The Sorcerer

[Troile]

I just see those things as afterthoughts thats all.

When the specialist gains a new magic level he gains double his spell slots that a normal wizard would have.

That and I'm totally biased b/c I love the idea of specializing...and I even like the idea of losing some schools (which really isn't a big deal if you think about it)

My favourite character was a true neutral diviner with necromancy barred...of course that isn't powerful at all but it ws a lot of fun. He rarely used his spells so I guess he didn't need the extra spell...but it was nice to have extra divination on tap w/o penalty.

[Wiccy of the Fraternity]

There are ways for a Sorcerer or Bard to gain additional spells if they are cunning enough, if they have access to the spell Wish or or similar spell through another person, such spells would allow them to expand their repetoir.

While you prefer to specialise, I do not, simple as that. I like to have access to all the schools of magic and be able to use any magic item contained within them.

Say you are in a party that contains 2 wizards, you are a specialist, he is not. Your path is blocked by a rather troublesome Shambling Mound, your only offensive spell is Lightning Bolt, useful on many occasions, but not against Mounds, they only make them tougher. The general wizard also has Lightning Bolt, but also has access to other spells that would prove more effective. You zap the creature a few times, then notice your folly, you have just made more trouble for the group and out of 3rd level spells. Meanwhile the general wizard fires off a few other spells that suddenly turn the way in favour of your party, I know who would become the MVP in that battle.

If you had a sorcerer in the party as well (heavy on spellcasters this bunch), he could unload 4 MM's against the creature, causing alot more damage while you are forced to stand back and watch.

That is a pretty general example, but barred schools can become a large problem at times.

[Troile]

here's the answer...don't be an idiot mage.

if you want to play a character like a sorcerer play a sorcerer. Its as simple as that.

In these examples the specialist wizard is always a moron.

[ScS of the Fraternity]

here's the answer...don't be an idiot mage.

Oh! Don't be an idiot mage. Darn, well that explains why all my mages are dead.

[Jason of the Fraternity]

I even like the idea of losing some schools (which really isn't a big deal if you think about it).

I agree that prohibiting a character from a couple schools isn't that big of a deal, but I also do not think that gaining one extra spell per spell level per day is that big of a deal. In the end, the benefit of having some extra spells per day balance out with the restrictions on spells to be cast (or items that can be used). I suppose that I still just don't see where the specialists become so much more superior.

On a slightly differenet note, I also enjoy playing specialists quite a bit of the time. However, I like playing a specialized wizard moreso for the sake of more detailed role-playing experiences than for the benefits of spells. As numerous posters have already mentioned on this thread, I think a lot of the choice comes down to personal preferences and biases...

That is a pretty general example, but barred schools can become a large problem at times.

This might be true, Wiccy, but I don't the example is very apt. Just because a specialist wizard has an extra lightning bolt memorized doesn't mean that he/she would cast it at an inappropriate time. A sorcerer, who also tends to have a limited selection of spells, could be as equally guilty. Heck, even a generalist wizard might only have lightning bolt memorized.

I do agree that a specialist limits some of their diversity by barring themselves access to some schools, but it doesn't mean that the wizard would waste or misuse the spell. I just don't think that the example is the most fitting counterpoint against specializing...

[Troile]

^^^ what he said

Yeah...it depends on the game I guess too. I'm used to playing in very low magic item settings so I guess I never really run into not being able to use an item.

And I think specific arguments that the EXTRA spell gained per level might not be useful don't really apply...I mean at least it is an EXTRA spell...and not the ONLY spell you would have if you weren't a specialist.

[Wiccy of the Fraternity]

I side with Jason on the matter of 1 extra spell isn't a big deal.

I prefer general wizards, but I do like specialists, if I didn't I wouldn't haved those I have, or at least I wouldn't have played any more after the first.

Specialists offer roleplaying opportunities and increased knowledge in a single field, this knowledge is pretty unrivalled by the rest of the party, but a general wizard knows a little bit of everything. True he may not exactly be an expert in any single field, but his broader range of knowledge can benefit the party.

The differences between general and specialist wizards do balance out, but to me it comes down to knowing a little bit about many subjects and evert school of magic, as well as having access to a larger rangew of spells and magic items.

I tend to play somewhat restricted access to magic in all my games, even those outside Ravenloft, so magic items tend to be quite rare. In thsoe areas a general wizard is more useful for their greater range when you need to create a specific tool for a specific task. Of course, if thy don't have the correct feat, they can't make the item, the sam goes of a specialist who has the right feat, but not access to the proper spells.

As for my example above, it came from a game I DM'd, it did happen in a game However, there was no sorcerer back in those days.

[Troile]

The funny thing for me is that all of the examples refer to lightning bolts and the like.

Normally I prefer to leave that stuff up to the fighters.

I like my mages to be well rounded and to get you out of any situation...

For me specialists are the right mage for this...

I love Transmutation and I dislike Necromancy...in fact I dislike illusion and enchantment too even though they are good they just aren't my style.

I have no problem playing a mage with little to no offensive spells. Magic Missile is often really handy but other than that I have absolutely no problems never having fireball or lightning bolt.

If I wanted those spells I would probably play a sorcerer...which actually brought me to make this thread...because I realized that I would be better off just playing a wizard instead of a sorcerer and get more spells and feats.

Of course the argument is...but invisibility is really good...or hold person is really good...it is true...but you can't have all the spells let alone memorize them all (esp if you're a general wizard).

[Wiccy of the Fraternity]

My argument is that general wizards have potential access to all the schools of magic, so they have more option and freedom in which spells they memorise. True they can't memorise everything, no spellcaster can, but they have all the schools available to them.

Necromancy, Illusion and Enchantment contain most of my favourite spells, but I like all the schools and they all contain spells I like to use all the time.

Lol, we really are on opposites on this Troile

As for the Lightning Bolt thing, I thought you brought up the Lightning Bolt spell to begin with? However, it has been a while since I read that far back in this thread

[Troile]

no it was someone comparing lightning bolts to magic missiles

[Wiccy of the Fraternity]

I know I copmpared MM's to Lightning Bolts, but I'm not sure if it was me who first did that, lol. No time to look back and check tonight either, but I think I addressed the comparrison after you said that Lightning Bolts dealt more damage than MM's.

Whoever drew up the comaparrison first, please raise your hand to save us (well mostly me) time in looking through old posts.

[purple knight]

I have always found a quick fix to be increase the skill points to 4 per level, raise the BAB to the cleric's level, and increase to a d6 for HP. This makes for more of a fighter/wizard combo, but is still balanced due to the limited available class skills, lack of armor, and restriction to simple weapons.

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

Wow! That's a new one. In twenty years of D&D I've never heard of anyone doing this. Do you pick their skills and feats too?

Nope, just the spells, but I am not mean, I do give them spells they want, but I ration the more powerful ones so the party don't have access to the most destructive. For instance, I will give out a Power Word Kill on occasion, but a spell like Wish (which nearly every wizard I have DM'd seem to want) rarely appears.

Well, that's kind of different. DM veto is always an option for something like Wish, but I would never say: here are your two spells. If there was a spell I wanted them to try out, I'd have them find it in a spell book. Given how rarely I hand out spellbooks, they take what they can get.

Quite frankly, Wish has never been a problem for me, since I've never DM'ed higher than 15th level or so. On top of that, I think the 3.0 version of wish is pretty balanced, what with the huge XP cost, and strict limitations. Besides, all players I've seen get wishes (via magic items, or whatnot) have been too deathly afraid of Monkey's Paw-like backfires to abuse them.

I disagree with your lightning bolt/shambling mound example because it's not like an Evoker is a lightning bolt specialist. If the bolts don't work, he switches to Fireballs, or cones of cold, or whatever.

The longest running character I ever played was a Transmuter (2nd edition) and he was so commited to Alteration that aside from detect and read magic, he never learned a non-alteration spell. It was great for role-playing because he was "the guy that shapeshifts and turns stuff into other stuff" and I never felt limited in my spell selection because the spells were so versatile.

[Wiccy of the Fraternity]

I disagree with your lightning bolt/shambling mound example because it's not like an Evoker is a lightning bolt specialist. If the bolts don't work, he switches to Fireballs, or cones of cold, or whatever.

What is fuinny is that my example actually happened in a game I DM'd with an evoker casting one lightning bolt after another ,despite the subtle hints about the creature looking bigger.

[Troile]

just b/c something can be played poorly doesn't mean that it is poor.

Giving a fighter a sword that does 20d20 damage but saying well what if the fighter never uses it so it isn't broken is a dumb argument.

You have to assume that all things are played equally well in order to determine balance.