Mage specialists for dummies!

Remove all ads!

Anybody know of a guide that puts the pros and cons for specialist mages? The other thread gave me the idea, but I don't know what you really gain besides a single spell. The only real specialist that doesn't get any true negatives is Conjurer it looks like.

My friend tried telling me specialists get more dice than a 'true' or 'pure' mage does per level. The game doesn't mention this tho..

 

Divination has its uses, but just about any one school can be done without if you try.

Tell him he's an idiot.

BG1 & 2: 9 extra spells per day (1 slot per spell level), at the cost of not learning spells from 1 opposition school.

PnP: 9 extra spells per day (1 slot per spell level), which must be of the specialist's chosen school of study, at the cost of not learning spells from 2 opposition schools (exceptions: Diviners only have 1 opposition school, Illusionists have 3). In addition, specialists gain a +1 bonus on saving throws against spells from their specialty school, and force opponents to take a -1 penalty on saving throws against their spells from their specialty school. They also gain a +15% chance to successfully learn spells from their school, at the cost of a -15% penalty to learning spells from other schools (-1500% chance for opposition school ). When a specialist gains a new spell level, they automatically learn a new spell of that level from their specialty school, without need for learning from a scroll or others' spellbooks; it is assumed they discovered it during the course of their dedicated research and study.

 

In other words, in Pnp 2e, you should always play a specialist. My favorite character ever was my gnome Illusionist/Thief.

 

Ugh. Lord no. Almost every specialty has a good school (or two) cut out, and with the large number of spells available, that's sometimes not worth the extra spell slots. But in the 2e cRPGs, it's more than worth a single school, especially when some aren't as useful as others in such a combat-ridden game.

 

@Felinoid: I'm getting kind of off topic, but I've always preferred specialists. If you are using the complete wizards book, specialists (especially illusionists) were given more than enough goodies to compensate for the loss of a few spell schools. Diviners were also particularly deadly since they only lost conjuration.

 

Well, that depends on your play style. For me Conjuration is a key school, between summons, Armor (un-nerfed), various "Melf's" spells, and more. I could probably make a good combat caster out of Conjuration spells alone.

I always preferred Transmuters. Necromancy doesn't have any spells that aren't easily surpassed by others at the same level, and there are more than enough defensive spells in other schools to balance the loss of Abjuration. Plus I like the ability requirement, being a DEX-oriented player, and I always did love Burning Hands for some reason.

Those are all 17th level or up. You would have to play a long, long time to get those; most campaigns aren't that long. Unless you've got a DM who's generous with the XP.

 

Against warriors or enemy spellcasters who don't have true sight memorized, Illusionists are just nasty with their various phantasm spells. Especially when following an illusionary effect (that the enemy recognises as an illusion) with a real one. Enemies who disbelieve don't get a saving throw and illusionists are allowed to do things with phantasm type spells that regular mages can't do as easily.