| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Synthalus |
Posted - 21 Dec 2010 : 13:29:49
Im having a hard time understanding why anyone would want to play a specialist MU. I understand the beneifts for an evocation specialist but the rest of the schools dont have enough spells to make it worth while. This is especially ture in 1E where there are you have to literally pull out all the spells from the PH and Unearthed Arcana in order to play one. In short my question is How would i create a character class for MU specialist in 1E? Who would the Experiance levels work, would you just use the MU Lvl tree or would you use another Lvle tree do to his lack of spells? I really like to use only the 1E books so if anyone can help me useing these books id appreciate. |
| 10 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 22 Dec 2010 : 03:39:28
quote:
Wooly Rupert
... I never saw much point to specialization in 2E. I recall being irked that the Complete Mage's Handbook made specialization out to be a wonderful thing, and then proceeded on the assumption that no one would ever play a general mage.
I disagree with this. Specialists gain extra spells each day, a major advantage; the rest of their bonuses are balanced against penalties that sort of cancel things out. You can't select as many spells but you can cast the ones you pick better and more often ... fantastic if you can put on a Ring of Wizardry and double your memorized spell bonuses.
If you play a specialist with access to lots of spells then you aren't much affected by opposed spells (Transmuters have many alteration spells which can effectively replace forbidden abjuration and necromancy magics; Conjurers enjoy a peculiar advantage in that they they still have access to Lesser Divination magics of 4th level or less; Illusionists can do almost anything the DM lets them get away with). PHBR4 actually presents rules for specialists to permanently "drop their specialization" and become generalist mages (while retaining some of their advantages/disadvantages). Other books present "dualists" and "multi-specialists" which can be quite potent.
A generalist mage can - theoretically - learn every single spell from every rulebook. In reality this never really happens unless you're playing an Elminster ... and besides, it's just a ton of extra paperwork. A dozen spells (or more) from each spell level is plenty of magic if you select your spells wisely and really know how to use them. I reward players for using their few spells intelligently instead of just pulling the "perfect" spell out of Volume XXVIII from their travelling spellbook library. (Which is another consideration: fifty spellbooks are usually very heavy and expensive while wizards are often wimpy nerds without lunch money.)
In 2E the best books for wizard classes and spells are, in rough order of usefulness: Player's Handbook (of course), Tome of Magic, Players Option: Spells & Magic, PHBR4: Complete Wizard's Handbook, DMGR7(?): Complete Book of Necromancers (this last book is not as useful). Lots of Realms-specific spells can be found in FR0, FRA, Netheril, Cormanthyr, Fall of Myth Drannor, Volo's Guide to All Things Magical; some in FR4, FR6, FR10, FR13; and some more scattered throughout almost every other book or product. The Wizard's Spell Compendium (Vols I-IV) and Priest's Spell Compendium (Vols I-III) are just collected compilations of previously published spells (with little or no original material), redundant if you have everything else. (ToM, PHBR4, PO:S&M, and DMGR7 also grant minor class bonuses to specialists as they achieve higher levels, like the PHB does for Illusionists.) |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 22 Dec 2010 : 02:56:37
Your Casus Belli (latin) rules variant is excellent, Thauramarth. Very consistent with the explanation that "special" cases like the Red Wizards cast some spells at lower or higher levels than most others. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 21 Dec 2010 : 18:42:50
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Could that be used in 3.x/PFRPG? I'm not 100% up on those rules, and so I'm not sure how specialists are handled in those more modern rulesets...
That's actually close to the way it works in Pathfinder (can't speak for 3.0/3.5 as I'm not familiar with those). Except that instead of using the "oppositional cross" the player chooses his two opposition schools from all schools. And then, it says here, "A wizard who prepares spells from his opposition schools must use two spells slots of that level to prepare the spell." There are also penalties to crafting items that have spells from opposition schools in their making.
Cheers,
Christopher
Ah, yes, I recall reading that now.  |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 21 Dec 2010 : 17:50:35
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Could that be used in 3.x/PFRPG? I'm not 100% up on those rules, and so I'm not sure how specialists are handled in those more modern rulesets...
That's actually close to the way it works in Pathfinder (can't speak for 3.0/3.5 as I'm not familiar with those). Except that instead of using the "oppositional cross" the player chooses his two opposition schools from all schools. And then, it says here, "A wizard who prepares spells from his opposition schools must use two spells slots of that level to prepare the spell." There are also penalties to crafting items that have spells from opposition schools in their making.
Cheers,
Christopher
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 21 Dec 2010 : 16:57:11
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
quote:
Originally posted by Thauramarth
I used a twist on the specialist suggested by a venerable French gaming mag (Casus Belli), which I've always applied. Instead of completely denying specialist the spells of their opposition school, they increased the level of the spells of the directly opposite school (on the eight-point cross) by 2, the level of the olbiquely opposed schools (on either side of the directly opposing school) by one, in return for decreasing the level of the specialised school by one. Example: invoker; directly opposed school: enchantment charm; obliquely opposed schools: illusion/phantasm, conjuration/summoning. That would mean that, for instance, a fireball would be a 2nd level spell for the invoker (instead of 3rd), charm person would be 3rd level (instead of 1st), invisibility would be 3rd level (instead of 2nd), and monster summoning I would be 4th level (instead of 3rd). There was also a category of "10th level" spells accessible only to specialists as 9th level spells. This category was never really developed, but most were improved versions of existing spells (Monster Summoning VIII, for example), but not so much on the level of the 10th-12th level spells described in (for example) the Netheril boxed set.
As far as specialisms are concerned. I'll let my players' choices speak - evoker is an obvious one, conjurer (monster summoning spells are very useful - the summoned creatures can dish out damage, and soak up counter attacks), and transmuter. Enchanters can also be useful, though none of my players actually had one, despite my having an enchanter specialist send wave after wave of charmed servants against them. Necromancer is also powerful, but usually it requires access to additional supplements to beef up the necro spell list (and would require evil or, at least dark neutral, characters). Illusionists were only used by the rare player who picked a gnome character. Abjurers and diviners were only used as NPCs (allies and opponents).
Thats pretty cool.
It adds a bit more book-keeping, but I like it.
Could that be used in 3.x/PFRPG? I'm not 100% up on those rules, and so I'm not sure how specialists are handled in those more modern rulesets... |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 21 Dec 2010 : 16:27:00
quote:
Originally posted by Thauramarth
I used a twist on the specialist suggested by a venerable French gaming mag (Casus Belli), which I've always applied. Instead of completely denying specialist the spells of their opposition school, they increased the level of the spells of the directly opposite school (on the eight-point cross) by 2, the level of the olbiquely opposed schools (on either side of the directly opposing school) by one, in return for decreasing the level of the specialised school by one. Example: invoker; directly opposed school: enchantment charm; obliquely opposed schools: illusion/phantasm, conjuration/summoning. That would mean that, for instance, a fireball would be a 2nd level spell for the invoker (instead of 3rd), charm person would be 3rd level (instead of 1st), invisibility would be 3rd level (instead of 2nd), and monster summoning I would be 4th level (instead of 3rd). There was also a category of "10th level" spells accessible only to specialists as 9th level spells. This category was never really developed, but most were improved versions of existing spells (Monster Summoning VIII, for example), but not so much on the level of the 10th-12th level spells described in (for example) the Netheril boxed set.
As far as specialisms are concerned. I'll let my players' choices speak - evoker is an obvious one, conjurer (monster summoning spells are very useful - the summoned creatures can dish out damage, and soak up counter attacks), and transmuter. Enchanters can also be useful, though none of my players actually had one, despite my having an enchanter specialist send wave after wave of charmed servants against them. Necromancer is also powerful, but usually it requires access to additional supplements to beef up the necro spell list (and would require evil or, at least dark neutral, characters). Illusionists were only used by the rare player who picked a gnome character. Abjurers and diviners were only used as NPCs (allies and opponents).
Thats pretty cool. |
| Thauramarth |
Posted - 21 Dec 2010 : 15:40:59
I used a twist on the specialist suggested by a venerable French gaming mag (Casus Belli), which I've always applied. Instead of completely denying specialist the spells of their opposition school, they increased the level of the spells of the directly opposite school (on the eight-point cross) by 2, the level of the olbiquely opposed schools (on either side of the directly opposing school) by one, in return for decreasing the level of the specialised school by one. Example: invoker; directly opposed school: enchantment charm; obliquely opposed schools: illusion/phantasm, conjuration/summoning. That would mean that, for instance, a fireball would be a 2nd level spell for the invoker (instead of 3rd), charm person would be 3rd level (instead of 1st), invisibility would be 3rd level (instead of 2nd), and monster summoning I would be 4th level (instead of 3rd). There was also a category of "10th level" spells accessible only to specialists as 9th level spells. This category was never really developed, but most were improved versions of existing spells (Monster Summoning VIII, for example), but not so much on the level of the 10th-12th level spells described in (for example) the Netheril boxed set.
As far as specialisms are concerned. I'll let my players' choices speak - evoker is an obvious one, conjurer (monster summoning spells are very useful - the summoned creatures can dish out damage, and soak up counter attacks), and transmuter. Enchanters can also be useful, though none of my players actually had one, despite my having an enchanter specialist send wave after wave of charmed servants against them. Necromancer is also powerful, but usually it requires access to additional supplements to beef up the necro spell list (and would require evil or, at least dark neutral, characters). Illusionists were only used by the rare player who picked a gnome character. Abjurers and diviners were only used as NPCs (allies and opponents). |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 21 Dec 2010 : 15:15:50
The 2E wild mage was a specialist mage who got the benefits of specialization, but none of the drawbacks inherent to specialization. Of course, for many, the chance of wild surges was a serious drawback...
Beyond them, I never saw much point to specialization in 2E. I recall being irked that the Complete Mage's Handbook made specialization out to be a wonderful thing, and then proceeded on the assumption that no one would ever play a general mage. |
| Synthalus |
Posted - 21 Dec 2010 : 15:13:11
true that Arik. ill just use the 2E rules on this one. 2E and 1E meld pretty good so i should be able to just use the specialist classes mods from 2E in my 1E world without to many hicups. thanks for the info! |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 21 Dec 2010 : 14:26:55
1E had no specialist wizards; the rules were introduced in 2E. A 1E magic-user could "specialize" by selecting only spells which fit a certain "school" of magic, but he wouldn't gain any bonuses for doing so. 1E does have the illusionist class, of course, and one of the magazines introduced a necromancer class, I think. The 2E class rules can be easily imported into 1E, since the spell lists already have the "school" dweomers listed. To be honest, you might as well then just use 2E rules across the board, since the reorganization of spells and spellcasters is really the only substantial difference between these two editions.
In 2E specialists cast extra spells (from their school) each day, and cast them a little better (minor Save modifiers). They gain bonuses to learn spells from their school; especially useful for wizards with lower Int scores.
In the long run, specialists are generally able to select/access spells which compensate for most of the oppositional magic they cannot use. In the short term, the extra specialist spells can help a lot. In short-term campaigns (RPGA style, "one shot" adventures, etc) the specialist can have a substantial advantage over the generalist, especially at lower levels.
Evokers gain obvious benefits in offensive spells, but raw blasting damage potential is not the only measure of a wizard. At least not in all games. Transmuters, conjurers, and necromancers are also good choices. Illusionists and enchanters can perhaps be the most effective of the specialists - but only with a compatible DM or playstyle. Diviners and abjurers aren't useless by any means, but are generally unpopular PC choices. Other wizard types (elementalists, wild mages, shadowmages, etc) are probably better left out of 1E; if you're going to use such classes then just save yourself the trouble and play a newer D&D edition. |
|
|
