A Sorcerer tweak: Balanced? [Archive] - Wizards Community

A Sorcerer tweak: Balanced? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
LukiLoki
08-14-04, 05:23 PM OK, before I get yawned off this board...

I read all the sorc. variant threads from the last month. Honest, I did!

*awaits medal, looking humble*

AND I posted the question to the DM boards, and got no play.

What I want to know, in a nutshell, is how imbalancing is Eschew Materials, plus an always-on, no level bump, Silent Spell effect for a sorcerer?

The trade-off, so far: no familiar.
What the heck else do you take from the sorc? Spells known?
That's hitting where it hurts, fer sher, but is it really that overpowered?

My other concern is a mechanic for a no level bump metamagic class ability, rather than just a unique feature, which seems arbitrary and hard to balance.

Opinions? Medals?
Thanks.
Thelon Fairblade
08-16-04, 10:32 AM Seems fine to me.

A mechanical thing, though, since you just made all Sorcerer spells Somatic only (Eschew takes away Material, and Silent takes away Verbal): make all spells that *were* "V", "M", or "VM" only also have an "S" component.

For example, Teleport is "V". for your Sorcerer, it would be "S"... not "nothing".

So "VS" and "VSM" spells become "S" for no cost, but all "V" spells are now "S" spells as well. That gives an advantage (which the sorcerer needs) without giving a huge benefit. After all, STILL spell is vastly more useful than Silent Spell; your style change still doesn't make casting in armor easier, for example, and in fact (with my suggestion) would make some spells *harder* to cast in armor.

In fact, you could go one further and say that, much like all bard spells *must* have a verbal component and can't be Silent, all sorcerer spells *must* have a somatic component and can't be Stilled.
Tony Vargas
08-16-04, 12:08 PM You'd be substantially changing that nature of the sorcerer, as well as possibly creating some balance problems. All sorcerers just gesture or look at you funny to evoke the same effects that wizards babble and collect essoteric ingredients for? Not really the same thing anymore, is it - more like spell-like or supernatural abilities than spells.

I'd be /very/ cautious of totally-free metamagic, as well. Look at what Natural Spell did to the Druid...
Arbitrary Aardvark
08-16-04, 04:24 PM I would balance the sorcerer by allowing him to cast meta-magiced spells as standard actions (quickened spells as quickened actions.) I fail to see why that requirement is in there, especially since sorcerers should be among the best at using metamagic.

Another possibility would be to give them eschem material components at 1st level, and a free metamagic feat every five levels (like wizard bonus feats.)
BlaineTog
08-16-04, 04:36 PM A sorcerer without verbal components kinda doesn't even make sense in a lot of cases. Literature with magic in it very often expounds on how most of the power comes from Words.

You might want to take a look at the Psion before you start stripping away Verbal and Somatic components (material, however, I feel is safe to ditch. Then again, I've never liked the idea of a spell component pouch).
LukiLoki
08-16-04, 05:01 PM Originally posted by BlaineTog

You might want to take a look at the Psion before you start stripping away Verbal and Somatic components

Well, that's just it. I don't want all the sorcerers in the campaign to be this way. I want to make it an available alternate to a player who really wants to be psionic.

I don't allow psionics in my campaign. But the PC in question is a "special" case.

I figure better something relatively minor like this than opening up the psionic floodgates.
BlaineTog
08-16-04, 05:57 PM I don't allow psionics in my campaign.Awww. Thats kind sad. Psionics are so cool, too. Oh well. To each his own.
LukiLoki
08-16-04, 06:24 PM Yeah, I'm scared of Mnd-Flayers.

I would like to incorporate psionics into a campaign sometime, really. I hear the EPH for 3.5 is a distinct improvement over 3.0 rules. I haven't taken the time to check it out, though, and so, for now, my campaign is Low-Carb, Psion-free (Now with 50% less ego whip!)

I think more than anything, it's a hangover from 1e and 2e, where psionics were just way more trouble than they were worth, IMO.
BlaineTog
08-16-04, 06:49 PM Originally posted by LukiLoki
I hear the EPH for 3.5 is a distinct improvement over 3.0 rules.Aye, that they are. They are also in the SRD now, FYI, minus the flavor text. Its IMO more balanced than spellcasting (but does have a few problem powers)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
LukiLoki 08-14-04, 05:23 PM	OK, before I get yawned off this board... I read all the sorc. variant threads from the last month. Honest, I did! awaits medal, looking humble AND I posted the question to the DM boards, and got no play. What I want to know, in a nutshell, is how imbalancing is Eschew Materials, plus an always-on, no level bump, Silent Spell effect for a sorcerer? The trade-off, so far: no familiar. What the heck else do you take from the sorc? Spells known? That's hitting where it hurts, fer sher, but is it really that overpowered? My other concern is a mechanic for a no level bump metamagic class ability, rather than just a unique feature, which seems arbitrary and hard to balance. Opinions? Medals? Thanks.
Thelon Fairblade 08-16-04, 10:32 AM	Seems fine to me. A mechanical thing, though, since you just made all Sorcerer spells Somatic only (Eschew takes away Material, and Silent takes away Verbal): make all spells that were "V", "M", or "VM" only also have an "S" component. For example, Teleport is "V". for your Sorcerer, it would be "S"... not "nothing". So "VS" and "VSM" spells become "S" for no cost, but all "V" spells are now "S" spells as well. That gives an advantage (which the sorcerer needs) without giving a huge benefit. After all, STILL spell is vastly more useful than Silent Spell; your style change still doesn't make casting in armor easier, for example, and in fact (with my suggestion) would make some spells harder to cast in armor. In fact, you could go one further and say that, much like all bard spells must have a verbal component and can't be Silent, all sorcerer spells must have a somatic component and can't be Stilled.
Tony Vargas 08-16-04, 12:08 PM	You'd be substantially changing that nature of the sorcerer, as well as possibly creating some balance problems. All sorcerers just gesture or look at you funny to evoke the same effects that wizards babble and collect essoteric ingredients for? Not really the same thing anymore, is it - more like spell-like or supernatural abilities than spells. I'd be /very/ cautious of totally-free metamagic, as well. Look at what Natural Spell did to the Druid...
Arbitrary Aardvark 08-16-04, 04:24 PM	I would balance the sorcerer by allowing him to cast meta-magiced spells as standard actions (quickened spells as quickened actions.) I fail to see why that requirement is in there, especially since sorcerers should be among the best at using metamagic. Another possibility would be to give them eschem material components at 1st level, and a free metamagic feat every five levels (like wizard bonus feats.)
BlaineTog 08-16-04, 04:36 PM	A sorcerer without verbal components kinda doesn't even make sense in a lot of cases. Literature with magic in it very often expounds on how most of the power comes from Words. You might want to take a look at the Psion before you start stripping away Verbal and Somatic components (material, however, I feel is safe to ditch. Then again, I've never liked the idea of a spell component pouch).
LukiLoki 08-16-04, 05:01 PM	Originally posted by BlaineTog You might want to take a look at the Psion before you start stripping away Verbal and Somatic components Well, that's just it. I don't want all the sorcerers in the campaign to be this way. I want to make it an available alternate to a player who really wants to be psionic. I don't allow psionics in my campaign. But the PC in question is a "special" case. I figure better something relatively minor like this than opening up the psionic floodgates.
BlaineTog 08-16-04, 05:57 PM	I don't allow psionics in my campaign.Awww. Thats kind sad. Psionics are so cool, too. Oh well. To each his own.
LukiLoki 08-16-04, 06:24 PM	Yeah, I'm scared of Mnd-Flayers. I would like to incorporate psionics into a campaign sometime, really. I hear the EPH for 3.5 is a distinct improvement over 3.0 rules. I haven't taken the time to check it out, though, and so, for now, my campaign is Low-Carb, Psion-free (Now with 50% less ego whip!) I think more than anything, it's a hangover from 1e and 2e, where psionics were just way more trouble than they were worth, IMO.
BlaineTog 08-16-04, 06:49 PM	Originally posted by LukiLoki I hear the EPH for 3.5 is a distinct improvement over 3.0 rules.Aye, that they are. They are also in the SRD now, FYI, minus the flavor text. Its IMO more balanced than spellcasting (but does have a few problem powers)