# Building a good wizard?



## SnowleopardVK (Jul 8, 2011)

Hello again. I've been thinking of making a wizard recently. Possibly an elf, probably a transmuter. I don't exactly know much of the party situation yet, but I'm pretty sure there's no other arcane casters. I've never made a wizard yet though, mostly just melee and ranged fighters. The closest I've gotten is a sorcerer, but I assume a wizard is going to be more complicated.

So, does anyone have any tips on on 1st level Wizard building? I believe it's using a 20 point-buy method.


----------



## Dingo333 (Jul 8, 2011)

well, first and foremost, your school

Your School is the number 1 choice to make when playing a wizard.

You get 2 school powers, a bonus spell(of that school) and a limitation on what you can cast.

While you can still cast spells of your opposition school, you need to use 2 spell slots to prepare it, so it either has to be that good of a spell, or you are never gonna learn it

Overall, I recommend an elemental school. You only need 1 opposition school, and the school spells are quite nice

Wizards can not heal, but they can still support with buff spells and summons. Also, the classic argument, "the wizard's fireball did more damage then my sword, *whine*." You can be a strong blaster too. 

Run down for support, DO NOT TAKE TRANSMUTATION OR CONJURATION FOR AN OPPOSITION SCHOOL. That is the end of the run down. Your most important spells are in those 2 schools though it could be said any school but evocation is good support. So there is our first opposition school. I recommend enchantment for your second, but necromancy is a decent second (you lose undead minnions which are good since you do not fight yourself, but it is not a huge lose)

Run Down for Blaster, Take Evocation for choosen school. as a blaster ie. envoker, any school will do, but I would avoid transmutation and conjuration for your opposition still. Transmutation has buff spells you can use of your self and conjuration has mage armor.

You obviously want a high INT whatever school you go. A high Dex is also ver good (more AC, more Ref, better flight, better initative). Strength is a dump stat, Charisma to an extend is as well. Only time you need it is to go plannar dignitary (visit planes, be a diplomat, that kinda job better left to a sorcerer 80% of the time and a summoner the other 20%)

Final bit, Arcane Bond, item or familiar. I recommend a familiar and that your 7th level feat go to Improved Familiar to get a Silvanshee (NG, CAN HEAL, you must be NG or CG, LG or N). But a bonded item can work very well in some cases. There are a number of Wonderous items in the APG that are specifically made to be bonded items and have a bonus for a (matching school magic user) like the necromancer's anthem

Hope this helps


----------



## SnowleopardVK (Jul 8, 2011)

Dingo333 said:


> Run down for support, DO NOT TAKE TRANSMUTATION OR CONJURATION FOR AN OPPOSITION SCHOOL.




I wasn't planning to go support, but I wasn't planning on taking either of those as an opposition anyways. 

The Silvanshee sounds good, and the alignment choices are no problem (I think) since (again, I think) the DM is banning evil.

As I said for the school, I wasn't really looking to do a supporter. Evoker or perhaps one of the elemental schools sounds good. Just from looking at them, Earth looks as though it gives the most seemingly useful school powers, but I'm not sure.

Possibly... Evoker with Divination and Illusion as opposition schools?


----------



## Dingo333 (Jul 8, 2011)

SnowleopardVK said:


> Possibly... Evoker with Divination and Illusion as opposition schools?




I never use divination (except detect magic, and that is a 0 level, you get 5 max of those.... your choice there)

As for Illusion, invisibility (and its bigger and little brothers) live there. Nice spells but not *needed* for a good blaster. but it can be a bit of a pain when you get ambushed at low levels and decide, I need to run away now.

As for spell selection, obviously look at the evocation list, but check conjuration all the same, very handy and nice damage spells there too.

In elemental choices, Fire wins as the blaster. Burning Hands lvl1, Fireball lvl3, Geyser lvl 5. The rest can be good choices, but fire is fastest to blast away people.

For Feats, if going an elemenal school, you want elemental focus (your school), if not, Spell focus (your school) at 1st. 3rd can go to the greater version of what you got lvl 1 or to craft wonderous items, depending on how your DM feels about people making their magical gear.


----------



## SnowleopardVK (Jul 8, 2011)

Dingo333 said:


> In elemental choices, Fire wins as the blaster. Burning Hands lvl1, Fireball lvl3, Geyser lvl 5. The rest can be good choices, but fire is fastest to blast away people.




Hmm, Evocation and Fire share a lot of spells already. Evocation gets the Intense Spells effect for extra damage too, which is a bonus. On the other hand Fire has less opposed since I don't have to pick two schools for that, but I think I'm still leaning towards an Evoker.

I went through the spell lists from 0th to 9th level spells for Divination and Illusion before choosing them as the probable opposed schools. The two spells you named, Detect Magic and Invisibility, were in fact the only ones in those schools that stood out to me as something I don't want to lose. All the other schools on the other hand have much more than just a spell each that I'd rather not lose.


----------



## Dilvias (Jul 8, 2011)

If you haven't seen it before, I recommend taking a look at Treantmonk's guide.

https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AcNyxDTKvAmqZGRtZzhzdjZfMTFmNXdwM2ZjeA&hl=en

It's a little out of date, but still has some great ideas.


----------



## SnowleopardVK (Jul 11, 2011)

Alright, next up is the Ability Scores. With 20 point-buy I'm a bit more limited than I'm used to. I guess highest priority goes to Int though. Then what? Dex? Con?


----------



## Dingo333 (Jul 11, 2011)

well, for stats, on a 20 point buy, I would go something like this

STR: 8
DEX: 14
CON: 14
INT: 16
WIS: 10
CHA: 12

if you go elf, just add on top of those stats, for a human, add to INT. Same for half elf and half orc

Gnome:
Cha 10+2(racial)
Con 12+2(racial)
Str 8-2(racial)
Dex 16

reverse con and dex for a halfling wizard

and a dwarf, just no. they prefer martial classes better, or divine.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 11, 2011)

If you're willing to dump wis to hell, Elf really does hurt for more Con.  I think you could pull this off as an Elf with 20 point buy:

Str 8
Dex 14 (16)
Con 16 (14)
Int 16 (18)
Wis 7
Cha 10

With changes from race in parentheses.  You can switch Wis, Str, and Cha as you like, I suppose.


----------



## Dykstrav (Jul 11, 2011)

I love wizards, I play them every chance I get. When you say "good," I assume that you mean optimizing the mechanical qualities as opposed to role-playing or alignment. Here goes...

For ability scores, you want a good Intelligence (around 16 or so). If it's point buy, I would advise you against sinking everything into Intelligence--you don't really need a stellar Intelligence score until later levels, and a bit more balance when you first make your character can make it far more survivable. I'd suggest you go from there with a decent Dexterity score (say, 14 or so) and a decent Constitution. From there, I'd bump your Wisdom and Charisma based on your character's personality, and split any remaining points between Strength and Constitution. Wisdom is nice to have if you want your character to be insightful as well as clever. Keep in mind that "book smarts" never keeps people from doing dumb things, so you might want to have a decent Wisdom score if you see your character as someone that advises others.

I highly advise you against using a "dump stat." Many people that play wizards ignore Strength or Charisma. Keep in mind that many monsters inflict ability score damage, and by making these abilities below 10, you're really opening yourself up to being killed in a single hit. For example, shadows deal Strength damage with an incorporeal touch. It'd suck to get killed in a single hit from a shadow because your Strength score is 6.

For Pathfinder, your best race choice for a wizard is elf, by a considerable margin. Not only does the elf get a +2 to Intelligence, they also get a +2 to Dexterity--handy for ranged touch attacks (many spells require them) and your AC (since you can't wear armor). Additionally, they begin with proficiency in the longbow and longsword. An elf wizard makes a surprisingly good archer considering that it's not their main thing. Free proficiency with a bow and a bonus to Dex means that you can function well even when you've cast all of your spells.

If you can use material from the _Advanced Player's Guide_, you might consider a gnome if you want to be an illusionist, or if you want to play a specialized type of wizard. For example, gnomes have an alternate racial trait option in the _Advanced Player's Guide_ that allows them to treat their caster level as one higher when they cast fire spells. Still, I believe that elf is your best overall possible choice.

Now for class features. Your school selection is important. Not only does it significantly impact your spell selection and give you abilities, it says a great deal about how your wizard approaches magic and the world.

I'd advise you to avoid abjuration, necromancy, and the universalist schools. Abjuration is really something that your divine spellcaster should be doing, and bluntly, they can do it better than you. You're about blasting and controlling enemies, not protecting your allies. Necromancy is just too situational to be useful in most cases, and many GMs don't like the idea of characters running around with shambling undead hordes instead of fighting them. The universalist's abilities are just a bit weak, although it's a decent choice since they don't have opposition schools.

I'd suggest that you give a serious look to conjuration, evocation, enchantment, and illusion. Conjurors get some cool attack spells, such as _acid arrow_, _web_, _sleet storm_, _cloudkill_, _mage's faithful hound_, and _stinking cloud_. Don't forget _summon monster_ and various _planar binding_ spells, for that matter. If you want to lock down the battlefield and throw monsters at your enemies, a conjuror is a superlative choice. Evokers are perhaps a bit obvious. Many of the most powerful attack spells in the game are evocations, so evoker is your choice if you want to blast, blast, blast. 

Enchantment and illusion are "tricky" schools, but extremely satisfying if you can pull them off. They revolve around either compelling or deceiving creatures to do your bidding. If you're going to be in many urban areas or dealing with a lot of NPCs, an enchanter or illusionist could be very useful. I wouldn't advise them in a game centered around wilderness areas or traditional dungeon crawls because 1) they rely a bit on social interaction and legerdemain to pull off; 2) many monsters are flat-out immune to these sorts of spells.

I'm sort of neutral on divination and transmutation. Both of them have some extremely useful spells, but they tend to benefit others more so than benefit you directly. Diviners can make a party very effective--forewarned is forearmed, after all. Many of the cool utility spells in the game are transmutations, such as _knock_, _enlarge person_, _bull's strength_, _make whole_, _haste_, _fly_, and _keen edge_. These sorts of casters can be very useful by making the party stronger. This can work very well for you if you can deal with sharing victory with the team rather than blasting everything to cinders with a fireball, but some people don't dig that style of play.

I'd pick an arcane focus instead of a familiar. Getting to spontaneously cast an extra spell per day is far more awesome than a magic pet in my book.

In the skill department, Spellcraft is your big front-runner. You need it to identify spells that enemy casters are using, to identify magic items via _detect magic_, and several other useful things that wizards are expected to do. You probably want to pick up Linguistics so you can decipher ancient languages and communicate effectively with more creatures. I'd also give a serious look at Acrobatics. Although it's not a class skill for wizards, Acrobatics can be used to move through a threatened area or even an enemy's space--a real lifesaver if enemies try to cut you off from the rest of the party. Since you don't really wear armor, you can be good at it even if the bard or rogue is a little better than you at it.

Again, the elf really shines as a wizard here. Elves gain a bonus to Spellcraft checks to identify magic items, and that high Dex helps you with Acrobatics if you want it. Additionally, you might want to pick up some Perception. Elves get a racial bonus to that too, and with a decent Wisdom score, you can be a sharp-eyed lookout as well as a top-notch spellcaster.

Now on to feats... A solid choice for your first-level feat is Spell Focus. Chances are, you're going to cast spells from certain schools repeatedly, and there's no such thing as having a save DC for your spells being too high. If you're a specialist, you should probably get Spell Focus for your school. If not, evocation is a solid choice. Many spells that do direct damage are evocations.

You might consider picking up Toughness if you're concerned about survivability at low levels. 

I'd also advise you to chat with your GM about ray spells. Many GMs consider ray spells to be "weapons" although the rules don't explicitly say it, since you have to make attack rolls with them, using a ray provokes even if the spell itself does not, and they can inflict critical hits. Some GMs agree with this assessment and some do not. Since many cool wizard spells are rays, it's totally worth clearing up the GM's ideas about rays before proceeding.

If your GM agrees to functionally treat ray spells as weapons, check out Point Blank Shot (especially if you're playing an elf as I've described above). The bonus to attack and damage rolls is okay, but what you're really picking it up for is so you can get Precise Shot later. Being able to zap critters with _disintegrate_ or _ray of fire_ with more confidence later on is worth two feats to me. And again, if you're the elf with a bow... _True strike_, _magic weapon_, _cat's grace_, and _gravity bow_ (from the _Advanced Player's Guide_) makes you a damned good archer, on par with rangers or fighters at low levels. Those two feats become really useful if this is the build you're going with.

For gear, definitely pick up a decent ranged weapon. You want to be able to do something useful without having to blast all of your spells out (and after you have done so). You'll also need a spell component pouch (obviously), and I'd advise you to pick up a scroll case and as much scroll-making supplies as you can. As a wizard, scrolls are one of your bread-and-butter things and you'll probably be using them frequently.

As far as spell selection, I'd advise you to pick up one save-or-die such as _sleep_ or _color spray_. I really love _color spray_ since it's not limited to total hit dice the way _sleep_ is, and furthermore, the status effects from _color spray_ can't be dispelled by allies shaking you like _sleep_ can.

Pick up one spell that affects an area. _Burning hands_ is good here. You want to be able to spread some damage around in an area, such as if you're fighting swarms or just multiple creatures.

Get one defensive spell. _Shield_ or _mage armor_ are good here. You might want to consider _protection from evil_ if you think that you'll be facing evil-aligned creatures.

For the rest of your spells, you might consider _enlarge person_, which is awesome for your fighter. _Expeditious retreat_ and _detect secret doors_ are useful if you're exploring dungeons. You might consider _charm person_ if you want to play in some social situations, or maybe _hypnotism_ if you want to deal with enemies without having to kill them.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Victim (Jul 18, 2011)

How do casters deal with grapple in Pathfinder?  

I had planned on using D-Door to escape grapples, as in 3.5.  However, the massive increase in the concentration check to cast when grappled seems to make that a poor option - a CMB on ~14ish monsters that might try to grapple generally seems to be in the mid twenties, so the DC to cast D-Door approaches 40.  While not impossible, it does seem like a rather high chance of doing absolutely nothing.

Freedom of Movement is still good, and I guess a Cape of the Mountebank could be used (combo'd with Resistance) as well.  But are there any other Pathfinder options?

--------------

Acrobatics didn't seem very useful at high levels without magic items set to boost it.  CMD for monsters seems like it goes up faster than 1 point per level in Acrobatics+some middling dex increases.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 18, 2011)

IME and from my comparisons of the numbers...

- You basically got it.  I'm in a level 14 game right now, the DCs from anything that actually tries to grapple you are mathematically impossible for any of the casters to make.  Use items.  A wand of D Door also works, ironically, just not the actual spell.  Carry one in your hand paranod at all times if you need to.  Or get a teleporting item or friend to Freedom of Movement you.  I don't think there really are any other options.  If you can use 3E material, anklets of translocation are basically an essential item.  Best option of all is to ask your DM to houserule the grapple concentration DC.

- Tumbling in PF is a suicide pact.  On characters with Acrobatics, I use it for the jumping and balancing, I only tumble as an emergency last ditch kind of deal.  As you saw, the DCs are again unreasonably high, and it's just not worth moving around a little to eat an attack for it, generally.  I find myself using tactics like getting the foe flatfooted or readying to 5 ft step up and attack to get within the reach of things with longer reach than me when I melee.  It's about all you can do, IMO.
Again, a good DM will see how dumb this all is and use the 3E tumble DCs.


----------



## hippononymous (Jul 19, 2011)

You may want to look into taking the feat or rod for Elemental Spell. If you plan to be an evoker full-time, I highly recommend having handy the option to change the elemental damage of a spell. From my experience as both a DM and player, if a particular player is consistently dealing fire damage a la fireball and scorching ray, a lot of fire resistant/immune monsters are going to start cropping up.

Better yet, to keep from annoying your DM with too many fireballs, I would practice back up strategies, like being an enchanter. I know it's weird but a DM can tell when one player is outshining the others and will often take that into account when mapping out what monsters the players will fight.


----------



## Systole (Jul 20, 2011)

I strongly STRONGLY *STRONGLY* recommend the teleportation specialist (conjuration sub-school).  The ability to take a 5ft+ dimension door as a swift action with no AoO has saved my bacon on two separate occasions now -- and my wizard is 3rd level.

I'm also taking a straight up controller wizard, and I'm amazed at how much fun it is.  Enemy archers on the roof?  Obscuring Mist on the party.  Evil halflings stealing a wagon shipment of mead?  Color Spray the horses.  Friendly neighborhood barbarian is about to be swallowed whole by a giant snapping turtle?  Grease him.  It's my goal to go through life without memorizing a single direct damage spell.


Current spell list
*Cantrips*
Prestidigitation, Detect Magic, Read Magic, Resistance
*First level spells*
Color Spray, Enlarge Person, Grease*, Obscuring Mist* 
*Second level spells*
Glitterdust*, Invisibility, Web*


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 20, 2011)

Systole, I find the Pyrotechnics spell great fun.  If you have an archer in the party and the DM lets you use flaming arrows, readying an action to cast Pyro on the arrow as it nears the enemiesi s great fun, too.  It's like shooting fireworks and rockets at the enemy!

(Which historically the Chinese and others actually DID do, so it's not even unrealistic)


----------



## Systole (Jul 20, 2011)

[MENTION=35909]StreamOfTheSky[/MENTION] Pyrotechnics is on my list of spells to get, along with Hideous Laughter and Rope Trick.  However, the party is currently racing against time to figure out where the Thieves' Guild is making their next shipment and stop them, and I barely had the downtime to get one extra scroll and scribe it in my spellbook.  Since we know they're in the sewers, I figured Web was top priority.


----------



## Treantmonklvl20 (Jul 20, 2011)

The teleportation sub-school is super awesome.  However, a cape of the Mountebank will work nicely once you can afford it (what else were you using your cape slot for anyways?)  These give a nice grapple resist option.  If you have neither, a Wizard's best defense is positioning.  If you position yourself defensively and control the battlefield, you can make yourself safe from grapple by ensuring no opponent ever gets the option.  

Another way to defend yourself is to ensure you get a familiar (improved) and grab something with hands (I like mephits).  They can use caltrops, marbles, or even a wand of grease (if you max out your UMD) to keep some rough terrain between you and the potential threat without slowing down your casting.

That said, got to love the divination specialty.  Divination spells are largely redundant, but a divination specialist always acts in the surprise round and gets an ever-building initiative bonus, which is huge.

Low point builds favor Wizards.  Dex and Con get roughly equal treatment - 14 will do (after racial modifiers), and stack your Int as high as possible.

Cha, Wis and Str are all possible dump stats (you can dump all 3 if you like).  Wisdom hurts your Will save, but that's not insurmountable.

Don't get too hung up on the direct damage spells, they tend to dish out less damage then expected after saving throws, evasion, elemental resistances and spell resistance are taken into account.

Wizards excel more than any other class however at controlling the battlefield.  They are also very strong at buffing allies and debuffing enemies.

Work the numbers and you'll see that in most situations, you'll end up providing more damage to the enemy with a Haste spell then a Fireball.  Wizards excel at team-playing, their spells are geared to that role.  Wizards don't win the battle, they set up their allies to win.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 20, 2011)

Treantmonklvl20 said:


> However, a cape of the Mountebank will work nicely once you can afford it (what else were you using your cape slot for anyways?)




Wondrous Items


----------



## Victim (Jul 20, 2011)

> However, a cape of the Mountebank will work nicely once you can afford it (what else were you using your cape slot for anyways?)




Your Cloak of Resistance +X!



> Work the numbers and you'll see that in most situations, you'll end up providing more damage to the enemy with a Haste spell then a Fireball.




Well, not that I don't value something like Haste, but the total damage dealt by the spell isn't the only consideration.  Just like with money, I think we can also say that there's a "Time Value of Damage."  Something like Haste that pays off over several rounds has to do more damage total to be equivalent to a spell that deals its damage immediately.


----------



## Treantmonklvl20 (Jul 21, 2011)

Victim said:


> Your Cloak of Resistance +X!




My mistake, I thought the cape fit the robe slot.  Have to get a robe of the mountebank I guess





Victim said:


> Well, not that I don't value something like Haste, but the total damage dealt by the spell isn't the only consideration.  Just like with money, I think we can also say that there's a "Time Value of Damage."  Something like Haste that pays off over several rounds has to do more damage total to be equivalent to a spell that deals its damage immediately.




Agreed, though I would point out that Haste does ALOT more damage in most circumstances, and often doing less damage now, rather than more in the long run, gets overrated.  The wounded guy hits just as hard as before he was wounded, and fireball isn't dropping any level appropriate enemies.

Against a single enemy or even 2 enemies it's not even close - Haste will out damage Fireball in the round you cast it with most party makeups.  All those other rounds of bonuses are just that, a bonus.

With more opponents it gets closer (on round 1), but still, in the long run Haste is out damaging Fireball several times over.

Here are the numbers broken down:

*Fireball:* Let's say you are level 6, when you cast fireball, it will do 6d6 damage.  That is (6x3.5) points of damage on average, or 21 per opponent hit.

Slow down though.  You aren't going to average that much.  Your opponent gets a saving throw for 1/2 damage.  If we say 50/50 chance to save, then the average damage drops to about 15.75 points per opponent hit.  Consider what a 6th level Fighter does for damage, or a flanking rogue, or a Paladin, or a Wildshaped Druid.  The damage isn't terrible, but far from impressive.

It gets worse though.  We talked about saving throws, but what about evasion?  Most opponents don't have it, but those that do often mix it with a good Ref save (Monks and Rogues, or Rangers at higher levels for example).  Let's just say, don't throw fireballs at suspected Rogues.  Unfortunately, often enemy NPC's are a mix of classes, and chances are good that one has evasion.

That said, evasion is extremely rare when compared to fire resistance, which competes with cold resistance for the most common elemental resistance in the game.  A mere 5 points reduces your average damage to 10.75 per opponent.  10 points and you are begging for scraps.

Then there is Spell resistance.  This is very rare at lower levels, but continually becomes more common as your enemies CR increases.

*Haste:* Every one of your allies gets an extra attack when full attacking for 6 rounds (using our example of a 6th level caster).

Obviously it's hard to say how much extra damage that will be.  Not all your allies may be full attacking this round, or next.  Also, the average inflicted damage by your allies will vary greatly depending on your party.

Think though of your most recent party at 6th level.  Thinking of mine, I know there was a Falchion wielding Paladin who was averaging over 20 points of damage per hit at that point (more when he was smiting).  A Haste on him alone would provide 20 points of quick damage.

More than that though, his first 2 attacks in the round improved chances to hit by 1/20th.  That means his normal attacks would be doing more damage on average too.

Of course I'm forgetting his Warhorse, which also would get an extra attack and have its regular attacks improved.

I would expect at least a 25 point of damage boost per round from that character alone.

Of course you are hasting more than one guy (unless you are a party of 2), so that's extra damage for every ally affected

SR doesn't matter, elemental resistance doesn't matter, no saving throw, no evasion, mixing enemies and allies doesn't ruin your shot.

Also you can apply that extra damage tactically (gang up on opponents), as spreading out damage equally is usually bad tactics.


Fireball is OK for large groups of fodder, but against primary enemies, you can usually do much better.  Haste isn't my favorite 3rd level spell (I tend to favor battlefield controls), but as a damage dealer, it will usually outshine a fireball.


----------



## Systole (Jul 22, 2011)

Treantmonklvl20 said:


> My mistake, I thought the cape fit the robe slot. Have to get a robe of the mountebank I guess




The reason why Shift is so extra-special goodness is that it's a swift action, rather than Mountebank's/Dimension Door's standard action.  You can get out of almost any melee without drawing a single AoO while still having a move action left over.  

By the time you start meeting things with reach, your Shift is considerably longer than the reach.  You've somehow ended up eye-to-loincloth with a glaive-wielding ogre?  No problem!  Shift, Invisibility, run like the dickens, and let Boris the Strong and Fair step in.


----------



## Treantmonklvl20 (Jul 26, 2011)

Systole said:


> The reason why Shift is so extra-special goodness is that it's a swift action, rather than Mountebank's/Dimension Door's standard action.  You can get out of almost any melee without drawing a single AoO while still having a move action left over.
> 
> By the time you start meeting things with reach, your Shift is considerably longer than the reach.  You've somehow ended up eye-to-loincloth with a glaive-wielding ogre?  No problem!  Shift, Invisibility, run like the dickens, and let Boris the Strong and Fair step in.




That's not how it works.  Swift action or no, as soon as you shift your turn is over because it functions like dimension door, which specifies that after using it your turn immediately ends.


----------



## Systole (Jul 26, 2011)

Whoops, never saw that line in Dimension Door.  Still, a swift action isn't an AoO.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jul 26, 2011)

Honestly, I go for a Universalist, every time. I hate school specializations for my Wizards. Here's why:

_*Arcane Bond:*_ This is far and away the greatest ability that a Wizard has; I'll go farther: _it is the single best ability that any class gets in the game. _ I would argue that _even Smite Evil_ is not as powerful in the long run as _Arcane Bond. _
_*
You get to spontaneously cast one free spell per day that you know.*_ It's like having a special ability, once per day,_ to do any one of several hundred things_. And the way I play my wizards,_* it really is several hundred things*_. I sink an INSANE amount of gold pieces into spells.  There wasn't much of a good reason to do this in the past -- as these spells would almost never come into play, and if they did, it would only be on a strategic basis (you know the reason you need the spell, you rest and prepare it).  So if you did, you did it to be a "completist",  or for role-playing purposes, or just because you thought it was "cool".

Now, with _Arcane Bond_, there is a HUGE benefit to this and you are always Johnny-on-the-Spot with THE STOPPER. The more spells you know, the more AWESOME this ability is. It scales with the level of the character in this sense, and so it grows in power. _Arcane Bond_ is so monstrously powerful an ability, it is TOO GOOD.

_*If you play a specailist wizard,*_ _*you permanently foreclose two entire schools of magic to you in terms of your arcane bond ability*_. That wipes out DOZENS and DOZENS of spells from your chance to be the Wizard with THE STOPPER.

From some people, this is a trade-off they are prepared to make. To me? _*No*_. I vastly prefer the versatility of Universalist Wizards and with the Arcane Bond, this is a versatility which really _*does*_ come into play.

Plus, a Universalist gets to throw their weapon! If you play an elf, you  can thrown  your longsword. If you play a human wizard and take a longsword as an Heirloom weapon, you can throw that too. At lower levels this ability comes up often. Hell, even at higher levels it has its moments. Plus, it's so flavorful and spiced with _badassery_. I love this ability.

All by way of saying: Play a Universalist, try to buy every spell in the GAME available to you and collect spells left, right and centre with a view (however difficult it may be) to getting em all. With Arcane Bond, every one of those puppies is available to you _whenever you want_._* It is the ultimate special ability in the game. *_

Given the MASSIVE power this puts in the Wizard's hands, there really is no other ability which comes close to it in the game. Anything which restricts that power is a sub-optimal choice in the long run, imo.


----------



## Mad Hamish (Jul 26, 2011)

Universalist you're trading off a bonus spell per spell level for the chance to pick a spell from the 2 opposition schools.
depending on the opposition schools it might be a pretty safe bet that it won't be likely that the big saver comes from the opposition schools.


----------



## Treantmonklvl20 (Jul 26, 2011)

Steel_Wind said:


> _ (summary)Loves universalist wizards and finishes his statement with:_ Anything which restricts that power is a sub-optimal choice in the long run, imo.




OK, point by point.



> Arcane Bond: This is far and away the greatest ability that a Wizard has; I'll go farther: it is the single best ability that any class gets in the game. I would argue that even Smite Evil is not as powerful in the long run as Arcane Bond.




First off, it is debatable if bonded item is the best arcane bond.  Personally, I take the familiar and then improved familiar.  I max UMD for my character and take an improved familiar with hands (my current character has a dust mephit).  Then I use my familiar to use alchemical items or wands to basically get a free action every round.

Secondly,* "greatest ability a wizard has?"*  *double facepalm*  Bad choice of words dude.



> And the way I play my wizards, it really is several hundred things. I sink an INSANE amount of gold pieces into spells. There wasn't much of a good reason to do this in the past -- as these spells would almost never come into play, and if they did, it would only be on a strategic basis (you know the reason you need the spell, you rest and prepare it). So if you did, you did it to be a "completist", or for role-playing purposes, or just because you thought it was "cool".




I figured that you didn't mean what you just implied, but then you actually suggest the following: 







> Play a Universalist, try to buy every spell in the GAME




Here's the math: The recommended wealth level for a 10th level character is 62,000 gp.  There are 80 5th level spells alone available to wizards (just counted them).  A 5th level spell scroll costs 1,125 gp for wizards.

If EVERY dime you had went into 5th level scrolls you would get 55 of the 80 5th level spells (not counting the freebies at level up).  You would buy zero spells of levels 1-4, you wouldn't have the extra spellbooks to scribe all these spells, you have no haversack to carry them, you have no cloak of resistance, rings of protection, wands, staves, rods...

Specialist wizards can spend every dime they make on scrolls and spellbooks (you would need lots of spellbooks) and not buy every spell that isn't in their opposition schools, not even close.  (they should ABSOLUTELY NOT do this of course)

I have nothing against a wizard buying spell scrolls for those "once in a campaign - will never memorize" kind of spells, but you don't scribe them!!!

Scribe those spells that cover a large range of uses, then memorize them.  Versatility is power, but that versatility is already built into many spells, and many spell schools.

I should point out at this time that the spell schools are poorly designed.  If I make evocation an opposition school for example, I can mimic most of the things I could do with evocation spells with a spell from either the conjuration or illusion school.



> The more spells you know, the more AWESOME this ability is.




However, as pointed out and proved above, a specialist wizard can buy just as many non-opposition spells as a universalist can buy, so what's the big advantage of the universalist again?



> Plus, a Universalist gets to throw their weapon!




every specialization gets neat powers.  That point was easy to counter.


So in summary, we've established that buying and scribing every spell in the game simply isn't feasable.  You can't even come close.

Specialist wizards and universalist wizards will have approximately the same amount of spells available to their bonded item (if that is the arcane bond they selected), so there really is no advantage to playing a universalist over a specialist in this regard.

We've also established that all wizards, regardless of their specialty, or lack thereof, get abilities specific to that specialty, or lack thereof.  Universalists do not have an advantage in this regard either.

I didn't establish this, but I think I implied pretty well that a bonded item isn't the most powerful ability a wizard has.  The most powerful ability a wizard has is the ability to cast spells.  Obviously.

For this most powerful ability, universalist wizards can expect to use this ability about 20% less than a specialist. 

This percentage INCREASES the closer you get to the highest level spell you can cast.  For your ability to cast your highest level spells (the most powerful aspect of the wizards most powerful ability), universalists can expect anywhere from a 25% to 50% reduction.

That kind of power restriction is palpable, and someone once said 







> Anything which restricts that power is a sub-optimal choice in the long run, imo.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 26, 2011)

I always preferred generalists, because while you don't need to know every spell in the game, or anything close to it, EVERY school (yes, even evocation) has at least a handful of spells that are painful to give up forever.

But in Pathfinder, the school benefits are so much better than universalist, the extra spell slots are as huge a boon as they've always been, and the prohibited schools is *barely even a downside now*.  You can pay two spell slots to cast from an opposition school!  This is a really bad expenditure in combat or during an adventuring day to rely on more than in the most isolated of incidents.  But for utility/downtime use?  It's completely insignificant.  So now I CAN prohibit evocation and yet still taste the sweet, sweet fruit of Contingency on an off-day, for example.

So, I really can't justify ever being a Universalist in PF.  It just seems like a really crappy deal.


----------



## Treantmonklvl20 (Jul 26, 2011)

Even in 3.5 it wasn't nearly as bad as it sounds.  I did this analysis a few years ago: Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

Logicninja posted an objection in the responses pointing out how (in the example of a 9th level wizard) a FS would not be able to memorize a variety of spells he listed, and that was unacceptable.

I pointed out the Generalist did not have enough memorization slots for all those spells, but then gave alternates that would perform a similar function from Conjuration for every spell he listed.

For your example, if I remember correctly we replaced contingency with greater shadow evocation (mimicking contingency).  Though I agree, in Pathfinder you just cast contingency.

Also note that if you don't want to use up extra memorization slots (and naturally you don't), then consider scrolls, staves or wands, as there is no penalty for using these items to cast from your opposition school.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jul 26, 2011)

Treantmonklvl20 said:


> OK, point by point.





  Whenever I see anybody on ENWorld begin to deconstruct another’s post on a “point by point” basis using selective, broken up quotes throughout, in an attempt to ostensibly address the contents of another post in a methodical fashion --  that’s a sure sign that the post I’m about to read is almost certain to be confrontational, argumentative, obnoxious and, usually, more than a little insulting.


  And when it comes to your post, it would appear that my _spidey senses_ were tingling correctly.  



  There is nothing “obvious” of “doublefacepalm worthy” of the suggestion that the arcane bond is the best ability the Wizard class has.  Casting spells is great, no argument. Casting any spell the wizard knows without having to first prepare it is _even better_, as the former is subsumed by the latter. This is the part I would add in “obviously”, except _clearly_, it isn’t obvious as you appear to have missed it.


I have no idea where you pluck the percentages of just how LESS often the Universalist will be using Arcane Bond than the specialist wizard.  It certainly isn’t clear what circumstances or assumptions you are making which lie at the root of this declaration – but it sounds specious to me. 


Why are you starting to add up the gp value of spells at fifth level? Could it be that because if you started doing it at, say, first through third level, the mathematical argument against  trying to accumulate “every spell in the game” isn’t convincing at all?  In fact, it’s pretty doable at that stage, right? But  instead of counting up the cost of buying all the first and second level spells and even third levels spells in an attempt to “disprove” this approach to playing a Universalist Wizard, you pick as a point for your accounting departure, 5th level spells? Hmmm... interesting. It’s not as if I didn’t say it would be difficult.


You also choose as the yardstick a wealth by level in the Core Rulebook, which is intended to be a guideline for NPCs but which, in practice, is almost _never_ actually used in Paizo’s own adventure products. PCs in Paizo’s APs will accumulate a LOT more treasure (and spells) than are noted in the “wealth by level” passage in the Core Rulebook to which you refer. So as a yardstick, this really isn’t a very meaningful or practical measurement and amounts to little more than the raw stuff for a straw man. 


Your main point of contention seems to be that it would be much easier to just carry around a boatload of scrolls in a prohibited school while keeping the bonuses for a specialist wizard, too. You state that such an approach is a more optimal choice. Your point is attractive and has the appearance of being persuasive when judged in a vacuum.


But while this is persuasive if all you need to consider is the crunch of the game, such judgment is  divorced from the realities of actual play. The fact that you are proposing this suggests to me that your GM is not much concerned by your stated approach to optimizing power curves for specialist Wizards in the game. That does not make such an approach by a GM invalid, but it does, in my experience, make it uncommon.


You see, in the case of the games where I play and someone else is the GM (and in my own campaigns where I am the GM), if a player chooses a Universalist Wizard (and foregoes an extra spell slot), I’m not going to penalize him or suddenly become _exacting to a fault_ in making sure his magic items make saving throws whenever he fails a save. And the GMs I play with won’t do it either. 


But when the specialist takes the extra spell slot, and THEN attempts to get around the penalty that a specialist wizard suffers due to his arcane bond not working on prohibited schools, by instead carrying a crap load of those spells in scroll form to escape the in-game consequences of the rule? That’s when the specialist Wizard’s magic items will all be playing by the RAW _to an exacting degree_.  Because that’s the way I treat munchkinism in my game. And yes, make no mistake – what you are suggesting is crossing the line into munchkinsm, imo.


Carrying around a *vast* collection of scrolls is just asking for said scrolls to get taken out by a wayward area attack. It may be permitted under RAW, but it’s not the spirit of the game, imo. YMMV  -- and clearly does.


----------



## Systole (Jul 26, 2011)

Steel_Wind said:


> Why are you starting to add up the gp value of spells at fifth level? Could it be that because if you started doing it at, say, first through third level, the mathematical argument against trying to accumulate “every spell in the game” isn’t convincing at all? In fact, it’s pretty doable at that stage, right? But instead of counting up the cost of buying all the first and second level spells and even third levels spells in an attempt to “disprove” this approach to playing a Universalist Wizard, you pick as a point for your accounting departure, 5th level spells? Hmmm... interesting. It’s not as if I didn’t say it would be difficult.




Not to speak for Treantmonk, but I imagine he didn't feel like taking the time. I, on the other hand, am an Excel genius, somewhat OCD, and very bored at work today. (See below.) I also imagine he chose level 5 at a simple midpoint rather than for any sinister reason.

To your point, it's actually not even close to doable at that stage.  It's sort of possible at (a) wizard level 2 and (b) wizard level 19-20. Even so, at level 20, being a spell completionist means blowing about 90% of your wealth on spells.  A bit less considering the freebies.

At wizard level 10 (which *was* the point in question), spell levels 1-5 represent more than twice your WBL. It's even not possible for a wizard 10 to EITHER grab all of spell levels 1-4 OR to grab all of spell level 5 -- both of those are out of reach. Looking at the chart, that's about par for the course. 

Honestly, if you're going to criticize Treantmonk for twisting the facts, you might have at least looked at the facts before shooting off a bunch of assumptions. 




```
[FONT=Fixedsys]Sp.    #       $/   Tot.$/      Cum.   Wiz.[/FONT]
[FONT=Fixedsys]Lvl.  Sp.    Scr.     Scr.      Tot.   Lvl.      WBL[/FONT]
 
[FONT=Fixedsys]1      75      25     1875      1875      2     3000[/FONT]
[FONT=Fixedsys]2     100     200    20000     21875      4    10500[/FONT]
[FONT=Fixedsys]3      95     450    42750     64625      6    33000[/FONT]
[FONT=Fixedsys]4      80     800    64000    128625      8    62000[/FONT]
[FONT=Fixedsys]5      80    1250   100000    228625     10    82000[/FONT]
[FONT=Fixedsys]6      70    1800   126000    354625     12   108000[/FONT]
[FONT=Fixedsys]7      60    2450   147000    501625     14   185000[/FONT]
[FONT=Fixedsys]8      45    3200   144000    645625     16   315000[/FONT]
[FONT=Fixedsys]9      40    4050   162000    807625     20   880000[/FONT]
```
 

*Sp.Lvl.* - Spell Level
*# Sp.* - Approximate number of spells in that level (Core/APG/UM, from pfsrd)
*$/Scr.* - Cost per scroll
*Tot.$/Scr.* - Total cost to buy all scrolls of that level (neglected 2 freebies per wizard level, sue me)
*Cum. Tot.* - Running total of all scrolls up to selected level
*Wiz.Lvl.* - Last wizard level before moving on to next spell level. In other words, I'm assuming you want your 1st level spells to be complete before you hit Wizard 3 and have to start on 2nd level spells.
*WBL *- Suggested wealth by level.


----------



## Treantmonklvl20 (Jul 27, 2011)

Steel_Wind said:


> makes lots of accusations.




You seem more interested in attacking me than my points, so I'll just defend myself from your attacks on me and leave you the last word.

1) Attack my points.  This is a forum, that's what we do, it is not insulting.  Skip the direct attacks on me please, those are insulting.

2) It is not subsumed.  It is a separate ability.  There is a difference between an ability that requires another ability, and one that incorporates another ability.  The latter would qualify for the term "subsumed", the former does not.

3) I'm also suspicious of claims that a universalist uses his bonded item less than a specialist.  I made no such claim.  My claim was that universalists cast less spells than a specialist.  Seriously, it is NOT subsumed!  No need to be suspicious of the math.  Check it yourself before you make accusations.

4) I used 10th level (and 5th level spells) because I knew it didn't matter what level I chose, but even levels would be more in your favor (since new spell levels are gained at odd levels, so an even level gives you one extra level to build wealth), and 10th level is halfway up the spectrum.  Again, you make accusations when you could have checked the math yourself to determine that your accusation could not be correct.  (Thanks to Systole for posting the math)

5) The wealth level I used is from the wealth by level in the corebook.  It specifies that these recommended wealth levels are for PC's.  You could have checked that, but decided to attack my intentions instead.  Again.

6) The WBL guide assumes characters will use up consumables and sell items at cost.  This is why the total listed is less than what you receive through adventuring.  Again, this is stated specifically in the corebook.

7) You seem to think my main point is "just carry around a lot of scrolls for opposition schools", when in fact my main point is "carry around scrolls for those spells that don't come up much" this is a significant difference.

8) Spells can be cast off of scrolls, this mechanical aspect of the game has existed forever.  I have absolutely no idea why you think a wizard who keeps scrolls to cast the spells off the scrolls rather than scribing them all is shameless optimizing, though I suspect it had something to do with me suggesting it as something I do.

My DM doesn't punish me for having scrolls that aren't slated for scribing into my spellbook, but that I might actually cast from the scroll.  I guess that makes him "uncommon"

9) I don't carry around a crapload of scrolls.  Did you not read my post?  Scrolls are EXPENSIVE.  I have a few scrolls, covering the highly circumstantial stuff.  Comprehend languages, Water breathing, that kind of stuff.

10) You suggested I carry around a crapload of scrolls with my wizards in order to bypass the restrictions of bonded item on a specialist wizard, then call me a munchkin for doing it.  I never call anyone a munchkin in these forums or anywhere else.  Personal attacks have no place here.  

I don't take bonded item, which I believe was the very first point I made (I take a familiar every time.  I can back that up - I wrote this over a year ago - read the part on arcane bond.  I make it pretty clear that IMO it is a lousy option.

So to make it clear - *you made up an accusation based on something that was clearly incorrect, and then personally insulted me for your fabricated crime.*

The floor is yours.  You have the last word.


----------



## SnowleopardVK (Jul 27, 2011)

Well, if there's one thing this whole thread has done it's convincing me to play a ranger. -__-

Perhaps I should stop asking optimization questions. They never help...


----------



## Mad Hamish (Jul 27, 2011)

Systole said:


> Not to speak for Treantmonk, but I imagine he didn't feel like taking the time. I, on the other hand, am an Excel genius, somewhat OCD, and very bored at work today. (See below.) I also imagine he chose level 5 at a simple midpoint rather than for any sinister reason.
> 
> ```
> [FONT=Fixedsys]Sp.    #       $/   Tot.$/      Cum.   Wiz.[/FONT]
> ...




Note that it gets worse than that because 
a) spells with costly material components add to the cost of the scroll
b) you're ignoring the cost of writing the spell into the spellbook (or of a Blessed Book) which adds
level cost
0	5 gp
1	10 gp
2	40 gp
3	90 gp
4	160 gp
5	250 gp
6	360 gp
7	490 gp
8	640 gp
9	810 gp
so on average roughly 20%  to the cost of spells of a flat charge of over 10000gp for the blessed book 
and then there's also the time involved in scribing.  (ignoring free spells)
1 hour + 1 hour per spell level so you're looking at 150 hours for level 1 spells, 300 hours for level 2 spells, 380 hours for level 3 spells, 400 hours for level 4 spells, 480 hours for level 5 spells, 490 hours for level 6 spells, 480 hours for level 7 spells, 405 hours for level 8 spells and 400 hours for level 9 spells

now it's quite common for adventures to level you several levels pretty quickly so I can definately see the time as a big problem for the strategy as well.


----------



## Mad Hamish (Jul 27, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> But in Pathfinder, the school benefits are so much better than universalist, the extra spell slots are as huge a boon as they've always been, and the prohibited schools is *barely even a downside now*.  You can pay two spell slots to cast from an opposition school!  This is a really bad expenditure in combat or during an adventuring day to rely on more than in the most isolated of incidents.




If you have 1 specialist school spell per level that you want to memorize then unless you have an opposition school spell per level that you want to memorize then you come out ahead in terms of number of spells as the specialist.


----------



## Mad Hamish (Jul 27, 2011)

Steel_Wind said:


> Whenever I see anybody on ENWorld begin to deconstruct another’s post on a “point by point” basis using selective, broken up quotes throughout, in an attempt to ostensibly address the contents of another post in a methodical fashion --  that’s a sure sign that the post I’m about to read is almost certain to be confrontational, argumentative, obnoxious and, usually, more than a little insulting.
> 
> And when it comes to your post, it would appear that my _spidey senses_ were tingling correctly.




Where was treatmonk insulting to the poster?



Steel_Wind said:


> There is nothing “obvious” of “doublefacepalm worthy” of the suggestion that the arcane bond is the best ability the Wizard class has.  Casting spells is great, no argument. Casting any spell the wizard knows without having to first prepare it is _even better_, as the former is subsumed by the latter.




it's not subsumed. 
It's a 1/day option on top of casting a lot of other spells.

Given a choice between a character who had the everything from the wizard including normal spell casting without the arcane bond casting ability or a character who had everything from the wizard with the arcane bond casting but didn't have their normal casting which one would you choose?



Steel_Wind said:


> This is the part I would add in “obviously”, except _clearly_, it isn’t obvious as you appear to have missed it.
> 
> I have no idea where you pluck the percentages of just how LESS often the Universalist will be using Arcane Bond than the specialist wizard.  It certainly isn’t clear what circumstances or assumptions you are making which lie at the root of this declaration – but it sounds specious to me.




He doesn't he points out that spellcasting is their most powerful abilities and the specialist wizards can cast about 20% more spells per day than a generalist.




Steel_Wind said:


> Why are you starting to add up the gp value of spells at fifth level? Could it be that because if you started doing it at, say, first through third level, the mathematical argument against  trying to accumulate “every spell in the game” isn’t convincing at all?  In fact, it’s pretty doable at that stage, right? But  instead of counting up the cost of buying all the first and second level spells and even third levels spells in an attempt to “disprove” this approach to playing a Universalist Wizard, you pick as a point for your accounting departure, 5th level spells? Hmmm... interesting. It’s not as if I didn’t say it would be difficult.




a) other people have shown that his argument holds in most levels
b) he has at least shown his case for 1 level, you have failed to make your case for any level at all
c) even if he was wrong at it is practical at most levels at worst he probably would have a mid range case and found that it backed his case so didn't look any further. There's no reason to assume that he's being devious



Steel_Wind said:


> You also choose as the yardstick a wealth by level in the Core Rulebook, which is intended to be a guideline for NPCs but which, in practice, is almost _never_ actually used in Paizo’s own adventure products. PCs in Paizo’s APs will accumulate a LOT more treasure (and spells) than are noted in the “wealth by level” passage in the Core Rulebook to which you refer. So as a yardstick, this really isn’t a very meaningful or practical measurement and amounts to little more than the raw stuff for a straw man.




from 
Gamemastering

Table: Character Wealth by Level
PC Level*	Wealth
2	1,000 gp
3	3,000 gp
4	6,000 gp

note the heading PC level?



Steel_Wind said:


> Your main point of contention seems to be that it would be much easier to just carry around a boatload of scrolls in a prohibited school while keeping the bonuses for a specialist wizard, too. You state that such an approach is a more optimal choice. Your point is attractive and has the appearance of being persuasive when judged in a vacuum.




No it isn't, his case is that another way of covering for cases of rarely wanted spells is to have a few scrolls that you can use.



Steel_Wind said:


> But while this is persuasive if all you need to consider is the crunch of the game, such judgment is  divorced from the realities of actual play. The fact that you are proposing this suggests to me that your GM is not much concerned by your stated approach to optimizing power curves for specialist Wizards in the game. That does not make such an approach by a GM invalid, but it does, in my experience, make it uncommon.




Considering you've got his case wrong the rest of your argument isn't that good.



Steel_Wind said:


> You see, in the case of the games where I play and someone else is the GM (and in my own campaigns where I am the GM), if a player chooses a Universalist Wizard (and foregoes an extra spell slot), I’m not going to penalize him or suddenly become _exacting to a fault_ in making sure his magic items make saving throws whenever he fails a save. And the GMs I play with won’t do it either.




"Damaging Magic Items
A magic item doesn't need to make a saving throw unless it is unattended, it is specifically targeted by the effect, or its wielder rolls a natural 1 on his save. "



Steel_Wind said:


> But when the specialist takes the extra spell slot, and THEN attempts to get around the penalty that a specialist wizard suffers due to his arcane bond not working on prohibited schools, by instead carrying a crap load of those spells in scroll form to escape the in-game consequences of the rule? That’s when the specialist Wizard’s magic items will all be playing by the RAW _to an exacting degree_.  Because that’s the way I treat munchkinism in my game. And yes, make no mistake – what you are suggesting is crossing the line into munchkinsm, imo.
> Carrying around a *vast* collection of scrolls is just asking for said scrolls to get taken out by a wayward area attack. It may be permitted under RAW, but it’s not the spirit of the game, imo. YMMV  -- and clearly does.




a) again you've misread what he said
b) casting from scrolls is generally either very costly or less effective that casting it yourself. You can't cover a lot of cases with scrolls (damage/level spells for instance)
c) somebody spending a bucketload of money to carry around a lot of spell scrolls would hardly be munckin, in fact it'd be severaly unoptimised


----------



## Wiseblood (Jul 29, 2011)

I would recommend against building a good wizard. I would recommend building an adventurer using the wizard class. You have certain limitations with wizards that you do not have with fighters and rangers. (you generally do not want to get into melee.) You do have lots of fun options. Gatget-y spells most people scribe on scrolls. Caboom spells to lay waste to enemies. If you put fun first and domination second it's tough to go wrong. It's also kinda tough to suck as a wizard. Your spell list can be revamped so much that you can practically re-invent your character.


----------



## HalfordAskold (Jul 29, 2011)

Wiseblood said:


> I would recommend against building a good wizard. I would recommend building an adventurer using the wizard class. You have certain limitations with wizards that you do not have with fighters and rangers. (you generally do not want to get into melee.) You do have lots of fun options. Gatget-y spells most people scribe on scrolls. Caboom spells to lay waste to enemies. If you put fun first and domination second it's tough to go wrong. It's also kinda tough to suck as a wizard. Your spell list can be revamped so much that you can practically re-invent your character.





Excellent description/point.  Make one and have fun! That's what the game is all about i.m.o.


----------

