[D&D] Archmage prerequisite switchup

[treehouse]

Quick balance question - what do you think about changing this line in the Archmage prerequisites


Spells: Ability to cast 7th-level arcane spells, knowledge of 5th-level or higher spells from at least five schools.


to


Spells: Ability to cast 7th-level arcane spells, knowledge of 5th-level or higher spells from at least five schools OR ability to cast 6th-level arcane spells, knowledge of 4th-level or higher spells from all 8 schools of magic.

Reasoning? I've noticed that most wizards specialize - from a powergaming perspective, it's the smart thing to do, so who blames them? I've also noticed that most wizards try to get into Archmage for Spell Power at the very least, so I thought adding this little alteration to the Archmage would be a way to give those few generalists a solid edge.

Meh. Thoughts?

[BigRedRod]

That essentially just lowers the minimum level by a few, so no that isn't balanced. Unless you're one of those crazies who think that prereqs have no impact on power level.

[treehouse]

What do you mean? Obviously, it's supposed to be more powerful (for generalists). I'm purposefully trying to give them an edge.

The question is, is this particular edge (Archmage two levels earlier) too much?

[BigRedRod]

Yes, it's far too much in my opinion. Specialists aren't really any more powerful than general wizards, there is no need to give them access to one of the most powerful classes two levels earlier.

[treehouse]

Fair enough. I will await a second (third?) opinion, but I see your point.

[Linklegacy77]

Especially if they play an elven wizard with racial substitution level. Then this would be insane. Sorry Tree, but I'm with BRR on this one.

[akiko]

I think maybe, just maybe it would make the elven wizard the most powerful wizard in the land. As it should be in my opinion. I like it. The wizard still has to wait until after level 10 I don't think its that bad.

Where o where is 3E for questions just like this? :(

[BigRedRod]

The 3ebb is dead again?

[akiko]

Since about the 14th. I think that was the day. The owners were switching us to a new server but encountered problems and haven't gotten us back up yet.

[treehouse]

Damn you all! Except akiko.

Time to start another thread on specialists, generalists, archmages, and the vices and virtues of the combinations therein.

I guess I can just do that here.

-ahem-


Point 1: Not all schools are created equal. The four most commonly dropped schools of magic by specialists are (in this order, though the first two are tied for worst) enchantment, necromancy, evocation and illusion. You will hardly ever see a specialist drop abjuration, transmutation or conjuration, because these schools are overpowered.

Thus, a generalist's gains over specialists in versatility are negligible. The specialist I've seen in play the most often is a conjurer with the barred schools of necromancy and enchantment. He never misses them. Ever. We have been playing this campaign (Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil) for over two years, and there has never been a moment where he said 'damn, I wish I had some enchantments and necromancies for this situation!' Conversely, the generalist wizard in the party has used a grand total of one enchantment (unsuccessfully). While I realize that my play experience alone isn't damning evidence, the point stands that not all schools are created equal. A generalist will usually not have spells of all eight schools (or even seven) prominently represented in his daily selection, which seems much smaller in comparison to a specialist's. Our party generalist relies on expensive staves and wands while our party conjurer usually makes it in a given day with his daily allotment of spells.

Point 2: The time factor. Generalists are macroflexible, not microflexible. Being limited in their actions from round to round the same as specialists means that they will rarely display their vaunted versatility in the heat of combat, which is where it usually matters.

Point 3: Their relatively limited number of spells per day makes said versatility almost irrelevant. A generalist does not have a spell for every occasion. Quite frankly, he is less likely to have a spell for a given occasion than a specialist, because he casts less spells per day. Duh?




On to the proposed archmage change.

Point 1: Less options when a generalist first goes into the class at 12th level. The available High Arcana options for a generalist with 6th level spells as his highest level of spells known are Spell Power, Mastery of Shaping and Spell-Like Ability.

Point 2: It just makes sense! Don't you see the reasoning here in-game? A generalist, because he hasn't been too focused on a single school of magic, has unlocked the true secrets of arcane POWER much sooner than his specialist peers.

[Linklegacy77]

Actually, I like generalists better mainly because there are many, and I repeat, many spells, from all schools that I like. In fact, I personally hardly touch conjuration, except for the high level spells. Give me illusion, and give me abjuration. On the other hand, I don't think abjuration is that powerful, just that it is that useful. I would never give up dispel magic. I always play generalists, and I never specialize.

But I digress. My point is that the prereqs are a balancing factor, for the uberly powered Archmage. If you lower them, said wizard will be able to become an uberly powerful wizard much faster. And, go ahead and damn me for saying it, but look at the name for a sec. ARCHMAGE. As in greatest mage, and such like that. You should have to be a really high level to be one.

[treehouse]

Preference is not a good measure of power. The simple fact about enchantments, necromancies, evocations and (to a lesser extent) illusions is

A) they are often too relient on saves and

B) they find themselves completely shut down by a vast array of special immunities and resistances available to both monsters and NPCs with class levels. There are entire classifications of monsters that are completely immune to most necromancies and enchantments (constructs, undead, plants, to a lesser extent elementals...)

I mean, I can pick ten spells out of each school that I would love to be able to cast every day, but that doesn't make it a practical or even plausible strategy.

Finally, I'd love to see someone try to break this proposed modification. Do you really think access to Spell Power, Mastery of Shaping and Spell-like Ability two levels early for a small minority of wizards is broken?

[Mercutio]

You need to find Biff and ask him to break it.

[treehouse]

Biff doesn't count. He can break NPC classes.

[Linklegacy77]

Lmfao, but he does count!

[treehouse]

Fine, I'll go find Biff. I'll be back with results.

[The Hive Custodian]

Forgive my ignorance, but who's Biff?

[treehouse]

None other than Biffoniacus Furious (http://online-roleplaying.com/forums/member.php?u=1752), a god among men when it comes to completely twinking out a PC, NPC or monster with the expanded 3.5 rules.

[The Hive Custodian]

I see. The worst I could come up with in the past fifteen minutes using core-only was some dodgy scheme involving Wizard + Cleric (with some caster level-increasing domain) + Mystic Theruge + Archmage + Arcane Heirophant to gain high casting levels. Probably wouldn't work though... somehow I doubt the D&D class system supports multiple inheritance.

God, I'm such an EECS geek...

[LeadPal]

Have to disagree with your analysis, treehouse.

Point 1: Not all schools are created equal. The four most commonly dropped schools of magic by specialists are (in this order, though the first two are tied for worst) enchantment, necromancy, evocation and illusion. You will hardly ever see a specialist drop abjuration, transmutation or conjuration, because these schools are overpowered.Alright, for starters, if you own Libris Mortis, Necromancy is easily the most brokenessed-ass school in the game. It's like a jumbo munchkin platter with a creamy but unbalanced sauce on top.

Illusion already has quite a few useful spells with manifold applications in and out of combat, as well as shadow evocation and conjuration, which, despite its lowered power compared to the real thing, is extremely useful for being able to fill any situation.

Enchantment is so grossly underated that I can't even begin to start ranting. Once you've taken down an NPC's mind blank with a dispelling, the best thing you could every possibly do is dominate him and use him as an extra party member, most likely of equal level to all of you based on CRs, for the next day/level! And, seriously, even if you're playing in a campaign where every single monster is a construct, undead, a plant, an elemental, a guy with an 8th level spell burned on a somehow undispellable mind blank every day, or something with an absolutely retarded will save (which won't help against my power words anyways...), you can still use enchantment to gain an edge in all sorts of non-combat situations, far in excess of what other schools could feasibly garner you. (I wouldn't play in such a stupid campaign anyways.)

Evocation is also useful because--oh, wait, no it's not. Nevermind, it sucks. Okay, you win, diviners are the best.

I've never seen anything flat out overpowered from abjuration (handy, but not overpowered), with only a few supplemental exceptions, and only a fool of a DM allows the truly cheapass bits of transmutation and conjuration. So, while those are certainly schools that no one would ever give up, they're not utterly fantastic as specializations.

Point 2: The time factor. Generalists are macroflexible, not microflexible. Being limited in their actions from round to round the same as specialists means that they will rarely display their vaunted versatility in the heat of combat, which is where it usually matters. The time factor is quite malleable depending on the campaign. Given there's rarely a situation that a wizard can't dimension door away from and deal with a little later, I've found that time isn't too much of a factor for me at all. At very worst, you just bugger off and fight the bad guy on your own turf, where you have an edge.

Point 3: Their relatively limited number of spells per day makes said versatility almost irrelevant. A generalist does not have a spell for every occasion. Quite frankly, he is less likely to have a spell for a given occasion than a specialist, because he casts less spells per day. Duh?In a single day. But an adventure could take weeks of planning and repeated actions, which is where the generalist shines.

Temple of Elemental Evil, in my experience, is a combat-centric campaign with very little player control. In that sort of game, then yeah, specialists rule. If the players can make more decisions, though, and if non-combat encounters have more emphasis, then they're really not all they're cracked up to be.

Except for diviners. Stupid evocation being stupid useless so stupid divination can dominate with its stupid overpowered one-school deal. 'Cause its stupid. :\



As for the brokenness of your change, I'd say it's a step in the wrong direction. If this is really such an issue for you, why don't you make it harder for specialists to get in rather than easier for generalists? Make it this:


Spells: Ability to cast 8th-level arcane spells, knowledge of 6th-level or higher spells from at least five schools OR ability to cast 7th-level arcane spells, knowledge of 5th-level or higher spells from all 8 schools of magic.

Now that broken conjurer can't even take all the levels of archmage! In your face, specialists!

[Linklegacy77]

Specialist conjurers only got uber powered because of the PHB2...

[treehouse]

Bah, enchantment is a one trick pony. My point is that it isn't versatile. Every spell is some variation of 'make a Will save or I own your ass'. And there are either easy ways to get around most of them or flat out negate them. The charm line? If you use it in combat, your opponents get a +5 bonus. The dominate line? Protection from alignment or magic circle against alignment! Suggestion? As long as you word it reasonably, which opens up a whole new can of worms on rules interpretation that I don't even want to get into.

Not to mention that Will saves are one of the most common good saves for monsters. Actually, I'm almost sure they are THE most common good save.

Necromancy is only cool with Libris Mortis spells if you are in an evil party that allows you to cast evil spells in their sight. Most D&D parties aren't like this.

Either way, the fact that both enchantment and necromancy depend on abjuration (to dispel buffs that otherwise render the schools useless) kind of reinforces my point. Even evocation has ways around energy resistance buffs, as well as a few tricks like contingency and wall of force that ensure it will see more use than enchantment and necromancy put together.

For the record, the RtttoEE campaign is as player-defined in its schedule and pace as a dungeon crawl can be. With teleportation spells and high level divinations, we are able to scout out the place, prepare, and move around as we please. The simple fact is that enchantment and necromancy aren't all that useful compared to the other schools our wizards can access.

But that's all besides the point. I want to see someone break this house rule before I rule it out. I'm going to get to work on it myself tomorrow, when I'm not buried in work.

Edit: Link - we don't use the ridiculous specialist variants in the PHB2. Well, not all of them are ridiculous, but that one is.

[LeadPal]

Bah, enchantment is a one trick pony. My point is that it isn't versatile. Every spell is some variation of 'make a Will save or I own your ass'.So? Enchantment spells can own so many asses that they prove themselves on that one trick alone. Just imagine dominating a wizard of equal level to yourself. As long as the spell lasts, you've doubled your power! There are things that can go horribly wrong, of course, but there are also ways to compensate, so I'll not bother elaborating.

Not to mention that Will saves are one of the most common good saves for monsters. Actually, I'm almost sure they are THE most common good save.Probably fortitude, I would think, given all the big dumb brutish monsters. Reflex is the weakest, but I don't know of any reflex targetting spells that give instant crippling results anyways...

Necromancy is only cool with Libris Mortis spells if you are in an evil party that allows you to cast evil spells in their sight. Most D&D parties aren't like this.Only because most DMs refuse to allow them to be, which is rather like a houserule that can be disregarded in this abstract discussion.

Either way, the fact that both enchantment and necromancy depend on abjuration (to dispel buffs that otherwise render the schools useless) kind of reinforces my point. Even evocation has ways around energy resistance buffs, as well as a few tricks like contingency and wall of force that ensure it will see more use than enchantment and necromancy put together.Reinforces what point? That a combination of schools can be used to have devastating results? After all, you can always use those guys you dominated to help you fight the constructs those given spells don't work on.

But that's all besides the point. I want to see someone break this house rule before I rule it out. I'm going to get to work on it myself tomorrow, when I'm not buried in work.No one's going to actually break it on grounds of it alone. It's just a frivolous change, is all.

[treehouse]

Probably fortitude, I would think, given all the big dumb brutish monsters. Reflex is the weakest, but I don't know of any reflex targetting spells that give instant crippling results anyways...

Actually, Fortitude is the most uncommon good save amongst monsters (assuming a decently even mix of monsters). Reflex is the most uncommon among PC classes. Will is the best for monsters, and average-to-best for classes, depending on how many of the Complete books you use.

Only because most DMs refuse to allow them to be, which is rather like a houserule that can be disregarded in this abstract discussion.

I know from previous discussions that this is a big sticking point for you, so I won't linger too long. For the record, I agree with you. However, you have to accept that D&D is not marketed for evil parties or evil PCs within neutral parties. Almost all adventures and campaign settings are written with the assumption that they will be played out by good-aligned or good-sympathetic PCs. It's a simple fact, not a house rule. Which means that necromancy will almost always be gimped by faux ethics in a typical D&D party.

There are no base classes in core rules that MUST be evil, but there is one that MUST be lawful good. The alignment skew is obvious.

Reinforces what point? That a combination of schools can be used to have devastating results? After all, you can always use those guys you dominated to help you fight the constructs those given spells don't work on.

No, my point that two schools of magic are almost useless without the crutch of dispel magic. Not so much 'used to devastating effect' as 'used'.

[Linklegacy77]

Uh, there are ways around need abjuration for dispel magic. But let me put it this way: If there are two entire schools that need another school, doesn't that make specializing weaker? Further, with all the supplements out there like Spell Compendium, why would you want to give up 1/4 of all spells avaible to you? Unless you plan on being a one-trick pony. And there's absolutely no reason to specialize in necromancy or evocation or illusion and enchantment, because there are base classes much more powerful than a specialized wizard that focuses on just those spells. So of course, if you want to play a conjurer, you'd play a specialist wizard since it, abjuration, divination, and transmutation are the 4 schools that don't have their own base class. I mean, why be a specialist necromancer when you can be a dread necromancer? Why play a specialist enchanter or specialist illusionist when you can be a beguiler? Why would anybody want to be a specialist evoker when you can be a warmage?

[BrianL03]

It just bothers me that people purposefully specialize just for the purposes of metagame power. I rarely, if ever play specialist mages, because I go from the idea of acquiring knowledge as a mage. If my mage has forsaken an entire school, there goes a bevy of awesome spells, all useful in some respect, and they recognize it as such.

The only time I specialize is for pre-ordained reasons in my character's background. A wizard that has trained with the army I typically have be an evocation mage. Most (if not all) of my gnomes end up illusionists in some regards.

YOU CANNOT WIN TEH D&D!!!11!!1

[Linklegacy77]

Actually, that last statement has been proven incorrect by Khan the Destroyer...

[Biffoniacus Furious]

You called, so I'm answering. This is going to be a long post...

For the modified Archmage prerequisites, it lowers the entry level by one, since you still need to have 15 ranks in two skills. The modified spell knowledge prerequisite doesn't stop specialist Wizards from gaining early entry, since just one instance of Extra Spell or Arcane Disciple can get that. It also allows Sorcerers to qualify two levels earlier than they otherwise would, as long as they have a way of gaining additional spells known such as through feats like Draconic Legacy or a Bloodline (http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/rules/DnD3.5Index-Feats.pdf). I actually like the modification, as it encourages versatility rather than making a one trick pwny.

For how good specializing is, PHB2 did indeed make Conjuration the "best" choice. The drawback of specializing can be offset by taking Extra Spell or Arcane Disciple, so its still good to use. The first level Elven Wizard substitution level is just awesome, and quite balanced IMO compared to specializing.

As an example, I made a LE outcast Halruuan noble to rule a northern FR town where my current game is set. He's a specialist Conjurer (before PHB2 came out) with Enchantment and Illusion as prohibited schools. He has Halruuan Elder levels, and I planned on giving him Thaumaturgist levels. He also needed Spell Thematics for Halruuan Elder, which requires knowledge of at least one Illusion spell. I searched for a domain which granted just one low-level illusion and Lesser Planar Ally, and found the Lust domain! I made him a worshipper of Belial and Fierna with Arcane Disciple, gave him a heram, made him a dirty old pervert like Doom, and cherry-picked a level of Mindbender since it also grants Charm Person. Contingent Conjuration is awesome when you use Call Zelekhut, which normally has a casting time of 10 minutes. His final build is Conjurer 6/ Mindbender 1/ Thaumaturgist 4/ Halruuan Elder 4. They suspect he's evil, but have no evidence since although self-centered and selfish, he has an insatiable need for people to like him.

Any school can be good to specialize in, except maybe Evocation or Enchantment. An Abjurer can just pick defensive spells for his extra spells/day, plus have you ever seen: I ready an action to cast Time Stop when he's flying... Ok, he's flying now? He's in the air, moving forward, right now? I cast Time Stop *rolls 4 rounds* and put four Prismatic Walls directly in his path! (note that it only works on creatures with Average or worse maneuverability).

Archmage is a good class, but not necessarily an automatic choice for every arcane caster. I've found that only a few levels in it is enough, as there really aren't that many truly awesome abilities. I've found the better ones to be Mastery of Shaping, Mastery of Elements, and Arcane Reach in that order. You should really only take Arcane Fire at the 5th level in it, and even then its probably not worth the 9th level spell slot. If maxing it out, I'd pick Arcane Reach a second time for the 4th level ability, or Mastery of Counterspelling if you plan on using it a lot. The loss of so many higher level spells/day really hurts a Wizard's already limited staying power. I'd typically only take three levels of Archmage with most characters, since you'll probably get the abilities you need with that and levels in other classes would be more useful than losing spells/day for abilities you won't use much.

Overall, I don't see anything wrong with those changes to Archmage. A specialist Wizard can do some tricks and spend a feat or two to get in one level early, while a Sorcerer can do some tricks and spend a feat to get in at the same level as a Wizard would. It may seem unbalanced to allow early entry to what some view as an overpowered class, but that camp would likely be those who think Archmage's prerequisites are too easy to meet already.

[Linklegacy77]

Okay, most of the post was fine, but no cheap shots at my master!

[LeadPal]

I mean, why be a specialist necromancer when you can be a dread necromancer? Why play a specialist enchanter or specialist illusionist when you can be a beguiler? Why would anybody want to be a specialist evoker when you can be a warmage?Well, for me, it's usually because you're specializing so hard that you're losing 7/8s of your spell options, and only dread necromancer makes up for it in any real way IMO. That's why I advocate a better Advanced Learning ability for everyone else.

Actually, Fortitude is the most uncommon good save amongst monsters (assuming a decently even mix of monsters). Reflex is the most uncommon among PC classes. Will is the best for monsters, and average-to-best for classes, depending on how many of the Complete books you use.Huh. That's odd. I can't think of many monsters like that, myself.

It's a simple fact, not a house rule. Which means that necromancy will almost always be gimped by faux ethics in a typical D&D party.Irrelevant. Don't ever forget that any rule the players can use, the DM can use.

No, my point that two schools of magic are almost useless without the crutch of dispel magic. Not so much 'used to devastating effect' as 'used'.Again, what point is that? Stick in the crutch of dispel magic, and they indeed can be used to devastating effect, as I briefly mentioned. There are other ways to gain all but absolute power over someone, but few are as simple.

And again, not everyone is going to have such defenses up constantly, or even at all, unless your DM is trying to thwart you. And he can do that with almost anything... just take a look at any one of the dozens of "immovable object" builds out there.

Biff: Yeah, that pretty much sums up why I don't think you can really cheat with this. But I still don't think that it's a worthwhile change. (Clever build, mind you.)

Indeed, you can get around the specialization limitations with Extra Spell and Arcane Disciple, but personally I prefer using those to get at the really uber cross-class material rather than to pick up spells that I could already be getting anyways.



Okay, most of the post was fine, but no cheap shots at my master!
It was a cheap shot, but can you really argue it?

[Linklegacy77]

Well.... uh... *loosens collar*... um... eh... not.... really....

But of course, that is the feeling you are supposed to get from my master.

[treehouse]

Thanks for that detailed analysis, Biff. I'm satisfied that it is balanced, though LeadPal has convinced me that it isn't a necessary change.

I will probably not use this house rule after all. Having separate sets of requirements for a single PrC is clunky, and it sets a precedent I'd rather avoid later on. I'll have to figure out some other boon for generalists.

[LeadPal]

If you do see a problem, I'd suggest a more fundamental change to the wizard, like the elven substitution (but less powerful). This sort of smacks of a quick-fix.

(Again, I don't see a problem except in the admitted case of the diviner, but I is helping. :yum: )

[treehouse]

I think the elven substitution level is pretty well balanced, actually, but only because it's a substitution level. Elves should have something that actually contributes to them being better wizards. It's their favored class, after all. Every other PHB race is good at being its favored class except for elves.

But something similar would be nice. Maybe they can trade in their familiar for a unique special ability, or maybe give generalists a few extra options on their bonus feat list. I don't know.

[Linklegacy77]

If you really feel that generalists are that much weaker, (which I don't personally, but that's me,) you could perhaps give them... say... 1 more spell learned at each level? It would help them a little bit, and from a roleplaying aspect, it would underline their goal to learn as many spells as possible (instead of focusing on a single school). If you really want to go for it, maybe give them their intelligence modifier added on to the number of spells they learn at each level.

[Biffoniacus Furious]

Specialist Wizards really got a boost from the PHB2. Maybe allow generalists to trade their familiar for some general ability to augment their spellcasting? One idea would be to allow them to gain Spell Penetration or even the Greater version as a bonus feat instead of gaining a familiar. Another would be to allow them to pick one metamagic feat, and the level increase for using it would be reduced by one, minimum one level higher. They wouldn't need to start with that metamagic feat, and it wouldn't apply to Heighten Spell or any metamagic feat with less than a +2 level increase. Those were just off the top of my head, but either seems decent enough. Maybe even give them the option of picking either of those instead of a familiar.

[hedgeknight]

All of this "mess" about wizards and power levels and such is something I hate about the game.
I guess I'm too old to pay attention to any of that - to get geeked out about it, that is.
A wizard casts spells to manipulate, conjure, summon, blow stuff up, etc. I shouldn't have to look years and levels down the road to see what my wizard is going to become to make sure I start him off on the right path.
Frustrating as hell...to me at least.
-g-

[Biffoniacus Furious]

But would you take college-credit courses in high school, then enroll in certain college classes, with a specific career in mind? Picking classes and feats is the same way; you have an idea about where you want that character to go, so you plan ahead. The guy who didn't take credit courses in high school has to take English 101 in college; the character who didn't plan ahead has to wait three more levels for the feat he needs for his chosen prestige class. It makes more sense in-character to plan ahead, at least with nonchaotic characters. Even then, the "chaotic" alignment to me is more emotional than calculating, rather than being completely unprepared.

Now that I've thought about it, Wizard is one of the most powerful classes in the game. One wizard may be more powerful than the next, but either will probably be stronger than a noncaster in the long run. Does one type of wizard need more power to balance him with another type of wizard? Maybe, but do any wizards need to be given more power to balance them with any other class? Probably not.

If you want to encourage more people to play generalist wizards in your game, write in some RP reasons. Maybe certain cities have academies for wizardry, and there's a lot of tension between their specialties. A generalist wizard would be a go-between, completely avoiding the conflict if he wants, while a specialist wizard in the wrong town may be met with hostility, arrest, or even be barred from entering if his specialty is made known. A wizard may have to cast a cantrip from the specialized school of that city's academy before they're even allowed through the gates.

If a player doesn't want to play a generalist wizard because he wants more power, it probably won't really solve anything to offer his character even more power.

[treehouse]

I agree with Biff - if you can wrap your mind around a progression plan, why not? There's no real harm in advancing by the seat of your pants, except that I'm a perfectionist.

Plus, if you have a plan, it gives you something specific to look forward to.

I like the idea of a flavor-based benefit for generalists, except that it doesn't really fit in my current campaign (Eberron). The generalist in that group isn't a part of any wizard's organization.

An extra spell learned per level is a good idea, Link. It's solid, but not overpowered.

[hedgeknight]

You guys must play in games where the wizards actually survive long enough to reach advanced levels. :)
In most of my games (and ones I've played in) they are a dime a dozen - here today, gone tomorrow. Heh.
-g-

[LeadPal]

Well, actually, I've never really studied the elven substitution. Glanced it over and said to myself "Hmm, does seem a little overpowered...", but never gave it much further thought. Mostly a lack of interest in RotW.

I definitely wouldn't suggest anything that would get rid of the familiar for the generalist. I mean, then who would use it? (Of course, familiars need to be more useful to be used, but anyways...)

[akiko]

I can't stand familiars. Every time I take a wizard I usually try to specialize simply to use one of the variants (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/specialistWizardVariants.htm) that gives me some other bonus instead. I don't think I have ever played a sorcerer now that I think about it.

[Mercutio]

Familiars are worthless. I personally like the animal companion variant.

[akiko]

Yep. Just give me free alertness. I would enjoy that much better. The changeling sub level lets your familiar morph between all the available options (I was building that epic wizard in Eberron) I was like "FOR WHAT! Useless thing 1 can tun into useless thing 2?!?" The animal companion is much more useful as well.

[nightinverse]

How the bloody hell did I miss this debate?

Well, first I must forward the point that supplements are generally imbalanced in counterpoint to all of the quibbling over the most powerful schools of magic. If you take D&D at it's most balanced standard form, i.e. that of the Core texts... Necromancy is the poor man's specialization. Enchantment and Abjuration are usually underestimated.

Once you insert supplements into the spell list, really all the schools gain in power and flexibility, except for in some cases Divination and Enchantment.

Specialization has always been a difficult topic for me as a DM, as I like dealing with Wizards who have spell-selection restrictions, but don't particularly enjoy letting people weaken their character's playability without informing them that in a balanced campaign, all schools of magic will be viable and important.

I have a big issue with balance in the expanded D&D universe, so I don't usually allow most Prestige Classes without rigorous review, and I hardly ever permit substitution levels. I also don't use most of the added Core Classes. My PHB II has as yet been unused in any game, and until I have rebalanced some things, it will remain that way.

As for Archmage, I'm with BRR on this one.

Oh, and familiars are only as useless in a balanced campaign as the player uses them. I personally held off on introducing my familiar in Colonists so I could work on the dynamic before bringing it in.

[akiko]

For me personally it go beyond balance on the familliar aspect. I don't even like the flavor. I mean, I know where it comes from the wizard pouring over tomes and a little helper creature fetching books, ice, water, ink, whatever. But I have never seen any of my wizards (not many) needing or fitting in with one.

[nightinverse]

I agree, they shouldn't be a requirement, and in my new campaign I am considering alternates for some PCs. However, I feel that the place was made for familiars, and they are useful, given the right temperment. It's like running a second partial character, at times.

[treehouse]

Yeah, the artificer/wizard (it's a gestalt game) in my Eberron campaign would never trade his familiar in. He also has two homonculi and the Improved Homonculus feat, as well as Improved Familiar for another wizard in a different game. He loves his little horde of minions, and he plays them smart enough that they are an actual party resource.

So really, it depends on the player in question as to how useful a familiar is.

[Linklegacy77]

I take a familiar depending on the character. An example, my elven wizard from MFG's Colonists game has a cat. Many characters I have don't want them though.

As for racial substitution levels: They represent that race's hard work and practice toward being a certain class. Elves are supposed to be great wizards, yet, without the racial substitution level, Dwarves are much better at it, and elves have it as their favored class! Goliaths are almost always barbarians, so wouldn't they, after all this time, have developed a way to do it better than other races? I just find it makes sense.

Back to the familiar: I think it is just a weak class feature that they threw in there because people would have complained about it. My area's DM usually gives improved familiar as a bonus feat.

[Biffoniacus Furious]

I'll almost never take a familiar just because I'd usually be aiming for a prestige class that doesn't improve it at all. If I ever get one with a character, I'll usually take the feat Obtain Familiar from the Complete Arcane, so all my PrC levels add to its abilities, and take either Improved Familiar (CW version) or Dragon Familiar from the Draconomicon. I only get a familiar if I have some specific use for it in mind, such as using Share Spells to cast Blinding Breath with a dragon familiar, or using an improved familiar as a mount with a fighter/mage with spirited charge.

I think the reason a lot of people don't take a familiar is because you're penalized if it dies or gets dismissed. If not for this drawback, we'd probably see a lot more people using them. As it is, if you're planning on taking Improved/Dragon Familiar later on, you're best off to not even have a familiar until then because otherwise you'll take a hit to your XP for switching it over once you get the feat. Of all the classes which get some sort of helper, a familiar is the only one with such a drawback. It doesn't seem necessary or even fair to me to penalize a character for using a class feature.

[Mercutio]

I think the flavor of having a pet toad is ridiculous. In fantasy literature, I never see a wizard of any shape with a familiar. It's a stupid convention and they fail to add anything real to a character beyond a pointless and annoying animal. I had one sorceror that had a familiar ever, and that's because he had a raven because the sorceror was mute and the raven talked for him.

I would rather do away with a familiar completely, or use the animal companion variant. A wizard doesn't need a bat to sit on his shoulder while casting spells. He needs a panther to protect him while he casts spells. And really, what purpose does a toad in your pocket serve?

No, I don't like the mechanics nor the flavor of worthless mini-animals that do nothing. I still run my game with those elements there, but I've never had a player use a familiar, nor have I had any character with one besides the sorceror (which was in a campy humor game anyway).

Lastly, the idea of a familiar fits brilliantly with something like a witch.

[LynMars]

I think the flavor of having a pet toad is ridiculous. In fantasy literature, I never see a wizard of any shape with a familiar.

Neville Longbottom and his toad Trevor of Harry Potter fame would be sad, I think ;) ...Not that the familiars in HP do much, unless they're owls, or Dumbledore's plot-device phoenix. Crookshanks was useful in 1 book...Yeah, anyway.

Most of the alternate class options in the PHB2 allow one to forgo animal companions/familiars for optional class benefits that modify spellcasting or abilities. Instead of Wild Shape & animal companion, my Druid shapeshifts through certain powerful forms freely. The Sorceror and Wizard options offer spellcasting changes at the cost of their familiar as well. Ranger, same deal.

[akiko]

Without quoting the exact same line as Lynmars, I too thought that there were some examples of familiars in fantastical literature. Though I am standing empty handed trying to think of one. Oooh, maybe 2.

I thought Merlin had a toad or something in the cartoon excaliber. And Gandolf had the legendary eagles and the butterfly in LOTR.

[Linklegacy77]

I personally think that each time you get a new familiar (replacing your old one and whatnot) that you have to spend 100 gp and a full day getting it is penalty enough, but that's just me.

[Mercutio]

Merlin had an owl in the Disney movie The Sword in the Stone, but not in anything else. Gandalf didn't have any familiars. He had creatures he had befriended, like Shadowfax and the Eagles, but Shadowfax, if comparable to anything in D&D, is more like a Paladin's Mount than anything else.

Yeah, I forgot about the Harry Potter novels. That's a valid point - although I wouldn't consider the HP novels either good fantasy literature or representative of D&D style wizardry.

[akiko]

Having never played the earlier incarnations of D&D did their Wizards and Mages have familiars? Was this always a D&D thing? Basic and Advanced?

Wow, we're off topic.

[treehouse]

I don't know if Uncognative Cackling could stand the number of branch threads that usually spring up around these conversations. Best to just have a flowing conversation in one thread.

I'll alter the title. Edit: Bah, forgot I can't do that here.

[Gralhruk]

Having never played the earlier incarnations of D&D did their Wizards and Mages have familiars?
In AD&D Magic-users had familiars. I don't think they were present in Basic D&D, although I haven't played in a loooong time.

[hedgeknight]

You're only penalized when your familiar dies IF your DM allows you to be. I've always thought that rule was bullshit anyway and just ignore it when my players want to have a familiar.
If it dies or gets killed....oh well, shit happens. Cry a little bit and move on - find another one if you want. Just like breaking up with a girlfriend. ;)

I love familiars and the flavor they can bring to characters.
-g-

[nightinverse]

As far as my books show, there was no familiar in D&D Basic, though I do not by any means have everything...

As I said before, the familiar is as powerful as you play it.

worthless mini-animals that do nothing

The above statement is hardly accurate. Giving the Wizard something that allows her to remove their great physical weakness is gamebreaking, and foolish. Giving her a creature that can keep watch/spy, fetch small objects, show rudimentary intelligence and act as a highly effective distraction is balanced, logical, and fun.

I generally penalize players on a scale. If they lost their familiar being an imbicile while acting out-of-character I rip them for all they are worth. If they lost it in a devastating encounter, I might not even take anything off.

I just want to note that a number of the alternative measures mentioned here for dealing with familiars come from sources that I can't fairly allow in my campaigns. I don't consider the Complete series balanced or well-composed. Nearly everything I've moved in from there has needed extensive rebalancing.

[Mercutio]

I've never had a balance issue with the Complete Series, with the exception of a few prestige classes. In fact, the balancing issues that I thought I might have forced me to be a better DM and play the backside tighter. I learned more about balance and game mechanics that way.

That said, the animal companion variant is hardly gamebreaking. A wizard is treated as a druid of one half her level when determining an animal companion. A cat simply cannot be powerful, no matter how you play it. It's a liability in combat, and it adds nothing gainful to the character. Ooh, +3 to move silently - for a wizard. That's worthless, even as a way to "round out" a character. Besides, how does having a cat make you less of an oaf with two left feet? The only truly good benefit of a familiar is as a scout, and you can't really even use them for basic scouting effectively until 13th level, by which time you wouldn't need a familiar for effective scouting anyways.

Again, it's not just mechanical. I think the flavor of the familiar is lacking. For certain specialty classes I could see it - Shaman, witch, even Warlock, but a straight up wizard? If he's as studious as flavor and stories would have you believe, the animal would die of starvation within a month.

I find the whole thing ridiculous all around and not terribly fun. It doesn't even change the wizard's abilities if you just completely ignore that part. It doesn't weaken him at all. I can't think of any other class where taking away a significant class ability wouldn't nerf the crap out of that class. Take away trapfinding from a rogue, or wildshape from a druid, or weapon style from a ranger and you totally ruin the class. Take away familiar from a wizard - and nothing changes. You lose alertness, which is a questionable feat for usefulness anyway, and a skill bonus to a skill that's most likely not on your class list anyway.

Familiars are about as useful as regular Toughness is. Why not just give them to ability to choose one feat from a limited list - Toughness, Skill Focus Knowledge, Skill Focus Profession, Skill Focus Craft, Iron Will, Great Fortitude, or Lightning Reflexes. That's effectively what the familiars would give you (except I changed the skill bonuses to ones that are actually useful for a wizard, vice move silently, bluff, climb, etc.

[akiko]

So nightinverse, we are in the Colonists together. I look forward to you proving me wrong. Show me one spot where it is actually useful and I will be pretty happy.

Biff has already shown me one with his kobold with sharing breath spells. That is kinda cool and I will definitely make one everntually. So I have found one sort of character that I like the concept of.

Funny enough I always thought I was the only one who felt this way. I just ignore it, never call it, or get one and into the pocket he goes. I see it as nothing more than a liability.

[Linklegacy77]

Yeah, I'm in colonists too, with my familiar Rudanam, which I took simply because Uthnaruil loves cats. So far, it has done absolutely nothing.

[LeadPal]

I love the idea of a familiar, and I think it's a terrible, terrible shame that there are so few realistic uses for one. I once considered greatly increasing the familiar's power, but making them mandatory for the wizard to cast his spells at full effectiveness (generally why "historical" wizards need them), but I never pursued the idea due to the general contempt I recieved from pretty much everyone within and without my gaming group. Clearly not a popular idea, though I feel it would be a excellent one.


Anyways, do remember: if the familiar is so useless, wouldn't gaining something instead obviously make the wizard more powerful? Given that the wizard at higher levels is already on the high-end of the power scale, comparable even to the much-maligned cleric, this seems like a rather unadmirable pursuit.

So, if you're going to give the wizard something better, take away something as well.

[Linklegacy77]

Well, it's not so much that we want it to be more powerful. It's that we want the familiar to have a use at all. As it is, it is utterly useless.

[treehouse]

I once considered greatly increasing the familiar's power, but making them mandatory for the wizard to cast his spells at full effectiveness

I actually really like that idea, LP. Maybe not for every campaign, but it would certainly add flavor. What was the concept revolved around? Making the familiar's presence an additional spell component, or was it more involved?

[nightinverse]

I'll try to prove you wrong, but I can't deny that from a mechanical sense, it will be a hell of a job.

You know, we could make familiars more viable as substitute focii for spells... hear me out. Focii are a pain in the ass, on occasion, to have. However, you don't need them often enough for this to become an absurd ability. Just have the familiar offer an alternative to a focus for spells, with a possible chance of failure that increases as spell level does. This way, the familiar fills the lower-level gap between magic-users and everybody else, while failing to make a major difference at higher levels.

I might just test this a little bit... may be ready for a report when I next post here.

[Mercutio]

LP, I wasn't suggesting we should give those feats for free, but that if people insisted that losing the familiar would in any way nerf the wizard, to just give away one of those feats because that's really all a familiar is good for.

Personally, I'd just do away with them altogether.

On another note - one of the players in a humorous campaign I was in made platform fishbowl shoes, and kept a goldfish as a familiar in the boot - think 70s pimp platforms.

[Biffoniacus Furious]

A Familiar may have been necessary for someone to cast spells in certain literature, but nearly every Wizard needed something to cast his spells in nearly every case. Such things ranged from a staff to his book of spells which he read them directly from to a cauldron to sulfur and bat guano. Seldom did he ever need all of those things, though.

I once tried to develop a mechanic on 3ebb under which a Wizard forgoes using spell components and even spell foci in exchange for investing in a specially prepared staff which he uses as a focus for all his spells. I think it required Craft Staff to take, and additionally boosted his caster level by one for any spells he used it with. For a Wizard who prepares and carries such a staff, taking it away would deal a crippling blow, unless he also carries usually-useless conventional components.

Maybe a Familiar can serve as a substitute for a caster's need for spell components and spell foci? It costs 100 gp for the familiar, and its far more vulnerable than components/foci, so it could replace any spell focus worth up to 100 gp, and any costly material component worth up to 10 gp. If he spends extra gold to gain the familiar or invests further in it, those values would likewise increase. That would add quite a bit of usefulness to a Familiar, as well as making it a good investment. Thoughts?

[Mercutio]

I liked your staff focused thoughts, but never really tried to think about it any harder than that.

The familiar being able to sub for the other components would make it vastly more useful.

[Black Plauge]

My take on what to do with familiars. (http://online-roleplaying.com/forums/showthread.php?p=133694#post133694)

In order to make the discussion complete, however, it must be pointed out that I eliminated familiars for wizards (in favor of the specialization variants from Unearthed Arcana) so only sorcerers get them normally.

The idea was to differentiate the wizard and the sorcerer more. The wizard is more of a bookish caster who concentrates his study on a particular school and gains abilities related to that school in addition to his spells. The sorcerer is the caster with a companion. The type of companion is also up to the sorcerer. Different combinations of Familiar Feats (http://online-roleplaying.com/forums/showthread.php?p=134498#post134498) will result in the familiar serving different roles, varied from a physical protector to a spellcasting extension.

[Linklegacy77]

I think they just gave the wizard familiars because people would have complained if just the sorcerer got them.

[nightinverse]

Or maybe because the Wizard came first.

[akiko]

Hey BP, I really like that handling. I may have to do the same.

[Mercutio]

I do like that in some respects BP, but then I've tried to modify sorcerors to make them more playable, and done away with familiars for sorcerors.