Substitution Levels
Ophidian
I had planned on using them, but then noticed something glaring when I
got Races of the Wild, followed but something a tad less obvious.
Look at Elf Wizard:
He gets bonus spells for choosing not to specialize?
Really, nothing is "substituted" there. It's just plain better than
what Humans and other races get.
I know they pulled the same stunt in UA with the Domain Wizards, but
there we at least have the excuse that we are adding flavor and options
to Wizard, that it's available to all races, and you likely won't
specialize in a campaign where it's available, so it mainly affects some
campaigns by increasing the power of Wizards slight, which, is some
campaigns has been said to be needed.
So I looked at the other substitutions to see how they balanced.
Here's an example of the sort of thing I found a few times:
Elf Wizard 5th level:
May take a bonus Archery feat instead of the bonus Mage feat.
OK, not bad, it does give this race more choices than others, but
basically we're swapping a feat for a feat, so seems balanced.
But the Elf Wizard ALSO gets Search as a class skill.
So a 5th level Elf Wizard gets everything a normal Wizard does _plus_
and extra class skill??
Halfling Druid:
The Halfling Druid gets _6_ skill points per level plus four extra class
skills. I guess it might be argued that Halfling Druids are already
sub-optimal due to lack of access to larger wild-shapes, or that their
substitution abilities aren't as good as the original, but it seemed odd.
So, again, what experiences have people had using these things?
I'm waffling between two ways of using these class levels:
Either not using them.
Or
Assuming that the balances/unbalances are sort of a racial bonus that
balances out with the ones already given in the PHB.
Werebat
My experience with them is much like yours. They seem designed by power
creepers trying to slip a subtle fast one by their DMs.
None of them are game-breakingly overpowered, and quite a few are
balanced as is. But a good number either swap out something you'd never
use anyway for something useful, or flat out give you an extra power.
- Ron ^*^
Bafla
* 'Gnome Cantrips' insubstantial, but neater
* yet to encounter 'Counterfear' (or 'Countersong' for that matter)
situation
* 'Phantasmal song' seems a little better than 'Suggestion', but
reasonably so.
I've also agreed with my DM on a variant spell replacement rule of
bunking up spells so 'cure light wounds' can be bunked 'cure moderate
wounds', 'silent image' to 'minor image' etc. this of course replaces
the ability to re-learn spells the bard has, how many bunks do you
think I should limit myself to?
Andreas Hempel
> Look at Elf Wizard:
> He gets bonus spells for choosing not to specialize?
> Really, nothing is "substituted" there. It's just plain better than
> what Humans and other races get.
What you have overlooked here is the following: the Elf Generalist
Wizard only gets his bonus-spell in the highest level lot available to
him, specialists get them in every level. I primarily took the Elf
Wizard substitution for the extra learned spell per level, which is nice
but not too powerful in my opinion. And I didn´t take any ranks in
search, didn´t even know it was a class-skill for me.
Some of the substitutions are a bit more powerful than the core classes
for the other races, but nothing game-breaking in my opinion, I wouldn´t
worry about it too much.
Ophidian
> Ophidian schrieb:
>
>> Look at Elf Wizard:
>> He gets bonus spells for choosing not to specialize?
>> Really, nothing is "substituted" there. It's just plain better than
>> what Humans and other races get.
>
>
> What you have overlooked here is the following: the Elf Generalist
> Wizard only gets his bonus-spell in the highest level lot available to
> him, specialists get them in every level.
No, I noticed that.
But non-Elves get 'nothing extra' for not specializing, while elves do?
> I primarily took the Elf
> Wizard substitution for the extra learned spell per level, which is nice
> but not too powerful in my opinion. And I didn´t take any ranks in
> search, didn´t even know it was a class-skill for me.
> Some of the substitutions are a bit more powerful than the core classes
> for the other races, but nothing game-breaking in my opinion, I wouldn´t
> worry about it too much.
I am leaning towards allowing them for racial flavor, but I'm still
leary of the 'favortism' that shows.
Werebat
It's power creep, plain and simple. If you don't want power creep in
your game, ban or nerf them. If you don't care, well... "Door's open,
boys!"
- Ron ^*^
tussock
> How much luck are you guys having with racial substitution levels?
Nice idea, poor execution in terms of balance. Stole the odd good
idea for use as a feat much as I do with PClass abilities. I'd imagine
they work best as is if they're compulsary within a campain.
> I had planned on using them, but then noticed something glaring when I
> got Races of the Wild, followed but something a tad less obvious.
Half Orc Barbarian's the worst to look at, with free specialisation
in any 2-handed weapons used at the cost of -1 DR. Some of the Dwarf
stuff seems pretty cheesy too.
It's giving specialisation to a Barbarian!
> Look at Elf Wizard:
> He gets bonus spells for choosing not to specialize?
> Really, nothing is "substituted" there. It's just plain better than
> what Humans and other races get.
Plain Wizards do kinda suck though, compared to the specialists, at
least IMO.
> So I looked at the other substitutions to see how they balanced.
> Here's an example of the sort of thing I found a few times:
> Elf Wizard 5th level:
> May take a bonus Archery feat instead of the bonus Mage feat.
> OK, not bad, it does give this race more choices than others, but
> basically we're swapping a feat for a feat, so seems balanced.
> But the Elf Wizard ALSO gets Search as a class skill.
> So a 5th level Elf Wizard gets everything a normal Wizard does _plus_
> and extra class skill??
Only during the sub levels. Personally, I've long given the races
access to the skills they get bonsues with, seems silly not to. AFAICT,
Wizards can't afford to waste feats on weapons anyway, so it's probably
a fair swap.
> Halfling Druid:
> The Halfling Druid gets _6_ skill points per level plus four extra class
> skills.
NB: Like HD, the skill boosts only applies on the notied levels,
that's +6 in total for the 3 sub levels over what a normal druid gets,
and not much opportuinity to buy the extra skills.
> I guess it might be argued that Halfling Druids are already sub-optimal
> due to lack of access to larger wild-shapes, or that their substitution
> abilities aren't as good as the original, but it seemed odd.
Druids all change to the same sized animals by default, it's the
Halfling sub level that lets you go small instead of big (which is
optional).
--
tussock
Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
Jasin Zujovic
> > Look at Elf Wizard:
> > He gets bonus spells for choosing not to specialize?
> > Really, nothing is "substituted" there. It's just plain better than
> > what Humans and other races get.
>
> Plain Wizards do kinda suck though, compared to the specialists, at
> least IMO.
Wha...?
Not many people play straight wizards in my group, so I don't have a big
sample, but my impression is quite the opposite: specialists suck
compared to generalists. Losing access to two schools (including scrolls
and wands!) for a few more spells per day seems almost crippling to me,
unless your the proverbial fifth party member, so you already have all
your bases covered.
--
Jasin Zujovic
WuYanei
>
> Not many people play straight wizards in my group, so I don't have a big
> sample, but my impression is quite the opposite: specialists suck
> compared to generalists. Losing access to two schools (including scrolls
> and wands!) for a few more spells per day seems almost crippling to me,
> unless your the proverbial fifth party member, so you already have all
> your bases covered.
> --
> Jasin Zujovic
being a specialist is better than being a generalist. If you only have
one arcane spellcaster in the party, or if you are dueling one-on-one,
then a generalist is better than a specialist.
The second arcane caster does not need to be a primary caster. It could
even be a rogue with high UMD skill. All you need is for the *party* to
have access to scrolls forbidden to you -- you do not need access to
them yourself.
However, if you do not have the second arcane caster, the spell
synergies from different schools are far more beneficial than +1 spll
slot per level per day.
Hadsil
There is no guarantee any particular spell will exist on a regular
basis. There is no guarantee any particular spell will appear on a
scroll or in a wand you come across. An individual player may find
himself never, ever casting a spell from a particular school and/or one
or two spells at most from a school.
On the other hand, a wizard can never have too many spells prepared.
It is good to use scrolls and wands; it's unwise to deplete yourself if
you can prevent it. However, as a 9th level wizard, would you want to
be able to cast one or two 5th level spells a day? Are you really
going to care you cannot cast a spell you weren't going to cast anyway?
Gerald Katz
tussock
>> least IMO.
>
> Wha...?
Yea, it's not a universally shared opinion.
> Not many people play straight wizards in my group, so I don't have a big
> sample, but my impression is quite the opposite: specialists suck
> compared to generalists. Losing access to two schools (including scrolls
> and wands!) for a few more spells per day seems almost crippling to me,
> unless your the proverbial fifth party member, so you already have all
> your bases covered.
<shrug> There's groups without wizards at all, the game still works
fine for them. It's simply not true that a party needs a Wizard with
access to every spell to be fully powerful. Really, who'd miss
Necromancy or Illusion?
Be clever and throw out Evocation and save on the feats you need to
make it worthwhile.
Jasin Zujovic
foru...@netzero.com says...
> > > Plain Wizards do kinda suck though, compared to the specialists, at
> > > least IMO.
> >
> > Wha...?
> >
> > Not many people play straight wizards in my group, so I don't have a big
> > sample, but my impression is quite the opposite: specialists suck
> > compared to generalists. Losing access to two schools (including scrolls
> > and wands!) for a few more spells per day seems almost crippling to me,
> > unless your the proverbial fifth party member, so you already have all
> > your bases covered.
>
> There is no guarantee any particular spell will exist on a regular
> basis. There is no guarantee any particular spell will appear on a
> scroll or in a wand you come across. An individual player may find
> himself never, ever casting a spell from a particular school and/or one
> or two spells at most from a school.
Then again, turn that argument around and all you find might be spells
from your two barred schools! How's that for screwing yourself over?
But really, I haven't been considering wands and scrolls you come
across. It's more that each school has at least a couple of spells that
I'd really miss as a wizard. And wizards get two spells for free at each
level, so it practically is guaranteed that the spells you really want
will exist: in your own research papers and spellbooks, if nowhere else.
> On the other hand, a wizard can never have too many spells prepared.
> It is good to use scrolls and wands; it's unwise to deplete yourself if
> you can prevent it. However, as a 9th level wizard, would you want to
> be able to cast one or two 5th level spells a day?
If I have to pay for it by never being able to learn *two* of dispel
magic (abjuration), dimension door (conjuration), greater heroism
(enchantment), scorching ray (evocation), improved invisibility
(illusion), enervation (necromancy), polymorph (transmutation)... I
think I actually prefer one.
Okay, I might have overstated my point when I said "crippling"; I might
stand to part with, say, enchantment and necromancy... but why? For a
few more slots per day? No, thanks. It undercuts what I see as the
wizard's main strength, the ability to eventually cast any Sor/Wiz spell
in the world.
I guess it's also a question of taste, to some extent; I prefer shiny
toys to big numbers, so new and different spells are better than more of
the same in my book.
> Are you really
> going to care you cannot cast a spell you weren't going to cast anyway?
My, what a naughty semantic trick. :)
No, I won't care about spells I wasn't going to cast, but I will care
about spells I was going to cast... like those listed above.
--
Jasin Zujovic
Jasin Zujovic
> >> Plain Wizards do kinda suck though, compared to the specialists, at
> >> least IMO.
> >
> > Wha...?
>
> Yea, it's not a universally shared opinion.
:)
> > Not many people play straight wizards in my group, so I don't have a big
> > sample, but my impression is quite the opposite: specialists suck
> > compared to generalists. Losing access to two schools (including scrolls
> > and wands!) for a few more spells per day seems almost crippling to me,
> > unless your the proverbial fifth party member, so you already have all
> > your bases covered.
>
> <shrug> There's groups without wizards at all, the game still works
> fine for them. It's simply not true that a party needs a Wizard with
> access to every spell to be fully powerful.
Ture. I didn't really mean that a party needs access to all Sor/Wiz
spells to function. It's just that I really think that if someone
already is playing a wizard, he has much more to gain from the
versatility of a generalist than from the extra spell slots as a
specialists.
> Really, who'd miss Necromancy or Illusion?
I would! :)
Ray of enfeeblment? Enervation?
Mirror image? Invisibility? Improved invisibility?
> Be clever and throw out Evocation and save on the feats you need to
> make it worthwhile.
Heh. Yes, if I made a specialist, Evocation would probably be one of my
barred schools. It's not that it doesn't have its own mainstays
(scorching ray!), but there's so many ways to deal hp damage in D&D, and
not so many ways to do all the other stuff a wizard can do, so when I
play a wizard, I want that other stuff.
--
Jasin Zujovic
Hadsil
Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> In article <1142211659....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> foru...@netzero.com says...
> If I have to pay for it by never being able to learn *two* of dispel
> magic (abjuration), dimension door (conjuration), greater heroism
> (enchantment), scorching ray (evocation), improved invisibility
> (illusion), enervation (necromancy), polymorph (transmutation)... I
> think I actually prefer one.
>
> Okay, I might have overstated my point when I said "crippling"; I might
> stand to part with, say, enchantment and necromancy... but why? For a
> few more slots per day? No, thanks. It undercuts what I see as the
> wizard's main strength, the ability to eventually cast any Sor/Wiz spell
> in the world.
>
> I guess it's also a question of taste, to some extent; I prefer shiny
> toys to big numbers, so new and different spells are better than more of
> the same in my book.
>
>> Jasin Zujovic
Exactly! It is a matter of taste. For you, you find there is a spell
in every school that you really, really. want. Good for you.
(Sincerely, not sarcastically) For me, I personally don't really need
to cast Necromancy spells so I can easily make that an opposition
school. Enervation is a good spell; it's just not a *must have* spell
for me. If I could get over my addiction to Mage Armor I could drop
Conjuration.
Since not every player is going to want to specialize, it's not
uberpowerful. Since there are players willing to specialize, it is not
ubersucky. Hence, it is balanced.
It can happen a specialist wizard will be in an adventure that has lots
of spells from his opposition schools and could have a difficult time.
That's a feature of the game where any particular character at some
point has to deal with something he's not optimized to face; that's the
fun. However, if this is happening in every or almost every single
adventure, that is not the fault or weakness of specialization. That
is simply the DM being a jerk.
Gerald Katz
Jim Davies
> Plain Wizards do kinda suck though, compared to the specialists, at
>least IMO.
IME the only specialist that's clearly better than a standard wiz is
the diviner, because you lose only one school and another PC (cleric,
bard, druid) can probably cover that adequately. The theory is that
you can usually expect to need something like Det Magic / Identify /
See Invis / CA-CV / Scrying / CoP / True Seeing / etc.
Some of the levels are a bit less certain, but if you have the right
splatbooks it's golden.
--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim
D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org