a fair amount of non-laziness, particularly for wizards (They had to /actually learn/ those new spells learned, after all, not like Sorcerers)[/QUOTE]

The lazy and apathetic Wizard probably just got caught up in the plot and might not even realize how skilled he's become. He's been going through the motions in furthering his study of magic, gaining perhaps a little more skill and confidence in addition to his piddling two spells per level, maybe copying from a particularly interesting or useful scroll along the way, but not going out of his way to gain the power cosmic.

Or he might also be lazy and apathetic, but also pragmatic enough to realize that, instead of going out of his way to pick up Archmage, sticking to the basic skills will get him far enough to accomplish his goals anyway, at the rate he's going. I have no idea what he'd be doing with his spare time, but I've known people like that--people who just coast. I've seen me do it plenty of times, too.


When did classes start becoming IC concepts?

I admit that "fighter," "rogue," and "bard" might not be terms a lot of characters would jump at the bit to call themselves, but a term so generic, so ingrained, so evocative as "wizard"--that's something I just can't imagine no one might ever think to call himself, especially if he could actually cast spells. You'll get your fair share of Bards and Sorcerers calling themselves "wizards," sure, because they can't see their character sheets, but you'll also probably get the occasional Wizard calling themselves such as well. Or "magicians." Or "conjurers," even if they're really Evokers. Everyone here should already know the Monty Python reference that begs to be mentioned, so I'll leave it be for now.


[W]hy not take commoner?

Admittedly, my answer here is basically the same as directly above: the Wizard character sees himself as a wizard. He may not be interested or able to become an Archmage. Hell, Lezzik is probably whimsical enough that he'd take Improved Familiar before Skill Focus (Spellcraft), and a half-dozen other feats, too--thereby disqualifying him from ever leveling in the class, all in the name of staying true to character. Lezzik is a retiree for whom magic is a hobby and the campaign is something that just happened, not an Archmage.

Also, even I've got my limits. While I may not be willing to increase a Wizard's comparative power beyond what merely taking another level in Wizard would give me, I'm even less willing to give up a Wizard's comparative power by taking levels in Commoner.



The DMG specifically says "We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign. The example prestige classes are certainly not all encompassing or definitive. They might not even be appropriate for your campaign. The best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself." It's entirely possible that there are no full progression PrC's available in a strict RAW campaign, because PrC's are explicitly something the DM ought to take a firm hand with - in which case, full Wizard is probably your best bet from a power perspective.
Except that's an idiotic and limiting rule; I have no problem with limiting PrCs to prevent abuse, naturally, but too many weak but interesting PrCs (Say, the duellist, to pick a fairly innocuous and relatively innocent example) are around that enable concepts to actually exist in an even halfway useful way. Further, if you could be trusted to make a Wizard without breaking the game, handing you Archmage capability isn't going to do things any worse.

It also happens to be RAW. Or at least Rules As Suggested.

Cheers,
--Count Chumleigh

Animefunkmaster
2008-05-06, 12:11 AM
I would just like to point out that wizard 6 is a fine exit point (not just wizard 5) seeing as how you nab that last bab and bonus to all your saves.

Count Chumleigh
2008-05-06, 12:20 AM
Indeed it is. I'd actually prefer to PrC out of Wizard at 6th-level, too--assuming it fits the character, of course--because I'm a sucker for that sort of thing.

Cheers,
--Count Chumleigh

Rutee
2008-05-06, 12:39 AM
I don't play Wizards, but, supposing I did, I would have made one because I wanted to play a Wizard. I actually had an idea not too long for a Wizardly character-type: he's an old man--like, age category old--who was a shipping clerk for thirty-five years and dabbled in magic as a hobby. Now that he's retired, he can devote himself to his hobby full-time. Other than knowing about shipping and clerking, his magic is the only thing that really sets him apart from other people. That suggests he's a Wizard or a Sorcerer to me. Of the two classes, Wizard seems to fit the flavor best if only because I can more easily see someone whose job is bookkeeping taking up a class about bookkeeping as a hobby than I can a Sorcerer also being good at keeping records.
Reflavor Sorc. I don't think anyone's going to bitch if you do it for simplicity's sake, since Sorceror is weaker, but simpler, in every sense.



Sometimes metaphors backfire on you. Lord knows it's happened to me. Such is life.
Sometimes people intentionally misunderstand so as to frustrate communication, then think they've cleverly won the argument. Because god knows frustrating communication is the same freaking thing as proving a point.


Wait. Are you saying that if I want to play a character who really likes swords, is particularly good at using swords, and even prefers swords above all other melee weapons, then taking Weapon Focus (some kind of sword) does not represent that character's interest in swords?
I'm saying it doesn't make a difference either way, in most cases. Taking Weapon Focus in Longsword doesn't reflect his interest in long swords; That interest was already reflected anyway.


The lazy and apathetic Wizard probably just got caught up in the plot and might not even realize how skilled he's become.
Ah yes, the cosmetic Int score.


He's been going through the motions in furthering his study of magic, gaining perhaps a little more skill and confidence in addition to his piddling two spells per level, maybe copying from a particularly interesting or useful scroll along the way, but not going out of his way to gain the power cosmic.
He would have stopped at 15; That's when you get MMM, and pretty much can live in total safety and comfort. Oh wait, /he didn't do that/.


Or he might also be lazy and apathetic, but also pragmatic enough to realize that, instead of going out of his way to pick up Archmage, sticking to the basic skills will get him far enough to accomplish his goals anyway, at the rate he's going. I have no idea what he'd be doing with his spare time, but I've known people like that--people who just coast. I've seen me do it plenty of times, too.
People don't generally coast when life and limb are on the line.


I admit that "fighter," "rogue," and "bard" might not be terms a lot of characters would jump at the bit to call themselves, but a term so generic, so ingrained, so evocative as "wizard"--that's something I just can't imagine no one might ever think to call himself, especially if he could actually cast spells. You'll get your fair share of Bards and Sorcerers calling themselves "wizards," sure, because they can't see their character sheets, but you'll also probably get the occasional Wizard calling themselves such as well. Or "magicians." Or "conjurers," even if they're really Evokers. Everyone here should already know the Monty Python reference that begs to be mentioned, so I'll leave it be for now.
Wizard is an evocative word now? Guess it's lost its charm.




Admittedly, my answer here is basically the same as directly above: the Wizard character sees himself as a wizard. He may not be interested or able to become an Archmage. Hell, Lezzik is probably whimsical enough that he'd take Improved Familiar before Skill Focus (Spellcraft), and a half-dozen other feats, too--thereby disqualifying him from ever leveling in the class, all in the name of staying true to character. Lezzik is a retiree for whom magic is a hobby and the campaign is something that just happened, not an Archmage.
If Lezzik is giving himself toys while on an extended or semi extended event of life and death, then that's just plain /stupid/.


Also, even I've got my limits. While I may not be willing to increase a Wizard's comparative power beyond what merely taking another level in Wizard would give me, I'm even less willing to give up a Wizard's comparative power by taking levels in Commoner.
This of course, yields the obvious answer of "Don't play someone who goes Nihilist". But more importantly, you're the one talking about the character sandbagging, not me. and wanting to represent them being lazy, untrying gits.


It also happens to be RAW. Or at least Rules As Suggested.
RAW gave us Pun-Pun. this is not exactly a stunning endorsement.

Talic
2008-05-06, 01:14 AM
RAW also gives us BAB + Str + Misc mods = Hit.

And save DC = 10+Spell level+ability modifier.


Why is it when someone seeks to harangue RAW, they immediately jump to "Pun-Pun-the-god-who-requires-campaign-specific-rules-to-achieve-a-godlike-power-that-was-built-to-discourage-powergaming-rather-than-the-inverse", rather than the thousands of other parts of RAW that are completely fine, in and of themselves? Is Pun-Pun the only RAW example available? Does it appropriately capture the feel and appropriateness of RAW as a whole?

Or is it nothing more than a low-blow to a system that, while not perfect, is evidently good enough for all of us to play it?

Rutee
2008-05-06, 01:16 AM
It also gave us Tippy's Wizard Dystopia, produced solely from Core RAW applied strictly. The system /isn't/ really good enough for me to play it. That's kind of why I don't.

Also, put a freaking line break in your rant somewhere, it's breaking the frame.

Jack_Simth
2008-05-06, 06:21 AM
Except that's an idiotic and limiting rule; I have no problem with limiting PrCs to prevent abuse, naturally, but too many weak but interesting PrCs (Say, the duellist, to pick a fairly innocuous and relatively innocent example) are around that enable concepts to actually exist in an even halfway useful way. Further, if you could be trusted to make a Wizard without breaking the game, handing you Archmage capability isn't going to do things any worse.
Who said anything about eliminating Duelist? All I suggested was avoiding full progression spellcasting PrC's. Tell me; do you agree with the following statements:

1) Of the Core base classes, built intelligently as pure-classed characters at 20th level, a Wizard is above the power level of all the other base classes (played with similiar restrictions) with standard Wealth By Level.
2) Most full spellcasting progression wizard accessable PrC's give the character more power than pure-classed Wizard.

If you agree with both (which you appear to, what with comments of "trusted to make a Wizard without breaking the game" and similiar, and your staunch arguments that a Wizard should PrC out from a power perspective) how is it really a stupid thing for the DM to, say, edit all Full Progression PrC's so that they lose a level of spellcasting at 1st? Take, say, the Archmage, say, remove the spell-slot costs of the High Arcana, and have it remove a level of spellcasting at 1st, and maybe remove one of the required feats. Take Loremaster, remove a level of spellcasting at first, and drop the Skill Focus(Knoweledge(Any One)) requirement - and so on. Given 1 and 2, above, how in the world is that stupid? It's basic power balancing. You want some nifty abilities above and beyond what the base class gives? Fine, but you're going to lose some of the progression the base class gives.

Also, I notice you're studiously avoiding comments such as "I might want the bonus feats".

Count Chumleigh
2008-05-06, 12:22 PM
Taking Weapon Focus in Longsword doesn't reflect his interest in long swords; That interest was already reflected anyway.

Reflected in what sense?

Cheers,
--Count Chumleigh

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-06, 01:12 PM
1) Of the Core base classes, built intelligently as pure-classed characters at 20th level, a Wizard is above the power level of all the other base classes (played with similiar restrictions) with standard Wealth By Level.

I doubt he agrees with this, since the whole point of PrCing out is to keep up with the Druid.

Rutee
2008-05-06, 01:21 PM
If you agree with both (which you appear to, what with comments of "trusted to make a Wizard without breaking the game" and similiar, and your staunch arguments that a Wizard should PrC out from a power perspective) how is it really a stupid thing for the DM to, say, edit all Full Progression PrC's so that they lose a level of spellcasting at 1st? Take, say, the Archmage, say, remove the spell-slot costs of the High Arcana, and have it remove a level of spellcasting at 1st, and maybe remove one of the required feats. Take Loremaster, remove a level of spellcasting at first, and drop the Skill Focus(Knoweledge(Any One)) requirement - and so on. Given 1 and 2, above, how in the world is that stupid?
Except you weren't referring to that at all, so I'll thank you to not take me out of context; You were saying "Limit the power of all PrCs by following the inane rule that they should be really hard to get in character"


It's basic power balancing. You want some nifty abilities above and beyond what the base class gives? Fine, but you're going to lose some of the progression the base class gives.
No, basic power balancing would be "Remove full casters, replace with weaker classes (Like the Wildshape Druid variant, the Warmage, etc)". You haven't already done that, and it's pretty much step one, so I'm left with the idea that balance isn't a big deal for you.


Also, I notice you're studiously avoiding comments such as "I might want the bonus feats".

For what? Feats don't generally reflect your character, nor do they do quite so much to define their abilities.


Reflected in what sense?
In what sense does the character's longsword obsession get defined by their feat, rather then their action?

Count Chumleigh
2008-05-06, 02:26 PM
In what sense does the character's longsword obsession get defined by their feat, rather then their action?

In what sense is a character limited to reflecting his personality by only actions or feats? Do you mean to suggest that a character who really likes swords, is particularly good at using swords, and even prefers swords above all other melee weapons would not take Weapon Focus (some kind of sword)?

You and I, Rutee ... we seem to think of feats in different ways. I think of feats (and skills, and races, and spells, and classes) as mechanical representations of a character's given interests, specialties, and training. A character who really likes swords--even going above and beyond swords' simple practicality--would probably take Weapon Focus (some kind of sword). A Wizard who is interested in magic above and beyond another Wizard of his level will probably become an Archmage. The guy who uses his sword only because it's the most reliable weapon he's got? Probably not going to take Weapon Focus for it. The Wizard who cares enough about magic to be a Wizard, but not enough to take Skill Focus (Spellcraft) might take Augment Summoning, or Spell Penetration, or Improved Familiar--or even Improved Toughness--instead. Or any number of feats that aren't Skill Focus (Spellcraft).

That's another thing: I think it's entirely possible for a Wizard to care enough about magic to be a Wizard, but not enough to be an Archmage. I see the requirement of Skill Focus (Spellcraft) to be very much a gateway feat: any character who takes levels in Archmage simply cares more about magic than someone who doesn't, simply by virtue of having devoted one of his general feats to Skill Focus (Spellcraft).

Bottom line, I can conceive of characters who wouldn't PrC out of Wizard immediately after fifth level because it just isn't in character for them to do so. And I think that's perfectly logical in a role-playing game.

Cheers,
--Count Chumleigh

Jack_Simth
2008-05-06, 04:25 PM
Except you weren't referring to that at all, so I'll thank you to not take me out of context; You were saying "Limit the power of all PrCs by following the inane rule that they should be really hard to get in character"

:smallconfused:

I didn't specifically refer to a specific change, no - I just said full progression PrC's may not be available, and pointed to a spot in the DMG that encourages DMs, very strongly, to carefully control what's accessible to the players. Where, exactly, did I refer to "all PrC's"? I'm beginning to think you're reading a different conversation than I am here.


No, basic power balancing would be "Remove full casters, replace with weaker classes (Like the Wildshape Druid variant, the Warmage, etc)". You haven't already done that, and it's pretty much step one, so I'm left with the idea that balance isn't a big deal for you.

That would not be basic, as it would pretty much require something very close to a full rewrite - of several classes, quite a few monsters, and most of the CR calculations. That would be fundamental and advanced, not basic. Perhaps we're speaking slightly different dialects of the same language. Besides - the thread is about the Wizard class as it stands, not about other base classes.

Plus I've actually got a form of house rule in place that severly limits Wizards and other full casters ... by way of requiring everyone in the party to take several dragon hit dice (they're all Wyrmling Dragons). Skillmonkeys are fine (dragon hit dice are 6+Int per level), combat monkeys are fine (dragon hit dice are Full BAB, d12), and party saves are great (dragon hit dice get Monk-perfect saves). But we're not discussing my house rules, we're discussing WotC stuff. Or at least, I am - so my house rules don't come up.


For what? Feats don't generally reflect your character, nor do they do quite so much to define their abilities.

So... you're saying Quicken Spell doesn't reflect a wizard's ability to cast spells quickly, or that Craft Wondrous Item doesn't reflect a wizard's ability to make magical things, or that Craft Wand doesn't reflect a wizard's ability to bank spells away for future needs, or that Arcane Thesis doesn't reflect dedicated study into a particular spell?

I'm failing to see how your feats define your character's abilities any less than "special" abilities you pick up from a PrC. Likewise, I'm failing to see how those "special" abilities you pick up from a PrC are inherently any more flavorful than the abilities you pick up via feats. Would you please elaborate?

Count Chumleigh
2008-05-06, 05:33 PM
At the risk of sounding catty, I now feel compelled to bring up this phrase, which slipped my notice before.


the Wildshape Druid variant

Variant? I think I know what you're referring to here--it is the alternative to Wildshape presented in the PHBII, right?--but this still threw me for a mighty good loop.

Cheers,
--Count Chumleigh

Toliudar
2008-05-06, 05:48 PM
So what are the advantages of going more than Wiz 5?

Well, if you're already looking ahead to level 20, why not look ahead to level 24? And those lovely lovely epic feats.

Jack_Simth
2008-05-06, 06:58 PM
Well, if you're already looking ahead to level 20, why not look ahead to level 24? And those lovely lovely epic feats.
Probably because if you're the sort that doesn't take a familiar, Epic Wizard is not an improvement over little things like Epic Loremaster.