Specialist wizards boons are only for spellbook AND wizard

[Rico_scorpion]

Hi,

In reaction to this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=34223

I respectfully/strongly disagree with the design principles at play here and would like to state my points:

1] Balance: It is said in the thread that "a druid (or else) that goes 3 specialist wizard shouldn't get the boon because he doesn't sacrifice anything for it" (unlike specialist wizards that sacrifice a school). I don't see how one could say that... you lose 3 caster levels (hello dispels), you still don't get disc class so either you're a kd-bait or you end up with 24 CL (lel even more dispels), you lose some epic summoner bonuses, maybe one epic feat, and duration for round based spells... it IS in my book as much of a sacrifice if not much a greater one just to get the bonuses from the Base/Greater spell focus of specialist wizards which are "decent" at best but far from "omg i need it".

2] Elegance: If it smells like a cat, looks like a cat, and the designer decides it's not a cat, it leads to confusion and frustration for players because the design logic (even sound ones) is at odds with "everyday" logic. Case at hand, "I am a specialist wizard in necromancy (so a necromancer), and when I take the prestige class best commonly associated with necromancy (palemaster), my "specialist in necromancy" bonuses do not carry over. Why ? Because it's spell like, not a spell from a spellbook. This kind of things feel arbitrary and confusing. And it also applies to "I'm a specialist in (insert other schools) and I studied it a lot, but whenever I step out of arcane wizardry, i know as much as the average joe".

3] Build diversity: It does feel like a missed opportunity to create subpar but exotic new builds if it gets "fixed". IF someone wants to shoot himself in the foot by losing 3 CL just to get the specialist boon, why is it a problem ? And rping having studied a school in a wizard's tower even if your main proficiency isn't even arcane, is enriching rather than narrowing in terms of RP. So all in all it felt like a good move to have something other than "discipline" to look for for near-pure casters.

4] RP: As said above, If I studied a school, I feel having the leeway to say how you approached that specialization is superior to pigeonholing to "you're a wizard, harry, and ONLY that".

*takes a breath* Okay, rant over.

Cheers guys !

Bonus: 5] That design logic is also (mostly) at odds with the actual Neverwinter nights games design logic. In Nwn, if you snatch a bonus, you snatch a bonus, it can be situational (aka nature's sense), but (almost) never "100% useless if you don't commit to it fully", at worst, it won't scale well and will be mostly useless, but it is not a restriction, just poor numbers (= monk's SR). As such, players naturally expect it to work that way "I got the specialist bonus, now it should apply without hidden restrictions". So when it doesn't, confusion arises as well as frustration.

[magistrasa]

I think I mostly agree with you, but alas, I feel compelled to play devil's advocate on one particular point.

"I'm a specialist in (insert other schools) and I studied it a lot, but whenever I step out of arcane wizardry, i know as much as the average joe".

So, there's two main methods of spellcasting in this universe. There's "The Art," which is arcane magic that comes either through some innate affinity or by rigorous study. Then there's "The Power" - divine spellcasting - which comes basically out of a sympathetic connection to an outside body of power that lets you call upon their strength and knowledge, rather than relying on your own. So Clerics and Druids and the like, aren't really all that familiar with how their spells work. At least, not typically. They don't have to be. In a sense, they're not really the ones casting the spell. So that quote you made actually would be perfectly logical and justified in forgotten realms, and I don't think it's terribly immersion breaking.

.......that said, I think the design philosophy behind some of the server's class feature limitations is generally pretty restrictive, and sometimes needlessly so.

3] Build diversity: It does feel like a missed opportunity to create subpar but exotic new builds if it gets "fixed". IF someone wants to shoot himself in the foot by losing 3 CL just to get the specialist boon, why is it a problem ? And rping having studied a school in a wizard's tower even if your main proficiency isn't even arcane, is enriching rather than narrowing in terms of RP. So all in all it felt like a good move to have something other than "discipline" to look for for near-pure casters.

Even if I don't see this particular instance as egregious, I can relate to the core of the frustration here (especially with certain recent changes). At a certain point, multiclassing seems like it's outright being punished. Like, take Tenser's Transformation. You aren't even allowed to cast the spell with certain class spreads, for what feels like entirely arbitrary reason of "monk 2 stronk" (or was it "spellsword 2 stronk," I don't even remember, it doesn't matter). Like, okay, yes, I understand we need a balanced game to have fun, but I just wish we could have a balanced game that would enable wild and wacky class combinations too. I just hate that it feels like you have to pureclass to be remotely functional.

[Ninjimmy]

I'm gonna devils advocate some other points and... regular advocate one.

1] Balance: It is said in the thread that "a druid (or else) that goes 3 specialist wizard shouldn't get the boon because he doesn't sacrifice anything for it" (unlike specialist wizards that sacrifice a school). I don't see how one could say that... you lose 3 caster levels (hello dispels), you still don't get disc class so either you're a kd-bait or you end up with 24 CL (lel even more dispels), you lose some epic summoner bonuses, maybe one epic feat, and duration for round based spells... it IS in my book as much of a sacrifice if not much a greater one just to get the bonuses from the Base/Greater spell focus of specialist wizards which are "decent" at best but far from "omg i need it".

I'm not gonna weigh in on this too much cos I'm not that great at mechanical optimisation, but I think there's greater moving parts than listed here and leave that to more savvy commenters to add to.

2] Elegance: If it smells like a cat, looks like a cat, and the designer decides it's not a cat, it leads to confusion and frustration for players because the design logic (even sound ones) is at odds with "everyday" logic. Case at hand, "I am a specialist wizard in necromancy (so a necromancer), and when I take the prestige class best commonly associated with necromancy (palemaster), my "specialist in necromancy" bonuses do not carry over. Why ? Because it's spell like, not a spell from a spellbook. This kind of things feel arbitrary and confusing. And it also applies to "I'm a specialist in (insert other schools) and I studied it a lot, but whenever I step out of arcane wizardry, i know as much as the average joe".

That's kind of a flawed analogy man, you can spend ages learning to code and specialise in certain tricks for HTML, it doesn't mean you can pull the same stunts with JavaScript. Arcane/Divine/Spellike Abilities are distinct things and they aren't exactly transferable.

3] Build diversity: It does feel like a missed opportunity to create subpar but exotic new builds if it gets "fixed". IF someone wants to shoot himself in the foot by losing 3 CL just to get the specialist boon, why is it a problem ? And rping having studied a school in a wizard's tower even if your main proficiency isn't even arcane, is enriching rather than narrowing in terms of RP. So all in all it felt like a good move to have something other than "discipline" to look for for near-pure casters.

But there's nothing stopping you doing this anyway, it's just sub-par without the expected boost? You aren't as good at conjuration as someone who's only specialised in it because they have significantly more levels in it and you've instead learned other magic which they don't. Like... if you don't mind being subpar then you're fine surely?

I'm all for build diversity but what seems to happen is we get one or two insanely OP builds and I can't blame the Dev team for thinking "Yeah, maybe Elemental Swarm where everything comes in hasted could be a problem".

4] RP: As said above, If I studied a school, I feel having the leeway to say how you approached that specialization is superior to pigeonholing to "you're a wizard, harry, and ONLY that".

Again though, you do? You just can't say "I'm a specialist in arcane conjuration" and then have 27 levels in Druid where you divine summon things. I mean, you CAN say it, you can claim anything IC, but folks who sink their Mechanical/RP concepts into knowing the difference will probably point that out.

[Bonus: 5] That design logic is also (mostly) at odds with the actual Neverwinter nights games design logic. In Nwn, if you snatch a bonus, you snatch a bonus, it can be situational (aka nature's sense), but (almost) never "100% useless if you don't commit to it fully", at worst, it won't scale well and will be mostly useless, but it is not a restriction, just poor numbers (= monk's SR). As such, players naturally expect it to work that way "I got the specialist bonus, now it should apply without hidden restrictions". So when it doesn't, confusion arises as well as frustration.

I dunno if I agree with this but I dont have time right now to actually build a case so I'll have to take this one as valid.

[Rico_scorpion]

Yes there is a logic that easily explain why it doesn't apply (divine is not arcane, innate arcane is not studied arcane etc). And this reasoning works and is valid.

However the logic that would justify why the bonuses apply outside of the wizard spell book works just as well ("magic school" based reasoning : the art of divination has common principles between divine and arcane, same as other schools : changing the shape of things (transmutation) has differences but also common principles etc).

So I feel that precise point can be bent whichever way is best for the game's health / game design principle. Which, I think, makes my own use of that proposition moot, as well as the devil's advocates' view moot as well.

But there's nothing stopping you doing this anyway

Sorry but that is one point where your reasoning really doesn't work I believe (note: if I got it right, let me know if I misunderstood). Technically "nothing is stopping me" from going 3 sorcerer / 3 druid / 24 fighter ... aside from the fact that in terms of "playing the game" it doesn't make any sense, and no one will ever do that aside from first-time-on-NWN-players or ultra hardcore RPers that want their chara sheet to fit exactly their background even if the character is unusable mechanically as a result. Nothing is stopping me aside from common sense, and that is just as big as a restriction as an hardcoded one.

To be clear: there is little to no mechanical reason at all to take 3 specialist wizard on any build if the boons do not apply outside of the wizard's spellbook. So for 99.99% of the playerbase that does equal to less build diversity.
Also: maybe I'm wrong but I think the "hasted" thingy doesn't apply to elemental swarm anyway.

Thanks for contributing to the debate in a civil way!

cheers.

[Ninjimmy]

But there's nothing stopping you doing this anyway

Sorry but that is one point where your reasoning really doesn't work I believe (note: if I got it right, let me know if I misunderstood). Technically "nothing is stopping me" from going 3 sorcerer / 3 druid / 24 fighter ... aside from the fact that in terms of "playing the game" it doesn't make any sense, and no one will ever do that aside from first-time-on-NWN-players or ultra hardcore RPers that want their chara sheet to fit exactly their background even if the character is unusable mechanically as a result. Nothing is stopping me aside from common sense, and that is just as big as a restriction as an hardcoded one.

To be clear: there is little to no mechanical reason at all to take 3 specialist wizard on any build if the boons do not apply outside of the wizard's spellbook. So for 99.99% of the playerbase that does equal to less build diversity.
Also: maybe I'm wrong but I think the "hasted" thingy doesn't apply to elemental swarm anyway.

Thanks for contributing to the debate in a civil way!

cheers.

I'ma be honest, I have no idea if the Haste would hit elemental swarm too with conjuration specialty so I'm tryna dodge mechanical discussion but I can't see why it wouldn't if it auto-hastes summons? But if it doesn't, I'd consider that a moot point from me.

I guess the discussion gap is between how subpar we can see things being before it becomes unplayable - getting the balance between build diversity is always going to be screwy but I don't think making it so a 3 level dip into a specialising class can provide a significant boost to an (arguably) stronger class while also nullifying one of the handicaps (since AFAIK there's nothing stopping you divine casting from the restricted school).

I think that RP/Build diversity is in the hands of the players and if their choice makes them sub-optimal mechanically then that's kind of on the player to own and lean into for the character.

But that's my opinion, I think the crux of this discussion is mechanical balance and I'm not the best qualified to opine on it.

[Duchess Says]

Practically speaking the devs seem to be very cautious lately when introducing new classes or class features. Favored souls can't use cleric domains or divine might at all, for example. It's not hard to see why... Players are really on the ball and will sniff out unintended and unforeseen power combos immediately especially when a small dip will bring immense power. So specialist wizards are designed to be only played as wizards with a dip class... They don't want monk or divine dip 2.0. I respect that myself.

Secondly I don't think unlimited build diversity is something the devs are really pushing for. If anything they seem to want us to be playing a certain set of approved builds and don't seem to have much sympathy for experimental combos especially when they're broken. While I do enjoy playing weird combos myself I'm pretty resigned at this point to accept that it's best to play common builds and not get too worked up over things like the specialist build limitations because it's not something that will likely change.

All of this is to say I see where you are coming from but I wouldn't expect anything to change on this.